Search

You searched for 'King'

I've found 36 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 21: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,558 views | 6,372 words | 0:32:47 hours | 06 March 2015 19:19

...r communication of the free Spirit of God.

The Children Of God Are Freed From

Oh, brothers and sisters, how thankful should we be to our Lord for the many liberties which He has blessed us with as His children. The Confession mentions ten things which we have been freed from. As His children and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are slaves to no one, but God. Paradoxically, true freedom comes from slavery to none other than Christ. We belong to Him and we are called to walk in freedom (Gal. 5:1). We are under grace and are free, but our freedom does not consist in doing our own will, but the will of the Father and seeKing His good pleasure. We were called out of the bondage of sin to walk in the freedom of God and the Gospel.

1. The guilt of sin

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free
For God the Just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me
To look on Him and pardon me

— Before The Throne of God Above, verse 2.

Christ, our precious Lord and Savior, makes an end of our sin and thereby also end of the guilt of sin. The guilt of sin does not only consist in the psychological terror of breaKing God’s Law, but also the moral culpability and responsibility for breaKing His Law, for sin is the breaKing and transgressing of His Law (1John 3:4 KJV). Christ, our High Priest, “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26) and thereby made also an end to the condemnation and punishment of sin for His people. Romans 8:1 declares that there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”. Why? Because of His sacrificial work on their behalf. He has satisfied the wrath of God on their behalf and has been punished according to the demand of the law in place of His elect (Rom. 3:25-26; Gal. 3:10-13).

According to Romans 8:32-34, the reason that no condemnation is possible for the children of God is because of:

the death of Christ on their behalf;
the resurrection of Christ on their behalf; and
the intercession of Christ on their behalf.

These threefold reasons do not depend upon them and are not things done by them. Rather, they are things done for them by Christ. See here for more on Romans 8:34.

2. The condemning wrath of God

Complete atonement You have made
And by Your death have fully paid
The debt Your people owed
No wrath remains for us to face
We’re sheltered by Your saving grace
And sprinkled with Your blood

— Sovereign Grace Music - Now Why This Fear, verse 2.

This is closely connected to the first point above. We are free from the guilt of sin and likewise from the condemnation which comes because of sin. Christians will never know the wrath of God. They have been, prior to regeneration, under the wrath of God (John 3:36), but after regeneration, we will have no taste of His wrath. We may be under His discipline, but His discipline is not equivalent to His holy and righteous wrath. We are delivered both from the present wrath of God and the eschatological wrath of God in Hell. The apostle Paul writes:

1 Thess. 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Christians are here described as those who (1) wait for the Son from heaven (Titus 2:13) and likewise those who are delivered from the wrath to come. The phrase “wrath to come” was first used by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7)...

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

Simon Wartanian | 13,386 views | 5,299 words | 0:27:50 hours | 06 March 2015 19:34

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 23 Oaths Vows Swearing Allegiance

...rculated. Ulrich Zwingli translated it into Latin and attempted to refute it already in 1527. It was in print in its original German form as early as 1533. John Calvin used a now-lost French translation of the Seven Articles in his refutation of Anabaptism published in 1544.^[2]

All this means is that it is a very good representative of Anabaptist teaching. Therefore, it is also representative of what it says on vows and oaths:

Seventh. We are agreed as follows concerning the oath: The oath is a confirmation among those who are quarreling or maKing promises. In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God’s Name, but only in truth, not falsely. Christ, who teaches the perfection of the Law, prohibits all swearing to His [followers], whether true or false, -- neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by our head, -- and that for the reason which He shortly thereafter gives, For you are not able to make one hair white or black. So you see it is for this reason that all swearing is forbidden: we cannot fulfill that which we promise when we swear, for we cannot change [even] the very least thing on us.^[2]

The seventh and last article goes on to answer some common objections made against the first statement. A century later (1632), the Dutch Mennonites still confessed the same of what was said by Sattler:

XV. Of the Swearing of Oaths

Concerning the swearing of oaths we believe and confess that the Lord Christ has set aside and forbidden the same to His disciples, that they should not swear at all, but that yea should be yea, and nay, nay; from which we understand that all oaths, high and low, are forbidden, and that instead of them we are to confirm all our promises and obligations, yea, all our declarations and testimonies of any matter, only with our word yea, in that which is yea, and with nay, in that which is nay; yet, that we must always, in all matters, and with everyone, adhere to, keep, follow, and fulfill the same, as though we had confirmed it with a solemn oath. And if we do this, we trust that no one, not even the Magistracy itself, will have just reason to lay a greater burden on our mind and conscience. Matt. 5:34, 35; Jas. 5:12; II Cor. 1:17.^[3]

This means that the teaching of the Anabaptists on this point was still alive. Thus the Reformed confessions added a chapter addressing this issue. This is likewise important for our forefather to confess since they were falsely called Anabaptists, as the title of the First London Confession read: “The CONFESSION OF FAITH, Of those CHURCHES which are commonly (though ) called ANABAPTISTS...” Since they confess the same as the Reformed on this subject, they distance themselves from the Anabaptists.

