Search

You searched for 'Holiness'

I've found 35 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 23: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 13,993 views | 5,299 words | 0:27:50 hours | 06 March 2015 19:34

...97;ם, “ heaven”, and by earth, are free.’’

Upon the words in So 2:7, “I adjure you”, c. is asked {n},

“ what does she adjure them? R. Eliezer says, by the heavens, and the earth by the hosts, the host above, and the host below.’’

So Philo the Jew says {o} that the most high and ancient cause need not to be immediately mentioned in swearing; but the “earth”, the sun, the stars, ουρανον, “heaven”, and the whole world. So R. Aben Ezra, and R. David Kimchi, explain Am 4:2. “The Lord God hath sworn by his Holiness”; that is, say they, בשמים, “by heaven”: which may be thought to justify them, in this form of swearing; though they did not look upon it as a binding oath, and therefore if broken they were not criminal {p}.

“He that swears בשמים by heaven, and by the earth, and by the sun, and the like; though his intention is nothing less than to him that created them, this is no oath.’’^[7]

Therefore, seeing the context of the times and theology which Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount was speaking against, we must take this into consideration lest we make the words of the Lord say things which He did not intend. Notice the things which He enumerates, “heavenearthJerusalemyour head...” Isn’t it interesting that there is no mention of taking an oath in the Name of God? If the Lord Jesus was doing away with all oaths, which were only to be taken in God’s Name (Deut. 6:13), then it would have been easy for Him to say “Do not take an oath in God’s Name” or “Do not swear at all by God’s Name” and go on with the other things. But this was not the intent of our Savior. Therefore, Calvin notes on v. 34, “he immediately adds, neither by heaven, nor by the earth Who does not see that those kinds of swearing were added by way of exposition, to explain the former clause more fully by specifying a number of cases?”^[8] As with the whole discourse, Jewish misunderstandings of God’s Law. So, at this point also. His discussion concerns the Third Commandment (Ex. 20:7; Lev. 19:12). The Jews, intentionally made oaths by that which is not the Name of God (in contradiction to Deut. 6:13), so as to make it easy for them to break their oaths. But that was not the intent of God. When a person takes an oath by God, they are to perform that which they promised. They are not to break their oaths lest they profane the glorious Name of God. The Jews made distinctions in the things which they took an oath by. This is evident in Matthew 23 where we read of our Lord’s accusation of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Scribes:

Matt. 23:16-22 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 1

...

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

Simon Wartanian | 19,084 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

...ogether 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 his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; 1 and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. 2 So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
1. John 19:30; Heb. 9:25-28; 10:10-14; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25

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

Simon Wartanian | 14,486 views | 8,095 words | 0:42:03 hours | 13 April 2015 23:31

Review Book Review Dean Davis The High King Of Heaven Amillennialism Eschatology Reformed Eschatology

...hdrawn from view are made visible to all

manifestation, appearance

ἐπιφάνεια (Epiphaneia)^[7]
1. an appearing, appearance

It is of importance to notice the way that the Bible many times speaks of THE coming of our Lord.

“The coming of the Son of Man” (Mt. 24:27, 37, 39)
“…establish your hearts blameless in Holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.” (1Thess 3:13)
“…we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord…” (1Thess 4:15)
“…may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Thess 5:23)
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him…” (2Thess 2:1)
“Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord... for the coming of the Lord is at hand.” (Jas 5:7-8)
“… as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1Cor 1:7)
“… tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1Pet 1:7)
“… set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1Pet 1:13)
“…bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming (τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ).” (2Thess 2:8)
“to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1Tim 6:14)
“waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” (Titus 2:13)

This, aside from the simple NT teaching of the singular coming of Christ points strongly to a singular and final coming of Christ (duh!). Though Premillennarians have more than one coming, both historic and Dispensational, and that’s one of the reasons Amillennarians find their system to be flawed.

The One Resurrection

Here we run again against Premillennialism which posits more than one resurrection. Amillennialism teaches one general resurrection at the consummation of (salvation) history.

This is seen from clear, literal and straightforward teaching. We don’t go to Revelation 20 and speculate what might the first resurrection mean, no, we first form our doctrine from the clear passages then go and examine the hard ones in light of the easy ones (Analogy of Faith).

In John 5:28-29 we have a clear affirmation of the general resurrection at the same time. A resurrection to condemnation and a resurrection to life.

John 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice John 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

This will happen in an hour and it will happen to all who are in the tombs. The passage is straightforward.

Paul was in trial for his belief in a single resurrection of the just and the wicked.

Acts 24:15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

Not multiple resurrections, not one before the Millennium and one after (Premillennarians are not agreed upon what happens to the Millennium saints after they die, whether they are resurrected immediately or wait for the general resurrection).

Sometimes we are told of the resurrection of the just (Lk 14:14), but this does not mean that it will be separate from the general resurrection of the dead (Mt 22:31; Acts 24:21), ra...

