Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Doctrine’ Category

An Exhaustive New Testament Study: The Unchurched Christian

Posted in Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, Truth, tagged , on February 6, 2013 | Leave a Comment »

Here at El Rancho Reformado, we cannot pretend to speak with any degree of insight as to the situation in places outside America, but it is becoming more and more clear – especially here, in “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” that more and more people who profess to be Christians are not involved with a local church.  Why is that?  Many reasons are given, which include:

  • “The church is filled with hypocrites.”
  • “I’ve been hurt by people in the church.”
  • “I don’t agree with all of their doctrine(s).”
  • “I wasn’t being fed.”
  • “I’ve got Jesus and I don’t need the church.”

There are more, but the point has been made.  Our question, as “Bible-believing Christians” (an exercise in redundancy, to be sure) is, to use the archaic: “What TLC was heresaith the Scripture?”

The New Testament presupposes involvement in a local assembly of believers.  Just as it presupposes that every believer will obey the command to be baptized, so it does with involvement and participation in a local assembly.  In the interest of fairness and to quote Greg Nichols, “with a spirit of charity,” we will now examine the passages in the New Testament that endorse the unchurched Christian – either explicitly or implicitly.

There.  We’re finished.  I’m whupped.

The number of times the New Testament affirms the behavior of the unchurched Christian is equal to the number of times our beloved Detroit Lions have appeared in the Super Bowl: zero.

We are not addressing the physically infirm or those who may be the only Christian in a 100-mile radius (of course, the Elijah Syndrome is a caution here.  ”I’m the only one left!”  Careful…..the Lord may smack you upside the head about the proverbial 7,000 righteous men besides you…)

We are all to be in a local fellowship under the authority of shepherds for our souls – having been baptized, participating in the Lord’s Supper and being equipped for ministry.  ”Church” on Facebook or elsewhere online is not church – it’s a copout and an excuse.  Pride must be swallowed and repented of, resulting in involvement in a local fellowship.

Read Full Post »

Just Asking, November 8, 2012 Edition: Situational Sovereignty? God’s Sovereignty In Presidential Elections vs. God’s Sovereignty In Salvation

Posted in Calvinism, Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, Sovereignty, Truth, tagged , , , on November 7, 2012 | 3 Comments »

Salvation belongs to the Lord (Ps. 3:8; Jonah 2:9; Rev. 7:10)

Reading what many people are writing – Christian people, to be specific – concerning yesterday’s Presidential election is quite interesting.  Many, many Christians, especially those who did not vote for President Obama, have been declaring the sovereignty of God in this election.  We read much about how this is part of God’s eternal plan and about how God sovereignly orchestrated the events of yesterday in order to fulfill that plan.  Let’s examine the statements a little closer.

How could God sovereignly orchestrate the electoral results?  Didn’t people walk into polling places, complete their ballots, choosing based upon their own preferences and desires – and didn’t they do so willingly, volitionally – “freely?”  If their decisions were willing, volitional ones based on their own conscience – how could God sovereignly orchestrate the events of yesterday?  As of this moment, the results show 59,631,249 people voted for President Obama.  That means that many people made decisions of their own will do vote for him.  Now, is this the way God sovereignly oversees His Creation – where He allows events to happen and then “responds” and makes it part of His eternal plan? (which is what many people really mean by stating God’s sovereignty concerning the election) No, the Bible says God has determined the end from the beginning and no one can frustrate His plan (e.g. Isaiah 46:9-10, Daniel 4:34-35).  Therefore, if the election yesterday was God’s plan – how did it happen?  Over 59 million people made decisions – choices – yesterday.  How does that fit into this plan?  If this were God’s eternal plan, how did over 59 million people become participants?

Because God is sovereign.

That may seem basic, but one must think about the implications – how and why did 59 million people choose President Obama instead of one of the other candidates?  Was God just  gnashing his proverbial teeth, hoping that 59,00,000 people would do what he desired them to do?  No.  One must think carefully – and biblically – about this issue? How did all those people – 59 million of them – make willing, volitional, “free” decisions that would fulfill God’s eternal plan?  The biblical answer is because God decreed those decisions in eternity and caused them to occur in time and space.  This is how God providentially governs His Creation – the God of the Bible is not the God of the Deists (think Thomas Jefferson), a God who created all things, set Creation in motion and has stepped back and just watches.

