Warning: Undefined variable $ub in /mnt/web005/e2/75/53977675/htdocs/pages/classes/User.php on line 239 Warning: Undefined variable $ub in /mnt/web005/e2/75/53977675/htdocs/pages/classes/User.php on line 251 Deprecated: strripos(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($needle) of type string is deprecated in /mnt/web005/e2/75/53977675/htdocs/pages/classes/User.php on line 251 Old Testament - Search - The Staunch Calvinist Warning: Undefined variable $ub in /mnt/web005/e2/75/53977675/htdocs/pages/classes/User.php on line 239 Warning: Undefined variable $ub in /mnt/web005/e2/75/53977675/htdocs/pages/classes/User.php on line 251 Deprecated: strripos(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($needle) of type string is deprecated in /mnt/web005/e2/75/53977675/htdocs/pages/classes/User.php on line 251
The Staunch Calvinist

"Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God." - Jonathan Edwards

Search


You searched for 'Old Testament'

I've found 33 results!


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 11: Of Justification - Commentary

...ords which Paul is referring to are declared:

Gen. 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

In this connection, it is good to take a look at some Greek words which are important for our discussion.

Logizomai and Dikaioo

The Lord counted Abram’s faith as righteousness, not any deed he had done (we will discuss the details of this passage below). Paul argues that this was the case under the Old Testament and likewise now that Christ has been raised. It is important for us to note the concept of imputed/credited righteousness in Romans 4 and elsewhere. The Greek word used in these instances is the verb λογίζομαι (logizomai, G3049), which means “to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over”[10]. Dr. William D. Mounce says that the “basic meaning of logizomai has to do with counting or thinking”[11]. The important distinction between the Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrine of justification has to do with the fact that the Protestant doctrine of justification declares the sinner to be righteous although he is not fully righteous, because of Christ’s merits. While the Roman Catholic doctrine seeks to make the sinner righteous and only then will he be really justified and righteous. But notice that the word which the apostle Paul uses, logizomai, has to do with counting and thinking of someone as righteous instead of making them righteous (e.g., Rom. 4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11). For all our purposes, as stated at the beginning of this paragraph, justification does not affect our nature or change our inner life; it changes our state from condemned to justified. Robert L. Dabney said:

We believe that the true meaning is not to make righteous in that sense, but only to declare righteous or false righteous in the forensic sense; and that the act of justification does not change the moral state, but only declares, in the forum of heaven, the legal state of the sinner.[12]

Forensic simply means legal. Theologians often speak of “forensic justification” and mean by it as a legal act of God declaring someone righteous.

The same which was true for logizomai is true of the word for justification, δικαιόω (dikaioo, G1344). The word is defined by Thayer as “to render righteous or such he ought to be” and “to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be”[10]. Mounce gives it the basic definition of “to declare righteous, justify”[13]. Berkhof says:

This verb means in general “to declare a person to be just. Occasionally it refers to a personal declaration that one’s moral character is in conformity with the law, Matt. 12:37; Luke 7:29; Rom. 3:4. In the Epistles of Paul the soteriological meaning of the term is clearly in the foreground. It is “to declare forensically that the demands of the law as a condition of life are fully satisfied with regard to a person, Acts 13:39; Rom. 5:1,9; 8:30-33; I Cor. 6:11; Gal. 2:16; 3:11. In the case of this word, just as in that of hitsdik, the forensic meaning of the term is proved by the following facts: (a) in many instances it can bear no other sense, Rom. 3:20-28; 4:5-7; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:11; 5:4; (b) it is placed in antithetic relation to “condemnation” in Rom. 8:33,34; (c) equivalent and interchangeable expressions convey a judicial or legal idea, John 3:18; 5:24; Rom. 4:6,7; II Cor. 5:19; and (d) if it does not bear this meaning, there is no distinction between justification and sanctification.[14] 

To further elaborat...


