Search

You searched for 'Restoration'

I've found 14 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 39,102 views | 75,562 words | 6:40:27 hours | 04 March 2015 21:39

...he other instances in the gospel refer to the Holy Spirit. The word means:

1. summoned, called to one’s side, esp. called to one’s aid

a. one who pleads another’s cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate

b. one who pleads another’s cause with one, an intercessor^[11]

The Lord Jesus as our advocate, defender, and friend in time of sin. He goes before the Father and pleads for our forgiveness and Restoration on the basis of His perfect once for all time work (see here for Christ’s intercessory work). Intercession and mediation is part of the priestly work. The Lord intercedes on behalf of and pleads for the people for whom He offered His sacrifice much like He does in John 17. Christ’s intercessory work is perfect and limited to the believers (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; 9:24). John speaks of us having an advocate, not everyone. It is the believers who have Christ as their Parakletos. The unbelieving will not come to Christ as their advocate as they are enemies of His and do not desire Him unless the Father draws them to Him (Rom. 3:11; 8:7-8; John 6:44). The fact that we have Christ as our Advocate is based in that He is the “propitiation for our sins.” It is because He has made satisfaction to the wrath that was against us that He is our Advocate and now applies the benefits of the cross to us in time of need and sin. It is Christ alone who is the propitiation for our sins. Christ’s sacrifice was meant to take away sin (see above). The question at hand is: Did Christ appease the wrath of God or not?

If He did and the phrase “whole world” means all people without exception, then God will not count anyone’s sin against them and all will be forgiven on the basis of Christ’s appeasement of God’s wrath against all humanity. But if Christ, the spotless sacrifice, did not appease the wrath of God on behalf of every single individual, then it explains the fact why people must still try to “appease” God’s wrath and pay for their sins in Hell. Propitiation is limited to those who believe (Rom. 3:26). But that, in turn, does not mean that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of every single individual and now they have to “actuate” or “activate” that propitiation by their faith. The reason that this is wrong is that it does not trust in the finished work of Christ on our behalf, and gives man reason to boast. If Christ has propitiated the Father on behalf of everyone and to receive the effect of that propitiation we must repent and believe, it puts the “difference-making” within man and not God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:30). If Christ has satisfied the wrath of God on behalf of X in the same way for Y, and X believes while Y does not believe, then the difference was in man and not God. There is something that X can boast about that made him different than Y. No true Christian boasts in his salvation, neither will I claim that Arminians think that they saved themselves or have a reason to boast. But what I’m trying to argue is that their position, as I laid it out above, that propitiation is made on behalf of everyone yet we have to believe for it to be affected is true, then man does in this scenario have a reason to boast. Though Arminians as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ will not boast about their salvation.

John Calvin writes:

Though then I allow that what has been said is true [“Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect”], yet I deny that it is sui...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 34,823 views | 73,377 words | 6:24:05 hours | 06 March 2015 19:29

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 22 Christian Sabbath Sabbath The Lord's Day Fourth Commandment Day Of Worship Day Of Rest Sunday Religious Worship Church

...quo;there remains [now] a Sabbatismos for the [New Covenant] people of God.” Therefore, we still have a day of rest to keep holy, which functions as a foretaste of our eternal and consummated rest and Sabbath. By keeping the Lord’s Day holy as a Sabbath under the New Covenant (which we have seen at least from Rev. 1:10 to be the first day of the week, the day which peculiarly belongs to the Lord Jesus and which He claims as His own), we look forward to the consummated and eternal Sabbath of our God and His Christ.

As faithful Israel, under the Old Covenant, by observing the seventh-day Sabbath in a cursed and fallen creation, looked forward to the redemption and Restoration in the Messiah and to entering God’s rest (Heb. 4:2-3). So, in the same way, the Israel of God under the New Covenant, observes and keeps holy its Sabbath day—the Lord’s Day, in anticipation of the new and perfect Creation and to their consummated entrance to God’s Sabbath rest. Both the seventh-day Sabbath and the first-day Sabbath point to a greater reality. Yet, this in no way denigrates the essential morality of the Sabbath as we have tried to show throughout our discussion.

The Change Of The Day (Hebrews 4:10)

Heb. 4:10 for whoever [he who] has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

Why have I titled this section “The Change Of The Day” and how do we get the change of the day from this (seemingly) clear reference the believer’s rest may most likely appear strange to the one unfamiliar about John Owen’s contribution to the Sabbath question. I must admit that as of yet, I have not fully read either Owen’s Exercitations On the Lord’s Day or his commentary on the relevant sections about the Sabbath question in Hebrews 3-4. But I have read the abridged version of Exercitations in what is called “A Treatise On The Sabbath”. John Owen is not an easy author to read. I find him to be very lengthy and verbose and thus it is hard to have the patience to read, for example, 42-page commentary on two passages (e.g. Heb. 2:1-2). I do not doubt the benefit I would receive from his insight. I have, in fact, read his commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13, which has greatly helped me understand Covenant Theology as expounded by Reformed Baptists who affirm what is known as 1689 Federalism, for which I have argued in chapter 7. What I have read are the works of those who employ Owen’s contribution concerning the Sabbath question in their works and in their words.

I would like to discuss this passage under the following headings:

Who is the one who has entered God’s rest?
How is this an argument for present Sabbath-keeping?
How the change of the day takes place.