Review of Walter J. Chantry's Signs Of the Apostles

Simon Wartanian | 4,806 views | 1,468 words | 0:07:37 hours | 21 April 2016 00:17

Walter Chantry Signs Of The Apostles Cessationism Continuationism Charismata Gifts Of The Holy Spirit Spiritual Gifts Reformed Baptist Book Review

...proof of an apostolic ministry." (p. 15) But the passage does not connect the "signs and wonders and mighty works" to the "signs of a true apostle." Yes, Paul did do those things, but these were not the signs of his apostleship, rather as Dr. Sam Storms observes, the signs of him being a true apostle consisted in:

(a) the fruit of his preaching, that is, the salvation of the Corinthians themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 9 : l b - 2 , "Are not you the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord"; cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-3); (b) his Christlike life of Holiness, humility, etc. (cf. 2 Cor. 1:12; 2:17; 3 : 4 -6; 4:2; 5:11; 6:3-13; 7:2; 10:13-18; 11:6,23-28); and (c) his sufferings, hardship, persecution, etc. (cf. 4 : 7 - 1 5 ; 5:4-10; 11:21-33; 13:4). Paul patiently displayed these "things that mark[ed]" his apostolic authority. And this was accompanied by the signs, wonders, and miracles he performed.^[2]

Seventh, he believes that the "perfect" of 1Cor 13:10 was the completion of the NT canon. He appeals to 1Cor 14:20 where the word telios is translated as "mature" instead of "perfect" to claim that when the Scripture were completed the church outgrew the "childhood of charismatic revelations." (p. 44) Not referring to the present day Charismatics, but the way he understands Paul when he speaks of being a child (v. 11). Verse 11, according to Pastor Chantry speaks of the time before the NT canon was complete, before 95 A.D. with the last book of the NT, the Apocalypse. It is that time in the words of verse 12 that they looked in a "mirror dimly," but after the arrival of the full canon of Scripture we now see "face to face." He appeals to Num 12:6-8 to argue that the Lord spoke clearly and mouth to mouth (or face to face) to Moses and therefore (he does not explictly say this, but I believe he assumes it) what God delivered to Moses, Moses then in turn spoke to the people and it became Scripture. I don't believe that this is a proper use of this passage. The Lord had clearly favored Moses and had an intimate relationship with Him as a friend of His. The text also says the Moses beheld the form of the LORD. He saw God. Moses spoke face to face (Ex 33:11) with God. This is not what we have in Scriptures. I will not deny that God speaks and reveals Himself to us in the Scriptures, meditate on 1Sam 3:21, but that revelation of Himself is "sufficient for every good work" (2Tim 3:16-17), yet not a complete face to face and mouth to mouth relationship which we await in heaven.

This passage most naturally refers to when we go to heaven to be with the Lord; or better when the Lord comes. It speaks of the condition of our relationship when we are no more away from the Lord. Richard Gaffin who made a very good case for Cessationism in Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? says in a footnote, 'To argue, as some cessationists do, that "the perfect" has in view the completion of the New Testament canon or some other state of affairs prior to the Parousia is just not credible exegetically.'^[3]

There were some other things or usages of Scripture which I did not think were proper, but these were the big ones that stood out.

This work is not scholarly. It does not engage with those who are respectable r

...

Hebrews 6:4-6, Apostasy and Calvinism

Simon Wartanian | 17,759 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

...hat these persons were regenerate and true believers inwardly, but rather, as seen from a human viewpoint, they would have been identified as true Christians. It is important to note how these apostates are not described in contrast to how the believers are described with the book of Hebrews. The following is taken from Sam Storms’ article:^[12]

God has forgiven their sins (Heb 10:17; 8:12)
God has cleansed their consciences (Heb 9:14; 10:22)
God has written his laws on their hearts (Heb 8:10; 10:16)
God is producing Holiness of life in them (Heb 2:11; 10:14; 13:21)
God has given them an unshakable kingdom (Heb 12:28)
God is pleased with them (Heb 11; 13:16,21)
They have faith (Heb 4:3; 6:12; 10:22,38,39; 12:2; 13:7; etc.)
They have hope Heb 6:11,18; 7:19; 10:23)
They have love (Heb 6:10; 10:33-34; 13:1)
They worship and pray (Heb 12:28; 13:15; 4:16; 10:22)
They obey God (Heb 5:9; 10:36; 12:10,11,14)
They persevere (Heb 3:6,14; 6:11; 10:23)
They enter God’s rest (Heb 4:3,11)
They know God (Heb 8:11)
They are God’s house, his children, his people (Heb 3:6; 2:10,13; 8:10)
They share in Christ (Heb 3:14)
They will receive future salvation (Heb 1:14; 7:25; 5:9; 9:28).

It would have been easy if the Author said “they had their sins forgiven” as he says concerning the believers. Or “those who once had their consciences cleansed”. Or “those for whom Christ died”. Or “those who had the law of God written on their hearts”. Or “those who had faith” and so we could go on, but the fact is that no such definitive descriptions are given to the apostates, because these descriptions may and do apply to a true Christian, but these are not the evidences of his true faith, but rather as our Lord taught is, fruit is the evidence of a true and lasting faith (Matt 7:16, 20). These five things may be true of those who are unbelievers, but are engaged in the church.

The land analogy

Our interpretation is further strengthened by the analogy or parable given by the Author, let us read the text again:

Heb 6:7-8 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

The land here signifies a person and the rain signifies blessing. When we connect v. 7 with vv. 4-6, we understand that the land here intended is the professor (whether true or false) and the rain are the five things described in vv. 4-5. Notice what is said of the rain, namely, that it “often falls on it [the land]”. This is not speaking of people who went to church one or two times and then rejected the faith. No, it speaks of those who were daily and weekly immersed in the Christian church and teaching and had the (outward) blessings of God all around them.

It is important not only to see this “land” or “earth” to be the professor in the church, but also to see it as a reference to the land of Israel whose destruction was nigh when the Author was writing. In connection with the often falling raising and Israel Pink says:

The reference is to the repeated and frequent ministerial showers with which God visited Israel. To them He had called, “O earth, earth, earth, hear the Word of the Lord!” (Jer. 22:29). It was looking back to these multiplied servants which Jehovah had sent to His ancient people that Christ sai...