Search

You searched for 'Members'

I've found 25 results!

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

Simon Wartanian | 35,252 views | 38,059 words | 3:19:02 hours | 04 March 2015 20:58

...on him for life and salvation:

and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out; such who come to Christ in a spiritual manner, and are brought to believe in him truly and really, he not only receives kindly, but keeps and preserves them by his power, and will not cast them out, or thrust them from him into perdition: the words are very strongly and emphatically expressed in the original, “I will not, not, or never, never, cast out without”; or cast out of doors. Christ will never cast them out of his affections; nor out of his arms; nor out of that family that is named of him; nor out of, and from his church, which is his body, and of which they are Members; nor out of a state of justification and salvation; and therefore they shall never perish, but have everlasting life. The three glorious doctrines of grace, of eternal election, efficacious grace in conversion, and the final perseverance of the saints, are clearly contained in these words.^[2]

Jesus’ purpose is to be obedient to the Father. Yes, although He is equal to God (Phil. 2:6-8), He humbled Himself and submitted to God for the glory of the Father’s name, because He loves the Father and always does what pleases the Father (John 8:29, 55), therefore He cannot fail in doing the Father’s will. The will of the Father for the Son is that He would lose nothing, not a single person that was given Him, and raise them (individually and collectively) up on the last day. All those given to Him by the Father are the ones who will never be cast out and will be raised up on the last day, the Day of Resurrection (John 11:24). The Son always does the will of the Father and He will not fail, because He, as God cannot fail! To say that some of them given to Him by the Father will not come to Him or that the Son loses them is to blaspheme the holy Name of the Son. This is the will of the Father for Him, and He never disappoints or disobeys the Father.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

At v. 40, free-willers will object and say, “see, these people have to look and it says everyone, not only the elect”, or other objections of this kind. When one understands what Calvinism truly teaches, they will see that this is not a valid objection to what we actually teach. For indeed, people have to come to Christ in faith, but they come because God has granted them to come (John 6:44, 65). Looking to Christ here is obviously having faith in Him, which is also granted by God to man (Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8-9). It is also good to notice that this verse does not say everyone can look at the Son. It gives us the promise that anyone who does, will receive eternal life and will be raised up on the last day. This is the result of God’s work as the entire discussion and context make clear in emphasizing God the Father’s and God the Son’s role in the salvation of the elect. Albert Barnes gives a very helpful comment about John 6:40:

Verse 40. Everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him. It was not sufficient to see him and hear him, but it was necessary, also, to believe on him. Many of the Jews had seen him, but few believed on him. Jesus had said in the previous verse that all that the Father had given him should be saved. But he never left a doctrine so that men must misunderstand it. Lest it should be supposed that if a man was given to him this was all th...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 13,245 views | 1,873 words | 0:09:53 hours | 06 March 2015 23:11

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 28 Sacraments Ordinances Baptism Lord's Supper

...

The holy appointments or ordinances are to be administered by those only who are qualified and called to this task, according to the commission of Christ.

Now here there is a little difficulty. Who are the persons qualified to do these things? In a local church, those persons would be the elders. But, does this exclude any regular member in administering the ordinances or helping in the administration thereof? I do not see any biblical command that only the elders may do these things, nor any prohibition against regular Members helping. Obviously, within the local gathering of God’s people, the elders would undertake to administer the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. They may, perhaps, ask the help of some brothers or sisters for the Lord’s Supper, for example, to pray for the bread and wine and distribute the elements. I do not see why that would not be permissible. Obviously, having the elders administer the ordinances is much better, as they are the ones who are in the position to lead the church and are known as the church leaders. Therefore, having them baptize a person or administer the Lord’s Supper, is much more authoritative than a regular member. Philip, for example, who was not an elder, baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:38). I do not advise people to go and baptize others outside the church. That is not my point. But rather, my point is that I see nothing in the Bible (I am open for change) which restricts the administration of the ordinances to elders alone.