In paragraph 3, a passage from the Westminster and Savoy was omitted in the 1689, which said: “Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being lawfully imposed by authority.” Obviously, this is implied in what the Confession says that a lawful oath is and what is not. See the comparison here.

Thus, this chapter was added in the Reformed confessions in times of controversy and in order to clarify their stance upon oaths and vows made the government and the church.

§1 Lawful Oaths

A lawful ...

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

Simon Wartanian | 13,123 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

...commanded by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver and are, therefore, to be obeyed and continued in His church to the end of the world (Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26). What does it mean that the ordinances are of positive and sovereign institution? It means that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are moral commandments which are added to the moral law already existing. They are not things which of themselves are moral, but they are moral because they have been instituted and appointed by the Lord Jesus. They are given to us as a law, which the Lord Jesus Christ, by His power and authority as Head, King and Lawgiver of the church has instituted. Finally, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only ordinances under the New Covenant which the Confession speaks about. Christ has given us only to ordinances which we ought to obey, not seven sacraments according to Roman Catholic teaching.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are two ordinances or sacraments which the Lord Jesus by sovereign authority instituted and commanded us to observe. Now, what does the word “positive” mean in the sentence “positive and sovereign institution”? Does it mean something that is happy and good, over against something negative and bad? No, that is not the contextual meaning of the word. Rather, by “positive institution” or “positive command,” the Confession means an institution or a command that is not inherently moral. A person who has not read the Bible or heard of the God of the Bible, still knows that murder is wrong and lying is bad. But, can it be argued that they know that not being baptized is sin and not partaKing of the Lord’s Supper is sin? Obviously not. So, these things, just like the command of Genesis 2:16-17 in the Garden, are things which are not inherently moral, but become moral when God commands them. They are things that are good because commanded, in contrast to pure moral laws that are commanded because they are good. The Lord Christ, by His own power and authority, established two ordinances for the New Covenant people of God. But, what do we mean by ordinance or sacrament? A.H. Strong writes, “By the ordinances, we mean those outward rites which Christ has appointed to be administered in his church as visible signs of the saving truth of the gospel. They are signs, in that they vividly express this truth and confirm it to the believer.”^[2] They are the only visible signs which God has given His people to show the truths of the gospel with. He has not allowed us to use images of any of the blessed Persons of the Trinity (see here), but has given us the bread and wine, and the waters of baptism as signs which symbolize the truths of the gospel.

These two ordinances are to be continued to the end of this world. In the case of the Supper, this could be seen in 1 Corinthians 11:26. We proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Therefore, since He has not yet come, we should celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, His coming will be at the end of the age (Matt. 13:36-43). Therefore, as long as this present age goes on, the people of God ought to proclaim the Lord’s death through the cup and the bread. As for baptism, the Lord, before ascending to His rightful throne, commanded us:

Matt. 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

An...

Review of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology

Simon Wartanian | 19,312 views | 1,938 words | 0:010:06 hours | 19 July 2015 19:18

Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology Book Review Calvinism Baptist Continuationist Premillennialism

...
Introduction

I purchased this book because I wanted to have a good biblical case for each doctrine that I was interested in looKing at. At that time I was interested in learning more about God’s sovereignty.

I never thought that I’d read such a large book with 57 chapters of biblical doctrine, but I am thankful that God sustained me through the journey that I had with Wayne Grudem in biblical doctrine.

Why it’s awesome

A lot of reasons can be given why this Systematic Theology is great. It is the first Systematic Theology that I’ve picked up and I know for certain that I will go back to it many times.

In a certain sense Dr. Grudem’s job is simple, find the passages which speak of a particular doctrine and explain what they say. But it is the manner in which he cites and explains the passages that is encouraging. He always explains the contexts and I cannot think of a citation that is out of context. He lays out the context, explains what the passages means in context and it’s relevance to the present topic.

I love those fruitful footnotes. I would often skip footnotes thinKing that they only refer to works cited, but that’s not the only thing that Dr. Grudem does in his footnotes. He often explains things more technical, makes a particular case for something, refers to a relevant topic in his Systematic Theology or engages with the other side.

His handling of the Holy Scriptures is truly aspiring. I pray that God would given me the same love for the Scriptures, that Dr. Grudem has. He does not simply assume things, he proves them biblically. That should be every Christian’s desire.

The two biggest reasons why it’s a great text is because, first it is thoroughly biblical. What I most loved is the fact that he produced the passages and not merely referenced them. He backs up every major statement he makes upon a doctrine.

