BRINGING IN THE SHEAVES
https://youtu.be/GwzEoi0TNJI
Bringing in the sheaves
ON VIDEO
.Can we too elect?
.Speculative theology
.Little more QM
.Sovereignty
.Limited atonement?
PAST POSTS [verses below]
. Rome was the city of influence at the time of Paul-
located just east of the bend of the Tiber river- about 18 miles from the
Mediterranean Sea.
The letter to the Romans- would be read orally to both
Christians and Jews in the city- in the days of the writing of these letters
[which now make up our bible] they were living in an ‘oral’ culture- and the
letters were intended to be read aloud to those in the early Christian
communities [remember- you didn’t have books back then- like we have today- and
the mass production of writing/publishing did not yet exist].
So- Paul was a strategic thinker- and he penned this letter
hoping it would be a ‘shot in the dark’- that is the darkness of sinful man-
The letter to the Romans is the closest thing to a
systematic theology found in the New Testament.
Its impact in church history is great- John Chrysostom- the
great 5ht century preacher- had it read aloud to him- once a week.
Saint Augustine attributes it to his radical conversion- the
story goes he heard some kids singing ‘take up and read’.
He picked up a copy of the letter to the Romans- and history
was changed.
Luther- the great 16th century reformer- was
teaching this letter- as a Catholic priest/scholar- out of Germany- when he
read ‘The just shall live by faith- therein is the righteousness of God
revealed’-
It lead to what we call today ‘The Protestant Reformation’.
A few hundred years later- the Great Methodist founder- John
Wesley- would say his heart was ‘strangely warmed’ while hearing a message at
Aldersgate- and it lead to his conversion- sure enough- the message was from
the letter to the church at Rome.
So- when the great Apostle sat down and penned this ‘arrow’-
hoping it to go forth and have great impact for the Kingdom of God- his hopes
were indeed realized.
Enjoy-
ROMANS 1: 1-16 many believe this letter to be Paul's best, I
wouldn’t disagree. The letters of the New Testament do not appear in
chronological order, some feel this to be a huge obstacle in understanding
scripture. I think it helps to know the times when Paul wrote the letters, but
this in itself doesn’t prevent us from learning scripture. Romans is addressed
to the church at Rome and is significant in that Paul did not ‘plant this
church’. Unlike the other letters of Paul, he is writing to the believers with
whom he had no strong prior relationship. He roots his gospel in the historical
facts of history and scripture. ‘The gospel of God that the prophets foretold-
Jesus of the seed of David who was proved to be the Son of God by the
resurrection’.
[parts]
(835)ROMANS 7:1-4 Paul uses the
analogy of a married woman ‘don’t you know that the law has dominion over a
person as long as he is alive’? If a married woman leaves her husband and
marries another man she is guilty of breaking the law of adultery. Now, if her
husband dies, she is free to marry another man. The act that freed her from sin
and guilt was death! Every thing else in the scenario stayed the same. She
still married another, she still consummated the new marriage. But because her
first husband died, she has no guilt. I always loved this analogy. For years I
wondered why these themes in scripture are for the most part not ‘imbedded’ in
the collective psyche of the people of God. We have spent so much time ‘proof
texting’ the verses on success and wealth, that we have overlooked the really
good stuff! Now Paul teaches that we have been made free from the law by the
‘death of our husband’ [Jesus] so we can ‘re-marry’. Who do we marry? Christ!
He has not only died to free us from the law, he also rose from the dead to
become our ‘husband’ [we are called the bride of Christ]. Paul connects the
death and resurrection of Jesus in this analogy. Both are needed for the true
gospel to be preached [1st Corinthians 15]. Notice how in this
passage Paul emphasizes ‘the death of Christ’s body’. The New Testament doesn’t
always make this distinction, but here it does. In the early centuries of
Christianity you had various debates over the nature and ‘substance’ of God and
Christ. The church hammered out various decrees and creeds that would become
the Orthodoxy of the day. Many of these are what you would call the ‘Ecumenical
councils’. These are the early councils [many centuries!] that both the eastern
[Orthodox church] and western [Catholic] churches would all accept. Some feel
that the early church fathers and Latin theologians [Tertullian, Augustine and
others] had too much prior influence from philosophy and the ‘forensic’
thinking of their time. They had a tendency to describe things in highly
technical ways. Ways that were prominent in the legal and philosophical
thinking of the West. Some of the eastern thinkers [Origen] had more of a Greek
‘flavor’ to their theologizing [Alexandria, named after Alexander the great,
was a city of philosophy many years prior to Christ. This city was at one time
the center of thinking in the East. That’s why Paul would face the thinkers at
Athens, they had a history in the east of Greek philosophy]. Well any way the
result was highly technical debates over the nature of God and Christ. The
historic church would finally decree that Christ had 2 natures, Human and
Divine. And that at the Cross the ‘humanity of Jesus’ died, but his ‘Deity’ did
not. I think Paul agreed by saying ‘we are free from the law by the death of
Christ’s Body’ here Paul distinguishes between the physical death of Jesus and
his Deity. Note- actually, Augustine would be in the same school as Origen.