We must go back further.  Why was President Obama up for re-election in the first place?  Over 69 million people voted for Mr. Obama.  If they had not done that, he would not have been on the ballot yesterday and his re-election would not have been part of God’s eternal, sovereign plan.

We must go back even further.  How did he get on the ballot in 2008?  Through the means of the willing choices made by voters in the primary process.

We must go back further.  How did he get involved in the primary process?  Because he was a Senator from Illinois, voted into office by the people of Illinois through all their willing choices.

We must go back further.  How did Mr. Obama become known on a national level?  Through his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Why was he chosen to give that speech?  Why not someone else?  That speech catapulted Mr. Obama to national visibility.  Willing, volitional choices had to be made by certain powers-that-be in order for Mr. Obama to have given that speech.

We could engage in nearly infinite regress here but hopefully the point has been made.  An untold number of  ”free” choices had to be made for the events of yesterday to come to pass.  They could only have come to pass – a number of decisions which we cannot imagine – in order for the voters of the United States to have re-elected Mr. Obama yesterday.  Those decisions, however, were not outside the will of God – and God did not merely “permit” or “allow” these decisions.  All the decisions through history that people have made were pointing to the events of yesterday.  God is not just a deity who throws all the events and choices of history into a cosmic vat, stirring them with the ultimate spoon, hoping they mix together to accomplish His will.  God actually decrees and controls man’s decisions.  Yes, He does.

One need not object, saying that man is thus not held responsible as a moral agent (a “robot,” or a “puppet,” to use common objections) if God decrees his choices.  One need only read one Old Testament passage (Isaiah 10:5-19) and one New Testament passage (Romans 9:6-24) as a primer, because there are many more concerning the issue of God’s control of man’s decisions and man’s moral responsibility for those decisions.

To sum up our first point- yes, God was sovereign yesterday and His sovereignty could only have been manifest because He had ordained not only the outcome of the election, but the means to that outcome – a nearly infinite number of choices made by people over many years and many different circumstances.

It is not uncommon to see such statements made by Christians, especially in light of events that occur which are what people consider less than favorable.  Events such as Presidential elections (whether or not one objects to or affirms yesterday’s results), natural disasters, illness, unexpected death and so on are taken under the heading of the sovereignty of God in order for those affected to receive some degree of comfort – and biblically, they should.

It is quite interesting to see Christians proclaiming God’s sovereign authority and His ordination of events occurring in history – events that include “free” choices made by men – with regard to all arenas of life and society except one, which is the most important one of all: the salvation of sinners.

What is the most important “choice’ a person will make in his or her life?  The decision as to trust or not trust Christ.  To follow or not follow Christ.  To believe or not believe. To come to Christ or leave one’s back turned to Him.  Those are all entailed in the same choice, by the way.  Many, many who are now affirming God’s exhaustive sovereignty over history – said history necessarily including man’s willing, volitional choices – will affirm it in all areas of history except (except!) the salvation of sinners.

We are told by these people that God has opened the door to salvation for all but that whether or not a man walks through that door is completely up to him – up to his own “free will.”  We are told God woos, entices, beckons but does not – indeed cannot, because man’s “free will”  has to be preserved at all costs – do anything to actually effect or ensure anyone – no one, not even one person – comes to Christ.  We are told that God cannot intervene in a person’s life and change their nature so that instead of hating God, they would love Him.  We are told that God cannot intervene and give a person sufficient faith in order that they not only believe, they willingly believe.  We are told that God cannot intervene in a person’s life and create sufficient faith and repentance such that a person cannot do anything other than come to Christ.  We are told that no matter how much God may desire to save a person, He will not, cannot, indeed must not intervene in the life of an unwilling person to save him from the horrors of Hell.  We are told that God has sovereignly decided to not be absolutely sovereign in the saving of sinners.  Why?  Because that would interfere with man’s “free will.”  ”Free will” must be preserved at all costs – even at the cost of “God’s unconditional love” for every single human being such that He expresses that love by not intervening to prevent a person’s condemnation -is that the biblical teaching?