A Review of Jeffrey D. Johnson's The Fatal Flaw

...e Messiah as we now by the grace of God have. This is expressed in the fifth paragraph –

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

Under the law, by that meaning the whole period of the Old Testament, the Covenant of Grace was seen in the shadows and prophecies (See certain shadows in the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants). But under the New Testament dispensation we have a fuller revelation of God’s purposes and the Covenant of Grace which was fully revealed in the New Covenant.

The Westminister position is summed up in the last sentence in paragraph 6 –

…There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

As Pascal Denault puts it: one covenant, two administrations.

Sign of the Covenant

Our Presbyterian brethren argue that the sign of the covenant of grace prior to the New Covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was applied to all males within the covenant. In fact, 8 days old infants were required to be circumcised.

They see the sign of the covenant being replaced from circumcision to baptism on the basis of their interpretation of Rom 4:11 and Col 2:11-12. Johnson spends quite some time on Romans 4:11.

Now let us apply the Westminster understanding of the Covenant of Grace to this. The Covenant of Grace was administered under Abraham and Moses and obviously included infants. In fact it commanded infants to bear its sign. Therefore, unless the contrary could be proven, infants are also admitted into the last administration of the Covenant of Grace – the New Covenant and should receive its sign, which they believe is baptism.

It’s understandable if the theology of the Covenant of Grace is correct.

Turn the Tables!

For those credobaptists who are not familiar with the Westminster position which is rooted in Covenant Theology, infant baptism is something they would not come up with by simply reading the Bible. Thus, they think that the case is closed by the fact that infant baptism is nowhere described or commanded in the New Testament.

But through Covenant Theology the Paedeobaptists turn the tables upon the non-covenantal Credobaptist. They teach that the covenants of God were made with the believers and their seed. This is one basic aspect of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace (from their perspective), which they assume would continue to the last administration of the Covenant of Grace, that is – the New Covenant. This is understandable.  Thus, they counter the non-covenantal credobaptism with the following:

“Unless an express statue of repeal and prohibition of the former privilege can be produced, the natural conclusion is that the old rule remained in force as regards their place of infant children of the believer within the visible fellowship of faith to which their parent belongs.” (p. 28, from Douglas Bannerman)

The tables have now been turned. The non-covena...


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity - Commentary

...work of His hands and which will perish, yet the Lord remains. They will be changed by the Lord and they will pass away, but in contrast, “you are the same, and your years have no end” (v. 27). This passage is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12 and applied to God the Son. While the creation and all that is in it changes, the Lord of the Bible, does not change and remains the same as He was. In Hebrews 13:8, it is said that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Yesterday refers not merely to the previous day, but to the whole period from the beginning of the world. Basically, this passage applies, as did Hebrews 1:10-12, what was common of God in the Old Testament to the Lord Jesus, and thereby making a claim to deity. Christ does not change in His nature, nor in His purposes. Albert Barnes comments on the passage saying that:

he is unchangeable. The evident design of this independent proposition here is, to encourage them to persevere by showing that their Saviour was always the same; that he who had sustained his people in former times, was the same still, and would be the same forever. The argument here, therefore, for perseverance is founded on the “immutability” of the Redeemer. If he were fickle, vacillating, changing in his character and plans; if today he aids his people, and tomorrow will forsake them; if at one time he loves the virtuous, and at another equally loves the vicious; if he formed a plan yesterday which he has abandoned today; or if he is ever to be a different being from what he is now, there would be no encouragement to effort.[12]

God, in James 1:17, is described as “the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” The KJV translates it with “no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” There is no variation or variableness within God, neither is any shadow of repentance or turning from His purposes and plans. God is not like the sun with its, from our perspective, changing rays and going downs. God remains the same and there is not a slight shadow of a doubt that He would change. John Gill comments:

with whom is no variableness, nor shadow of turning: as there is in that great luminary, the sun in the firmament, which has its parallaxes, eclipses, and turnings, and casts its shadow; it rises and sets, appears and disappears every day; and it comes out of one tropic, and enters into another at certain seasons of the year: but with God, who is light itself, and in him is no darkness at all, there is no change, nor anything like it; he is changeable in his nature, perfections, purposes, promises, and gifts; wherefore he being holy, cannot turn to that which is evil; nor can he, who is the fountain of light, be the cause of darkness, or admit of any in him; and since every good and perfect gift comes from him, evil cannot proceed from him, nor can he tempt any to it.[4]

