Search

You searched for 'Early Church'

I've found 16 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 26: Of the Church - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 35,139 views | 38,282 words | 3:19:22 hours | 06 March 2015 23:00

...iance to Him and her faith rests on Him. This Church, strictly speaking, started on Pentecost by the coming of the Spirit. But, this idea of a church was not unique to the New Covenant as Israel itself is often called a church in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word qahal is the equivalent of ekklesia in the Greek which is used in Matthew 16:18. See Acts 7:38 where Stephen speaks of “the church in the wilderness” (KJV). Christ’s Church is uniquely His and consists of His elect, beloved from eternity and drawn together in love.

For those who want to know more about the Papacy, the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and its understanding by the Early Church fathers, I recommend Dr. James White’s debate vs Father Mitch Pacwa. It is a very insightful and respectful debate.

The Whole Number Of The Elect

The Confession claims that the universal and invisible church “consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ” which undoubtedly includes believers prior to the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. But how is this the case? As we have argued and tried to show in chapter 7 on Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Grace, in 1689 Federalist understanding, is the New Covenant in promise form. It was not a formal covenant as the others were. The fact that all the saints, both prior to the physical coming of Christ and after the coming, are included in the universal church is seen in Hebrews 12:22-24. Here, the church on earth joins with the church in heaven. In worship, we come to the assembly or the church “of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven”. John Gill comments on this passage:

the church of God, consisting of all his elect, both Jews and Gentiles, and the meeting of them together: they met together, in the infinite mind of God, from all eternity; and in Christ, their head and representative, both then and in time; and at the last day, when they are all gathered in, they will meet together personally; and a joyful meeting it will be; and a very general one, more so than the assembly of the Jews, at any of their solemn feasts, to which the apostle may have some respect; since this will consist of some of all nations, that have lived in all places, and in all ages of time^[8]

If it was the blood of Christ which saved all saints, in all ages and under all the covenants, then they belong to Christ and His assembly. He is their Mediator and He is the Mediator of only one covenant, the New Covenant in His blood. If He stood for them before God, He stood as the Mediator of the New Covenant or the Covenant of Grace on their behalf. Therefore, they had to be members of the New Covenant or people who have been chosen to be in the New Covenant for Christ to represent them. This was, in fact, the covenant that the believers under the Old Testament were called into (Heb. 9:15-17; see here also). Dr. Sam Waldron observes that

the church is the climactic earthly expression of the people of God. Thus language is frequently used which equates the church with all those in union with Christ. The church is the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 1:22; 4:11-16; 5:23-27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18, 24). Furthermore, the bride of Christ is composed in the last day of the saved from every age (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:9-14; note also Matt. 8:11-12; John 10:14-17; Heb. 11:39-40). Thus the church will one day be composed of all the redeemed. As the people of God, the church does consist ‘of the wh...

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

Simon Wartanian | 41,952 views | 73,377 words | 6:24:05 hours | 06 March 2015 19:29

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

...een by men and those who do not care to be seen by men, who even go to the privacy of their room without anyone knowing that they’re praying. The Lord Jesus Himself goes on to pray loudly and in public in vv. 9-13 and on other occasions (e.g. Matt. 11:25-27; 26:36; John 17). Therefore, the interpretation which excludes public prayer cannot possibly be right.

Public prayer, just like private prayer, is commanded. 1 Timothy 2:8 says:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

The men are to lift their hands and pray. This most likely refers to the gathering of the Church. The Early Church prayed publicly and loudly together (Acts 4:24ff; 20:36). Furthermore, there is a warrant for public prayer in the Old Testament too (Neh. 9; Ezra 10). When the context of Matthew 6:6 is properly understood, we see that the Lord Jesus says nothing negative about public prayer.

§4 The Subjects Of Prayer

Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter; 1 but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. 2
1. John 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; John 17:20
2. 2 Sam. 12:21-23; Luke 16:25-26; Rev. 14:13; 1 John 5:16

Prayer is to be made for things lawful, i.e., things according to the will and commandments of God. It is to be made for all sorts of men living (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:1): ourselves, relatives, friends, government, good people, bad people. It is even to be made for people who shall live hereafter, i.e., unborn children or children not yet conceived or converts (John 17:20). But it should not be made for the dead. This a Roman Catholic practice to pray for those who are dead, but it is absolutely unscriptural. And there is yet another group for whom we should not pray and these are they who have sinned the sin unto death. This is drawn from 1 John 5:16 although it is disputed what this “sin unto death” is. Whatever it may be, the Confession includes it in the list because Scripture speaks about it. Furthermore, if we are really sure that a person has committed this “sin unto death” then we should not pray for them.