Alexandrian.
(836)ROMANS 7: 5-13 ‘But now we are delivered from the law,
that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of the
Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter’. This is such a powerful statement!
WE ARE DELIVERED FROM THE LAW, surely Paul must mean ‘the fleshly law [carnal
nature] in our members’? No, he means ‘the law’, the actual moral code that was
contained in the Ten Commandments. He writes to the Colossians ‘Jesus took the
handwriting of ordinances that were against us [the real law, not the sinful
nature!] and nailed it to his Cross’. He tells the Ephesians ‘the middle wall
of partition [law] has come down in Christ’. I know it’s easy to develop ideas
that justify this radical grace concept in our minds, it’s just part of mans
nature to want to be able to do something, contribute some way to our
salvation. ‘Surely the law helps me stay in line’? No it doesn’t! You are 'dead
to the law by the Body of Christ’. We now live and are regulated by the ‘Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus’. It is the fact that we have been raised to life in
Christ that frees us, not the law. Paul goes on and explains that there was a
time when ‘he was alive without the law’ but when the commandment came ‘sin
revived, and I died’. Paul was a strict Pharisee, the further he advanced in
law, the more he found himself to be ‘exceeding sinful’. The more he learned, the
worse he got! It’s sort of a catch 22, you see and hear the ‘do not do this’
portions of law, and it stirs up the sinful nature to ‘do it’. Now Paul recaps
an earlier theme of the law serving the function of revealing sin to man. He
defends the law by saying ‘was that which is good [law] death unto me’? No, but
the law simply ‘awakened’ the sin that was always there, hiding under the
covers. It brought
[parts]
(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.
[parts]
The church council that spells it out is the Council of
Trent [named after the Italian city where the council took place in the 1500’s-
Trento].
This council is often referred to as the Counter
Reformation. The church rejected the Protestant line- but also acknowledged the
need for reform and made some changes.
This is the council where the church rejects Pelagianism-
and also says the position of Luther [Justification by Faith ALONE] was flawed.
The church appealed to the New Testament letter of Saint
James- where James uses an example from the life of Abraham [found in Genesis
22] where Abraham obeys God and is willing to sacrifice his son Isaac on an
altar.
Of course this never happens- God was simply testing Abraham-
but James says this act of obedience justified him in Gods sight.
James says ‘see how a man is justified by works- and not by
faith ALONE’.
The argument from Rome was Faith played THE major role in
justification- but was not sufficient by itself- there had to be righteous
works eventually associated with it in order for God to say ‘you are just’
[saved].
Luther disagreed and said God justified Abraham before he
had good works- we find this in Genesis 15. God says to Abraham ‘look- count
all the stars- so shall your offspring be’ and Walla- the bible also says
Abraham was justified in God's eyes the moment he believed the promise.
Who’s right?
Actually they both are.
I have taught this a few times over the years- and it would
take too much time to re-do right now.
But I believe James and Paul [the 2 who debate this in the
bible] are simply looking at different aspects of salvation/justification.
Paul emphasized faith- and James showed us how true faith
always has works with it.
When you read the statements that came out from the council
of Trent- some of them do seem to indicate that both sides might have been
talking past each other at some points.
In the heat of the day they were too quick to condemn the
other side- without really trying hard to achieve unity [like politics!].
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- Joh
[parts]
(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
[parts]
In the Greek world you had some very influential
philosophers; Socrates most famous student was Plato- Plato’s most famous
student was Aristotle- and his most famous student was Alexander the Great.
Alexander sought to implement the ideals of his teacher- he
wanted to unify the known world under one people/culture- a belief that
Aristotle held- a sort of ‘unified theory’ [Einstein] that would seek to bring
all learning/knowledge together under one supreme [Divine] principle.
Alexander’s experiment was called Hellenization- which was
the Greek worlds attempt to impose Greek culture/language on all their
conquered enemies- and at the same time allow them to hold on to the their own
culture too. Alexander did amazingly well at this experiment- at the young age
of around 24 he had accomplished most of his mission. The cities were a sort of
composite of Greek culture mixed in with their own culture- this is where we
get the modern term Cosmopolitan.
Alexander died young and his kingdom was divided between 4
generals- one of them- Ptolemy- would himself make it into the history books
because of his keen intellect.
The system of cosmology developed under him would last [and
work!] until some 17-18 hundred years later when it was overthrown by the Copernican
revolution during the time of Copernicus and Galileo.