Matthew Poole notes saying that James “here sets forth God as essentially and immutably good, and the Father of lights, by allusion to the sun, the fountain of corporeal light, and makes use of terms borrowed from astronomy. The sun, though it scattereth its beams every where, yet is not without its changes, parallaxes, and diversities of aspects, not only sometimes clear and sometimes eclipsed, but one while in the east, another in the south, then in the west; nor without its turnings in its annual course from tropic to tropic, (to which the Greek word here used seems to allude), its vario...


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 13: Of Sanctification - Commentary

... live unto righteousness.[2]

Having this definition, we can say that sanctification is a work of renewal and enablement. This enablement is twofold: to die unto sin and to live unto righteousness. It is a work of life and death by God. But before we dive into sanctification and its effect, we must first note that “to sanctify” something is to “make it holy”.

Holiness

Sanctification has to do with making or declaring holy. Holiness essentially has to do with “otherness” or setting apart. This idea is conveyed in the Old Testament by the use of words like:

  • consecrate (e.g. firstborn [Ex. 13:2]; the people of Israel [Ex. 19:10; Josh. 3:5; 7:13], the priests [Ex. 19:10, 22; 28:3]; Mt. Sinai [Ex. 19:23]; gifts [Ex. 28:38]; offering [Ex. 29:27]; Passover lamb [2 Chron. 30:17]; altar [Ex. 29:36, 27, 44]; the tent of meeting and all its items [Ex. 30:26-29]; the temple [2 Chron. 29:5]; a fast [Joel 1:14; 2:15]),
  • set apart (e.g. Israel and the godly [Gen. 49:26; Deut. 10:8; Ps. 4:3]; priests [Num. 16:9]; musicians [1 Chron. 25:1]; land [Ex. 8:22]; newborn of man and beast [Ex. 13:12]; animals [Lev. 20:25]; cities [Deut. 4:41; Josh. 16:9]),
  • separate (e.g. Israel [Lev. 15:31; 20:24, 26]; priests [Num. 8:14; 1 Chron. 23:13]; animals [Lev. 20:25]; Nazarite [Num. 6:2, 3, 12]; a portion of the temple [Ezek. 48:21-22]).

While our initial idea may be that of making people holy or setting people apart, the usage of these words is very wide, ranging from people to things. If we consider the usage of the word “holy” then this would encompass these things above and even more. The basic idea conveyed from these passages is that a thing or a person is separated from a common purpose and given another purpose and it or they belong to another, e.g. God. William D. Mounce explains the concept of holiness and the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament:

Generally, qados [which is used 117 times] is translated as “holy,” “holy one,” or “saint.” It describes that which is by nature sacred or that which has been admitted to the sphere of the sacred by divine rite. It describes, therefore, that which is distinct or separate from the common or profane.[3]

All over the Bible, God is said to be holy. He Himself provides the standard which our holiness or the holiness of things are measured against. He is said to be “Holy, holy, holy” (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8). It is the only attribute of God that is raised to the third repetition. It is not an attribute among many others. Rather, it is the attribute that encompasses all others. His love is holy; His justice is holy; His grace is holy; His wrath is holy and so forth. Holiness to God means that is He is morally perfect, other and separated from sinners. J. I. Packer explains:

When Scripture calls God, or individual persons of the Godhead, “holy” (as it often does: Lev. 11:44-45; Josh. 24:19; Isa. 2:2; Ps. 99:9; Isa. 1:4; 6:3; 41:14, 16, 20; 57:15; Ezek. 39:7; Amos 4:2; John 17:11; Acts 5:3-4, 32; Rev. 15:4), the word signifies everything about God that sets him apart from us and makes him an object of awe, adoration, and dread to us. It covers all aspects of his transcendent greatness and moral perfection and thus is an attribute of all his attributes, pointing to the “Godness” of God at every point. Every facet of God’s nature and every aspect of his character may properly be spoken of as holy, just because it is his. The core of the concept, however, is God’s purity, which cannot tolerate any form o...