Prayer is only to be made to living persons or those who will yet live (unborn children). It is not to be made for the dead, as Roman Catholics, for example, do. Because we do not have any command or example to do that from the Scripture. Furthermore, there is no use in our praying for them. Catholics pray for the dead because they believe in Purgatory, which the Bible knows nothing about. Thinking that by their prayers they could ease the suffering of their loved ones. No prayer will help those who have passed into eternity without Christ, because their fate is sealed. Neither will any prayer be needed for those who are in the arms of Christ, for they are already in blessed forever and await the resurrection. David knew that as long as his infant child was alive, He could pray, but once he died, there was no need to pray anymore (2Sam. 12:21-23). The Bible teaches us that we are to pray for:

Ourselves (1Chron 4:10; Ps. 50:14-15; 106:4-5; 2 Cor. 12:7-8; Heb. 5:7; John 17:1).
Fellow believers (James 5:16; Rom. 1:9-10).
Ministers of the Word (Eph. 6:19-20; Col. 4:3; 2 Thess. 3:1-2; Acts 13:2-3; Matt. 9:38).
Those converted through our ministry (John 17:9-26; 1 Thess. 3:9-13).
Sick brothers (James 5:14-16).
Brothers who commit a sin not leading to death (1John 5...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 32,930 views | 35,236 words | 3:04:25 hours | 04 March 2015 20:52

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 1 Holy Scriptures Bible Canon Inspiration Authority Inerrancy Infallibility Apocrypha Old Testament New Testament Canon Sufficiency Sola Scriptura

... might be other rules or standards, but only Holy Scripture is the Rule of rules, Norm of norms and the Standard of all standards.

The Canonicity Of The New Testament

This is the only binding “rule of faith” upon every Christian. It is God’s scepter of righteousness on every Christian soul. The consistent testimony of Scripture is what every Christian needs to heed. In regards to the New Testament canon, Christians have not had much disagreement although Gregg Allison observes that ‘James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Hebrews—were on the “fringe” of the Early Church’s canon.’^[13] The Book of Revelation was likewise not too quickly received for obvious reasons.

First, let us look at what early Christians looked to see if a work is inspired or not.

First was the question of apostolicity. Was the book written by the apostles? Was it written by close associates of them, as Mark and Luke?
Second was the question of antiquity. Did the actual work go to the time of the apostles or does it come much later from the eyewitnesses that it cannot be trusted?

Using these criteria, the church looked to the writings that were claiming to be inspired and eventually came with the Canon that we now possess, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. The church did not select the books, but merely acknowledged the ones that God had inspired. As Calvin long ago said:

Nothing, therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste.^[14]

Now let us take a brief look at why a few books in the New Testament were not admitted to the canon too quickly. The thing with James was the uncertainty of the author. It may also have been with what is taught in James 2:24-26, which at first glance seems contrary to the gospel preached by Paul, as was the case with Luther’s rejection of or doubts upon James. There are three possible candidates for authorship:

James the son of Zebedee,
James the son of Alphaeus,
James the brother of the Lord or James the Just.

James the son of Zebedee (John’s brother) died in 44 A.D. and that would be too early for him to write the book of James (Acts 12:2). James the son of Alphaeus or James the Less, another apostle of Jesus (Mark 3:18), was not credited in writing any surviving materials, which makes him an unlikely candidate. The last option seems to be the best. James the brother of the Lord Jesus and the brother of Jude (Mark 6:3) who was an unbeliever in Jesus’ ministry prior to the cross (John 7:5), but believed after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7). He is the prominent leader in Acts 15 of the Jerusalem Church, which is interesting in connection to the Epistle being addressed to the “twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (Jas. 1:1).

2 Peter is interesting as it has a lot of similar...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 29: Of Baptism - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 31,988 views | 45,510 words | 3:58:30 hours | 06 March 2015 23:14

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

...e nature, use, and end of baptism, that believers are dead to sin, and therefore cannot, and ought not, to live in it; as more fully appears from the end of baptism next mentioned”^[10].