Alexander’s generals would do their best to carry on the
system of Hellenization- and other nation’s generals would keep the system
going even after Greece fell. One of them- Octavian [Roman general] makes it
into the history books by another famous name- Julius Caesar.
Alexander established a great library in the Egyptian city
of Alexandria [named after him] and many of the great writings were preserved
during this time.
The writings of Aristotle would be discovered again during
the time of Thomas Aquinas [13th century Catholic genius/scholar]
and this would lead to Scholasticism [a peculiar school of thought
developed/revived under Aquinas] and give rise to the Renaissance.
Okay- before the birth of Christ- the Jewish people resisted
the imposing of Greek culture upon them- you had the very famous resistance
under the Jewish Maccabean revolt- where the Jews rose up and fought the wicked
ruler Antiochus Epiphanies- and till this day the Jewish people celebrate this
victory at Hanukah.
Eventually Rome would conquer the Greek kingdom and the
Jewish people were allowed to keep their culture and temple- yet they were
still a people oppressed. Hassidism [getting back to the beginning] developed
during this attempt to not lose their Jewish roots- the Pharisees of Jesus day
came from this movement.
Alexander was pretty successful in his attempt to unify
language- even though the bible [New Testament] was written by Jewish writers-
living under Roman rule- yet the original bible is written in the Greek
language.
Bible scholars till this day study the Greek language to
find the truest meaning of the actual words in the bible [I have a Greek
Lexicon sitting right in front of me].
It would take a few centuries before a Latin version
appeared on the scene [the great church father- Jerome- would produce the Latin
Vulgate].
Yet it would be the re- discovery and learning of the Greek
texts [under men like Erasmus- and the Protestant Reformers] that would lead to
the Reformation [16th century] and other movements in church
history.
The
Jews had various responses to the empires that ruled over them during various
times.
Alexander the Great instituted
Hellenization- a sort of cultural compromise over the people he conquered.
They could keep their
religious/cultural roots- but would be subservient to Alexander and Greek rule.
[parts]
. Now, this
would eventually lead up to the development of the strong nation states, an
independent identifying with your state/region as opposed to being under Rome and the papacy. This
type of independence would allow for the 16th century reformation to
happen under Luther. If it were not for Frederick
the Wise, the regional authority in Germany where Luther lived, he
would have never had the protection or freedom to launch his reformation.
Luther also had the influence of being a scholar at Wittenberg . Around the 12th-13th
centuries you had the first university pop up at the great cathedral of Notre
Dame in Paris .
The word university simply meant a co-operative effort from two or more people.
It applied to many things besides learning. It was also during this time that
the church began to develop a system of harmonizing Christian doctrine; she
began to do systematic theology. The writings of the Greek philosophers
[Aristotle] were rediscovered after centuries of them being hidden, and the
great intellectual Saint Thomas Aquinas would wed Aristotle’s ideas with
Christian truth. This became known as Scholasticism. Aquinas believed that men
could arrive at a true knowledge of God
from pure reason and logic. But man could not know all the truths about God and
his nature without ‘special revelation’ [the bible and church tradition]. All
Christians did not agree with Aquinas new approach to Christian truth, the very
influential bishop Bernard would initially condemn Aquinas over this. Bernard
said ‘the faith that believes unto righteousness, believes! It does not doubt’.
The Scholastic school taught that the way you arrive at knowledge was thru the
continuous questioning and doubting of things until you come to some basic
conclusions. These issues would be debated for centuries, and even in the
present hour many argue over the issue of Divine revelation versus natural
logical reasoning. Tertullian, an early North Afrcian church father, said ‘I
believe because it is preposterous, illogical’ he became famous for his saying
‘what does Jerusalem have to do with Athens ’ meaning he did not
believe that Greek philosophy should have any part with Christian truth.
Origen, his contemporary, believed the other way. So the debate rages on. Why
talk about this here? Some believers ‘believe’ in a type of knowledge called
‘revelation knowledge’ they mean something different than the historic use of the
term. Historically ‘revelation’ meant that which God revealed to us THRU THE
BIBLE, not something outside of the bible. For instance, the first canon of
scripture put together was by a man called Marcion. His ‘bible’ contained the
letters of Paul and parts of :Luke. He believed the revelation God gave Paul
was for us today, not the Old Testament or the historical gospels. He was
condemned by the church as a heretic. The point being some took Paul’s writings
about receiving knowledge from God as an indicator that what God showed Paul
was different than what the church got thru the other apostles. In point of
fact the things that God revealed to Paul, or to you or me; all truth is
consistent, it will not contradict any other part of Gods truth. Paul’s letters
are consistent with the gospels, not in contradiction. When believers cling to
an idea that their teachers are sharing ‘special revelation’ or a Rhema word
that is somehow above the scrutiny of scripture, then they are in dangerous
territory. Paul did appeal to his experience with God as a defense of his
gospel, but he backed up everything he said with Old Testament scripture. God
wasn’t ‘revealing’ things to Paul that were outside of the realm of true
knowable ‘truth’. You could examine and test the things Paul was saying, he
wasn’t saying ‘because God showed it to me, that’s why I’m correct’. So in
today’s church world, we want all the things we learn and believe to be
consistent with what the church has believed thru out the centuries. Sure there
are always things that are going to be questioned and true reform entails this,
but beware of teachers who come to you with ‘revelation knowledge’ or a ‘Rhema
word’ that goes against the already revealed word of truth.