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith - Commentary

...ne: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38; see more on this passage). What Paul says to the Philippian jailer is to anyone who would receive the promise by faith: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31). So it is testified of Abraham that he believed God’s promise about Christ and was justified (Gen. 15:5-6). The promises of God concerning Christ were the object of the saints of the Old Testament, which were expressed in various ways whether by the shadows, the types, the sacrifices or the prophecies (Rom. 4:20-21; Heb. 11:11, 39-40). Dr. John Frame comments shed some light upon the promises of God as an object of faith:

We see in Hebrews 11 how the great saints of the OT acted again and again “by faith.” In this passage and elsewhere, there is a contrast between faith and sight (cf. 2 Cor. 5:7). Don’t take this the wrong way. Walking by faith is not walking in the dark. The heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 had a good understanding of where they were going. God’s word had promised them the blessings of the covenant, and they knew they could trust those promises. As we have seen, faith is based on knowledge. But it’s the knowledge of God’s word, not the knowledge of the eyes. God told Abraham that he would have a son, but that didn’t appear possible, since Abraham and Sarah were far too old. Yet he believed anyway (Rom. 4:19–21). His faith was based on knowledge of God’s promise. But until Isaac was born, he didn’t see the fulfillment of the promise. Similarly the saints of Hebrews 11: they didn’t see the city that God had promised his people. They didn’t see the fulfillment. But they continued believing, because they knew that God’s promise was sure—more sure, even, than the evidence of their eyes.[24]

So we also believe in the second coming of our Lord in glory to raise all the dead, judge and reward, and usher in the eternal state. All these are promises of God in Scripture given to us. To be in Christ is to have “all the promises of God find their Yes in him” (2 Cor. 1:20).

This object of faith is sometimes called fides generalis. Berkhof remarks that “By this is meant saving faith in the more general sense of the word.”[25]

The Son of God

Next to fides generalis is fides specialis. This is faith in a specific and special sense. The Confession speaks of “the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ”. The word principal here means “most important; main”[26]. This aspect of saving faith is focused on Christ. It acknowledges what it believes in fides generalis that the Word of God calls upon us to put our hope and trust in Christ to be saved. Therefore, the Confession speaks of this faith as “accepting, receiving, and resting upon” Christ (see above for the expressions for faith). Christ is offered to us in the gospel as the object of faith. When the gospel of Christ is preached, the expected response is to repent and believe in that gospel (John 4:39, 41; Acts 11:21; 14:1; Rom. 10:14-17). Obviously, the expected response from fallen man is rejection unless God works in his heart. Yet this does not take their culpability away. The Lord taught that the Pharisees were in sin because they saw the works of Jesus and rejected them:

John 9:39-41 Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and ...


A Review of O. Palmer Robertson's The Israel of God

...m which I learned the most. In this chapter Dr. Robertson examines the wilderness motif throughout the Scriptures for the people of God. He shows the wilderness in relation to Israel. How from then the Scriptures form a basis that the wilderness is the time for God’s people to be tested and nourished by God. The wilderness imagery or motif dominates Scripture and describe the journey of the people of God. Just like Israel of old had to wander in the wilderness 40 years before entering the land of Canaan, so likewise, the Israel of God must wander the wilderness of this world before entering their everlasting Sabbath—Heaven.

The wilderness motif is not only found in the Old Testament, but it is also found in the life of John the Baptist as well as the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the wilderness the people of God are disciplined by God as sons, as He disciplined His Old Covenant people. In the wilderness the people of God are nourished by God (Rev 12:6). It is a place where the God of the Covenant is present with His people, as He was by day and night with Israel of old. Dr. Robertson also mention that the wilderness is pictured both as a place of danger as well as great miraculous deliverance of God. He writes:

The wilderness is depicted both as a region of great danger and at the same time as a place of wondrous deliverance. In the narrative of the crossing of the Red Sea (Ex. 13:17-14:31), the whole pattern of Israel's ensuing experience in the wilderness may be seen.4 Threat of disaster is answered by miraculous deliverance. (p. 88)

This theme is also found for the New Covenant people of God most exhaustively in the New Testament in Hebrews 3-4. Where the people of God have the greater Exodus of the Lord Christ behind them, yet they are still striving to enter the eternal Sabbath of God (Heb 4:11).