Is the inconsistency clear here?  If one is willing to ascribe God’s superintending of “free” human choices and actions, such as those of the men who wrote down revelation from God that we know as “the Bible,” if one is willing to affirm God’s exhaustive sovereignty over yesterday’s Presidential election and all the events and decisions in human history that brought us to this point, why are people not willing to say the same about God’s exhaustive sovereignty in the salvation of sinners?  If every other decision or choice a person makes in his life falls under the sovereign decree of God – where is the biblical exemption with regard to a person’s choice to follow Christ?

The Bible states that every person is conceived in sin and is a rebel against God.  The Bible states that every person by nature is a child of wrath, is a hater of God, has a heart that is wicked beyond comprehension and does not obey God because he cannot obey God.  The Bible says that faith that saves is a gift from God.  The Bible says repentance is granted by God.  The Bible says God brings people from death to life as an act of His sovereign grace.  The Bible says these people who are brought from death to life truly, truly believe because that belief is their own belief, given to them as a gift and they believe because they want to believe and are not compelled against their will to believe.  The Bible says that this saving work begin in a sinner’s life as a gift from God will be carried through to completion.

It is wonderful, to be sure, seeing all the proclamations of the absolute sovereignty of God popping up all over cyberspace last night and today.  In the big picture, though, the Presidential Election and God’s sovereignty over it are not the most important issues we must address.  The most important issue is a man’s salvation or damnation.  God is absolutely sovereign over that area, as well.  Let us all be consistent in applying the clear biblical teaching with regard to salvation belonging to our Lord.  Praise God He is sovereign in the salvation of sinners.

Read Full Post »

Eisegesis 101: Romans 8:38-39

Posted in Bible Study, Calvinism, Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, Truth, tagged , , , , on November 5, 2012 | 3 Comments »

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This passage is one of those which provides great comfort – or at least should do so – for the Christian.  It appears to be a rather clear, definitive statement on the assurance of salvation for the child of God.  However, quite often, there is a disclaimer attached to this passage by the one expounding/exegeting it – which is what?  This statement, in one form or another, is made:

Nothing can separate us from the love of God – except ourselves!

Huh?  ”Nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing?”  Evidently not, to some.  ”Nothing” being a universal negative, does “nothing” mean “nothing?”  Or is Paul speaking in hyperbole?  Let’s take a look, beginning with a little logic.

A simple syllogism show one problem with the “except ourselves!” exposition:

Nothing can separate us from the love of God.

We can separate ourselves from the love of God.

Therefore, we are nothing.

Preposterous?  Well, yes, but consistent with the “except ourselves’ thought, right?  Let’s dig deeper.

What is the context of Paul’s statement stating that nothing can separate us from the love of God?  Romans 8, where Paul has spoken on the sovereignty of God in in v. 28, where he says,

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.  

If we were to back up further, we would see where Paul says the Romans have “received the Spirit of adoption as sons” in v. 15.  The receipt of the Spirit – was this a gift?  Yes, it was.  What does the Bible say about gifts given by God?  They are….irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).  If this Spirit of adoption is given as a gift, is this giving irrevocable?  Yes, it is.    Those who receive the Spirit of adoption as sons are sons – irrevocably.

In Romans 8 Paul also, after saying what he says concerning adoption and the sovereignty of God, he then says this in vv. 29-30:

 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.  

Who are these people?  This group of people in 29-30 are the elect.  Is there anyone ‘saved’ who exists outside this group?  No.  Reading backward helps here – every single person who is to be glorified (Paul uses the prophetic perfect here – past prediction of future events, speaking of these events as if they have already been accomplished) has been justified.  Every single person who is justified has been called.  Every single person who has been called has been predestined and every single person who has been predestined was foreknown by ‘he’ – God, from v. 28.

