The title of this article really speaks for itself. The goal of this article is to deal specifically with the doctrine of limited atonement as opposed to reform theology as a whole. Many bible believing Christians subscribe to reform theology. And many of it's teachings are indeed Biblical. Yet when a doctrine is in opposition to the scriptures, our loyalty must not be toward our friends and traditions. Our loyalty is to God and his Word.
What do we mean when we say un-biblical?
Here I refer back to my own confession of faith. The freedom baptist church confession of faith. article 4 C.
"C. The Bible is authoritative for all in what it says and interprets and the Christian is bound to every thing it specifically says to Christians and everything it implies; though the Christian is bound not to add to His divine revelation. The Scriptures must be judged only in light of the whole of scripture. The Bible can be understood using the historical-grammatical method of study in search of the “plain sense meaning”. With this, diligence, a godly desire to learn, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Christian can eventually understand the complete direct meaning of the Bible. The centerpiece of the revelation of God is Christ Jesus.
John10:35, Habakkuk 2:2, Isaiah 28:9-10, 2Tim 2:15, 3:14-17, Matthew 15:9, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19, 1Corinthians 2:5-16, John 5:39"
The Bible is authoritative in it's meaning, in other words what the Bible directly and obviously says. The Bible may also teach something indirectly. Advocates of Limited atonement would argue that it is implied based on the clarity of other doctrines. However scriptures must be judged in light of the whole of scripture. As will be shown the Bible directly and plainly teaches that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind. So the meaning far outweighs the implication.
For instance lets ask the question "did Jesus die on the cross?" Now you could make the case that Jesus is alive and that Jesus is the lord God. That God could not die and that Jesus being sinless should not be allowed to die. Therefore it is implied that Jesus did not die on the cross. But when we have dozens if not hundreds of passages declaring that Christ died, then the implication of Christ not dying is void and the doctrine is completely non-biblical. Such is the case with limited atonement it builds a case of implications to try to overcome the direct plain meaning of the scripture.
how do we define this?
Calvinism is no longer strictly the teachings of John Calvin, at least as the term is commonly used in contemporary times. Normally it is a reference to the soteriology put forth by the synod of dordrecht(dort). Calvinism has splintered off into hundreds of directions and the TULIP or five points of Calvinism has been interpreted and reinterpreted dozens of times over. So there has been a lot of time wasted trying to figure what teachings are actually being debated. So here I provide a very basic definition of this doctrine and then I will go on to look at the commentary of the cannons of dordrecht for the proper interpretation of the doctrine.
"Limited atonement (or definite atonement or particular redemption) is a doctrine in Christian theology which is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers." wikipedia
The canons of dordrecht
Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death
"For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.:"
Rejection of the Errors
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those
"VI
Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves."
One thing respectable about the design of this document is that it asserts both positive and the negatives of their doctrine and are very clear. In our days we either tell you the positive or the negative depending on our perspective. Now one must notice The intimate connections that this doctrine has with the doctrine of predestination. In fact it has been stated that the doctrine of limited atonement is not incompatible with arminian or free-will theology. Yet no major tradition supporting a synergist/free-will view has included this teaching.
The political nature of Five-point calvinism.
« Sin leading to death?
Temporary Faith is Real Faith »
The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed
January 31, 2008 by Steven Wedgeworth
"One of the first observations that needs to be made is that the theological dispute that lead up to the Synod of Dort occurred from inside the Reformed theological community. The Remonstrants would eventually argue for a clear departure from this tradition, but at the outset this was not the case. In other words, the debate was initially an intra-Reformed debate, not one between those inside and those outside of the tradition. Furthermore, there had been at least fourteen confessional documents composed prior to Dort, including the Tetrapolitan Confession, the 1st and 2nd Helvetic, the Scots Confession, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The English and German delegates were as much concerned with maintaining their pre-existing standards as they were defending the specific writings of the Contra-Remonstrants. In fact the two parties in the Netherlands at that time are sometimes called the Arminians and the Gomarists, illustrating the regional particularity. King James I sent the British delegates to Dort with instructions to uphold the current faith of the Church of England.[4] David Pareus, writing from Heidelberg, also asked that no deviation from the Heidelberg catechism be made.[5] That there was an established and authoritative Reformed theological tradition prior to the Synod of Dort is obvious. Dort was not subscribed to by those outside of the Netherlands, though it was approved as sound doctrine by the various foreign delegates. This explains how it is that the German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19th century."
So here essentially the nature of Calvinism is political in nature. Calvinist typically are strong believers in proselytizing other Christians into there system in a very militant fashion. Much like a political party they are concerned with bringing everyone over into their platform. The five points are a political platform. They are willing to sacrifice other doctrines if they can gather agreement to the base of the party. Eventually they would like to see agreement under the complete system. Though there are several different visions though as to what that vision is. Typically either one of the previous confessions or the westminster and 1687 London baptist confession.
The reformed tradition was not the center for a separation of church and state. Not only did the reformers wage actual war against the Roman Catholics. (not judging whether the entanglements were justified) But they also persecuted and slaughtered the anabaptist. The early reformers were very theocratic. They would rule their cities very strictly commonly referring back to the Old Testament but not always. While there are reformers who respect the separation of church and state such as many baptist and american presbyterians; The political nature of calvinism is one of top down authority. It is this empirical structure which forces a doctrine like limited atonement on the table.
Passages used to support limited atonement. (The following passages were used as proof text from www.monergism.com)
That God has the intention of redeeming a limited number
1chronicles 17:20-21
20O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
21And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?
Here is a classic example of isogesis. Using the language of war and Egypt testifies to the the fact that this discussion is referring back to the nation of Israel. Salvation in the context eschatological justification is not even in the context of the passage.
Matthew 22:14
14For many are called, but few are chosen.
The actions of calling and chosen are usually attributed to other persons of the trinity. So the topic is not in fact directly over the subject of atonement. This isolated verse is not regarding atonement. The passage (22:1-14) is concerned with the kingdom of heaven. It uses the parable of a wedding feast. The king's servants a bid to come and they reject it and are destroyed. The king then has his remaining servants go and find anyone they can and bring them to the feast "and gathered as many as they found" It is afterwords that the king finds a man without a wedding garment and cast him out. For many(every) are called and allowed at the wedding feast of those who have been atoned for. But few(who have made the decision to dress for the wedding) are chosen. So this passage if anything speaks to unlimited atonement.
1peter 2:8-9
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Here again we notice that the act of atonement is still not directly addressed. This passage is used to stress the fact that people are chosen or "appointed" to go to Hell. However if you go to the Dr.'s office, you have to "set up" an appointment. However those who are appointed disbelief have been previously established as disobedient. (vrs. 7) Meanwhile those who are the holy nation were previously not making this a conditional title.
"10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." So it is unnecessary to believe that God had not provided all the opportunity to be saved.
Ezekiel 36
Now this passage is a bit large so you can read it for yourselves. But the jist of it is that God is prophesying about the mountains of Israel. This is concerning the Jewish people and the land. Later in the passage there is talk of the nation being born again. But it is quite frankly not the Christian church because Israel is under the Law of God and the Church is not under the law covenant, also the church is a mix of Jews and gentiles. (romans 7:1-5, Galatians 3:28)
"Jesus has the intention of offering himself up(atoning) for the sins of just a certain people."
Isaiah 53:10-11
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
As will be shown this chapter declared that God laid upon Christ "the iniquity of us all". Since all have iniquity all would be universal. Why is it a contradiction for christ to accomplish salvation for those who accept his offer?
matthew 1:21
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
It never says that Jesus shall desire only to save "his people" without the offer given to the world. It says what most evangelicals who accept general atonement believe, that Jesus accomplished salvation in those who have faith in him. He doesn't accomplish salvation until people put faith in him.
John 6:35-40, 10:3-4,11 14,15,17
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Here is yet another passage which teaches predestination and therefore by argument must "limit" the atonement. Yet again, not directly addressing the issue. Two points must first be made. Number Those who belong to the father might be faithful Jews who have convert to be disciples of christ. Number two assuming predestination of salvation is true indeed true. Is universal atonement truly contradictory? The act of election is transcendent or "before the foundations of the earth". Mean while the cross of Christ was historical, emanent "for such a time is this. If God is operating on two differing planes and has use of three much less two persons; then wouldn't it make sense that what appears in only one real as paradox is not contradictory at all?
3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
The sheep have a previously established relationship with the shepherd. I don't think sheep know the voice of the shepherd before they are acquainted.
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Once again no contradiction with unlimited atonement.
14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
The idea that God knows who he will save is taught by all evangelicals even the Wesleyans.
17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Acts 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
It is good to note that reference her to "church of God" is referring to local congregations "over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" and of course they have been purchased by christ. Still no contradiction.
Ephesians 5:25
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Now in ancient culture if the Son is obedient He will accept who the Father gives him for his marriage. In this case the father picked the faithful bride which is not an individual but "whosoever believeth". Yet this is prior to the subject of this verse. as we know the eschatological bride is indeed a concept about the united church of the future. So it does not address whether the current offer is universal.
Joh 17:1-2; 6-12; 20-21; 24-26;
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
5-point calvinists are going to try to use this passage out of context. this is easy for the reader 2 thousand years later. But Christ prayer is before the cross. "he should give eternal life" is a future proposition.
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
so here Christ is hoping his disciples "might know thee" that christ has finished his work "on earth" This is not the stage for eternity instead it is in the context of the time and his current roster of disciples.
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
"and now" sticks to the context of the time before crucifixion.
6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
"I have manifested thy name unto the men" indicates jesus actual earthly ministry.
7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Here again he is referring to jesus actually discipling the disciples.
9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
So here the Calvinist will argue that christ is praying for the elect and he has limited the atonement. But no word on the atonement. Also the passage has clearly taught that christ was praying for his roster of disciples verses the faithless world that has not followed him.
10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
"these are in the world" yet the apostles are now in heaven. this is the context christ is referring to his disciples and is not limiting his atonement.
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Is judas the one fellow who lost his salvation? Or is he the only faithless apostle.
The Bible teaches that their are many who follow christian religion and are not truly saved.(1john 2:18-19)
13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
"speak in the world" is this a reference to unlimited atonement? Regardless Christ is praying for his current disciples. this verse may extend to us but not referring to the subject of atonement.
15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
"they are not of the world" current disciples.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Here christ is showing the context again of his current disciples and extending it to those of us who are believers.