Paul here is not teaching that baptism is the vehicle that brings regeneration and the new life, for that is contradicted by everything he laid down in the previous chapters about how justification is by faith and grace alone. Rather, baptism is that which signifies and symbolizes the truths of justification and regeneration. Moreover, we should remember the fact that in the Early Church, the believers did not wait a long time or wait at all for their baptism after faith. Therefore, baptism came to be identified with the beginning of the new life. People did not wait months and years to be baptized, as most of us do, but as with the three thousand on Pentecost and the Ethiopian eunuch, they were baptized immediately after believing in Christ. They did not receive regeneration, faith, or justification by water baptism, but they showed that they possessed these things by water baptism. All these truths are clearly represented and symbolized in water baptism by immersion. But, is the apostle actually speaking of water baptism here? Dr. John MacArthur calls the baptism in Romans 6 a “dry baptism” in a sermon of his. This baptism which Paul is writing about is a spiritual baptism into Christ. Baptism symbolizes our union with Christ but it is not the means which brings our union with Him. To claim so would make salvation to be dependent upon baptism and reject what the apostle had laid before this chapter about justification by faith alone. The baptism of Romans 6 is a metaphorical baptism into Christ at the moment of faith, when the believer is united to their Savior and experiences the blessings of this union. But does this overthrow everything that I’ve said above? Not for a bit! The truths of union with Christ in His death and resurrection are still represented and shown by baptism in water, but they are not the effects of water baptism. If baptism was the means of union with Christ, i.e., salvation, then that would mean that salvation is by faith and works, which is contrary to the foundation which the apostle had laid in chapters 3-5. Although I deny that this passage is directly speaking of water baptism, yet, I believe that Paul had water baptism in mind because it was a sign given by the Lord to symbolize our union in His death, burial, and resurrection. Therefore, its use for the meaning and mode of baptism is proper. Although the baptism here is spiritual baptism, yet it cannot be denied that water baptism signifies spiritual baptism, i.e., regeneration.

A.H. Strong makes the following observation on the significance of Christian baptism:

Baptism, like the Fourth of July, the Passover, the Lord’s Supper, is a historical monument. It witnesses to the world that Jesus died and rose again. In celebrating it, we show forth the Lord’s death as truly as in the celebration of the Supper. But it is more than a historical monument. It is also a pictorial expression of doctrine. Into it are woven all the essential truths of the Christian scheme. It tells of the nature and penalty of sin, of human nature delivered from sin in the person of a crucified and risen Savior, of salvation secured for each human soul that is united to Christ, of obedience to Christ as the way to life and glory. Thus baptism stands from age to age as a witness for God—a wit...

Extensive review of Jonathan Menn's Biblical Eschatology

Simon Wartanian | 5,827 views | 12,397 words | 1:05:40 hours | 09 February 2022 21:11

Book Reivew Jonathan Menn Eschatology Amillennialism Dispensationalism Millennium

...t can have its advantages one of which is trying to approach the biblical text without a framework already set up in our minds.

In the historical survey it becomes clear that premillennialism and non-millennialism has been there since the earliest days of the church. This is seen by statements from premillennialists themselves such as Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165 A.D.), who while discussing the millennium says, “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 80). Therefore, premillennialists (especially of the dispensational kind) are sometimes heard of saying that premillennialism was dominant in the Early Church as if no other view existed. The statements from premillennialists themselves deny this. In this respect, I commend to you two particular works which deal with the eschatology of the Early Church and which Dr. Menn relies upon. The first is Patrick Alan Boyd’s A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (until the death of Justin Martyr) (found here). As the name suggests, Boyd himself was a dispensationalist when he conducted his survey and he sought to search if dispensationalism was found among the early fathers. This was prompted by Dr. Charles Ryrie’s statement that “premillennialism was the historic faith of the church.” While remaining a dispensationalist, his conclusion should be considered:

It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie’s statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: 1). the writers/writings surveyed did not generally adopt a consistently applied literal interpretation; 2). they did not generally distinguish between the Church and Israel; 3). there is no evidence that they generally held to a dispensational view of revealed history; 4). although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic similarity with the modern system (in fact, they and dispensational premillennialism radically differ on the basis for the Millennium); 5). they had no concept of imminency or of a pretribulational Rapture of the Church; 6). in general, their eschatological chronology is not synonymous with that of the modern system. Indeed, this thesis would conclude that the eschatological beliefs of the period studied would be generally inimical to those of the modern system (perhaps, seminal amillennialism, and not nascent dispensational premillennialism ought to be seen in the eschatology of the period). (pp. 89-91)

His conclusion is very telling and is based upon characteristics of dispensational premillennialism which he defined at the beginning of his thesis. These are the points which dispensationalists believe are indisputable for their position. Boyd, a dispensationalist, believes that the eschatology of that period (until 165 A.D.) can better be described as “seminal amillennialism.” This basically disqualifies dispensational premillennialism of having its distinctive features present in the Early Church.