As for the Lord’s Table, the disciples in the early church in Jerusalem, it seems, were regularly celebrating it (e.g., Acts 2:42). But the Lord’s Supper was especially celebrated on the Lord’s Day in the corporate gathering of God’s people (Acts 20:7). The people of God were gathered on the first day in Troas to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians, when they came “together as a church” (1 Cor. 11:18) observed the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). This would indicate that the Lord’s Supper is generally to be administered on the Lord’s Day in the corporate gathering of God’s people. The Lord’s Supper should not be celebrated by one person, but rather in a gathering of more people. There may be occasions when a group would want to celebrate the Lord’s Supper outside of the gathering of the church, or a sick brother or sister not in the corporate gathering may want to partake of the Lord’s Table. I do not see any prohibition of such a thing. But we should note that the common, regular, and normal observance of the Lord’s Supper is within the corporate gathering of God’s people on the Lord’s Day. The Lord’s Supper is not a “me and Jesus” moment, but it is “me and Jesus and the congregation” unity moment. It is vertical as well as horizontal. In fact, the believers at Troas were gathered one the first day of the week to “break bread” (Acts 20:7). When Paul spoke against the Corinthian misuse of the Lord’s Supper, he addressed it in the context of corporate worship (1 Cor. 11:17ff). Therefore, private celebrations should be discouraged. The gathering of God’s people is the proper context for the Lord’s Supper as well as Baptism.

In conclusion, we give the words of Bob Carr:

While there is nothing in the Bible that says that only ministers may administer the ordinances, surely it is reasonable to believe that the baptism of new disciples and the serving of the elements of the Lord’s Supper ought to be under the supervision of the ministers. Ordinarily, t...

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

Simon Wartanian | 18,098 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

...rdly receive this Sacrament do therein make an outward profession of receiving Christ crucified, and partaking of the benefits of Christ’s death.

3. This Sacrament does teach and assure all true believing communicants, that they being many persons, are yet one mystical body, because they are all partakers of one and the same Jesus Christ, of whose body the bread is an ordained token and pledge in this Sacrament.

4. They who join together in outward receiving of this Sacrament do both join together in the profession of the same faith in Christ, and also do profess themselves to be (in the judgment of charity, which they now mutually profess concerning each other) fellow Members of the same mystical body, as being all fed with the same spiritual food.^[3]

That it is a sign of union with the brethren is also shown from the context wherein it is celebrated. The Lord’s institution said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). But it does not specify either place, frequency, or context. Place we can discard quickly as there is no special holiness to a specific place. Frequency is not under discussion here. What we are left with is the context. By this, I mean the setting wherein it is celebrated. In the New Testament, it is clear that it was celebrated with the believers among their gathers. For example, we read of the 3000 converts from Pentecost joining the church in devoting “themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). A few verses later, it is said, “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts” (Acts 2:46). Notice that the Lord’s Supper is here celebrated at home, which is no problem at all because homes were the buildings where Christians met. But the context is not merely a family meal, but a covenantal meal with the people of God. It was not a private Mass or communion. If we look further in Acts, we see the church at Troas was “gathered together to break bread” on the Lord’s Day as if that was the purpose why they gathered (Acts 20:7). To another church, Paul says, “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Cor. 10:22). Therefore, this was not merely a normal meal. When the apostle Paul writes to the church at Corinth, he makes clear that the Lord’s Supper was being celebrated in the context of the gathered church.

1 Cor. 11:17-18, 20 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church...20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.

1 Cor. 11:33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—

They were so misusing the Lord’s Supper that their celebration could not be called “the Lord’s supper.” But notice the context wherein it was celebrated—the gathered church. Because it is not only a sign of union with Christ, but also with the body of Christ. Thomas Schreiner explains:

The Lord’s Supper is not merely a meal where I celebrate what Jesus did for me. It is a communal meal where the people of God, the church of Jesus Christ, give thanks for what Jesus did for us. A new family has been forged through the sweat and blood of the Savior.^[4]

§2 Only A Memorial Of That One Offering Up Of Himself By Himself

In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to h...

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

Simon Wartanian | 10,365 views | 4,031 words | 0:20:42 hours | 27 November 2015 22:25

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology 1689 Federalism Westminster Baptism Infant Baptism Book Review Jeffrey Johnson The Fatal Flaw

...ition for infant baptism, or an explicit statement about the exclusion of infants from the New Covenant.

The Critique of the Westminster Position

Throughout the book Jeffery Johnson tries to demonstrate why the Westminster position is inconsistent and unbiblical. He starts by examining the analogy between baptism and circumcision (chapter 2).

Baptism is the New Circumcision?