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
They are not currently one yet look forward to it. This unity is referring to the future. Where we have the obvious implication of exclusive salvation. However Christ died at a time and place. His sacrifice was offered to us in a temporal way so that we would give an immanent response. 2Corinthians 6:2(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
As christians 2000 years later we know more than this. But this was all the revelation the disciples at that time had.
26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
still no word on limited atonement.
Rom 8:34
34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
no, word on limiting the atonement.
"Furthermore, the bible speaks of Christ's death as fully effective in securing justification ( Isa 53:11; Rom. 8:34), redemption and cleansing ( Eph 5:25-27; Tit 2:14), propitiation (that is, the complete satisfaction of the Father's wrath; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10), and resurrection to new life ( 2Co 5:14-15)."
At this point one must ask if faith is a condition for anything in salvation. This leads us to a hyper calvinistic view called "eternal justification". This is the view that one is saved from all eternity. So evangelism is meaningless.
While Christ death accomplished all these things, salvation was conditioned to the believer. Those who are not believers are condemned to hell until they repent and place faith in Christ.
Passages in support of unlimited atonement.
Isaiah 50:2 (King James Version)
2Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.
Here we see a proclamation by God That he indeed has full ability to provide salvation which would put together a case for unlimited atonement.
Isaiah 53:6 (King James Version)
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Here we see what will be a continuous pattern. a link between sin nature and atonement. Here we see all who have gone astray linked with all who Jehovah has laid the iniquity of on Christ.
John 1:7 (King James Version)
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Here we see a purpose of universal atonement. This is in direct contradiction to dort. Calvinism teaches that it was only God's will to make salvation available to the elect. Yet here "all men" though him "might" believe. Here salvation is a conditional offer. Yet limited atonement is unconditional and not truly an offer either.
John 1:29 (King James Version)
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Here we see a direct action described. The lamb of God "taketh away the sin of the world" this is very obvious spelling out unlimited atonement. Jesus forgiveness is being directly applied to the world.
John 3:16-17 (King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Within the most famous gospel verse we see a pattern that conforms to a worldwide sacrifice with a conditional offer of Salvation. Yet the next verse spells this out in a bolder way. "God sent not his Son into the world" indicates that we are speaking the complete world system, not simply that Christ incarnated in the world of believers. He was seen by unbelievers as well. In fact Jesus grew up in Galilee where few had faith in him. So as the same word will have the same meaning in the same sentence.(supposing the scriptures are not contradictory) The "world" which might be saved must therefore be universal.
John 6:51 (King James Version)
51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Here we see again the conditional offer of salvation "if any man eat of this bread" The he states that He will give his flesh "for the life of the world"
Which is symbolically speaking of universal atonement.
Acts 17:30-31 (King James Version)
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Here we see a universal command of God for all men to repent. Also in context this passage is referring to humanity in general as it is to a gentile audience. but God show a desire for the world to change and the cross is an offering of assurance to the world. Yet what assurance would that be if it is only offered to a remnant?
Romans 3:22-24 (King James Version)
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Here we see the Righteousness of God being offered "unto all" then it is imputed to those who believe, making a clear distinction. "For all have sinned", orthodox evangelical are in universal agreement that here that all means all. So why would it not carry the same meaning in the previous sentence when it says "unto all"?
Romans 5:18 (King James Version)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Here we see very obviously the doctrine of universal sinfulness being fused in with the atonement implying if not meaning universal atonement. One clever argument is that these are similar but not identical. all mankind is akin to all believers. however we see a verse that will shine the light on this claim.
Romans5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." Here salvation is referred to in particular, yet condemnation is referred to in particular as well. Making it an identical comparison.
Romans 11:32 (King James Version)
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
When thinking of "all" we do not see the saints unified by unbelief. Therefore this verse implies unlimited atonement. This verse also counteracts romans 9:15 "I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy."
1 Corinthians 15:22 (King James Version)
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Here we see a parallel comparison. As powerful as Adam's curse just as invasive is Christ blessing.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19 (King James Version)
14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
In reference to the death of Christ. All were did; death is universal, so then atonement ought to be as well. "he died for all" If "they which live" is particular then it is extracted from a universal atonement of christ death for all mankind. finally Christ was "reconciling the world to himself" this gives us authority for a ministry of reconciliation. are we to try to reconcile all to christ or just the elect?
Colossians 1:20 (King James Version)
20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
"reconcile all things to himself" is as universal a statement as you will find. also "things in oearth bears this point as well.
1 Timothy 2:1-6 (King James Version)
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Now the context is obvious. We should pray for "all men" many universally all mankind. Keeping that context in mind. So in verse 4 when it says "will have all men to be saved", we know that indeed it is all mankind. We know that there is "one mediator between God and men" not just some men but all. As Jesus Christ is "a ransom for all".
1 Timothy 4:10-11 (King James Version)
10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
11These things command and teach.
Jesus is the "Savior of all men" which is the wide angle compared to "especially those who believe" this implies that Jesus has a way of being recognized as savior to unbelievers. So He atoned for the sins of all mankind potentially and especially particularly saved believers. Notice verse 11< this implies that unlimited atonement is a bible doctrine which should be taught, which in the negative proves that limited atonement is an unbiblical doctrine which should not be taught.
1 Peter 3:18 (King James Version)
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Who are the unjust? just believers? Perhaps Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.
2 Peter 3:9 (King James Version)
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
God's will as previously shown is all to be saved and "repent" also God's Will is not for any to perish. If it were limited atonement then God would will that men perish.
1 John 2:2 (King James Version)
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
This has been a verse that is a thorn in the side of limited atonement advocates. They argue that John's letter is written to a particular audience and that John is saying not just his hearers but the whole world of Christians. 1John 1:4 declares
"4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." Is John only wanting some Christians to get this message or all Christians?
More important is the "whole world" really supposed to be the elect?
"1John 5:19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."
this does not describe those born again.
1 John 4:14 (King James Version)
14And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
Here is an apostolic endorsement of the doctrine. Some still say "world of believers". But how does that mesh with 1John 2:15 where we are told to "love not the world"?
Is this universalism?
Universalism is the teaching that all people will eventually be saved. That no one will spend eternity in hell.( maybe the devil and his angels.)
If Jesus died for all then are not all saved? While some forms of reformed theology might conclude this given the strict nature of their beliefs in predestination. Most Christians well into the scholarly level, have no problem understanding a potentially universal atonement received by faith alone. In other words it is not necessarily a contradiction to believe in universal atonement alongside exclusive salvation.
How can anyone"s salvation be definite?
This is a problem posed often to fully fledged Arminians and wesleyan and pelagians. Because belief is a condition which can change. People will claim faith and then deny faith often in life. So perhaps if no one believed then God was incapable of saving anyone. However this doctrine only works in the case of those who believe that faith is a work which must be kept up in order attain salvation.
middle knowledge
Would jesus give mankind a chance? Many advocates of calvinism argue no because there is no such thing as chance. That God foreknows everything because he has designed it like a mechanistic clock. But is this necessarily true and does the Bible ever differ from this popular opinion?
The Bible speaks of God repenting in many situations. While we know that God does not actually himself change He does change what he is doing in interaction with others. (usually in the person of the Holy Spirit)
genesis 6:7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
This changing not only brings up a case for free will but also sates that there is such a thing as possiblilities. because if God is alknowing then perhaps God knows there are alternatives and God knows then all the alternatives. Then God knows everything independently. God operates in a world of chance offering up people the chance of salvation. For more information see Randy Everest article on Middle knowledge before this article.
Can people make a morally positive decision?
In christian circles there is a poular christians song by a band called "caedmon's call"/ The lyric says it best "I'm so thankful that I'm incapable of doing any good on my own." calvinism argues that this is the universal truth. That man prior to regeneration is incapable of a sincerely positive decision.
Joshua 24:22 (King James Version)
22And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
Here is a very interesting a definitive proof that people are capable of a positive decision. This is not a time where God is rewarding His people for Choosing Him. Instead it is an indictment upon them because they are not good by nature so they will not live up to their decision of obedience. The law is Holy,{romans 7:12} So they were making a holy choice to Follow Jehovah. Only they would not stay holy due to their depravity. So while human depravity cause us to be inclined towards sin and away from God it does not deterministicly bar us from any good choice.
Mark 5:34 (King James Version)
34And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
Here jesus claims the woman's faith has healed her. it is christ faith in the since that he was the object of it. However Christ makes the obvious claim that the faith was hers. Believers need the gospel to produce faith. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Once empowered by the gospel a person has the capability of a positive decision.
6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
God uses his gospel to overcome our depravity to be saved.
1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Waste of blood?
1 Peter 4:6"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
Several Calvinists have asked me. "why would jesus waste his blood for nothing?" If he does not save them then why would jesus die on the cross for them?
While this is a clever argument it makes some distorted assumptions. God has always valued mankind and teaches us to do so.
James 3:8-9
8But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
God loves mankind because mankind is in his image.
Psalm 8:4-8 (King James Version)
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
More importantly God is love
1 John 4:7-9
7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
I have become very passionate about this doctrine. Because the only thing that has given me life is the love of God. His love in me through his son and the ability to love others as a result of this. God wants us to love our neighbor. but we could never be as loving as God. I know there are many devout christians who believe in this doctrine, I do not want believers to be seduced by the consistency of worldly wisdom and be robbed of the love of God.
In Christ,
Matt
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
All apologies for classic Apologetics
links between classic, evidential-ism and idolatry
Colossians 2:18 (King James Version)
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
When a person is committing idolatry, traditionally they are creating their own concept of God.
Traditionally apologists follow secular philosophy in assuming that God must be affirmed by unbelievers through logic. In order to do this there is a tendency to present God in a way that they assume would be to the liking of the audience.
So God is subject to change.
Two typical apologist systems are evidentialism and Thomistic classical apologetics. Evidentialism is a scientific empirical system for determining truth based on evidence. The evidential apologist establishes a scientific case for the likely hood of a transcendent truth like God. But can only speak as to what evidence is given. Thomistic apologetics divorces the concepts of faith and reason. so that only reason is universal and any transcendent concept outside of monotheism and morality is faith which is subjective.
Even if an evidentialists or Thomistic apologists(follower of thomas aquinas) says they believe biblical doctrine they then declare that certain arguments are based upon faith and therefore untenable. Which makes one wonder how they can consistently believe at all.
Yet Faith covers everything to do with God.
Hebrews 11:3 "3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
So then these doctrines are not based on reason alone and faith is not to be exiled from reason.