The Romans whom Paul describes in v. 15 as having received the Spirit of adoption as sons are included in this group – the elect – of vv. 29-30.  Is every single person who is foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified in vv. 29-30 actually called, justified and glorified in time and space, having been foreknown and predestined in eternity (cf. Eph. 1:3-14)?  Yes, they are.  If one wishes to object here – think about it – who is saved outside of this group?  Can one be saved who was never foreknown, never predestined, never called, never justified and never glorified?  Is there anyone who receives the Spirit of adoption who is not foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified? As Paul might say, “By no means!”

Earlier, we cited Romans 11:29 and the irrevocable gifts of God – however, that’s not the entirety of the thought.  There is something else that is irrevocable in addition to the gifts of God – His calling.  This is the “call” of v. 30.  This is the “calling” which Peter tells the elect to confirm diligently in his second Epistle, chapter one, verse ten.   Being an irrevocable gift, this call of Romans 11, expressed here in 8:30, assures the one who is called that he may know he is saved (1 John 5:13).

So far we have a people who have been adopted, who also fall into the group which is foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified.  Is anyone ever removed from this group?  No.   No.  They cannot be or the passage as plainly stated – and the irrevocability of God’s gifts – must be called into question, which we dare not.  What else is said about these people?

Paul poses several questions beginning in verse 31 and he answers them as well for the reader.  We will post these in question and answer format.

Q:  What then shall we say to these things?  What ‘things?”  The ‘things Paul has just stated concerning adoption, the Spirit interceding (which we did not cover), foreknowledge, predestination, call, justification and glorification.

A:   If God is for us, who can be against us?  He answers the question with a question and the assumed answer to this question is “No one,” which he explains in the following questions and answers.

Q:    He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?  The assumed answer?  ”Yes.”

Q:   Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?  Paul uses courtroom imagery here – who dares to bring accusations of guilt against God’s elect people?

A:  It is God who justifies.  No one.  Why?  Who can overturn God’s declaration that the elect, upon faith, are just and no longer condemned to a death sentence?

Q:   Who is to condemn?  Who can pronounce a sentence of guilty upon the elect?  No one.  Why?

A:  Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.  There has already been One who has incurred the full punishment for the guilt of the elect – the “us” Paul refers to here.  Christ bore the full weight of the punishment due the elect – there is no more penalty to be paid.

Paul now asks the questions that result in his statement in vv. 38-39:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?

So far Paul has asked three questions with an answer of “No one.”  He continues the train here and we will see the answer is still the same: “No one.”  Paul will actually expand the answer here from “No one,” to “No one and nothing.”

The question Paul asks concerns a person or people – “Who shall separate us…”  Then he expands the question to include issues other than people – to nature, to life circumstances, to the spiritual realm and makes it all inclusive.  The answer?  Not yet.  Paul cites Psalm 44, where the Psalmist writes of the people of God being made like sheep for the slaughter – but what is the context of Psalm 44?  God’s people have rebelled and they are being rebuked by God – see 44:9, which says God has rejected them and 44:14, where they are said to be a laughingstock.  Paul gives new meaning to this in applying the verse not to rebellious people but to the obedient children of God.  He is saying the same fate awaits the obedient now as did the rebellious in Psalm 44.  The elect here will suffer for their obedience at the hands of the pagans in the same way the rebellious children of Israel suffered at the hands of the pagans in Psalm 44.

Even knowing this, Paul’s answer to his own question is once again the same: “No one.”  He says that in “all these things” the elect will conquer – and in fact will more than conquer.  But how?  Through him who loved us – “us” again being the elect).  ”All these things” – what are they?  They are the tribulations, the distresses, the persecutions, the famines, the nakedness, the dangers and the sword of verse 35, which will result in the sheep being slaughtered.

Because of this – Paul begins verse 38 with “For” – Paul is certain, sure that nothing – nothing – nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Paul knew the society and culture in which these people lived.  He knew that being a Christian brought  with it hostility from pagans, which would manifest itself in many different ways.  He knew there would be spiritual battles.  He also knew he had to provide some pastoral advice in the form of a theological construct.  Good theology and good doctrine is at its root “practical.”  This was very practical to the Roman Christians and is also practical to us today and has been practical for  almost 2,000 years since God breathed out these words through His Apostle.