Dr. Robertson traces the wilderness motif throughout the Old Testament and New Testament.

The Coming of the Kingdom

Although God is King over all things and His kingdom rules over all (e.g. Ps 103:19), yet “a more specific manifestation of his authority is displayed in the kingdom of his Messiah” (p. 113). The Kingdom came with the coming of its King.

This was likewise a very helpful chapter wherein his Amillennialism and Two-Staged Kingdom theology showed, which is good! See here for more on Amillennialism and the Two-Staged Kingdom of God.

In this chapter Dr. Robertson shows the important and crucial place of Israel in the plan of God as related to the coming of the Kingdom and how Scripture connects the coming of the Kingdom with Israel. But as argued earlier and continually throughout the book, the Israel of God is not defined by ethnicity, but by faith in the Messiah.

There is a very helpful discussion on the Kingdom of God in Acts as it relates to the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6. He shows how the New Testament vision of the Kingdom is that it is spiritual in the present age and non-consummate, but it will have its consummation at the Second Coming of its King. The Kingdom comes in two stages and no more. What some (e.g. Dean Davis) have called the Kingdom of the Son and the Kingdom of the Father. There was also a helpful discussion on Revelation and an Amillennial interpretation of chapter 20.

Romans 11

Chapter six deals with the question of Israel’s future. Dr. Robertson maintains that ethnic Israelites are and will always be part of God’s people and in God’s plan, but he denies that there w...


1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 3: Of God's Decree - Commentary

...f the wicked, but it is especially typological of Christ, as it is quoted by the New Testament authors and applied to the Lord Jesus.

Ps. 22:16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet

This verse describes the crucifixion of our Lord. In the time that David wrote this (~ 1000 BC), crucifixion was not yet invented, but the Father foretells the crucifixion of His Son by the mouth of David. Isaiah 53 is certainly one of the first places to go to when speaking of the Passion of the Christ in the Old Testament. There we are told that the Messiah “was despised and rejected by men” (v. 3), “he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (v. 4), “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” Read this to any unbelieving friend and ask: Of whom does this speak? Anyone with any idea of Jesus will answer that it is speaking of Jesus! Yet it was written some 700 years before His virgin birth! In the Gospels, we read of our Lord speaking about His certain crucifixion and resurrection. There are no “ifs”, but what is written must come to pass.

Luke 18:31-33 And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. 32 For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. 33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.”

In no uncertain terms, the Lord foretells His certain death, saying also that it will be the fulfillment of what the prophets wrote, we’ve already taken a look at a couple of examples. From Luke 22:22 and Matthew 26:24 we learn that prophecy is not just “God looking down the corridors of time,” but it’s God actually determining.

Luke 22:22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!”

Matt. 26:24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

In this parallel account, we see that “as it is written” means “determined,” referring to the prophecies about the Messiah of Israel. What was written was not wishful thinking or God looking down into history and seeing what (libertarian) free willers will do, but it was God “determining.” In Acts 4:26-28, we get a more straightforward and “at your face” proclamation of God’s sovereignty over the cross. The Holy Spirit says:

Acts 4:26-28 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Verse 26 echoes the words of Psalm 2 (as does Acts 4:25). The cross happened as the fulfillment of what was spoken of the great Messiah in Psalm 2. Verse 27 tells us that 1) Herod, 2) Pilate, 3) the Roman soldiers and 4) the Jews, gathered to crucify Christ. One thinks of all the thoughts and motivations running through these people’s minds. Herod wanted to see a miracle from Jesus and didn’t care much about Him (Luke 23:8). Pilat...