The second work is Dr. Charles E. Hill’s Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2001). In it he sets out to survey various Early Church fathe

...

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

Simon Wartanian | 19,028 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

...te the Supper of the Lord weekly, but after a while I did. It makes you long for and look forward, in my case, for the first Sunday of the month. The Supper does not become something common, as it was, in my experience in the Armenian Church. It receives its rightful place as an important ordinance and sign. If we celebrate the Supper too often, we may start to treat the Supper as something common, and not holy. It becomes something regular and not an ordinance to look forward to. But if we neglect or administer the Supper only 3-4 times a year, we rob from the people of God a great means of grace which the Lord Jesus Himself instituted and commanded us to observe.

It seems that the Early Church practiced weekly (if not daily) communion (Acts 2:42, 46). In Acts 20:7, we are told that the church gathered on the Lord’s day for the purpose of breaking bread. The Lord’s Supper was a central part of the church’s worship and therefore, it should not be neglected. The Lord’s Supper was connected here with the Lord’s Day. It is to be celebrated foremostly on the Lord’s Day. I know of no command or prohibition that the Supper may not be celebrated outside of the church on the Lord’s Day, yet private communion has no basis in the Bible (see above). The Lord’s Supper is meant to be a sign to the gathered church that they are Christians and they are celebrating the Lord’s ordinance, which is a sign of continuing the Christian life. It has no significance if done privately. It may be done in a community of believers outside of the church gathering on Sunday. But we must not ignore the fact that the Lord’s Supper is meant to be an ordinance celebrated with the gathered church (1 Cor. 10:17-20). Such was the practice of the church in Acts 2:41-42; 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:20, 33. The location is not important, but with whom it is celebrated is important. It is to be celebrated with the church—the people of God. It not only shows our union with Christ, but our union with Christ and with the body of Christ. The Lord’s Supper is discussed in 1 Corinthians 10-11 specifically in the context of unity. The ordinance of unity was used to sow disunity.

§8 Unworthy And Worthy

All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; 1 yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves. 2
1. Matt. 7:6; Eph. 4:17-24; 5:3-9; Exod. 20:7, 16; 1 Cor. 5:9-13; 2 John 10; Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-22, 33-34
2. 1 Cor. 11:20-22, 27-34

All those who are ignorant and ungodly are unworthy of the Lord’s table and are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Therefore, if they partake they commit a great sin against Him and as such, are eating and drinking judgment to themselves (1 Cor. 11:27-34) because they regard as common that which is set apart as holy by prayer and blessing. Therefore, they who know themselves to be outside the Lord should tremble and not partake of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is only for those who are united with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not for those alone who have perfect faith, for in that case, no one would come to the table of the Lord. It is for all true believers alone as is baptism (see chapter 29:2).

Those Unworthy Of The Lord’s Tab...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 45,728 views | 65,864 words | 5:42:00 hours | 04 March 2015 21:27

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 7 God's Covenant 1689 Federalism Westminster Federalism Presbyterian Covenant Theology Covenant Of Works Covenant Of Redemption Covenant Of Grace Nohaic Covenant Abrahamic Covenant Mosaic Covenant Old Covenant Davidic Covenant New Covenant

...question we must ask when reading every Old Testament prophecy is, “How does this relate to the Lord Jesus and the New Covenant?” We can’t act like the Lord Jesus has not come and that there is no New Covenant, or that the texts of the Old Testament only concern physical Israel. I have already tried to point to the fact in the Abrahamic Covenant that the Lord Jesus was the true Offspring to Whom the promises were made (see here). Not the fleshly line of Abraham, although they were blessed and they pointed to the true fulfillment of the promises in the church and the Lord Christ.