If God has set His love on you and saved you, He will love you for eternity because he has loved you in eternity past.  The assurance of our salvation is not based upon our love for God – it is based upon His love for us.  As the Scripture says, we love Him because He first loved us.  Paul wants to make it irrefutable here – those upon whom God has set His love cannot be separated from that love.

Can we separate ourselves from the love of God?  No.  Why not?  because His love for His elect is such that He will take the necessary measures to ensure that His elect persevere in faith until the end.  Praise God.  Praise God he is a God of promises – the God of fulfilled promises.  He loves me.  He loves His children.  And nothing can separate His children from that love – not even ourselves.

Read Full Post »

Vincent Cheung: The Sovereignty Of God

Posted in Calvinism, Doctrine, Free Will, Indian River Baptist Church, tagged , , , , on September 28, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

From “Ultimate Questions.”

A sovereign God is the necessary foundation for a sound theology. Any compromise in the doctrine of God generates a rippling effect that destroys the integrity of all other biblical doctrines. Once we accept a false view of God, the rest of the system cannot be Christian.

For example, a sovereign God contradicts the idea that man exercises free will when it comes to any matter, including salvation. The sovereignty of God and the freedom of man are mutually exclusive. To affirm one is to deny the other. Accordingly, a person who insists that he accepts Christ because of his own free will, and not because of God’s sovereign choice and direct action in his soul, cannot at the same time affirm a sovereign God. Since the only God presented in the Bible is an absolutely sovereign God, a person who affirms human free will cannot, without contradiction, affirm belief in God.

Some theologians perceive this dilemma, and so they choose to believe in a contradiction.  But this makes them look stupid, and some of them cannot endure the humiliation. So they invent a way out, and say that God’s sovereignty is “compatible” with human choice.  Sometimes it is even said that divine sovereignty is compatible with human “freedom” in the sense that the man who chooses is not coerced in his choice, but he chooses according to his desire.

Of course man chooses, but what makes him choose? What is the metaphysics of human choice? And what is the metaphysical explanation for his desire? If God is absolutely sovereign, then he also decides and causes human choice and desire. And if God is the one who decides and causes human choice and desire, then to say that divine sovereignty and human choice are compatible is only to say that God is compatible with himself. But we already know that, and man is still not free.

Human choice is irrelevant, since it comes under divine sovereignty. To say that man is not coerced is only to say that in this instance God does not cause one effect of his power to clash with another effect of his power, as he does when he causes two objects to crash into each other. But if there is no contradiction when God causes two objects to crash, then even coercion entails no contradiction. It would only mean that he causes a person to desire one thing but to choose another, and he remains compatible with himself. What would be the problem with that?

Indeed, the absolute sovereignty of God and the moral responsibility of man are compatible. Perhaps this is what the theologians are so worried about. But man is morally responsible only because God has decided to hold him accountable. This has no necessarily connection with choice or freedom. Even coercion does not eliminate responsibility. What does one have to do with another? The moral responsibility of man depends on the absolute sovereignty of God, and nothing else. Therefore, to say that man is responsible, once again, is only to say that God is compatible with himself.

It remains, then, that divine sovereignty and human freedom are incompatible. For man to be free in any relevant sense, he must be free from God, and if he is free from God in any sense and in any degree, then God is not absolutely sovereign. The God of the Bible is rejected.

Read Full Post »

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Providence Of God

Posted in Books, Calvinism, Church History, Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, tagged , , , , , on September 27, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

From “Great Doctrines of The Bible, Volume I: God The Father, God The Son.”

What, then, does the Bible tell us about the doctrine of providence? Again, we are looking at a very difficult subject. The particular doctrines of salvation that we shall be considering are very simple in comparison with a doctrine like this. It is one of those inscrutable doctrines and there is a hymn which reminds us of that. ‘God moves in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform,’ says William Cowper, and, ‘Blind unbelief is sure to err.’ And not only blind unbelief, but lack of faith, but a desire to understand that which is impossible, are certain to lead us into trouble if not into error. Therefore let us approach the doctrine of providence with reverence and humility, going as far as Scripture takes us, but not going beyond that.