The last two points will be treated under one heading.

Who is the one who has entered God’s rest?

The majority of commentators answer that this refers to the believer’s entrance into God’s rest (Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole). Yet Owen stands both against the majority in his day and our day in his opinion that, literally, the “he” should be the “He” of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some have likewise followed him in this understanding (John Gill, Henry Alford, Joseph Pipa, Robert Paul Martin, Richard Barcellos). This was not the first unique observation and contribution of Owen. In chapter 17, when dealing with Hebrews 10:29 (see here), we likewise noted Owen’s contribution.

Before beginning this important inquiry, let us get the lit...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 29: Of Baptism - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 26,055 views | 45,510 words | 3:58:30 hours | 06 March 2015 23:14

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 29 Baptism Believer's Baptism Immersion Dipping Infant Baptism Covenant Theology 1689 Federalism Westminster Federalism

...rofess the faith and show fruits in keeping with their repentance. The text which shows the difference in how God will deal with His people under the New Covenant is the text on which we base our covenant argument, Jeremiah 31. We could go on to consider texts which use the language of children or seed in the promises concerning the New Covenant, but that will deviate too much from the purpose of this commentary. But let us note a single instance:

Isa. 54:13 All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children.

The Lord’s people are promised Restoration not only physically, but also spiritually. The chapter begins with, '“Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married,” says the LORD’ (Isa. 54:1). What children are these? Are they the children of believing parents regardless of their personal faith? Are they children in the “outward administration” of the covenant? How is this passage interpreted in the New Testament? Thankfully, we don’t have to guess:

John 6:44-47 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

Notice how the passage in Isaiah is explained by our Lord. He takes it as a reference to those who come to Him, who must be taught by God which means that they were drawn by God to the Lord Jesus. He does not interpret it as a reference to children as the offspring of believers, whether themselves believing or not, rather, He takes it as a reference to all believers as children of God or “children of Zion.” In fact, this is also how Isaiah 54:1 is interpreted by the apostle Paul:

Gal. 4:25-28 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Notice that here, Isaiah 54 is interpreted in terms of believers being the children spoken of. They are said to be children of Zion or the heavenly Jerusalem as this text calls them. Therefore, the New Testament provides us a way in which we can understand the reference to children and offspring which the Old Testament speaks of when it prophesies the days of the New Covenant. Children of the flesh will not be in the covenant just because of their parents. Rather, they have themselves to be “children of promise” and children of the Spirit. As Samuel Renihan observes:

In the New Covenant, all of God’s people will know the Lord. The people of the Old Covenant were brought into being through natural generation within the confines of the offspring of Abraham. In the New Covenant, the people of the covenant are brought into being by supernatural generation, that is, regeneration. And these children know the Lord because their supernatural birth g...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 16,635 views | 13,619 words | 1:11:21 hours | 06 March 2015 23:22

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 30 Sacrament Ordinance Lord's Supper Table Of The Lord Communion Eucharist Transubstantiation Roman Catholicism Idolatry Means Of Grace

...hey saw the body handling the bread!”^[18] The same goes for the blood. According to this interpretation, there remains no significance in the sacrament. In fact, as some observe, the literalist interpretation destroys any significance for this ordinance. For as we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we anticipate the day when we will celebrate it with Him in body and spirit (Matt 26:29), yet the Roman Catholic doctrine claims that Christ is there in spirit and body, divine and human. Yet, Scripture claims that Christ’s human nature is in heaven and will stay in heaven until the Restoration of all things (Acts 3:21). Therefore, to say that Christ’s human nature is present in the bread and wine is to contradict that Scripture. The words of Christ, rather, are figurative. The bread which He had in His hand and which He broke, symbolized His body which was given up for our sins. And the wine symbolized His blood which was shed for the forgiveness of our sins. This is the natural way of understanding these words and not in a literalist manner that contradicts Scripture. Christ saying “this is my body” and “this is my blood” should not be interpreted literally as His similar statement, like, “I am the door” (John 10:9) and “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) would be interpreted literally. Rather, the meaning is that the bread and wine symbolize and are signs of His body and blood. John Dagg observes:

When he said, “This is my body,” the plain meaning is, “This represents my body.” So we point to a picture, and say, “This is Christ on the cross.” The eucharist is a picture, so to speak, in which the bread represents the body of Christ suffering for our sins. Faith discerns what the picture represents. It discerns the Lord’s body in the commemorative representation of it, and derives spiritual nourishment from the atoning sacrifice made by his broken body and shed blood.^[19]

The next place which Roman Catholics appeal to is John 6. There, they claim, the Lord taught upon the Eucharist and His presence therein. We must repeat the words of Dabney here:

For though we strenuously dispute, against Rome, that the language of this passage [John 6:50-55] is descriptive of the Lord’s Supper, it is manifest that the Supper was afterwards devised upon the analogy which furnished the metaphor of the passage. And the didactic and promissory language, “This is My body,!” “This is My blood,” sacramentally understood, obviously convey the idea of nutrition offered to the soul.^[20]

In other words, this passage is not directly speaking about the Lord’s Supper, for this passage records a discussion that happened prior to the establishment of the Lord’s Supper. But this passage speaks about what the Lord’s Supper symbolizes. Roman Catholics stress the following phrases:

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

John 6:53-56 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

They stress the statements of Jesus when He says that it is necessary for people to feed on His flesh (body) ...