Second, it is accessible and not only for “theologians.”^[1] It is easy to understand, he tries his best to explain things plainly, though there are obviously difficult doctrines which are not that easy to explain.

If you don’t have this great Systematic Theology, get it now.

Major Doctrines

Here I want to say a couple of things about Grudem’s major influence on my doctrine.

The Holy Scriptures

Dr Grudem is unashamed about his belief in God’s absolute and holy Word.

The Bible is God’s sole authoritative Word, His very speech (2Tim 3:16). God used holy men as His instruments and spoke through them, not ignoring or overriding their vocabularies and use of language (2Pet 1:20-21).

It is incapable of being wrong, because it comes from the God who is the Truth (Jn 14:6) and who cannot lie (Heb 6:18). The Word of God reflects the character and its integrity is based upon the character of God.

The Bible, which is the collection of 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books is the very and certain Word of God.

See my commentary on the first chapter (Of The Holy Scriptures) of the 1689 Baptist London Confession.

Trinity

Dr Grudem excellently shows the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity from the Scripture and not from creeds as is often alleged by unbelievers. I have often gone back to chapter 14 (God in Three Persons: The Trinity) to get more insight into this great doctrine and the biblical support.

Dr Grudem goes on to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by using three statements that summarize the doctrine:

God is three persons.

Each person...

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

Simon Wartanian | 10,251 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

... Covenant of Grace was in promise form under the Old Testament, the inconsistent use of the Elect’s Standard Version (haha) and typo’s. Other than that, 5 stars book.

I will Lord willing, start reading the Kingdom of God some time soon.
...

Hebrews 6:4-6, Apostasy and Calvinism

Simon Wartanian | 16,932 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

... on the Triune God after knowing Him in some non-salvific way. That this experience was merely momentary and not lasting is seen through the use of the word “taste” as we observed above.^[8]

3. Those who shared in the Holy Spirit

What does it mean to share in the Holy Spirit, or be partakers of the Holy Spirit as the KJV puts it? Does it imply sharing in the Holy Spirit intimately?

The word μέτοχος (metochos) basically gives the idea of sharing in or partaKing of something. It is used 6 times in the NT, 5 of which in the book of Hebrews (Heb 1:9; 3:1, 14; 6:4; 12:8) and the last in Luke 5:7. In 1:9 the word is translated with “companions”. In 3:1 it speaks of those who “share” (ESV), are “partners” (NET), “partakers” (KJV) and “companions” (HCSB) in a heavenly calling referring to fellow believers. In 3:14 it speaks of the believers having “come to share in Christ” (ESV), become companions of the Messiah (HCSB), made partakers of Christ (KJV) and become partners with Christ (NET). In 12:8 it speaks of the believers, who are sons of God, sharing in God’s discipline. Lastly, in Luke 5:7 it is translated as “partners” (ESV) when referring to the relationship of Simon Peter to fishers he associates with or with whom he worked. It seems that sometimes the word is used to speak of a close relationship as in Heb 3:14; 12:8 for example, while other times such a thing is not necessarily implied as in Luke 5:7; Heb 1:9 for example. Therefore, the meaning and extent of this sharing must be decided not merely on the basis of the usage of the word, but more importantly, based on the context. A.W. Pink observes:

First, it should be pointed out that the Greek word for “partakers” here is a different one from that used in Colossians 1:12 and 2 Peter 1:4, where real Christians are in view. The word here simply means “companions”, referring to what is external rather than internal. It is to be observed that this item is placed in the center of the five, and this because it describes the animating principle of the other four, which are all effects.^[6]

To say that these apostates partook and shared in the Holy Spirit in the past, is not conclusive proof that they were regenerated by the Spirit and He indwelt them. It would have been easy for the author if he wanted to give the idea that these people were regenerate and indwelt by the Spirit, to say things like they were “indwelt” by the Spirit or “filled with” the Spirit, etc., but this the Author does not. To partake here means to have some association and participation in the Spirit.^[9]

Grudem observes here:

Hebrews 6:4–6 speaks of people who have been “associated with” the Holy Spirit, and thereby had their lives influenced by him, but it need not imply that they had a redeeming work of the Holy Spirit in their lives, or that they were regenerated. By similar analogy with the example of the fishing companions in Luke 5:7, Peter and the disciples could be associated with them and even to some degree influenced by them without having a thoroughgoing change of life caused by that association. The very word metochos allows for a range of influence from fairly weak to fairly strong, for it only means “one who participates with or shares with or accompanies in some activity.” This was apparently what had happened to these people spoken of in Hebrews 6, who had been associated with the church and as such associated with the work of the Holy Spirit, and no doubt had been influenced by him in ...

<<

<

1

2

3

4

>

>>