Matthew 7:16-20 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
When we look at these philosophies we judge them by their by-products and not by their foundation. We think as long as this can support our faith in God we think it is good. But if the tree is bad then by necessity the fruit will be bad also. This is the foundation of the modern secularized church. The foundation is meaningless as long as the product is good.
Examples.
A. If lots of people come forward or come to church then you must be a good evangelist.
B. If people sound good then they must be providing good worship.
C. If I can speak with a lot of technical words i must be a good teacher.
If I can argue for the existence of a god I must be a good defender of the faith. Whether it's C.S. Lewis "mere Christianity" or Lee Strobel's "The case for a Creator"
The refusal not to defend parts of the faith is a choice to offend the word of God.
Matthew 5:18-19 (King James Version)
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 8:38 (King James Version)
38Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
To argue for a piece of the truth is also to argue the other piece of a lie. For instance I have heard many intelligent design advocates. Many of whom will argue against the idea of a young earth as taught in the bible just as strongly as they argue against biological evolution.
disobedience of sola scriptura
Colossians 2:8 (King James Version)
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Matthew 15:9 (King James Version)
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
When we try to establish doctrine based upon another source than scripture. We imply the scripture on some level is unnecessary. Much of Thomas Aquinas arguments were first propounded by Aristotle who was a pagan. So they did not require the Holy spirit to have access to the God of the Bible in Thomism. You may know right from wrong and the existence of God without the scriptures. In fact these things are proven meaning they are obvious to the sinner.
Then Thomism argues that this is true because they can convince some people of their arguments. However they do not convince everyone.
So the validity of God's existence is at the mercy of human opinion.
Also The lordship of Jehovah is undermined and this is against the scriptures.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6 (King James Version)
4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
How natural is revelation?
Romans 1:18-22 (King James Version)
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Now this passage teaches that God has revealed the truth. Yet this is not universal. It is men who particularly hold the truth in unrighteousness. These men have been revealed the wrath of God. these are not just unbelievers, they are reprobates. Now there is a universal revelation which is.
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
So all people are not convicted towards monotheism. Instead they are all convicted concerning Christ. They will be convicted over their disbelief in christ, they will be convicted concerning the righteousness of christ,through his resurrection and ascension. They will know judgement because the "prince of this world" is condemned. Which would translate to the fact that satan is the spirit of selfishness and our selfish desires are doomed to failure.
This is not released to people through nature. It is released through the gospel.
Romans 1:16 (King James Version)
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Unbelievers are ignorant.
Jonah 4:11 "And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
Unbelievers are indeed ignorant and this is why the gospel is required.
idolatry of knowledge
1 Corinthians 8:1-2 (King James Version)
1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
Unbelievers such as the gnostics consider knowledge to be the sacrament of eternal life. Faith is not our ability to attain knowledge, but our humility in receiving truth.
God is greater than the unmoved mover.
By referring to God in limited ways we veer off course of the true doctrine of God.
A classic example of an aspect which matches God but does not give any credence to the rest of God. For instance God is unmoving but he is also a God who has emotions and comforts. the Unmoved mover by itself may not follow this God. But it is essential to understand God is love. So the unmoved mover may be a deity but not believe in the God of the bible.
Is salvation a decision?
When a person becomes a christian is it based upon their giving God permission to save them?
I believe their is a difference between trusting God to save and allowing God to save.
Is my justification the fact that I allowed Christianity to be my religious affiliation, or is justification the fact that salvation was prepared for me by jesus christ and the fact that I have repented of my autonomy and recognized that He is my Lord and capable of providing it to me?
Acts 17
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
In the end I believe our thoughts about God connect to our relationship to him. I know that most people do not make their philosophy this consistent but false teachings still can damage our spirituality. it is not necessarily wrong to point out scientific evidence or a good logic argument for support. At the end of the day though you do not need these arguments to evangelize The gospel and the word of God are sufficient.
In Christ,
Matt
Colossians 2:18 (King James Version)
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
When a person is committing idolatry, traditionally they are creating their own concept of God.
Traditionally apologists follow secular philosophy in assuming that God must be affirmed by unbelievers through logic. In order to do this there is a tendency to present God in a way that they assume would be to the liking of the audience.
So God is subject to change.
Two typical apologist systems are evidentialism and Thomistic classical apologetics. Evidentialism is a scientific empirical system for determining truth based on evidence. The evidential apologist establishes a scientific case for the likely hood of a transcendent truth like God. But can only speak as to what evidence is given. Thomistic apologetics divorces the concepts of faith and reason. so that only reason is universal and any transcendent concept outside of monotheism and morality is faith which is subjective.
Even if an evidentialists or Thomistic apologists(follower of thomas aquinas) says they believe biblical doctrine they then declare that certain arguments are based upon faith and therefore untenable. Which makes one wonder how they can consistently believe at all.
Yet Faith covers everything to do with God.
Hebrews 11:3 "3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
So then these doctrines are not based on reason alone and faith is not to be exiled from reason.
Matthew 7:16-20 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
When we look at these philosophies we judge them by their by-products and not by their foundation. We think as long as this can support our faith in God we think it is good. But if the tree is bad then by necessity the fruit will be bad also. This is the foundation of the modern secularized church. The foundation is meaningless as long as the product is good.
Examples.
A. If lots of people come forward or come to church then you must be a good evangelist.
B. If people sound good then they must be providing good worship.
C. If I can speak with a lot of technical words i must be a good teacher.
If I can argue for the existence of a god I must be a good defender of the faith. Whether it's C.S. Lewis "mere Christianity" or Lee Strobel's "The case for a Creator"
The refusal not to defend parts of the faith is a choice to offend the word of God.
Matthew 5:18-19 (King James Version)
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 8:38 (King James Version)
38Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
To argue for a piece of the truth is also to argue the other piece of a lie. For instance I have heard many intelligent design advocates. Many of whom will argue against the idea of a young earth as taught in the bible just as strongly as they argue against biological evolution.
disobedience of sola scriptura
Colossians 2:8 (King James Version)
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Matthew 15:9 (King James Version)
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
When we try to establish doctrine based upon another source than scripture. We imply the scripture on some level is unnecessary. Much of Thomas Aquinas arguments were first propounded by Aristotle who was a pagan. So they did not require the Holy spirit to have access to the God of the Bible in Thomism. You may know right from wrong and the existence of God without the scriptures. In fact these things are proven meaning they are obvious to the sinner.
Then Thomism argues that this is true because they can convince some people of their arguments. However they do not convince everyone.
So the validity of God's existence is at the mercy of human opinion.
Also The lordship of Jehovah is undermined and this is against the scriptures.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6 (King James Version)
4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
How natural is revelation?
Romans 1:18-22 (King James Version)
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Now this passage teaches that God has revealed the truth. Yet this is not universal. It is men who particularly hold the truth in unrighteousness. These men have been revealed the wrath of God. these are not just unbelievers, they are reprobates. Now there is a universal revelation which is.
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
So all people are not convicted towards monotheism. Instead they are all convicted concerning Christ. They will be convicted over their disbelief in christ, they will be convicted concerning the righteousness of christ,through his resurrection and ascension. They will know judgement because the "prince of this world" is condemned. Which would translate to the fact that satan is the spirit of selfishness and our selfish desires are doomed to failure.
This is not released to people through nature. It is released through the gospel.
Romans 1:16 (King James Version)
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Unbelievers are ignorant.
Jonah 4:11 "And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?"
Unbelievers are indeed ignorant and this is why the gospel is required.
idolatry of knowledge
1 Corinthians 8:1-2 (King James Version)
1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
Unbelievers such as the gnostics consider knowledge to be the sacrament of eternal life. Faith is not our ability to attain knowledge, but our humility in receiving truth.
God is greater than the unmoved mover.
By referring to God in limited ways we veer off course of the true doctrine of God.
A classic example of an aspect which matches God but does not give any credence to the rest of God. For instance God is unmoving but he is also a God who has emotions and comforts. the Unmoved mover by itself may not follow this God. But it is essential to understand God is love. So the unmoved mover may be a deity but not believe in the God of the bible.
Is salvation a decision?
When a person becomes a christian is it based upon their giving God permission to save them?
I believe their is a difference between trusting God to save and allowing God to save.
Is my justification the fact that I allowed Christianity to be my religious affiliation, or is justification the fact that salvation was prepared for me by jesus christ and the fact that I have repented of my autonomy and recognized that He is my Lord and capable of providing it to me?
Acts 17
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
In the end I believe our thoughts about God connect to our relationship to him. I know that most people do not make their philosophy this consistent but false teachings still can damage our spirituality. it is not necessarily wrong to point out scientific evidence or a good logic argument for support. At the end of the day though you do not need these arguments to evangelize The gospel and the word of God are sufficient.
In Christ,
Matt
Friday, November 19, 2010
The Biblical case for a church democracy.
The charge of being unbiblical.) If you look through the Bible and are looking for a passage that says. This is the exact structure for which all Christians are to be organized; Thou shall have so many members so many members, so many meetings so many officers, so many procedures and that God will only bless one type of church organizational structure, then you will probably be sorely disappointed. I know I was!
But while the Bible doesn’t always directly deal with a topic, it is not therefore necessarily silent. The Bible speaks to the direct meaning of it’s passages and also speaks to us to today in what it directly implies.
An implication is when the Bible says a statement but only indirectly. We see the Lord Jesus using this hermeneutic(way of interpreting) when interpreting the law.
Matthew 5:18
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
And so Jesus teaches by implication many of his doctrines like adultery
matthew 5:27-28
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Or murder...
Matthew 5:21-23
21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
The liberation of Christ)
Galatians 4:28-5:14
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Christians are no longer simply under authority as slaves, but of the authority as the adopted royal family. If this is the understanding concerning God's Highest laws, then why would the man-made authority of the clergy be so binding?
The personal lordship of Christ)
Romans 14:4
4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
One concept which the democratic church advocates have not recently capitalized upon is the greatest biblical reason for democracy. The authority of Christ is a total monarchy. However, human authority is more indirect. But Christ is directly authoritative over us. We are not under the authority of sinners but instead the sinless Son of God.
Colossians 1:18
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
So the highest authority in the local congregation is Christ through the Holy Spirit individually.
The voluntary nature of the New Covenant)
Believers baptism acts 2:38
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Church discipline in the power of the congregation)
Matthew 18:15-20
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Here there is no mention of some superior class of christians involved with the discipline in the church. Instead the local church is given divine authority from God to conduct this act. The congregation is the final human authority for itself.
The initiation of the clergy by the people)
Acts 6:3-6
3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
The deacons were elected by the congregation.
13:1-3
1Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Even the Apostle Paul was ordained by the holy Spirit through the congregation
14:21-23
21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Now admittedly this passage is a little loose as to whether the elders were “elected”(Geneva Bible) by the apostle Paul or the congregations. However the congregation is the rational interpetation for the following reasons.
a. The converts are "the disciples" the subject of verse 22.
b. "on whom they had believed" seems to refer to the converts. Mentioning the apostles as believers is a waste of space.
c. The souls of the converts were first confirmed before the elders were commended.
The limitations upon the clergy)
Mark 9:38-41
38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is on our part.
41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Acts 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
"over the which the Holy Ghost has made you over seers, to feed the Chruch of God" Pastoral authority is over those which the Holy Spirit, and not a manmade organization, has given you the opportunity to feed with the word of God.
1 Peter 5:1-5
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Nottice the admonition in verse2 "which is among you" limiting authority to single congregations. "not by constraint, but willingly" this was not authority maintained through force or manipulation.
"Neither as being Lords over God's heretage." The apstor guides the Flock he doe snot own the flock.
The local congregation and the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
This is a fact of the local congregation. Paul is writing them and telling them that he is wanting to come to him. (obviously implying that he is not.) and then instructing them on how to behave when they are in the house of God. If this were a catholic or invisible church concept they would already be in the church.
So the local church is the house of God and the pillar of truth. This is why the local church must be autonomous to all human authorities.
Business meetings?)
While the Bible doesn’t actually have business meetings the way they are done according to Robert’s rules of order. They did meet together and issues would have been likely brought up. We see the first business meeeting took place in acts.
13And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
So they conducted there business replacing the treasurer and picked the top
candidates. Nottice Peter did not use top down authority to choose the successor? This passage clearly qualifies as the conducting of a NEw Testament Business meeting.
In corinthians we have situations describe where business could be conducted.
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40Let all things be done decently and in order.
So the church has a certain order and organization whereby it conducts its business. We see the major emphasis of the New Testament is to determine the will of God. Modern autonomous churches need to return to this model.
Shaky competition)
The offices of the Popes, cardinals, archbishops and priest are not found in the New Testament even though they are the highest authorities in the catholic church. the idea of a college of cardinals and a Pope are more simlar to the government system of the Roman Empire.
We see a similar dilemma in The eastern orthodox church in terms of arch bishops as well as infant baptized national church members.
Other systems like the presbyterian republican model might have some weight in the Old Testament but not in the New. The Anglican church is about even with the eastern orthodox in this regard.
All together congregationalism is the only biblical approach to church government.
In Christ,
Matt
But while the Bible doesn’t always directly deal with a topic, it is not therefore necessarily silent. The Bible speaks to the direct meaning of it’s passages and also speaks to us to today in what it directly implies.
An implication is when the Bible says a statement but only indirectly. We see the Lord Jesus using this hermeneutic(way of interpreting) when interpreting the law.
Matthew 5:18
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
And so Jesus teaches by implication many of his doctrines like adultery
matthew 5:27-28
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Or murder...
Matthew 5:21-23
21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
The liberation of Christ)
Galatians 4:28-5:14
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Christians are no longer simply under authority as slaves, but of the authority as the adopted royal family. If this is the understanding concerning God's Highest laws, then why would the man-made authority of the clergy be so binding?
The personal lordship of Christ)
Romans 14:4
4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
One concept which the democratic church advocates have not recently capitalized upon is the greatest biblical reason for democracy. The authority of Christ is a total monarchy. However, human authority is more indirect. But Christ is directly authoritative over us. We are not under the authority of sinners but instead the sinless Son of God.
Colossians 1:18
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
So the highest authority in the local congregation is Christ through the Holy Spirit individually.
The voluntary nature of the New Covenant)
Believers baptism acts 2:38
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Church discipline in the power of the congregation)
Matthew 18:15-20
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Here there is no mention of some superior class of christians involved with the discipline in the church. Instead the local church is given divine authority from God to conduct this act. The congregation is the final human authority for itself.
The initiation of the clergy by the people)
Acts 6:3-6
3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
The deacons were elected by the congregation.
13:1-3
1Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Even the Apostle Paul was ordained by the holy Spirit through the congregation
14:21-23
21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Now admittedly this passage is a little loose as to whether the elders were “elected”(Geneva Bible) by the apostle Paul or the congregations. However the congregation is the rational interpetation for the following reasons.
a. The converts are "the disciples" the subject of verse 22.
b. "on whom they had believed" seems to refer to the converts. Mentioning the apostles as believers is a waste of space.
c. The souls of the converts were first confirmed before the elders were commended.
The limitations upon the clergy)
Mark 9:38-41
38And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is on our part.
41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Acts 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
"over the which the Holy Ghost has made you over seers, to feed the Chruch of God" Pastoral authority is over those which the Holy Spirit, and not a manmade organization, has given you the opportunity to feed with the word of God.
1 Peter 5:1-5
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Nottice the admonition in verse2 "which is among you" limiting authority to single congregations. "not by constraint, but willingly" this was not authority maintained through force or manipulation.
"Neither as being Lords over God's heretage." The apstor guides the Flock he doe snot own the flock.
The local congregation and the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
This is a fact of the local congregation. Paul is writing them and telling them that he is wanting to come to him. (obviously implying that he is not.) and then instructing them on how to behave when they are in the house of God. If this were a catholic or invisible church concept they would already be in the church.
So the local church is the house of God and the pillar of truth. This is why the local church must be autonomous to all human authorities.
Business meetings?)
While the Bible doesn’t actually have business meetings the way they are done according to Robert’s rules of order. They did meet together and issues would have been likely brought up. We see the first business meeeting took place in acts.
13And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
So they conducted there business replacing the treasurer and picked the top
candidates. Nottice Peter did not use top down authority to choose the successor? This passage clearly qualifies as the conducting of a NEw Testament Business meeting.
In corinthians we have situations describe where business could be conducted.
28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40Let all things be done decently and in order.
So the church has a certain order and organization whereby it conducts its business. We see the major emphasis of the New Testament is to determine the will of God. Modern autonomous churches need to return to this model.
Shaky competition)
The offices of the Popes, cardinals, archbishops and priest are not found in the New Testament even though they are the highest authorities in the catholic church. the idea of a college of cardinals and a Pope are more simlar to the government system of the Roman Empire.
We see a similar dilemma in The eastern orthodox church in terms of arch bishops as well as infant baptized national church members.
Other systems like the presbyterian republican model might have some weight in the Old Testament but not in the New. The Anglican church is about even with the eastern orthodox in this regard.
All together congregationalism is the only biblical approach to church government.
In Christ,
Matt
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
specifically begotton.
One debate which is not a very well known outside of theological circles is the debate regarding the Son ship of Christ. When we say that Jesus is the Son of God; how does that work? The Arians and jehovah'S Witness take this simply that Jesus is the creation of God the Father. They have trouble reconciling this with passages indicating That Jesus is the Lord God and therefore eternal. Yet even among the trinitarians there is a debate over the nature of his Sonship. Is Jesus the Son of God by means of his human nature or his deified nature?
This debate is obviously a little more technical. However it is still important for the minister in developing a proper systematic theology and handling the Challenges of the cults.
The view that I hold is incarnational sonship, that That the man Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God. That while I concede that The logos or deity of Christ may be entitled "Son" The deity was not begotten/generated since he is eternal.
The view which I critique "eternal sonship/eternal generation" denies that Jesus was begotten of God at His incarnation but instead the deity of Christ was generated by the Father in eternity past. Also the nature of this eternal generation is mysterious and not to be questioned.
So one phrase used in this debate "eternal Son of God" is not one that is of necessity biblical thought those who hold to eternal generation will used it as their Banner.
1. eternally begotten) a contradiction
Many modern champions of this view like to change the language of the debate by labeling the position eternal son-ship. However, the historical phrase is that Jesus was "eternally begotten" of the Father in eternity past,present and future.
be·get
/bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled[bih-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
Dictionary.com
So essentially if the Father beget the Word, then He produced the Logos. Then the second person of the trinity is not eternal.
e·ter·nal
/ɪˈtɜrnl/ Show Spelled[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.Dictionary.com
So here is the obvious contradiction. You can not be caused and have no beginning at the same time.
Yet the Logos is eternal.
John 1:1-3
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians1:16-17
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Revelation
1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
2. the complete history of eternal begotten doctrine
A. Origen
Origen in defending the deity of Christ came up with this doctrine. The problem with this idea is that it is in inherently subordinate. Not surprisingly Origen was openly a subordinationist. (in other words he held that the Son and the spirit were inferior to the Father)
"We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceeded the other beings." Origen quoted by Henry Crouzel pg. 203 and later Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 110
b. The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87
B. eusibius influence on creed
Eusibius was a primitive catholic and he had a great influence upon the nicene creed much of the creed was based upon his churches confession.
Eusibius theology was not entirely sound. He tried to synthesize the the deity of Christ with ariansim and he rejected the book of revelation in the canon.
“In order to analyze these discrepancies, one must first discern something of Eusebius’ national, personal and theological positions. Although we know little of His life, It is fairly certain that Eusebius was born in Caesarea about 263. This was the city which had ordained Origen and which, when he was condemned by synods in Alexandira and-significantly-Rome, sheltered after his excommunication.
“It was in Caesarea that Origen deposited his library, began a school, and continued his scholarship until his death in 254-within a decade of Eusebius’birth. After Origen’s death, his library came under the curatorship of pamphilus, who had studied in Alexandria under the Originist teacher Pierus. In his youth, Eusebius assisted Pamphilus; about the year 308 he coauthored the ‘Apology for Origen’ with Him. Breathing the air of Origen’s Own library, having learned from and assisted Origen’s principle defender, it is self evident that Eusebius was not only an easterner, but also a supporter of Origen.
“It is not surprising to learn that Eusebius should have later been Arian in His theology. Like Origen, Arius also taught subordinationism, and, like Origen, Arius found support in the east, from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and our Eusebius, who by that time was bishop of Caesaria.” Attridge, Harold W. “Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism” Pg. 317-18
The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea. - The creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council was of this expanded character, and ran as follows: ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation
[124]
was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.’
H.N. Bate, History of the Church to 325, 2nd edn. London: Rivingtons, 1924. Hbk. pp.119-125.CHAPTER X The Council of Nicaea
I think we must take note that Eusebius had already had the doctrine of eternal generation in His creed which was the product of Origen's theology. Eusebius creed was the foundation of the Nicene creed. So the doctrine of eternal generation was implanted in the creed and made government law. Afterall, the Bishops were focused on Arianism.
Therefore much like in American law where a lobbyist may author a Bill and the senators might not actually even read the bill. The Bishops of Nicene passed this doctrine without necessarily any deep thought on the matter.
3.scriptural support for eternal generation
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Here we see evidence that the Son of God is deity. So the Son was begotton of the Father. But that is not really the issue up for debate. The issue of the debate is whether the deity was or is eternally still being begotten.
18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
This is clear evidence that the title Son of God implies the deity of Christ. So therefore according to Eternal sonship advocates christ was begotton in eternity.
However the crux of the Debate is not whether or not the Son of God is deity. That is settled by the fact that there is one christ. The Question is: does this passage say Jesus is eternally begotton. Besides, it was the man claiming that he was the Son of God here. Implying that the man was the Son of God and therefore that Jesus was incarnationally begotten of the father.
5. Explanations for lack of study.
The Nicene Creed was a government enforced document. As a result a minister could be imprisoned, excommunicated and possibly tortured for disagreement with the doctrine of eternal generation. Many of the "Conservative" preachers would emphasize
the mystery of God concerning the contradictions.
The same can be said of Presbyterians under the Westminster confession, though it would not have been persecuted per se.
I don't have the ability to determine why MacArthur would have switched his views, as I don't know His heart. But with as much scholarship as he has put into his views I doubt he completely converted his views. So I think it could be another explanation. It could be acceptance among evangelical elites, intimidation of numbers, fear of a church backlash etc.
However I find it telling in MacArthur's "reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ" Here in this document MacArthur has to successfully refute himself.
One major objection to the eternally begotten doctrine is the fact That the Logos has to Relate to the father as Generated from the Father, yet the Holy Spirit on proceeds from the father and does not relate to the Father as a father at all. MacArthur had held this objection previously. So does he answer this dilemma?
"If Christ's sonship is all about His deity, someone will wonder why this applies to the Second Member of the Trinity alone, and not to the Third. After all, we don't refer to the Holy Spirit as God's Son, do we? Yet isn't He also of the same essence as the Father?
"Of course He is. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence; yet He exists in three Persons. The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery.
"In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history. I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply."
So he says it is a mystery! You can not answer irrational-ism with a mystery! How can you claim that Jesus the man can not be the Son of God and that he needs to be subordinate to the Father, when an equal spiritual person doesn't have to at all! If it is a mystery, then it has not been unveiled. If it is revelation it was a mystery; but a mystery no longer. God is not the author of confusion! Perhaps it is a mystery because God did not reveal it! When preachers use such irrational arguments they are not working on the side of God anymore. They are instead comforting the enemy. God is logical. The logos is logical. Yes, they are words which are completely connected.
Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
God communicates to us rationally. Religious politics is getting old.
6. Scriptural support for the only begotton Son being begotton on the earth
Matthew 1:18-25 (King James Version)
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So the messiah was conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is God and Jesus is being begotten. Jesus fulfills the prophesy of being Emmanuel "God with us". So then Jesus is the one person and both natures are being spoken of. So then the Logos is having the verb "begotten" refer to the Incarnation.
Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Nottice How the centurion identifies the man as the son of God. Is he incoorrect. Is the Man not the Son?
John 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
First why IS he identified as Word if he was eternally begotten Son? Secondly wouldn't "made flesh" be close enough to begotten to say that if Jesus is the only begotten son it was when the deity/Word was made flesh?
I may have this article edited in the future. But I wanted to get people thinking on this topic now.
In Christ,
Matt
This debate is obviously a little more technical. However it is still important for the minister in developing a proper systematic theology and handling the Challenges of the cults.
The view that I hold is incarnational sonship, that That the man Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God. That while I concede that The logos or deity of Christ may be entitled "Son" The deity was not begotten/generated since he is eternal.
The view which I critique "eternal sonship/eternal generation" denies that Jesus was begotten of God at His incarnation but instead the deity of Christ was generated by the Father in eternity past. Also the nature of this eternal generation is mysterious and not to be questioned.
So one phrase used in this debate "eternal Son of God" is not one that is of necessity biblical thought those who hold to eternal generation will used it as their Banner.
1. eternally begotten) a contradiction
Many modern champions of this view like to change the language of the debate by labeling the position eternal son-ship. However, the historical phrase is that Jesus was "eternally begotten" of the Father in eternity past,present and future.
be·get
/bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled[bih-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
Dictionary.com
So essentially if the Father beget the Word, then He produced the Logos. Then the second person of the trinity is not eternal.
e·ter·nal
/ɪˈtɜrnl/ Show Spelled[ih-tur-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics . existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.Dictionary.com
So here is the obvious contradiction. You can not be caused and have no beginning at the same time.
Yet the Logos is eternal.
John 1:1-3
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians1:16-17
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Revelation
1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
2. the complete history of eternal begotten doctrine
A. Origen
Origen in defending the deity of Christ came up with this doctrine. The problem with this idea is that it is in inherently subordinate. Not surprisingly Origen was openly a subordinationist. (in other words he held that the Son and the spirit were inferior to the Father)
"We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceeded the other beings." Origen quoted by Henry Crouzel pg. 203 and later Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 110
b. The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87
B. eusibius influence on creed
Eusibius was a primitive catholic and he had a great influence upon the nicene creed much of the creed was based upon his churches confession.
Eusibius theology was not entirely sound. He tried to synthesize the the deity of Christ with ariansim and he rejected the book of revelation in the canon.
“In order to analyze these discrepancies, one must first discern something of Eusebius’ national, personal and theological positions. Although we know little of His life, It is fairly certain that Eusebius was born in Caesarea about 263. This was the city which had ordained Origen and which, when he was condemned by synods in Alexandira and-significantly-Rome, sheltered after his excommunication.
“It was in Caesarea that Origen deposited his library, began a school, and continued his scholarship until his death in 254-within a decade of Eusebius’birth. After Origen’s death, his library came under the curatorship of pamphilus, who had studied in Alexandria under the Originist teacher Pierus. In his youth, Eusebius assisted Pamphilus; about the year 308 he coauthored the ‘Apology for Origen’ with Him. Breathing the air of Origen’s Own library, having learned from and assisted Origen’s principle defender, it is self evident that Eusebius was not only an easterner, but also a supporter of Origen.
“It is not surprising to learn that Eusebius should have later been Arian in His theology. Like Origen, Arius also taught subordinationism, and, like Origen, Arius found support in the east, from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and our Eusebius, who by that time was bishop of Caesaria.” Attridge, Harold W. “Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism” Pg. 317-18
The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea. - The creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council was of this expanded character, and ran as follows: ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation
[124]
was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.’
H.N. Bate, History of the Church to 325, 2nd edn. London: Rivingtons, 1924. Hbk. pp.119-125.CHAPTER X The Council of Nicaea
I think we must take note that Eusebius had already had the doctrine of eternal generation in His creed which was the product of Origen's theology. Eusebius creed was the foundation of the Nicene creed. So the doctrine of eternal generation was implanted in the creed and made government law. Afterall, the Bishops were focused on Arianism.
Therefore much like in American law where a lobbyist may author a Bill and the senators might not actually even read the bill. The Bishops of Nicene passed this doctrine without necessarily any deep thought on the matter.
3.scriptural support for eternal generation
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Here we see evidence that the Son of God is deity. So the Son was begotton of the Father. But that is not really the issue up for debate. The issue of the debate is whether the deity was or is eternally still being begotten.
18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
This is clear evidence that the title Son of God implies the deity of Christ. So therefore according to Eternal sonship advocates christ was begotton in eternity.
However the crux of the Debate is not whether or not the Son of God is deity. That is settled by the fact that there is one christ. The Question is: does this passage say Jesus is eternally begotton. Besides, it was the man claiming that he was the Son of God here. Implying that the man was the Son of God and therefore that Jesus was incarnationally begotten of the father.
5. Explanations for lack of study.
The Nicene Creed was a government enforced document. As a result a minister could be imprisoned, excommunicated and possibly tortured for disagreement with the doctrine of eternal generation. Many of the "Conservative" preachers would emphasize
the mystery of God concerning the contradictions.
The same can be said of Presbyterians under the Westminster confession, though it would not have been persecuted per se.
I don't have the ability to determine why MacArthur would have switched his views, as I don't know His heart. But with as much scholarship as he has put into his views I doubt he completely converted his views. So I think it could be another explanation. It could be acceptance among evangelical elites, intimidation of numbers, fear of a church backlash etc.
However I find it telling in MacArthur's "reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ" Here in this document MacArthur has to successfully refute himself.
One major objection to the eternally begotten doctrine is the fact That the Logos has to Relate to the father as Generated from the Father, yet the Holy Spirit on proceeds from the father and does not relate to the Father as a father at all. MacArthur had held this objection previously. So does he answer this dilemma?
"If Christ's sonship is all about His deity, someone will wonder why this applies to the Second Member of the Trinity alone, and not to the Third. After all, we don't refer to the Holy Spirit as God's Son, do we? Yet isn't He also of the same essence as the Father?
"Of course He is. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence; yet He exists in three Persons. The three Persons are co-equal, but they are still distinct Persons. And the chief characteristics that distinguish between the Persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery.
"In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over many centuries of Church history. I therefore affirm the doctrine of Christ's eternal sonship while acknowledging it as a mystery into which we should not expect to pry too deeply."
So he says it is a mystery! You can not answer irrational-ism with a mystery! How can you claim that Jesus the man can not be the Son of God and that he needs to be subordinate to the Father, when an equal spiritual person doesn't have to at all! If it is a mystery, then it has not been unveiled. If it is revelation it was a mystery; but a mystery no longer. God is not the author of confusion! Perhaps it is a mystery because God did not reveal it! When preachers use such irrational arguments they are not working on the side of God anymore. They are instead comforting the enemy. God is logical. The logos is logical. Yes, they are words which are completely connected.
Isaiah 1:18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
God communicates to us rationally. Religious politics is getting old.
6. Scriptural support for the only begotton Son being begotton on the earth
Matthew 1:18-25 (King James Version)
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So the messiah was conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is God and Jesus is being begotten. Jesus fulfills the prophesy of being Emmanuel "God with us". So then Jesus is the one person and both natures are being spoken of. So then the Logos is having the verb "begotten" refer to the Incarnation.
Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Nottice How the centurion identifies the man as the son of God. Is he incoorrect. Is the Man not the Son?
John 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
First why IS he identified as Word if he was eternally begotten Son? Secondly wouldn't "made flesh" be close enough to begotten to say that if Jesus is the only begotten son it was when the deity/Word was made flesh?
I may have this article edited in the future. But I wanted to get people thinking on this topic now.
In Christ,
Matt
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The New Testament trinity verses the catholic trinity
A. Scripture verses tradition
The very core of catholic verses new Testament Christian theology is irreconcilably different.
Catholicism is ran by human sources. It carries an undefined sacred tradition. It claims authority over the Biblical canon. It claims authority over interpretation. It claims the authority to make new traditions.
The New Testament church is ran by the Bible. The Bible has a fixed canon. Most New Testament Churches understand their regular duty to practice specifically what is taught in scripture.
"Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men." Nicene creed
While I do not necessarily have a problem with teachers of the early church, they are not an absolute source of authority because their teachings were human.
"and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." Chalcedonian creed
The scriptures themselves clearly condemn subverting scripture to traditions of men.
15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:1-9
The Scriptures are the foundation of our faith.
3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2 Peter 3:1-2
B. Unsaved orthodoxy
"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
nicene creed
Here we have two major errors in the way of salvation. One is a view of Baptism as the way of salvation; by implication that one must be saved through joining a particular church.
While baptism is a sign of salvation it is not the power of God which brings salvation. This is the Gospel.
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:16
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 corinthians 1:17
The question is not which group we associate with but in whom we have believed.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
"He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."Athanasian Creed
Here we see that the creed states that God's judgment is constructed as a works based salvation. It is also stated that one's salvation or damnation depend on whether they believe this along with the rest of the creed.
However the gospel states clearly that no man is sinless or good.
16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19. Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. 22. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25. When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26. But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Romans 3:10-19
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13. Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: 14. Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: 15. Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: 16. Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: 17. And the way of peace have they not known: 18. There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
The Bible teaches that we are justified god's grace through faith, not of works.
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Yet their is only one gospel which is essential to salvation to believe.
Galatians 1:7-10
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Galatians 3:1-2
1. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Since these writers of the creeds have taught false teachings they are not to be viewed as the measurement for truth.
50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or [that] thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
Psalms 50:16-17
C. Historical development
The concept of the trinity was 1st developed by North African pastor Tertulian. He was in opposition to the doctrines of modalism. Tertulian's doctrine was simple and it would be 200 years before The church became catholic and the creed established. Over the centuries the theologians would stretch the doctrine further past Biblical explanation. This culminated in the creed of "athanasius", which was not written by Athanasius. This creed would effect the Western understanding of the trinity for centuries following.
"In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity
in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology, although ample witness is borne to the religious experience from which the doctrine springs. None the less Christ is acknowledged as the eternal Son of God and the supreme revelation of the Father, and the quickening Spirit of life is acknowledged to be derived ' from on high." And so, when the early Christians would describe their conception of God, all the three elements-God, Christ, and the Spirit-enter into the description, and the one God is found to be revealed in a threefold way." (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, Trinity, p 458)
"From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
It is important when critiquing the catholic trinity that we are aware of the major heretical competitors and distinguish the New Testament trinity for their teachings.
gnosticism/adoption) Gnosticism was a pagan religion which fused itself with pagan concepts and therefore it is more like Mormonism with a view point between tri-theism and polytheism with Jesus being adopted into god-hood. This was one of the first identified heresies.
modalism)This view destroys all the distinctions in the Godhead. The idea that the names of the trinity do not represent persons, instead they are descriptions of the same person.
subordinationism) The idea that the Holy Spirit and the Son are the products of God the Father and therefore inferior in their deified nature.
Arianism) The idea, that though the Holy Spirit and the Son are like God they are not full in deity nor are they the same being as the Father. This also lead's to a practical paganism or Unitarianism depending.
All of these teachings are false. The Simple understanding of the trinity is One almighty God with three persons.
So essentially both Catholic and New Testament church models are trinitarian. The catholic model is simply more complex and less biblical.
D. Simple verses complex trinity
We see in the Athanasian Creed an overstatement of equality.
"Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord."
Now here the writers of the creed are focused on pounding out the doctrine of the trinity. But as we will see see they focus more on the principles by means of philosophy as opposed to searching the scriptures.
Here we see terms and concepts that are not directly found in the scripture. For instance "incomprehensible". This term has several applications some Biblical some un-biblical. If we were trying to measure the vastness of God that would be incomprehensible. Yet if, define incomprehensible in terms of God being an illogical/irrational concept, then no that is heresy.
Where does the Bible discuss one verses three eternals? Or one verses three incomprehensibilities? This is not the type of discussion for the layperson and yet this is stated by the creed to be essential to the faith for salvation. Therefore the Creed is Hinting at salvation based on clergy. Since the lay person did not have access to the scriptures and would trouble understanding the concepts fully.
While The Nicene creed has a place for relational subordination, the athanasian creed has no such place which can lure one towards modelism.
As in the Athanasian creed "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal." The Bible doesn't say equality in glory. Instead it has the son and the spirit submitting their glory unto the father.
15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28
E. 3 persons related in submission verses three persons related in subordination.
Now there are different definitions to the word "subordination". Sometimes it is submission; in which case that would be true. Other times it is a rank of inferiority. The persons of the Godhead are equal in terms of power and therefore not subordinate.
Yet one way in which the Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate is in their office both are tied to their descent into the earthly realm. Therefore in this light they were subordinate to the father since the Father was always reigning "in Heaven".
Both the Logos and the Holy Ghost inseparable to the Godhead therefore they have all the power of God behind them. Yet the scriptures will speak, when relating them together, to the Father as God, Jesus as Lord, and the Holy Spirit as Spirit.
However, the problem with traditional subordination is that the Holy Spirit and Christ appear as if they are different entities. This leads to the conclusion of tri-theism. This easily becomes paganism because the names of gods become synonymous.
Typically the scriptures emphasize the distinction in relation by calling the father-God and the Son-Lord.
4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
Ephesians 4:4-6
8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 8:6
13:13 \13:14\The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen. <[The second [epistle] to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, [a city] of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]>
2 Corinthians 13:14
F. A Holy God who shares His glory with no one. vrs. A God who shares His glory with Mary
"truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union" Chalcedonian Creed
Here is where we see the deification of Mary first spring up. Chalcedon strong emphasizes the unity of Christ and then declares Mary to be the "mother of God". In fact, they rejected and even treated as heresy the idea of calling Mary the Mother of Christ. This insinuates that Christ would be subordinate to Mary. They try to stop this by saying Mary is mother according to the flesh.
However this doctrine is easy to override for the pagans. Catholics believe in "traducianism", in other words that people inherit their souls from their parents. So the one person Christ inherited His soul from His mother.
So then the person of the logos must have received a portion of his person-hood through Mary, This would imply that Christ is subordinate to Mary. Then Christ submits to His Mother and Mary is superior to the Son. But also remember That Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. So therefore, Mary has superior priority to two persons of the trinity!
While Catholic theologians may argue that they do not interpret the doctrine this way, they use icons and statues to convey this message constantly. Erecting statues of Mary in a glorify state by herself. Crowning these statues and calling her queen of Heaven. O have seen pictures in Vatican city displaying Mary in the fashion of a pagan goddess. Having Mary hang on a crucifix behind Jesus. In Chicago, Saint Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church has a statue of Mary over the ark of God. This would place Mary at the center of God's salvation.
44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. 44:27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that [are] in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.
Jeremiah 44:25-27
G. The invisible God vs a God of many idols.
Catholicism is monotheistic in terms profession but is polytheistic in terms of practices.
1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
John 1:18
The point of God's invisibility is that God is not limited to the imagination. That God could only be perceived through his direct revelation. We only need to enter the Vatican to find images of God. In the Sistine chapel God the Father is depicted as a large naked man. Also the persons of the Godhead have separate depictions making it appear 3 gods.
In the world of paint and iconic imagery God is humiliated. His power is limited to the artist. Even if He is portrayed as powerful it is only there due to the permission of the artist.
This is the great curse of Catholicism. Man has authority over God. How could God ever approved? It has been said that there are priests who practice but no longer have faith in God. I have not met that many priest, but I have met several Catholics who are atheist. They will still practice their religion, but they have no personal faith in God. I met a fella at work who denied the existence of God, the Bible etc. He said he was raised catholic. He was very liberal and secular; as I tried to witness to him he seemed oblivious to any concerns. But then U had an idea, I became very critical of the pope and the papal system, I argue against the efficiency of the sacramental system. All of the sudden his confidence and calm were gone, He started to argue very passionately and act offended. But why would an atheist be so protective of the papacy? The fact is for a lot of people, the RCC is a back up worldview. They may live as heathens, but in case their is judgment they may find shelter in the papacy. I believe the key to this error is the idea that man somehow has authority over God. As long as we break the commandment.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.1 John 5:21
H. What does this mean?
Now I want to be careful in my judgment here. The doctrine of the trinity is essential to salvation. Yet the requirement for this is consistent with childlike faith. In other words, I believe we are required to understand the simple doctrine of the trinity according to our maturity. In general, I accept the premise that most Catholics are trinitarian. The differences, are minor and I assume that God would not judge the laity over this.
Yet there are theological consequences. By minimizing personal distinctions, I believe this provided a background for Thomas Aquinas' Aristotelian philosophy "thomism". This is the main "classical apologetic" approach. Wherein Aquinas argues for the existence of a Unitarian god. He claims that it is rational to argue for a Unitarian God. But that the trinitarian God requires revelation and faith. I believe that the real reason is because the Athanasian version of the trinity provided Catholic theologians a more modelistic view point which made trinitarianism appear irrational. Also Aquinas is borrowing from the writings of Unitarian Greeks and Muslims. The real problem is that this apologetics can never be of evangelistic use to Christians since it can not defend what is uniquely and essentially Christian.
One main issue, is that this serves us notice of the divorce between New Testament Christianity and Roman Catholicism. As shown in previous articles we have a different history, a different salvation, a different canon, a different worship, a different hierarchy, a different Christ and finally a different God. Roman Catholic is a completely Separate religion from New Testament Christianity. Mainline protestantism may have ties with Catholicism but we do not find this in scripture.
In Christ,
Matt
The very core of catholic verses new Testament Christian theology is irreconcilably different.
Catholicism is ran by human sources. It carries an undefined sacred tradition. It claims authority over the Biblical canon. It claims authority over interpretation. It claims the authority to make new traditions.
The New Testament church is ran by the Bible. The Bible has a fixed canon. Most New Testament Churches understand their regular duty to practice specifically what is taught in scripture.
"Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men." Nicene creed
While I do not necessarily have a problem with teachers of the early church, they are not an absolute source of authority because their teachings were human.
"and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." Chalcedonian creed
The scriptures themselves clearly condemn subverting scripture to traditions of men.
15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 15:7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:1-9
The Scriptures are the foundation of our faith.
3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2 Peter 3:1-2
B. Unsaved orthodoxy
"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
nicene creed
Here we have two major errors in the way of salvation. One is a view of Baptism as the way of salvation; by implication that one must be saved through joining a particular church.
While baptism is a sign of salvation it is not the power of God which brings salvation. This is the Gospel.
1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:16
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 corinthians 1:17
The question is not which group we associate with but in whom we have believed.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
"He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."Athanasian Creed
Here we see that the creed states that God's judgment is constructed as a works based salvation. It is also stated that one's salvation or damnation depend on whether they believe this along with the rest of the creed.
However the gospel states clearly that no man is sinless or good.
16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19. Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. 22. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25. When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26. But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Romans 3:10-19
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13. Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: 14. Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: 15. Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: 16. Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: 17. And the way of peace have they not known: 18. There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
The Bible teaches that we are justified god's grace through faith, not of works.
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Yet their is only one gospel which is essential to salvation to believe.
Galatians 1:7-10
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Galatians 3:1-2
1. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Since these writers of the creeds have taught false teachings they are not to be viewed as the measurement for truth.
50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or [that] thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
Psalms 50:16-17
C. Historical development
The concept of the trinity was 1st developed by North African pastor Tertulian. He was in opposition to the doctrines of modalism. Tertulian's doctrine was simple and it would be 200 years before The church became catholic and the creed established. Over the centuries the theologians would stretch the doctrine further past Biblical explanation. This culminated in the creed of "athanasius", which was not written by Athanasius. This creed would effect the Western understanding of the trinity for centuries following.
"In the New Testament we do not find the doctrine of the Trinity
in anything like its developed form, not even in the Pauline and Johannine theology, although ample witness is borne to the religious experience from which the doctrine springs. None the less Christ is acknowledged as the eternal Son of God and the supreme revelation of the Father, and the quickening Spirit of life is acknowledged to be derived ' from on high." And so, when the early Christians would describe their conception of God, all the three elements-God, Christ, and the Spirit-enter into the description, and the one God is found to be revealed in a threefold way." (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, Trinity, p 458)
"From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
It is important when critiquing the catholic trinity that we are aware of the major heretical competitors and distinguish the New Testament trinity for their teachings.
gnosticism/adoption) Gnosticism was a pagan religion which fused itself with pagan concepts and therefore it is more like Mormonism with a view point between tri-theism and polytheism with Jesus being adopted into god-hood. This was one of the first identified heresies.
modalism)This view destroys all the distinctions in the Godhead. The idea that the names of the trinity do not represent persons, instead they are descriptions of the same person.
subordinationism) The idea that the Holy Spirit and the Son are the products of God the Father and therefore inferior in their deified nature.
Arianism) The idea, that though the Holy Spirit and the Son are like God they are not full in deity nor are they the same being as the Father. This also lead's to a practical paganism or Unitarianism depending.
All of these teachings are false. The Simple understanding of the trinity is One almighty God with three persons.
So essentially both Catholic and New Testament church models are trinitarian. The catholic model is simply more complex and less biblical.
D. Simple verses complex trinity
We see in the Athanasian Creed an overstatement of equality.
"Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord."
Now here the writers of the creed are focused on pounding out the doctrine of the trinity. But as we will see see they focus more on the principles by means of philosophy as opposed to searching the scriptures.
Here we see terms and concepts that are not directly found in the scripture. For instance "incomprehensible". This term has several applications some Biblical some un-biblical. If we were trying to measure the vastness of God that would be incomprehensible. Yet if, define incomprehensible in terms of God being an illogical/irrational concept, then no that is heresy.
Where does the Bible discuss one verses three eternals? Or one verses three incomprehensibilities? This is not the type of discussion for the layperson and yet this is stated by the creed to be essential to the faith for salvation. Therefore the Creed is Hinting at salvation based on clergy. Since the lay person did not have access to the scriptures and would trouble understanding the concepts fully.
While The Nicene creed has a place for relational subordination, the athanasian creed has no such place which can lure one towards modelism.
As in the Athanasian creed "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal." The Bible doesn't say equality in glory. Instead it has the son and the spirit submitting their glory unto the father.
15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28
E. 3 persons related in submission verses three persons related in subordination.
Now there are different definitions to the word "subordination". Sometimes it is submission; in which case that would be true. Other times it is a rank of inferiority. The persons of the Godhead are equal in terms of power and therefore not subordinate.
Yet one way in which the Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate is in their office both are tied to their descent into the earthly realm. Therefore in this light they were subordinate to the father since the Father was always reigning "in Heaven".
Both the Logos and the Holy Ghost inseparable to the Godhead therefore they have all the power of God behind them. Yet the scriptures will speak, when relating them together, to the Father as God, Jesus as Lord, and the Holy Spirit as Spirit.
However, the problem with traditional subordination is that the Holy Spirit and Christ appear as if they are different entities. This leads to the conclusion of tri-theism. This easily becomes paganism because the names of gods become synonymous.
Typically the scriptures emphasize the distinction in relation by calling the father-God and the Son-Lord.
4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
Ephesians 4:4-6
8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 8:6
13:13 \13:14\The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen. <[The second [epistle] to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, [a city] of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas.]>
2 Corinthians 13:14
F. A Holy God who shares His glory with no one. vrs. A God who shares His glory with Mary
"truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union" Chalcedonian Creed
Here is where we see the deification of Mary first spring up. Chalcedon strong emphasizes the unity of Christ and then declares Mary to be the "mother of God". In fact, they rejected and even treated as heresy the idea of calling Mary the Mother of Christ. This insinuates that Christ would be subordinate to Mary. They try to stop this by saying Mary is mother according to the flesh.
However this doctrine is easy to override for the pagans. Catholics believe in "traducianism", in other words that people inherit their souls from their parents. So the one person Christ inherited His soul from His mother.
So then the person of the logos must have received a portion of his person-hood through Mary, This would imply that Christ is subordinate to Mary. Then Christ submits to His Mother and Mary is superior to the Son. But also remember That Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. So therefore, Mary has superior priority to two persons of the trinity!
While Catholic theologians may argue that they do not interpret the doctrine this way, they use icons and statues to convey this message constantly. Erecting statues of Mary in a glorify state by herself. Crowning these statues and calling her queen of Heaven. O have seen pictures in Vatican city displaying Mary in the fashion of a pagan goddess. Having Mary hang on a crucifix behind Jesus. In Chicago, Saint Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church has a statue of Mary over the ark of God. This would place Mary at the center of God's salvation.
44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. 44:26 Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. 44:27 Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that [are] in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.
Jeremiah 44:25-27
G. The invisible God vs a God of many idols.
Catholicism is monotheistic in terms profession but is polytheistic in terms of practices.
1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
John 1:18
The point of God's invisibility is that God is not limited to the imagination. That God could only be perceived through his direct revelation. We only need to enter the Vatican to find images of God. In the Sistine chapel God the Father is depicted as a large naked man. Also the persons of the Godhead have separate depictions making it appear 3 gods.
In the world of paint and iconic imagery God is humiliated. His power is limited to the artist. Even if He is portrayed as powerful it is only there due to the permission of the artist.
This is the great curse of Catholicism. Man has authority over God. How could God ever approved? It has been said that there are priests who practice but no longer have faith in God. I have not met that many priest, but I have met several Catholics who are atheist. They will still practice their religion, but they have no personal faith in God. I met a fella at work who denied the existence of God, the Bible etc. He said he was raised catholic. He was very liberal and secular; as I tried to witness to him he seemed oblivious to any concerns. But then U had an idea, I became very critical of the pope and the papal system, I argue against the efficiency of the sacramental system. All of the sudden his confidence and calm were gone, He started to argue very passionately and act offended. But why would an atheist be so protective of the papacy? The fact is for a lot of people, the RCC is a back up worldview. They may live as heathens, but in case their is judgment they may find shelter in the papacy. I believe the key to this error is the idea that man somehow has authority over God. As long as we break the commandment.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.1 John 5:21
H. What does this mean?
Now I want to be careful in my judgment here. The doctrine of the trinity is essential to salvation. Yet the requirement for this is consistent with childlike faith. In other words, I believe we are required to understand the simple doctrine of the trinity according to our maturity. In general, I accept the premise that most Catholics are trinitarian. The differences, are minor and I assume that God would not judge the laity over this.
Yet there are theological consequences. By minimizing personal distinctions, I believe this provided a background for Thomas Aquinas' Aristotelian philosophy "thomism". This is the main "classical apologetic" approach. Wherein Aquinas argues for the existence of a Unitarian god. He claims that it is rational to argue for a Unitarian God. But that the trinitarian God requires revelation and faith. I believe that the real reason is because the Athanasian version of the trinity provided Catholic theologians a more modelistic view point which made trinitarianism appear irrational. Also Aquinas is borrowing from the writings of Unitarian Greeks and Muslims. The real problem is that this apologetics can never be of evangelistic use to Christians since it can not defend what is uniquely and essentially Christian.
One main issue, is that this serves us notice of the divorce between New Testament Christianity and Roman Catholicism. As shown in previous articles we have a different history, a different salvation, a different canon, a different worship, a different hierarchy, a different Christ and finally a different God. Roman Catholic is a completely Separate religion from New Testament Christianity. Mainline protestantism may have ties with Catholicism but we do not find this in scripture.
In Christ,
Matt
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Gospel centered apologetic approach
Step 1 Materialism disprove by empirical facts
a. The existence of the mind
Materialism assumes that only the physical universe exists. Therefore, everything has evolved from our material environment.
However, humans do have at least one immaterial organ called the mind. Our minds can process information and develop ideas that do not come to us through the physical environment. Scientist are incapable of refuting this idea, since encountering this argument validates the existence of their own minds.
Some have claimed that while the mind is immaterial, it is the by-product of the brain. This worldview fails to explain why ideas foreign to the environment are still being produced.