Controversy arose in the Early Church from the fact that the Lord was graciously bringing Gentiles into the fold of the New Covenant community, which at that time was mainly Jewish. The problem was so great that the Holy Spirit brought them together to discuss this matter (Acts 15:28). A portion of the Jewish believers said that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved, and thus they cannot be saved by faith alone, but must also keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5). In the midst of (a heated) discussion, Peter stands up and delivers the verdict:

Acts 15:7-9 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

The Lord had chosen Peter to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and this Peter accomplished when the Lord sent him to Cornelius (Acts 10). The Holy Spirit descended upon them while Peter was preaching and this was proof to Peter that the Lord made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles and received both by faith and this the Lord demonstrated by giving both His Holy Spirit. Both were cleansed by faith and not by works of the Law or because of ethnic status. By grace through faith alone. Indeed,

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

To what Peter testified, Paul and Barnabas, who were also apostles to the Gentiles and preached the gospel among the Gentiles, strengthened the testimony of Peter by adding theirs to what God had done among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). After that, the apostle James—the Lord’s half-brother, delivers the conclusion and judgment of the council:

Acts 15:13-18 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’

Not only is the testimony of Simon Peter correct in what the Lord showed him in a vision and what Peter saw happen to the Gentiles, but more ultimately, the Word of God is in agreement with his testimony. What we should notice is the fact with what “the words of the prophets agree”. James specifically says that the words of the prophets agree with the fact that God would visit t...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 31,798 views | 43,749 words | 3:48:12 hours | 05 March 2015 19:18

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Perseverance Of The Saints Preservation Of The Saints Assurance Of Salvation Eternal Security Apostasy Falling Away. Hebrews 6

...n Owen observes that

“There is a knowledge of spiritual things that is purely natural and disciplinary, attainable and attained without any especial aid or assistance of the Holy Ghost. As this is evident in common experience, so especially among such as, casting themselves on the study of spiritual things, are yet utter strangers unto all spiritual gifts. Some knowledge of the Scripture, and the things contained in it, is attainable at the same rate of pains and study with that of any other art or science.”^[13]

Some in the Early Church have connected this enlightening with baptism, which was called “illumination”, but I believe that this has little to do with the present passage as the Author does not make this connection and the use of “illumination” to refer to baptism came later on in history.^[14]

Concerning the word “once” Wayne Grudem says:

Similarly, the word once that is used to speak of those who “have once been enlightened” is the Greek term hapax, which is used, for example, in Philippians 4:16 of the Philippians’ sending Paul a gift “once and again,” and in Hebrews 9:7 of entrance in the Holy of Holies “once a year.” Therefore, this word does not mean that something happened “once” and can never be repeated, but simply that it happened once, without specifying whether it will be repeated or not.^[15]

And he adds in a footnote that:

This is not the same word as ephapax, which is more regularly used in the New Testament of nonrepeatable events (Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).

Finally, Matthew Henry notes that:

“Balaam was the man whose eyes were opened (Num. xxiv. 3), and yet with his eyes opened he went down to utter darkness.”^[16]

This description is not particular to true believers alone. But what we also must take note of is the fact that these people, whose renewal to repentance is an impossibility after apostasy, were not regular backsliders. But they were those who knew the truth of the gospel clearly, confessed it and professed the true faith for a time, but then turned their back on it. While in their time of profession, I don’t think we would have been able to say that they were not true believers as they appeared to be on all accounts as many apostates are (e.g., 2 Pet. 2:20-22).

To be enlightened does not mean that we were saved, but rather that we received instruction and knowledge in the truth.

2. Those who tasted the heavenly gift

The word “tasted” is used concerning the heavenly gift, the Word of God and the powers of the age to come. What does it mean to “taste” something? I think that the basic meaning is to know by experience.

The word γεύομαι (geuomai, G1089) and its basic meaning is “to taste” and “perceive the flavour of, partake of, enjoy”^[3]. It is used in Hebrews 2:9 about Christ who “taste[d] death for everyone.” It speaks of an experience that is real, yet merely momentary. Even in the case of Christ the Lord who died for our sake, His “taste of death” was momentary and not never-ending. It is used in Matthew 27:34 where it is expressly said that tasting does not mean accepting the thing. I mean, the Lord tasted the wine, He tried it, but rejected it later. Therefore, this word does not have the meaning of tasting and then accepting it. The acceptance of the thing or rejection is not included in the definition of the word. It merely speaks of a knowledge by experience of a thing.

These apostates have tasted–they have had an experience with the heavenly gift, bu...