1689 Second Baptist Confession of Faith Highlighted

...
  • Prov. 22:19-21; Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:12-15; 3:1; Deut. 17:18ff; 31:9ff, 19ff; 1 Cor. 15:1; 2 Thess. 2:1-2, 15; 3:17; Rom. 1:8-15; Gal. 4:20; 6:11; 1 Tim. 3:14ff; Rev. 1:9, 19; 2:1 etc.; Rom. 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19-21
  • Heb. 1:1-2a; Acts 1:21-22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7-8; Eph. 2:20
  • Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: 
    OF THE Old Testament OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
    Genesis Matthew
    Exodus Mark
    Leviticus Luke
    Numbers John
    Deuteronomy Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
    Joshua  I Corinthians & II Corinthians
    Judges Galatians
    Ruth Ephesians
    I Samuel & II Samuel Philippians
    I Kings & II Kings Colossians
    I Chronicles, II Chronicles I Thessalonians & II Thessalonians
    Ezra I Timothy & II Timothy
    Nehemiah To Titus
    Esther To Philemon
    Job The Epistle to the Hebrews
    Psalms Epistle of James
    Proverbs The first and second Epistles of Peter
    Ecclesiastes The first, second, and third Epistles of John
    The Song of Solomen The Epistle of Jude
    Isaiah The Revelation
    Jeremiah  
    Lamentations  
    Ezekiel  
    Daniel  
    Hosea  
    Joel  
    Amos  
    Obadiah  
    Jonah  
    Micah  
    Nahum  
    Habakkuk  
    Zephaniah  
    Haggai  
    Zechariah  
    Malachi   
  •         All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. 1

    1. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings. 1
      1. Luke 24:27, 44; Rom. 3:2
    1. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, 1 but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God. 2
      1. 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 John 5:9; Rom. 1:2; 3:2; Acts 2:16; 4:25; Matt. 13:35; Rom. 9:17; Gal. 3:8; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11; Matt. 22:32; Luke 16:17; Matt. 22:41ff; John 10:35; Gal. 3:16; Acts 1:16; 2:24ff; 13:34-35; John 19:34-36, 24; Luke 22:37; Matt. 26:54; John 13:18; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Matt. 5:17-18; 4:1-11
      2.  Luke 15:27-31; Gal. 1:8-9; Eph. 2:2
    1. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; 1 and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to live all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it ...

    Review of Dean Davis' The High King of Heaven on Amillennialism

    ...arians.” Pages 23-24

    Basically, Amillennialism teaches that the Millennium of Revelation 20 started from the cross and will end at the Second Coming of our Lord, spanning over 2 millennia up till now and is thus to be interpreted symbolically, rather than literally. The Millennium is the Gospel Era, or as Dean likes to call it, the Era of Proclamation.

    This is a simple chart laying out the Amillennial vision of Salvation History.

    The Kingdom of God

    One of the very ups of this book was the extensive study of the Kingdom of God in the New and Old Testaments. My understanding of the Kingdom of God was really expanded.

    A Definition of the Kingdom of God

    Dean Davis defines the Kingdom of God as:

    In essence, the Kingdom of God is the direct reign of God the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, over his redeemed creatures; creatures who have been rescued from every spiritual and physical enemy, and restored to every spiritual and physical friend that God planned for them in the beginning. Also, the Kingdom is the blessed realm that this redemptive reign creates, and over which it forever rules. Page 65.

    This he does not merely assume, but ably goes to prove it from the Bible, here is a summary of his five points:

    1. The Kingdom is the direct reign of God the Father (Mt 6:10)
    2. The Kingdom is a sphere of wholeness and blessing (Mt 9:35; 10:7-8; 12:28)
    3. The Kingdom is mediated by the Son of God (John 5:19, 30; 6:38;  8:28; 12:49; 14:10)
    4. The Kingdom is effected by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28; Acts 1:4-8)
    5. The Kingdom is a realm beneath a reign (Mt 13:41-42; Rev 11:15)

    Thereby is indeed the definition that he gives is justified and satisfactory.