Now the Bible teaches everywhere, very clearly, as I shall show you, that God is in control of all things. Psalm 104 is enough, in and of itself, to establish that doctrine. There is no limit to what He does. Psalm 103:19 also says, ‘The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.’ Everywhere. And the Bible teaches us that first of all, as over against deism, to which I have referred, that doctrine which regards the universe as a kind of watch made by the watchmaker, wound up by him, and then put down to run itself out. But the doctrine of providence contradicts that, and I rather like the comparison which was once used to show the difference. The doctrine of providence tells us that the universe, and everything within it, is like a great ship which is being piloted from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute, second to second, by God Himself. Furthermore, of course, it is over against pantheism also, which says that God is everything, and in everything, and that therefore you cannot differentiate between the universe and God Himself. The doctrine of providence contradicts both these views.

How, then, do we find this doctrine in the Bible? Well, first of all we find it in a number of very direct statements in the Scriptures. I shall give you a list of them later on. Then another very powerful argument for the doctrine of providence is based upon the fact of prophecy. It would not be possible for a man inspired by God to predict what is going to take place, perhaps in several hundreds of years, unless God controlled everything. Prophecy is not merely foreknowledge, it is a guarantee—that the prophesied events are going to happen because God is in control.

Then another great argument, as we have seen, is derived from answers to prayer. If we did not believe that God controlled everything, there would be no point in praying—we would not pray for sunshine, we would not pray for rain; we would not pray for health and for the control of disease. Prayer, in a sense, would be ridiculous if we did not believe in the doctrine of providence. And that is why deists do not believe in prayer. Pantheists do not pray; there is no purpose in it. But those who believe in the doctrine of providence obviously pray because the very idea of that doctrine immediately leads to prayer.

And our last general argument is the argument from miracles. Were it not that the doctrine of providence is true, if it were not the case that God has His hand upon everything, and is controlling everything, then miracles simply could not take place at all.

So then, what exactly do we mean by providence? I cannot think of a better definition or description than this: ‘Providence is that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the Creator upholds all his creatures, is operative in all that transpires in the world, and directs all things to their appointed end.’ We shall consider the biblical proof for that statement later on. Now there are three elements in this idea of providence, and we must differentiate between them in thought as well as in practice, though, of course, the three tend to work together. You can look at the three aspects of providence from different angles. The first is the aspect or the element of preservation—‘that continuous work of God by which He maintains the things which He has created, together with the properties and powers with which He has endowed them.’ Now this is most important. The Bible teaches that God preserves everything that He has made. It is a continuous work. Some have tried to say that this doctrine of preservation simply means that God does not destroy the work He once made, but that is not preservation. It means more than that; it means that He keeps everything in being.

Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (142–144). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Wilhelmus á Brakel: Blessings Promised To Those Who Fear God

Posted in Church History, Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, tagged , , , on September 26, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

From “The Christian’s Reasonable Service,” on sale now at Reformation Heritage Books.

Fifthly, although love for our own well-being is not the basis for the fear of God, we nevertheless may and must be stirred up by it. It is noteworthy that so many blessings are expressed and so many benefits are promised to the godly. Consider the temporal benefits.

(1) There is satisfaction: “Better is a little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure” (Prov 15:16).

(2) There is sufficient daily supply: “Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him have no lack! ” (Ps 34:9); “Behold, the eye of the LORD is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love, that he may deliver their soul from death and keep them alive in famine.” (Ps 33:18-19); “He provides food for those who fear him” (Ps 111:5).

(3) There is sacred protection: “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.” (Ps 34:7).

(4) There is abundance: “The reward for humility and fear of the LORD is riches and honor and life.” (Prov 22:4).

(5) There is all salvation: “Surely his  salvation is near to those who fear him” (Ps 85:9).

Consider the promises relative to the soul.

(1) There is the revelation of heavenly mysteries: “Who is the man who fears the LORD?  Him s will he instruct in the way that he should choose.  The friendship of the LORD is for those who fear him, and he makes known to them his covenant.” (Ps 25:12, 14).