(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
(696) [parts]
GENESIS 25- Isaac and Rebecca are married for around 20 years and still have no
children. Isaac prays for kids and Rebecca is pregnant with twins! The first
one out is Esau and then comes Jacob. Scripture says ‘the older will serve the
younger’. Paul will quote this in Romans 9 to explain Predestination. The
doctrine of God saving you based on total grace. He chose you before you were
born! Now, I have said before that Christians have fought wars over this stuff.
After all the studying I have done over the years, I fall down on the side of
Calvinism [or Augustine or Paul!]. The critics of this doctrine have good
reasons to be critical, there are some difficult questions that come with this
teaching. For the most part you see Paul defending it in Romans 9 by using this
story. He says God chose Jacob before the boys were even born, they had done
nothing to earn Gods choosing. Now those who reject Predestination will say
‘God saw ahead of time the future decisions that the boys were to make’. Fine.
But Paul still defends the doctrine from the point of view that ‘before the
boys did right or wrong God chose Jacob’. Paul then says ‘you will then say to
me, how can God find fault? People are just doing what they were predestined to
do’. If God was just choosing Jacob based on his foreknowledge of their future
choices, then Paul would have said ‘easy, God is being fair because he based
this decision on his future knowledge of what the boys would do’. But Paul
doesn’t say this. He answers the critics of predestination by saying ‘who are
you to question God? Can the thing that God created question the creator’? Paul
will go on in the rest of the chapter and defend classic Calvinism using this
defense. I believe there are some real answers to be found thru out Romans that
might be a little too ‘heavy’ for us to get into. Most believers who have
argued over these 2 Christian views [Calvinism versus Arminianism] have argued
over the seeming unfairness of the doctrine. There are things that we don’t
fully understand or grasp as humans. When we try to ‘adjust’ scripture to make
it fit our rational minds we err. I believe we should rejoice over the mercy of
God, teach all people that Jesus loves them and Christ died for them. And thank
God that you and I are in this thing because of Gods sovereign choice, it had
nothing to do with what we did [or would do!] We also see Esau sell his
birthright to Jacob. Paul uses this in Hebrews 12 to warn Jewish people not to
despise the privileged position of ‘being first’. The gospel came first to the
Jews. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah! The fact that they rejected Jesus has caused
there to be a ‘despising’ of that which was originally theirs! Many Jewish
people have fallen into the error of Esau. They have rejected something that
was designed for their benefit. And while others have benefited from this
rejection, they actually despise hearing about their rightful place in Messiah!
Many Jewish families see it as heresy for a family member to convert to
Christianity. Esau sold what was really his, and he hated Jacob because of it.
GENESIS 26- There is a famine in
the land and the Lord warns Isaac not to go down into Egypt. Isaac stays and
dwells in Gerar and the surrounding area. He pulls the ‘this is my sister, not
my wife’ thing. The king finds out she is Isaacs wife and rebukes him for
lying. Isaac is really blessed in the land. Scripture says ‘he sowed and reaped
a 100 fold’. Now, let’s do a little stuff. The modern church went thru a whole
phase where believers were confessing and believing and doing everything [but
working!] in order to get ‘the 100 fold return’. We have previously showed you
how when Jesus spoke of ‘the 100 fold return’ in the parable of the sower, he
in no way was speaking of money! [Read the chapter ‘twisting the parable of the
sower’ the book is ‘HOUSE OF PRAYER OR DEN OF THIEVES’ on this site]. But
because the Old Testament is the ‘shadow’ of things to come, and not the true
riches. That’s why in this story it is speaking of natural stuff. Now the
church went thru this stage of believers doing all they could to ‘reap the
financial harvest’. We taught believers to think on money,
[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 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Ephesians 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
John 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
John 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
John 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Psalm 126:1 When the LORD turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream.
Psalm 126:2 Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the heathen, The LORD hath done great things for them.
Psalm 126:3 The LORD hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad.
Psalm 126:4 Turn again our captivity, O LORD, as the streams in the south.
Psalm 126:5 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.
Psalm 126:6 He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty
giveth them understanding. Job
John
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within
me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will
learn righteousness. Is. 26:9
Romans
10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear
without a preacher?Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
3 Through
wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established:
4 And by
knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.
Prvb.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- Please 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