    The Two-Staged Kingdom

    Amillennarians see the Kingdom of God coming in two stages, separated by the Parousia of our Lord:

    1. The Kingdom of the Son (already, the present Era of Proclamation)
    2. The Kingdom of the Father (not yet, the future World/Age to Come)

    Now, the terminology used here is not meant to give the idea that the Son has no share in the second stage of the Kingdom or that the Father has no share in the first, but rather is taken from 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 where we learn that at the Coming of our Lord, the Lord Jesus will deliver His Kingdom, His consummated Kingdom to God the Father and will be subjected to Him. Thus, seeing a difference between the present Kingdom of the Son (which is to be delivered up to the Father) and the coming Kingdom of the Father (which is the eternal World to Come). This terminology is also supported by Matthew 13:41-43.

    The two-staged Kingdom is seen from Jesus’ own contrast of this present age and the age to come. Here is a table I made for myself:            

    Verse This age The age to come
    Mt 12:32 …will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (compare Mk 3:28-30)
    Mk 10:30 …receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life. (Lk 18:30)
    Eph 1:21 …far above all rule and authority…not only in this age But also in the one to come
    Lk 20:34-36 The sons of this age marry… but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection… neither marry… they cannot die anymore… equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection
    1Cor 1:20 Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom o...

    Hebrews 6:4-6, Apostasy and Calvinism

    ...hey will perish eternally without the possibility of true repentance. That the description is not definitive proof that those spoken of are true believers, yet the analogy in vv. 7-8 moves us to say that those spoken of were unbelievers from the start.

    I don’t claim that by me consulting articles and commentaries on this passage that I will have an answer to every question on this passage, but what I do want to claim is that there are interpretations which are credible and do not force us to deny other biblical doctrines (i.e., the Perseverance of the Saints).

    I do want to stress the context of Hebrews that it is an epistle written to Hebrew Christians steeped into the Old Testament and Israel’s history, therefore I will try to interpret it with this in mind and not try to make a modern application every time.

    Audience

    Who are the ones being described in this passage? Is the audience the ones being described in vv. 4-6? No, they are not. Rather, they are a different group spoken of in the third person (“those” v. 4, “them…they…their own” v. 6). The Author is not describing his present audience, in fact he explicitly says that in v. 9. Previous to this passage the author spoke of the plural “you” to the audience (e.g. Heb 5:11-13), including himself in 6:1 by using “us”. After v. 9 he speaks of the “beloved” and those who he encourages to “have the full assurance of hope until the end”. The warning is not about them, but about those who receive a clear light of God’s Gospel, make a profession of faith and appear to all to be true believers, yet later fall away. It is those who will not be brought to true repentance by God and be left in their sins to perish eternally.

    The audience the Author is writing to is one of Hebrew Christians in general who are being tempted to go back to the old Judaism and abandon their current religion. The Author throughout the letter shows that the New Covenant and its Mediator are better and they are the fulfillment of the promises and shadows in the Old Testament and therefore, there is nothing to go back to. The apostasy being spoken of here is that in which a person leaves Christianity to go to Judaism before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Obviously, it can have modern applications of those who leave their profession of Christianity wherein they have clearly seen God’s work and His Word, yet later deny that profession and go openly to another religion or to atheism. But mainly, this passage is about those who are being tempted to apostatize to Judaism.

    Impossible

    The passage begins with denoting an impossibility, namely, the impossibility of renewing certain people to repentance. I take the word “impossible” here to mean absolute impossibility and not merely impossible in the sense of “very difficult”, or “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The Greek word ἀδύνατος (adunatos) literally means no power, ability or strength. The word is used by the Author of Hebrews 4 times.

    In Heb 6:18 he says that “it is impossible for God to lie” which does not indicate that it is very difficult, although it can happen, but denotes an absolute impossibility of such a thing happening. In Heb 10:4 the Author says that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Does he here mean that it is merely very difficult for this to happen, or rather that it is absolutely impossible? The answer seems obvious. The last instance is in Heb 11...