(2) There is divine compassion: “As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion v to those who fear him.  But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him,” (Ps 103:13, 17).

(3) There is the answering of prayers: “He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them.” (Ps 145:19).

(4) Let me thus bring it all to a conclusion: “Blessed is the man who fears the LORD” (Ps 112:1); “yet I know that it will be well with those who fear God” (Eccles 8:12); “Oh, how abundant is your goodness, which you have stored up for those who fear you” (Ps 31:19). If it pleases the Lord to stir you up by so many benefits and promises, it ought to please you to be stirred up by them. Being desirous for the promises, you must seek their fulfillment in the way whereby the Lord wishes to do so, for the fear of the Lord is so desirable in and of itself.

Be therefore resolved to do so and make it your great endeavor; you will learn from being thus engaged. And since we are too corrupt, turn therefore to the Lord, praying, “Unite my heart to fear your name” (Ps 86:11). Make yourself familiar with the Word of God; it is a means whereby you may fear the Lord. “He shall read in it all the days of his life,  that he may learn to fear the LORD his God” (Deut 17:19). May the Lord bless these words. “Fear God and give him glory” (Rev 14:7). Amen.

Read Full Post »

Jon Cardwell: A Famine In The Land

Posted in Bible Study, Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, tagged , , , on September 26, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

Jon comments on Amos 8:11….

“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I will send a famine on the land— not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.”

…in this post at Justification By Grace.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

NEWSFLASH: “Doctrine Doesn’t Matter!” Is Itself A Doctrine…..

Posted in Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, tagged , , on September 25, 2012 | 3 Comments »

Online and in personal discussions, one will quite frequently hear that cry – “Doctrine doesn’t matter!”  Why?  In many cases, it’s because of a concern for unity within the church or because doctrines, as we know, can cause disagreements within the family of faith.  To state such – that “doctrine doesn’t matter” – however, denies the very point the objector is trying to make.

We cannot deny that doctrines exist.  Even such a simple statement as “All I need is Jesus” is itself a doctrinal statement. Let’s not pretend that we can eliminate doctrines from our Christian life – doctrines define our Christian life.  ”Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” is a doctrinal statement.

So let’s not unjustly demonize doctrine.  Doctrine is vital – the Scripture is a compilation of doctrines – the doctrine of God, the doctrine of redemption, the doctrine of the last things, and so on.  Doctrine benefits us, so let’s not deny its existence or the benefits of doctrine(s).

Read Full Post »

R.C. Sproul: Simul Justus Et Peccator (At The Same Time Just And Sinner)

Posted in Bible Study, Church History, Doctrine, Indian River Baptist Church, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 5, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

In this video, Dr. Sproul explains a crucial difference between Roman Catholic and Reformation teaching concerning salvation.  The phrase means, “at the same time just and sinner.”  This is not a contradiction, as he says in the video:

And so with this formula Luther was saying, in our justification we are one and the same time righteous or just, and sinners. Now if he would say that we are at the same time and in the same relationship just and sinners that would be a contradiction in terms. But that’s not what he was saying. He was saying from one perspective, in one sense, we are just. In another sense, from a different perspective, we are sinners; and how he defines that is simple. In and of ourselves, under the analysis of God’s scrutiny, we still have sin; we’re still sinners. But, by imputation and by faith in Jesus Christ, whose righteousness is now transferred to our account, then we are considered just or righteous. This is the very heart of the gospel.

Dr. Sproul uses the word “imputation” here – imputation means “to declare,” or “reckon,” or “to count as.”  Rome, at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, declares anathema upon one who affirms the imputation of the work of Christ in this manner:

Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

This goes to the heart of the differences between Rome and Reformationists – how is a man justified?  Dr. Sproul thus explains:

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Eisegesis 101: Galatians 5:4

Posted in Bible Study, Doctrine, doctrines of grace, Indian River Baptist Church, New Testament, Truth, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 20, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

In the “If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard” category, this verse would be prominent in its placement.  The issue?  This verse is cited over and over as definitive proof that a person can “lose their salvation.”  Why?  ”See?  It says right there – you can fall from grace.”  Well, it does indeed say a person can fall from grace – but is the conclusion to be drawn from that to be that a person who was, prior to this, born-again, brought from death to life by the Spirit, granted repentance and faith, was seated in the heavenly places with Christ, who cannot be separated from the love of God in Christ – is that person the one being addressed here?  Let’s see.