While examining circumcision under the Old Testament Johnson finds these discrepancies:

Male Exclusivity – Circumcision was restricted to males.
Jewish Citizenship - Circumcision was the requirement for citizenship in Israel, not faith. Membership within the covenant was not based upon faith, but upon bearing the sign of the covenant.
Unbelieving Adults – Not only infants, but all adults would have been circumcised. Abraham was circumcised when he was 99. Genesis 17 says that not only Abraham’s direct family, but everyone in his house (even the slaves) had to be circumcised and receive the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. We can’t simply assume that everyone in Abraham’s house was already a believer in the true God. Obviously there would have been some adult unbelievers who received the sign.
Children of Unbelievers – The Westminster position says that the promise is given to believers and their seed. But why? Under the Old Testament it did not matter if the parents had true faith. Their children had to be circumcised and thus receive the sign of the covenant.
Different Meaning – Circumcision under the Old Testament had nation and political significance which baptism does not have. Circumcision was the sign for the Abrahamic Covenant which the Jewish males bore in their body. It set them apart as God’s national old covenant people.
Different Participants – From the above mentioned differences between baptism and circumcision do not have the same participants. Unbelievers had received the sign of the covenant which our Presbyterian brethren would never knowingly do. Furthermore, circumcision under the Old Testament was properly administered to children of unbelievers, but this the Westminster position would not do.

There is an analogy between circumcision and baptism, but it is wrong and unbiblical to make them identical.

The New Testament teaches that circumcision was replaced by circumcision of the heart. We do not believe that the NT teaches that circumcision was replaced by baptism, but rather it was replaced by spiritual circumcision – the circumcision of the heart (e.g. Rom 2:28-29; Col 2:11-12, see this too).

The Nature of the Old Covenant

Johnson identifies “continuity” to be the essence of Westminster Covenant Theology. It is the pin holding it all together. The emphasis in Westminster Covenant Theology is upon continuity between the covenants. In Dispensationalism it is upon the discontinuity. The 1689 Baptist position seeks a balanced position between both continuity and discontinuity.

The majority of Reformed Paedobaptists believe that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace and thus it was a covenant of grace, rather than of works.

Johnson begs to differ along with 1689 Federalists and even some Paedobaptists. A lot of assumptions and inferences are drawn by Paedobaptists concerning the New Covenant based upon the Mosaic being an administration of the Covenant of Grace which would be unjustified if it were not a covenant of grace. One thinks of the mixed Membership of the co...

Hebrews 6:4-6, Apostasy and Calvinism

Simon Wartanian | 17,096 views | 11,271 words | 0:59:55 hours | 15 May 2016 15:27

Hebrews 6 Apostasy Perseverance Of The Saints Reformed Theology Calvinism Falling Away From Grace

...obedience. For in whomsoever these are found, they shall be saved, by virtue of the faithfulness of God in the covenant of grace.^[2]

This is therefore proof that the things in vv. 4-5 where not things which “accompany salvation”, but rather the fruit of faith is that which accompanies and belongs to true salvation wrought by God in the sinner and that is the evidence of whether one is a true or false believer.

The purpose of the passage

We have continually argued that this passage does not speak of those who are true regenerate believers, Members of the New Covenant and indwelt by the Spirit and then they fall away, but rather of professors who, from the outside, could not have been separated from the true believers and then fall away, reject and oppose Christianity. This does not speak of the people who stop going to church because of scandals, personal problems or the difficulty in believing in a good God in a wicked world, but rather speaks of those who have great privileges, knew the truth of God’s Word, Gospel and power, and even after that they turned their back to God and did not come to true and godly repentance. This is therefore a warning about those people who have cross the line. They will not repent, because God has set to judge them for their sins and not grant them repentance.

The purpose of the passage is then to warn professors in the church to examine themselves and not be like those described in the passage. Furthermore, it leads the true believer who is not sure of their salvation to seek the Lord for assurance and to examine themselves and their fruit. It is, among other means, through the warnings about apostasy that the Lord preserves His saints. Some object and say that “if it is impossible for the elect to fall away, then the warnings are useless.” I do not agree with that. The impossibility for the elect falling does not consist within themselves, but rather consists in God who works perseverance within them. Therefore, theoretically, it would be possible for an elect person to fall away from the faith and therefore it is not a brute impossibility for an elect person to fall away. But in reality and as the Bible teaches, apostasy from true faith is impossible because God preserves us through many means, including warning us to examine ourselves and of apostasy.

Conclusion

This passage does not, contrary to many passages, teach that true believers do fall away, but rather teaches that those who make a profession, know and experience the truth and then apostatize will be damned forever with no chance of repentance.

Now we move on to a passage with similar input. [Hebrews 10:26-29 see here]

Footnotes

^ Mickelson’s Enhanced Strong’s Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries. Taken from the TheWord Bible Software. G5461.
a, b, c, d, e John Owen. Exposition of Hebrews. in loc. www.studylight.org/commentaries/joc/hebrews-6.html#4 See also Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary on this word here https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/hebrews-6.html
^ “And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over h...