The Early Church Fathers on Eschatology (especially the millennial question)

Simon Wartanian | 2,728 views | 207 words | 0:01:03 hours | 02 January 2022 14:56

Amillennialism Premillennialism Eschatology Second Coming Final Judgment Resurrection Revelation

This work is based on Dr. Charles E. Hill’s fine work entitled Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. In it, he surveys eschatological thought in the first three centuries of the church. One focus of the study is the interesting observation of something common in all premillennialists (except one, Methodius of Olympus [c. 270-311]) that did not believe in the immediate entry of believers into heaven. Rather, believers and unbelievers were held in some subterranean place until the resurrection and the millennium. On the other hand, those who believed in an intermediate state in heaven, gave no indications of chiliasm (belief in an earthly millennium), but rather, some of them even give explicit evidence of non-chiliasm (i.e., amillennialism). What I’ve done here, is search for the fuller statements of the authors from the Early Church which are freely available in the Schaff sets on CCEL, and included citations of Dr. Hill from the book itself.

I thought of sharing it on the internet for anyone interested in these issues. In reading these statements, you will find both the good and the bad of the exegesis of the ancient fathers.

(For those not able to see the IFrame, here is the link.)

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 27,396 views | 28,880 words | 2:33:55 hours | 04 March 2015 20:55

The Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Chapter 2 God Trinity Attributes Of God Immutability Repentance Of God Love Of God Justice Of God Spirituality Of God Monotheism

...; Heb. 4:13). The knowledge which God possesses is high and unattainable for any creature (Ps. 139:6). He is called “the God of knowledge” (1Sam. 2:3). He knows our actions, even our thoughts and words before they come to our minds or out of our mouths (Ps. 139:2-4). The LORD declares, “I know the things that come into your mind” (Ezek. 11:5). He knows how many hairs each one of us has (Matt. 10:29-30). He knows all the course of history—the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:9-10). Solomon declares, “you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kgs. 8:39). In similar words, the Early Church prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all” (Acts 1:24). This perfect and infinite knowledge is peculiar to God alone. Isaiah 40:27-28 says that “his understanding is unsearchable” (v. 28) with reference to His knowledge of our ways which we think are hidden (v. 27). He is said to be “perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16). He sees and is well aquatinted with our ways (Job 23:10; 24:23; 31:4; Ps. 139:2-4). Even the Lord Jesus is said to have known the thoughts of His opponents several times (Matt. 9:4; 12:25; Mark 2:6-8; Luke 6:8). John 2:25 even goes on to say that He “needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.”

The extent of God’s knowledge is comprehensive and that’s why it is called omniscience. It includes both the possible and the actual. Louis Berkhof gives the following list of passages which prove that God knows contingent events and free actions of men:

It is perfectly evident that Scripture teaches the divine foreknowledge of contingent events, I Sam 23:10-13; II Kings 13:19; Ps. 81:14,15; Isa. 42:9; 48:18; Jer. 2:2,3; 38:17-20; Ezek. 3:6; Matt. 11:21.^[10]

In light of God’s perfect knowledge, the immutability of God is just a logical conclusion. Pink writes:

God’s purpose never alters. One of two things causes a man to change his mind and reverse his plans: want of foresight to anticipate everything, or lack of power to execute them. But as God is both omniscient and omnipotent, there is never any need for Him to revise His decrees. No, “The counsel of the LORD standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations” (Psa 33:11). Therefore we read of, “the immutability of his counsel” (Heb 6:17).^[8]

Scriptural Proof for God’s Immutability

Now we move to the positive proof of this doctrine from Scripture. In Malachi 3:6, Yahweh plainly declares, “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” The fact that the Lord is immutable is a comfort for His people, for His promises to them and His plans for them likewise do not change. John Calvin comments on this passage saying “that God continues in his purpose, and is not turned here and there like men who repent of a purpose they have formed, because what they had not thought of comes to their mind, or because they wish undone what they have performed, and seek new ways by which they may retrace their steps. God denies that anything of this kind can take place in him, for he is Jehovah, and changes not, or is not changed.”^[11] For God to be mutable is a contradiction to His very Name! He is Yahweh Who is the I AM WHO I AM of Exodus 3:14. His very name declares His independence as well as the immutability of His character and will. Albert Barnes comments on Malachi 3:6: ‘The proper name of God, “He who Is,” involves His unchangeableness. For change implies imperfection; it changes...