What is the big picture here?  Paul is writing a scathing letter to the church at Galatia.  He does not begin with his usual pleasantries.  he lights in the church from the git-go.  He declares anathema (damnation, being accursed) upon anyone who preaches a gospel other than the one he preached to them – the gospel he received from Christ?  That gospel?  Salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.  he goes so far as to say his fellow apostle Peter has joined in the hypocrisy of the Galatians Judaizers because Peter did what?  Demanded circumcision be required for salvation?  Said that the dietary laws are still in effect?  Taught that animal sacrifices were necessary as atonement for sin?  No.  Paul said this action by Peter endangered the gospel itself:  Peter switched seats at the dining table.  Yes, that’s what Peter did that Paul said endangered the gospel itself.

Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

Paul also calls out Barnabas for joining in this hypocrisy, as he calls it.  Why such harsh language?  Because Paul wanted to make the very important point that justification is by faith alone – faith plus nothing.  Faith in Christ plus nothing.

In chapter three he goes on at great length about how a man is not justified by works, or obedience to the law, but by faith alone.

In chapter four he poses a serious question and questions whether his labor in that church may have been in vain, if they wish to return to the requirements of the law:

Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?
Gal 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!
Gal 4:11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

In brief, this is the setting for 5:4.  How does chapter five begin?  With a statement that for freedom Christ had set them free.  What had Jesus himself said about being set free?  If he is the one who sets people free – free from what?  Free from bondage, as he says in John 8, and the people set free are free indeed.  Those whom he sets free do not return to the bondage from which they have been released.  Paul tells them because of their freedom – in Christ – to stand firm and don’t go back to that from which they were freed.  Does this mean people can lose their salvation?  No, it doesn’t.  Those who would return to their bondage were never freed in the first place, but only appeared to have been free (cf. Hebrews 6 and a similar situation – people being tempted to return to their Jewish roots).  These warning passages are also the means by which God preserves his elect – those who fail, show them selves to be non-elect.

The Judaizers were demanding circumcision as necessary for justification – what does Paul say in verse two?  If that’s the case, then Christ is of no value.  He is reiterating what he said at the end of chapter two, in verse 21:

Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Think about it – if we could be justified by keeping the law, be it one point of law or the entirety of the law, then why did Christ come and die in our place, having obeyed the law perfectly himself?  he then adds this – if one wishes to say that circumcision is necessary, then not just one point of the law is necessary, but keeping the entire law is necessary.

Now, verse four.  ”You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”  What had Paul just said in chapter three, verses 2-6?

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
Gal 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—
Gal 3:6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

As Paul also did in the letter to the Romans, he states that Abraham was not justified by works of the law, but by faith (cf. Rom. 4).  in 3:10 Paul says everyone who relies on the works of the law are under a curse.  In 3:11 he says that no one is justified by works of the law, citing Habakkuk 2:4, as he did in Rom. 1:17, saying ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’  in 3:23 he says this law, which the Judaizers wish to add to faith, held people captive – that law didn’t free people, it enslaved them.

Paul says those who wish to keep the law in 5:4 are severed from Christ – they are cut off.  Does that mean they were in Christ to begin with?  No – by all the statements he has already made in the letter, it is clear that one who wishes to attain justification by the works of the law will never be justified at all.  John 1:14 says Jesus came filled with grace and truth.  If these people wish to believe that law-keeping of any sort is necessary as the basis upon which one is justified, Paul says they have fallen away from this grace.  These people who wish to place their faith in their ability to keep the law have created a problem which Paul says is very, very serious and is one that damns themselves.

Galatians 5:4, in closing, states nothing about those who have “lost their salvation.”  It says much, however, about those who were never saved in the first place.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 108 other followers

%d bloggers like this: