Search

You searched for 'Study'

I've found 46 results!

Simon Wartanian | 16,955 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

...e believers will in fact fall away completely from the faith. I have argued that even in the book of Hebrews itself, the doctrine of Perseverance and the perfection of the work of Christ on behalf of the elect is taught. I have consulted the following articles and commentaries and will cite from some of them freely in the following discussion:

The passage does not say that regenerate believers apostatize:

John Calvin. Commentaries. Taken from the TheWord Bible Software. Hebrews 6:4-9. Can also be found at here.
John Gill. Exposition of the Entire Bible. Taken from the TheWord Bible Software. Hebrews 6:4-9. Can also be read at here.
Arthur W. Pink. Exposition of Hebrews. Taken from the TheWord Bible Software. Chapters 24-27. His commentary on Hebrews 6 can be found here.
Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994). Chapter 40.
John M. Frame. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2014). Chapter 44.
J. Ligon Duncan III – Falling Away? (Sermon)
Mathew Poole - English Annotations on the Holy Bible. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
William Burkitt – Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
Albert Barnes - Notes on the New Testament. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here. He accepts that the descriptions describe a true Christian, but rejects that it is possible for a true Christian to apostatize.
Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, David Brown – Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
Matthew Henry – Complete Commentary on the Bible. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
Bob Utley – You Can Understand The Bible (Not that explicit). Commentary on Hebrews 6, here and here.
John Owen – Exposition of Hebrews. Commentary on Hebrews 6, here.
Steven J. Cole – Lesson 17: When Repentance Becomes Impossible (Hebrews 6:4-8).

The passage describes regenerate believers who have fallen away:

Adam Clarke
James Burton Coffman
Charles John Ellicott (Not very explicit)
John Trapp (Not very explicit)
Thomas Coke
Daniel Whedon
David Guzik
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary (Too technical)

I have collected some commentaries, articles, and sermons on this passage in a document which you can download (it does not include all the commentaries listed above).

I believe that the passage speaks of false believers and warns about those who have sat under the preaching of the Word of God, the manifestation of the Spirit’s work and who themselves have professed to belong to Christ, that they 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...

Acts 7:51, 'You always resist the Holy Spirit'

Simon Wartanian | 8,227 views | 1,097 words | 0:05:36 hours | 03 April 2014 14:01

Resistible Grace Irresistible Grace Calvinism John Gill Matthew Henry ESV Study Bible Acts 7:51

...]

Calvinists, have no problem with this passage at all. Dead sinners always resist the Spirit of God. But when Spirit comes to regenerate, for the purpose of salvation, the dead sinner is made alive and willing, with no resistance.

Rather, there is a bigger problem for those Arminians who say that sinners are not really dead in sin or unable to come to God, how do they cooperate or respond to the Spirit if they always resist Him? There is said here much more than some Arminians would want to admit. The total depravity of human kind which without sovereign grace always resists the work of God.

This is what the ESV Study Bible says:[2]

Acts 7:51 Stephen concluded with a direct attack on Israel for rejecting the Messiah. While this may seem harsh, Luke will soon say that Stephen was “full of the Holy Spirit” (v. 55; cf. 6:10, 15) and he was no doubt led by the Spirit, who knew the hearts of Stephen’s listeners, to make this accusation. Using the language of the OT he accused them of being stiff-necked (see Ex. 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut. 9:6, 13), uncircumcised in heart and ears (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4, 6:10, 9:26; Ezek. 44:7, 9), and resisting the Holy Spirit (Isa. 63:10). In fact, the repeated rejection of God’s will is the point of his story, justifying the charge that prophets also made against the nation.

John Gill comments on this:[3]

Ye stiffnecked,.... Or "hard necked", the same with קשה עורף, which is a character frequently given of this people, Ex 32:9 and elsewhere, and is expressive of their obstinacy, stubbornness and refractoriness; who would not submit their necks to the yoke of God's law, and be obedient to his commands:

and uncircumcised in heart and ears; for though they had the mark of circumcision in their flesh, of which they boasted; yet they had not the true circumcision of the heart; their hearts were not circumcised to fear and love the Lord, nor their ears to hear the word of the Lord and the Gospel of Christ; so that notwithstanding their confidence in carnal privileges, they were uncircumcised persons:

ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus's being the Messiah: and such who resist Christ's ministers, resist him, and such who resist him, may be said to resist his Holy Spirit; and the word here used signifies a rushing against, and falling upon, in a rude and hostile way, and fitly expresses their ill treatment of Christ and his ministers, by falling upon them and putting them to death: which is the resistance here designed, as appears by the following verse: so that this passage is no proof of the resistance of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace in conversion, when he is in men, and acts with a purpose and will to convert them; since it does not appear that he was in these persons, and was acting in them, with a design to convert them; and if he was, it wilt be difficult to prove that they so resisted, and continued to resist, as that they were not hereafter converted; since it is certain that one of them, Saul, was really and truly converted, and how many more we know not. Though it will be allow...

John 3:16, 'God so loved the world'

Simon Wartanian | 8,614 views | 2,123 words | 0:11:26 hours | 25 April 2014 17:19

God Loves You Calvinism Limited Atonement Unconditional Election John Gill ESV Study Bible World

...od and have put their faith in Christ are saved. All the believing will definitely not perish, but those who do not believe are already condemned (verse 18)!

The interesting thing is that Jn 3:16 does support “Limited Atonement” since it says that “whoever believes in him will not perish,” and we see in verse 18 that whoever doesn’t believe is already condemned! Thus Christ couldn’t have paid their ransom and they still had to pay for their sins in Hell. It would be unjust for God to punish Christ for their sins and then punish them again in the eternal lake of fire.

Now let’s consider some commentaries.

The ESV Study Bible explains:[2]

Here is the most famous summary of the gospel in the entire Bible. For connects to v. 15 and explains what happened to make it possible that someone can “have eternal life” (v. 15), that is, through believing in Christ. God so loved the world was an astounding statement in that context because the OT and other Jewish writings had spoken only of God’s love for his people Israel. God’s love for “the world” made it possible for “whoever” (v. 15) believes in Christ, not Jews alone, to have eternal life. God’s love for the world was not mere sentiment but led to a specific action: he gave his only Son, which John elsewhere explains as sending him to earth as a man (v. 17) to suffer and die and thereby to bear the penalty for sins (see note on 1 John 2:2; cf. Rom. 3:25). On “only Son,” see note on John 1:14, which contains the same Greek phrase. The purpose of giving his Son was to make God’s great gift of eternal life available to anyone—to whoever believes in him, that is, whoever personally trusts in him (see note on 11:25). Not perish means not perish in eternal judgment, in contrast to having eternal life, the life of abundant joy and immeasurable blessing in the presence of God forever. Those who “believe in” Christ have that “eternal life” and already experience its blessings in this present time, not yet fully, but in some significant measure.

John Gill said about John 3:16: [3]

For God so loved the world,....The Persic version reads "men": but not every man in the world is here meant, or all the individuals of human nature; for all are not the objects of God's special love, which is here designed, as appears from the instance and evidence of it, the gift of his Son: nor is Christ God's gift to every one; for to whomsoever he gives his Son, he gives all things freely with him; which is not the case of every man. Nor is human nature here intended, in opposition to, and distinction from, the angelic nature; for though God has showed a regard to fallen men, and not to fallen angels, and has provided a Saviour for the one, and not for the other; and Christ has assumed the nature of men, and not angels; yet not for the sake of all men, but the spiritual seed of Abraham; and besides, it will not be easily proved, that human nature is ever called the world: nor is the whole body of the chosen ones, as consisting of Jews and Gentiles, here designed; for though these are called the world, Joh 6:33; and are the objects of God's special love, and to them Christ is given, and they are brought to believe in him, and shall never perish, but shall be saved with an everlasting s

...

A Review of RC Sproul's Willing to Believe & Thoughts on Free Will

Simon Wartanian | 9,156 views | 3,709 words | 0:19:03 hours | 22 February 2015 00:23

RC Sproul Willing To Believe The Controversy Over Free Will Free Will Predestination Election Sovereignty Compatibilism Calvinism Arminianism Pelagianism Semi-Pelagianism Augustine Martin Luther John Calvin Jonathan Edwards Book Review

...R.C. Sproul – Willing To Believe

The Controversy Over Free Will

Although read in Dutch^[1] I’ve was motivated to get this work by watching RC Sproul’s teaching series on the book called Willing to Believe^[2]. It helped understand the issues surround the question of human freedom and sovereignty. I remember that it was not much later than that I was Studying Jonathan Edwards’ The Freedom of the Will, which was somewhat difficult.

In this great work this master theologian gives a historical theological Study of important theologians throughout the history of the Christian church on the question of human freedom. He goes through some Christian heroes and giants of the faith like Augustine, Edwards, Luther and Calvin. Also some who were non-Christian and anti-Christian in their theology and thinking like Charles Finney and Pelagius. Lastly, theologians who belong more to the in house debate between Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism and Calvinism, like Jacob Arminius himself.

The Pelagians

Pelagius was a British monk living in the fifth century and he is known to have a huge dispute with Augustine on the nature of man and free will. Pelagius reacted to a seemingly harmless prayer of Augustine which said: Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire. Harmless doesn’t it? Well, that’s not what Pelagius thought. He thought it outrages, because it showed man’s total dependence on God to graciously grant the ability to obey Him. Pelagius believed that commandment presupposes ability. What many nowadays believe. He said that God would never command something that man was not able to do. Therefore, everything that God commands man is able to do. So, away with Romans 8:7-8.

He further taught that Adam was in no sense the federal head of the human race. Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he didn’t sin. All men are born in the state that Adam was in. Adam gave man bad influence, not a sinful nature otherwise known as Original Sin.

He taught that the nature of man was basically good and that sinning didn’t effect that basic goodness of man.

Man has a free will to do good or evil and to obey God in all things.

Jesus’ death was not substitionary, but it was as an example for us.

People can live sinless lives, and in fact some have lived sinless lives.

The grace of God is important, but not essential. What I mean is that it would be awesome if one uses the grace of God for obedience, it will make things much easier, but it is even possible to obey without the grace of God.

This among other things are the things that he believed. I think, for any serious Bible student, they must conclude that this places him outside of Christian orthodoxy. Pelagius and his teachings were condemned in 418 and you would think that it will be the last thing heard of Pelagius, but then arises Charles Finney many centuries later in America.

Charles Finney

Charles Finney taught things very similar to Pelagius. In fact, he was more Pelagian than Pelagius.

He rejected the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is the heart of the Gospel message.

He rejected the penal substitionary atonement of Christ in place of the believers. He posed the Governmental and Moral Influence theories of the atonement. He taught that all that was needed for conversion was good argumentation and persuasion. His influence is seen in the decisional evangelism/regeneration of our day, when people are told to make a ...

A Short Review of Sam Waldron's Modern Exposition of 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

Simon Wartanian | 6,315 views | 606 words | 0:03:08 hours | 23 February 2015 19:14

Review Book Review Sam Waldron Modern Exposition Of 1689 Baptist Confession Of Faith 1689 Reformed Baptist

...

Introduction to the Confession

It was a while back that I somehow came into contact (I don't remember how, maybe through James White?) with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and I found myself at home in it. Though I did not Study it very deeply. This time I have taken the time to go through it with Sam Waldron which I though he did a very good job.

Introduction to Covenant Theology

Before beginning my Study of the confession, through a brother I got into the subject of Baptist Covenant Theology, I got the work of Pascal Denault The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology and Waldron's A Reformed Baptist Manifesto. Sometime later I got the recent Recovering a Covenantal Heritage volume. I have been more and more interested in this stream of Reformed Theology.

Introduction to Baptistic Convictions & Calvinism

I first became baptistic simply through reading the New Testament and finding no evidence of any infant baptism. I was baptized in the Armenian Church as an infant and was attending a Baptist church in Holland and was convinced that my baptism was no baptism. So on 14-06-2013^[1] I was baptized after a profession of faith. At that time I was in the process of Studying the Doctrines of Grace. Sometime later, by the grace of God I came to embrace and glory in them.

The Confession

The first and foremost thing that I love about this Confession is it's high, high, high view of God's sovereign freedom. I love it and that is exactly how I believe that God is, the Sovereign King over every molecule.
I love the fact of the Baptists' deep commitment to the truth and the sole authority of the Bible and their appeal to the Bible. I could not really find any disagreements with the Confession, so I feel home in it and I'm not ashamed to identify myself as a Reformed Baptist.

What I loved about Dr Waldron's work is his way of explaining the Confession and going through the biblical evidence (as I have been reading Grudem, I would have loved it if Dr Waldron would cite portions of the passages that he was using as proof, rather most of the time, only references were given).

When I started Studying the Confession I didn't realizes that a confession is actually a Systematic Theology! :)

Dr Waldron explained things very well, I especially liked his extensive treatment of chapters 29 (Of Baptism), 31 (of the state of man after death and of the resurrection of the dead) and 32 (Of the last judgment). There he interacted with the other side and provided some answers. With the explanations he went also through more detail.

During my Study of the 1689 I left some comments about my thoughts on each paragraph that can be viewed here: https://www.thecalvinist.net/post/1689-Second-Baptist-Confession-Of-Faith-With-Commentary-And-Highlighting/922

Also I have opened a new section wherein I try to go in detail to explain why I agree with the formulation of doctrines in the 1689. The section is found here: https://www.thecalvinist.net/1689

Few minor problems with the book

One thing that was frustrating me, was the load of typos there. It's not that I'm a grammar nazi, but the quality of the work is so great that the multitude of the typos, wrong headings above pages (pages 103, 381), no spacing between words, wrong numeration really were the only downside, which could have been prevented. Hopefully, they will update it in the future, otherwise we'll just have to wait for James Renihan's exposition of the 16...

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

Simon Wartanian | 43,039 views | 75,562 words | 6:40:27 hours | 04 March 2015 21:39

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Exposition Reformed Baptist Chapter 8 Christ The Mediator Prophet Priest King Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Arminianism Universal Atonement Hypostatic Union Humanity Of Christ God-Man

...we do with both these truths? We obviously have no other option than believing that the Lord Jesus is both truly (in every sense) God and man.

That the Lord Jesus is now human is seen in the fact that He ascended bodily to heaven. The Bible says nothing about the Lord’s body disappearing and therefore, Jesus still possesses His glorified body. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 2:5 speaks of the “man” Christ Jesus being the mediator now. But obviously, Paul also knows that Jesus is God (e.g., Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13). Therefore, we are to accept and confess both truths. There was a time when I did not know that Jesus still was human, not because of Study, but because of my ignorance on this topic. The Chalcedonian Creed confesses the single person of Christ in two distinct natures. This is also what the 1689 teaches.

Human nature and divine nature are obviously two distinct natures. Yet these natures unite only in the person of Jesus Christ. They unite perfectly without compromise or confusion. The divine nature and the human nature retain their properties. This is necessary for the work of redemption because we need an infinitely worthy substitute to die on our behalf. But God, cannot die. How then can this work then be accomplished? Answer: By the incarnation of the Son. The divine nature is unable to die, is sinless, is not subject to suffering and is infinitely worthy, yet there is no such inability within human nature against death, suffering or sinlessness. But for God to accomplish redemption, He became a man Who could substitute for His brothers (Heb. 2:14), He could die, yet at the same time, He is infinitely worthy to satisfy God’s wrath. Because no mere human is worthy or able to withstand God’s wrath. In the words of the lyrical theologian shai linne:

See, only a human can substitute for human lives. But only God can take the wrath of God and survive. (Hypostatic Union)

When He became man, He did not lay aside His divine properties, rather He added and united the divine nature to His (new) human nature. He did not mingle the two natures and thereby was not truly God and neither truly man, but a mixture of the two. No. He took human nature and added it to His Person (which was eternally divine). The Lord Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, has two natures, the divine and the human in His singular Person. This is not an easy subject and therefore, obviously, there have been wrong teachings on it. Therefore, I would like, with the help of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (pp. 554-556), to take a look at three wrong ways to understand the humanity and divinity of our Lord.

First up is Apollinarianism, which teaches that the Lord Jesus had a human body, but a divine mind and spirit. Therefore, He is not truly man and truly God. He is a mixture. But the Scriptures teaches that He was human in every way except sin (Heb. 2:14, 17; 4:15). If in every way, therefore He had a human mind and spirit. The second is Nestorianism. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus has two persons in one body. A divine person and a human person, not merely two natures, but two persons in a single body. But the Bible always speaks of Christ as one person and not two persons in one body. The third is Monophysitism or Eutychianism. Monophysitism means “one nature.” Jesus had a mixture of a divine and human nature. Jesus’ nature was neither fully divine nor fully human, but rather a third kind of nature—a mixture of elements from the divine and human nature.

Now t...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 26: Of the Church - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 32,637 views | 38,282 words | 3:19:22 hours | 06 March 2015 23:00

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 26 Church Church Government Elders Deacons Members Universal Church Local Church Congregationalism Polity

... rule well” (1 Tim. 5:17). A Christian who is sick is “to call for the elders of the church” (Jas. 5:14). Peter exhorts “the elders among you, as a fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1). Therefore, the normative pattern for the New Testament church is to have multiple elders in each congregation.

As to the duty of pastors/elders, we may summarize them now with the words of Benjamin Keach:

1. The work of a pastor is to preach the Word of Christ, or to feed the flock, to administer all the ordinances of the gospel that belong to his sacred office, and to be faithful and laborious therein, Studying to show himself “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2Ti 2:15). He is a steward “of the mysteries of God” (1Co 4:1), and therefore ought to be a man of good understanding and experience—being sound in the faith and acquainted with the mysteries of the gospel—because he is to feed the people with knowledge and understanding...he must make known the whole counsel of God to the people (1Co 9:16-17; Act 20:31, 35; 2Ti 2:15; 2Co 4:1-2; 1Ti 3; Jer 3:15; 2Ti 4:2; 2Co 5:15; Act 20:20, 27).

2. A pastor is to visit his flock, to know their state, to watch over them, to support the weak, and to strengthen the feeble‐minded and assist the tempted, and to reprove them that are unruly (Pro 27:23; Act 20:35; 1Th 5:14).

3. He is to pray for them at all times; and be with them also when sent for and desired, and as opportunity serves; and to sympathize with them in every state and condition with all love and compassion (Col 4:12; 1Th 3:10).

4. And he is to show them in all respects, as near as he can, a good example in conversation, charity, faith, and purity; so that his ministry may be the more acceptable to all, the name of God be glorified, and religion be delivered from reproach (1Ti 4:12).

5. He must see that he carries it to all with all impartiality, not preferring the rich above the poor, nor lording it over God’s heritage, nor affirming any greater power than God has given him; but to show a humble and meek spirit, even to be clothed with humility (Jam 2:4; 1Ti 5:21; 1Pe 5:3, 6).^[56]

Elders lead and govern the local body of Christ. They are the ones who have a charge to shepherd the flock of God, while on the other hand, the flock of God is called to submit to them.

Deacons

Deacons are first instituted in Acts 6. There is less in the New Testament about deacons in comparison to what it teaches about elders. The noun διάκονος (diakonos) simply means “a servant” or “servant, minister, a person who renders service and help to others”.^[57] The verb form of the word is used in Acts 6:2 for the word “serve.” The Jewish disciples lived closely and the church helped each other. But as the church grew larger, there was a problem in the “daily distribution” of food (Acts 6:1). So, one group began to complain concerning the other. Therefore, the apostles, who were apparently in charge of this distribution or were leaders of it, did not want this issue to become a distraction to the main point of gospel preaching. Therefore, they declared “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2, there is a word here somewhere for those who compromise the gospel and promote a “social gospel”). Serving tables is good, but the preaching of the word of God is even better and more important. Therefore, the apostles with the church appointed seven men to carry out ...

Romans 11:32, 'he may have mercy on all'

Simon Wartanian | 7,320 views | 1,404 words | 0:07:37 hours | 10 February 2014 14:29

Mercy On All Calvinism Predestination Limited Atonement Mercy Sovereignty Unconditional Election John Gill Adam Clarke

...own as God’s Sovereign Choice (Rom 9-11)?

It can be reasonably seen that all here refers to Jews and Gentiles, but not every single one of them that has lived or will live. The earlier chapters (9-11) very well emphasize God’s sovereignty in salvation. God has mercy on whom He wills (Rom 9:15), mercy only comes from God and it’s entirely depended on God (Rom 9:16). It seems then very inconsistent for us to take the all without exception rather than all without distinction.

Commentaries

A brief comment is made by the ESV Study Bible: [1]

Rom. 11:32 The word all here refers to Jews and Gentiles (all without distinction, not all without exception). The sin and disobedience of both Jews and Gentiles is highlighted, to emphasize God’s mercy in saving some among both Jews and Gentiles.

John Gill writes:

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief,.... Both Jews and Gentiles, particularly God's elect among them: some think the metaphor is taken from the binding up of sheaves in bands; and that Jews and Gentiles are the sheaves, and unbelief the band, in which they are bound together; but the apostle is not speaking of their being together in unbelief, but as separate, first the Gentiles, and now the Jews: rather it seems to be taken from a prison, and Jews and Gentiles are represented as prisoners, and unbelief the prison, in which they are shut up by God: not that God is the author of unbelief, or of any other sin in men; he does not put it into them, or them into that, but finding them in unbelief, concludes them in it, or leaves them in such a state, and does not as yet however deliver out of it, or say to the prisoners, go forth: moreover, to be "concluded in unbelief", is the same as to be "concluded under sin", Ga 3:22; that is, to be thoroughly convinced of it; and to be held and bound down by such a sense of it in the conscience, as to see no way to escape deserved punishment, or to obtain salvation, but by fleeing to the mercy of God in Christ:

that he might have mercy upon all: not upon all the individuals of Jews and Gentiles; for all are not concluded in, or convinced of the sin of unbelief, but only such who are eventually believers, as appears from the parallel text, Ga 3:22; and designs all God's elect among the Jews, called "their fulness", Ro 11:12; and all God's elect among the Gentiles, called "the fulness of the Gentiles", Ro 11:25; for whom he has mercy in store, and will bestow it on them; and in order to bring them to a sense of their need of it, and that he may the more illustriously display the riches of it, he leaves them for a while in a state of unbelief, and then by his Spirit thoroughly convinces them of it, and gives them faith to look to, and believe in, the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto eternal life. John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible

Adam Clarke in his commentary said the following:

Verse 32. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief] συνεκλεισεγαροθεος, God hath shut or locked them all up under unbelief.&n

...

John 1:29, 'takes away the sin of the world'

Simon Wartanian | 10,381 views | 2,368 words | 0:12:05 hours | 13 February 2014 22:15

John 1:29 Calvinism Limited Atonement Definite Redemption Universal Atonement Whole World Lamb Of God Takes Away The Sin Of The World

... who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29 ESV)

(For a better and more recent defense see here.)

Those who advocate the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement obviously take “world” everyone who has lived or will live, all without exception. Not world in the sense of many people, not world in the sense of from every “tribe and language and people and nation” as Revelation 5:9 would put it

Here is what the ESV MacArthur Study Bible says: [1]

John 1:29 The next day. This phrase probably refers to the day after John’s response to the Jerusalem delegation. It also initiates a sequence of days (v. 43; 2:1) that culminated in the miracle at Cana (2:1–11). the Lamb of God. The use of a lamb for sacrifice was very familiar to Jews. A lamb was used as a sacrifice during Passover (Ex. 12:1–36); a lamb was led to the slaughter in the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa. 53:7); a lamb was offered in the daily sacrifices of Israel (Lev. 14:12–21; cf. Heb. 10:5–7). John the Baptist used this expression as a reference to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to atone for the sins of the world, a theme which John the apostle carries throughout his writings (John 19:36; cf. Rev. 5:1–6; 7:17; 17:14) and that appears in other NT writings (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:19). sin of the world! See note on John 1:9; cf. 3:16; 6:33, 51. In this context “world” has the connotation of humanity in general, not specifically every person. The use of the singular “sin” in conjunction with “of the world” indicates that Jesus’ sacrifice for sin potentially reaches all human beings without distinction (cf. 1 John 2:2). John makes clear, however, that its efficacious effect is only for those who receive Christ (John 1:11–12). For discussion of the relation of Christ’s death to the world, see note on 2 Cor. 5:19.

The following is said by John Gill:[2]

and saith, behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world: he calls him a "lamb", either with respect to any lamb in common, for his harmlessness and innocence; for his meekness and humility; for his patience; and for his usefulness, both for food and clothing, in a spiritual sense; as well as for his being to be a sacrifice for the sins of his people: or else with respect to the lambs that were offered in sacrifice, under the legal dispensation; and that either to the passover lamb, or rather to the lambs of the daily sacrifice, that were offered morning and evening; since the account of them best agrees with what is said of this Lamb of God, who was slain in type, in the morning of the world, or from the foundation of the world; and actually in the evening of the world, or in the end of it; and who has a continued virtue to take away the sins of his people, from the beginning, to the end of the world; and their sins, both of the day and night, or which are committed every day: for as they are daily committed, there is need of the daily application of the blood and sacrifice of Christ, to remove them; or of continual looking unto him by faith, whose blood has a continual virtue, to cleanse from all sin: the Jewish doctors say {d}, that

"the morning daily sacrifice made atonement for the iniquities done in the night; and the evening sacrifice made atonement for the iniquities that were by day:''

and in various things they were typical of Christ, as that they were lambs of the first year, which may denote the weakness of the human nature of Christ, which had all the sinless infirmities of ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 11: Of Justification - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 24,978 views | 23,400 words | 2:03:21 hours | 04 March 2015 21:54

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 11 Chapter Eleven Justification Justification By Faith Alone Sola Fide Sola Gratia Imputed Righteousness Infused Righteousness Roman Catholicism Protestantism

...hesians 2:8-9 states—

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

We are saved by God’s grace, which comes to us through the channel of faith. This is how we are justified: by grace through faith. Both are present. But the question here is to what does “this” refer to? The ESV Study Bible says:

this. The Greek pronoun is neuter, while “grace” and “faith” are feminine. Accordingly, “this” points to the whole process of “salvation by grace through faith” as being the gift of God and not something that we can accomplish ourselves. This use of the neuter pronoun to take in the whole of a complex idea is quite common in Greek (e.g., 6:1); its use here makes it clear that faith, no less than grace, is a gift of God. Salvation, therefore, in every respect, is not your own doing.^[24]

The “this” refers to the whole “by grace through faith”; it refers to the whole of our salvation. Neither our faith nor our repentance (2 Tim. 2:26) originate with us, but were given to us by grace (demerited favor). Our entire salvation, including faith and repentance (Acts 20:21), was given to us as a gift with the purpose that we would have no ground to boast. In fact, Ephesians 2:10 even says that God beforehand prepared works for us to walk in them. This also is a gift so that we may glorify Him through them. So, even in our good works, we cannot actually boast. Charles J. Ellicott observes that “This attribution of all to the gift of God seems to cover the whole idea—both the gift of salvation and the gift of faith to accept it.”^[7] The Expositor’s Greek Testament observes:

τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι: for by grace have ye been saved. More exactly “by the grace,” i.e., by this grace, the grace already mentioned. Grace is the explanation of their own salvation, and how surpassingly rich the grace must be that could effect that!—διὰ τῆς πίστεως: through faith. That is, by faith as the instrument or means. Paul never says διὰ τὴν πίστιν, as if the faith were the ground or procuring cause of the salvation. It is the χάριτι, not the explanatory πίστεως that has the first place in Paul’s thoughts here.—καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν: and that not of yourselves. That is, not as proceeding from yourselves or of your own performance...But to what does the τοῦτο refer? To the πίστεως say some (Chrys., Theod., Jer., Bez., Beng., Bisp., Moule, etc.). The neut. τοῦτο would not be irreconcilable with that. The formula καὶ τοῦτο indeed might rather favour it, as it often adds to the idea to which it is attached. It may also be granted that a peculiarly suitable idea results—the opportune reminder that even their faith, in which at least they might think there was something of their own, has its origin in God’s grace, not in their own effort. But on the other hand the salvation is the main idea in the preceding statement, and it seems best to understand the καὶ τοῦτο as referring to that salvation in its entire compass, and not merely to the one element in it, its instrumental cause, appended by way of explanation...^[25]

While a bit technical, the point is clear that the “gift relates not merely to faith immediately preceding, but to the whole sentence”^[16], which means that our salvation from the first to the last is of God’s grace and gift, including faith.

Now we move to the next passage, Philippians 1:29—

For it has been granted to you that f...