The implications of an immaterial substance such as the mind are staggering. The mind being immaterial is not necessarily subject to scientific law. Even the death of the brain doesn't stop the existence of the mind. Theoretically a mind could live in an immaterial plane forever.
b. The existence of other minds (spirits, God)
Now that we have found evidence of another dimension where these ideas are given out. It stands to reason that if the mind may exist in this realm and all humanity has a mind. Then there is a realm of spirits. This realm may contain not only human spirits but other spiritual beings as well.
c. The science of psychology
While it is true that psychology is not a hard science, psychology applies the scientific method to the human mind. With nearly two centuries of documentation is we have enough evidence to show that the the mind and the spiritual/mental worlds are indeed a reality.
Some may look this argument and wonder "why do we have to answer the objections of materialism if only a small population actually hold these views?" We must answer these objections in order that others do not use this scheme as a way of denying the Christians their right to present a truth claim. When in search of truth we must find more than conviction but also authority.
Step 2 Religion proved as an empirical fact
A. Regardless of worldview, humanity relates itself to something which is transcendent.
B. Humanity also finds itself inadequate, needing to ascend to a higher plane.
What we are doing here is establishing universally accepted facts. Many people do not notice just how authoritative their beliefs are. But upon when majority opinions are discovered, they shrink the intellectual opposition drastically. It is the experience of all people that they relation to something higher and they find themselves to be short of it. Humanity is designed as a religious race. There has to be a reason and truth behind it.
Step 3 The Christian Experience has the right to be assumed.
(Christian experience is understood as the sum and universal experience of Christians from gospel presentation through death; also known as Christian testimony)
(as a prerequisite to this argument a full gospel presentation is advisable.)
A. Christian experience answers the universal needs of religion.
Since religion is empirically true, we now see how that correlates with the christian religious experience. Christianity obviously answers these universal maxims. Qualifying it's existence as a truth claim.
B. Christian experience has a great multitude of witnesses which claim faith as fact.
So essentially as the old argument goes "on the testimony of two witnesses" truth is established in a court of law. The millions of christian testimonies is now weighed as evidence to the christian truth claim.
C. Christian witness is not just subjective but historical as well.
We need to notice the wide variety of witnesses. All walks of life, young-old, nationality-skin color, past-future all religious backgrounds, professions etc. This shows the truth and durability of the NT religion.
This method at this point becomes very practical to ministers. Because they not only prepare the lost for the gospel. They also build the gospel presentation into it. Apologetics is now properly assisting evangelism.
Step 4 The Christian experience implies revelation
A. If the effect of Christian experience is true, then the cause of divine revelation is valid.
B. If divine revelation is fact then Christianity is no longer subjective, but objective fact. (this is because the divine word teaches such of itself.)
This is a key stage of the apologetic argument. We are now moving from subjective claims to objective facts. Presuppositionalism has always had problems establishing it's authority to those skeptical because their facts are not universally accepted. Classical apologetics has always had trouble using their subjective evidence to make absolute assertions. The combination of both strengths is then reinforced in the gospel presentation which reaches the minds of all and reinforces the convictions of the faithful.
Notice the law of cause and effect being used to translate the logic.
Step 5 Christianity with authority as presuppositional fact.
A. All alternative worldview religions must pass the test of logical coherence before their criticisms may be rendered valid.
(we know of course all the false religions will fail.)
B. Questions of coherence may be asked by Christians towards the scriptures. Other worldviews will lack authority to criticize since they will be proved to be irrational.
(the Bible is coherent. So at this point we seek answers from the scriptures over any concerns.)
By faith and a lot of experience I understand that the Bible has no contradictions. While we must be prepared to answer objects we are in desperate need to demand answers of the alternative religions. A spoonful of sugar may help the medicine go down. But everybody knows... too much sugar rots out your teeth!
step 6 biblical support for the steps of the argument
a. 2Corinthians4:7, Romans 1:19-20
b. psalm 117, acts 17:22-30
c. 1corinthians 15:1-9, 2 corinthians 3:2-3
d. galatians 1, matthew 5:18-22
e. job 38-40
a. The existence of the mind
Materialism assumes that only the physical universe exists. Therefore, everything has evolved from our material environment.
However, humans do have at least one immaterial organ called the mind. Our minds can process information and develop ideas that do not come to us through the physical environment. Scientist are incapable of refuting this idea, since encountering this argument validates the existence of their own minds.
Some have claimed that while the mind is immaterial, it is the by-product of the brain. This worldview fails to explain why ideas foreign to the environment are still being produced.
The implications of an immaterial substance such as the mind are staggering. The mind being immaterial is not necessarily subject to scientific law. Even the death of the brain doesn't stop the existence of the mind. Theoretically a mind could live in an immaterial plane forever.
b. The existence of other minds (spirits, God)
Now that we have found evidence of another dimension where these ideas are given out. It stands to reason that if the mind may exist in this realm and all humanity has a mind. Then there is a realm of spirits. This realm may contain not only human spirits but other spiritual beings as well.
c. The science of psychology
While it is true that psychology is not a hard science, psychology applies the scientific method to the human mind. With nearly two centuries of documentation is we have enough evidence to show that the the mind and the spiritual/mental worlds are indeed a reality.
Some may look this argument and wonder "why do we have to answer the objections of materialism if only a small population actually hold these views?" We must answer these objections in order that others do not use this scheme as a way of denying the Christians their right to present a truth claim. When in search of truth we must find more than conviction but also authority.
Step 2 Religion proved as an empirical fact
A. Regardless of worldview, humanity relates itself to something which is transcendent.
B. Humanity also finds itself inadequate, needing to ascend to a higher plane.
What we are doing here is establishing universally accepted facts. Many people do not notice just how authoritative their beliefs are. But upon when majority opinions are discovered, they shrink the intellectual opposition drastically. It is the experience of all people that they relation to something higher and they find themselves to be short of it. Humanity is designed as a religious race. There has to be a reason and truth behind it.
Step 3 The Christian Experience has the right to be assumed.
(Christian experience is understood as the sum and universal experience of Christians from gospel presentation through death; also known as Christian testimony)
(as a prerequisite to this argument a full gospel presentation is advisable.)
A. Christian experience answers the universal needs of religion.
Since religion is empirically true, we now see how that correlates with the christian religious experience. Christianity obviously answers these universal maxims. Qualifying it's existence as a truth claim.
B. Christian experience has a great multitude of witnesses which claim faith as fact.
So essentially as the old argument goes "on the testimony of two witnesses" truth is established in a court of law. The millions of christian testimonies is now weighed as evidence to the christian truth claim.
C. Christian witness is not just subjective but historical as well.
We need to notice the wide variety of witnesses. All walks of life, young-old, nationality-skin color, past-future all religious backgrounds, professions etc. This shows the truth and durability of the NT religion.
This method at this point becomes very practical to ministers. Because they not only prepare the lost for the gospel. They also build the gospel presentation into it. Apologetics is now properly assisting evangelism.
Step 4 The Christian experience implies revelation
A. If the effect of Christian experience is true, then the cause of divine revelation is valid.
B. If divine revelation is fact then Christianity is no longer subjective, but objective fact. (this is because the divine word teaches such of itself.)
This is a key stage of the apologetic argument. We are now moving from subjective claims to objective facts. Presuppositionalism has always had problems establishing it's authority to those skeptical because their facts are not universally accepted. Classical apologetics has always had trouble using their subjective evidence to make absolute assertions. The combination of both strengths is then reinforced in the gospel presentation which reaches the minds of all and reinforces the convictions of the faithful.
Notice the law of cause and effect being used to translate the logic.
Step 5 Christianity with authority as presuppositional fact.
A. All alternative worldview religions must pass the test of logical coherence before their criticisms may be rendered valid.
(we know of course all the false religions will fail.)
B. Questions of coherence may be asked by Christians towards the scriptures. Other worldviews will lack authority to criticize since they will be proved to be irrational.
(the Bible is coherent. So at this point we seek answers from the scriptures over any concerns.)
By faith and a lot of experience I understand that the Bible has no contradictions. While we must be prepared to answer objects we are in desperate need to demand answers of the alternative religions. A spoonful of sugar may help the medicine go down. But everybody knows... too much sugar rots out your teeth!
step 6 biblical support for the steps of the argument
a. 2Corinthians4:7, Romans 1:19-20
b. psalm 117, acts 17:22-30
c. 1corinthians 15:1-9, 2 corinthians 3:2-3
d. galatians 1, matthew 5:18-22
e. job 38-40
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
What do you believe about believing?
What is faith's nature?
A. faith is belief:In the Greek "pisteuo" is the same word translated "believe" or "faith". So to have faith is synonymous with believe.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Romans 14:23
B. belief is passive: To believe is to receive information. Therefore it is not a work.
1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
John 1:12
What is biblical faith?
A. Faith is presuppositional
Belief is subjective for humans. However it understands itself to find origin in revelation. Faith finds it's authority not in a man made means of determining truth, but receives the objective truth in the revelation from the mind of God.
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
B. Faith is not artificial/imaginary
faith in the New testament is referred to as blind. Meaning that it is not developed by the human mind, but instead is delivered by God
2Corinthians 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
What is saving faith?
A. Saving faith is in Christ
Christ is the object of saving faith.
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
1 John 5:13-15
B. Saving faith is the by-product of the gospel.
10:17 So belief `cometh' of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Romans 10:9-17
Is saving faith true?
A. Saving faith is rational
If faith were irrational it could not be perceived or verified as true. It may even be a lie.
1 Corinthians 14:33
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
How can Protestants have faith without works?
A. Faith means belief.
As stated earlier the Bible says we will be justified without our own righteousness.
Romans 3:19-23
"19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
B. There are good works, they are imputed by Christ as grace.
Christ was the sinless spotless lamb. Therefore, His good deeds gave him credit in the eyes of God.
C. Regeneration and good works/sanctification come as the by-product of saving faith alone.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10
Good works can only be considered good after justification and regeneration.
Philippians 3:7-8
7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Saving faith is without works, yet it will by nature create good works.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Romans 14:23
James 2:18
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
We must remember there is one faith unto salvation.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ephesians 4:4-6
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
A. faith is belief:In the Greek "pisteuo" is the same word translated "believe" or "faith". So to have faith is synonymous with believe.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Romans 14:23
B. belief is passive: To believe is to receive information. Therefore it is not a work.
1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
John 1:12
What is biblical faith?
A. Faith is presuppositional
Belief is subjective for humans. However it understands itself to find origin in revelation. Faith finds it's authority not in a man made means of determining truth, but receives the objective truth in the revelation from the mind of God.
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
B. Faith is not artificial/imaginary
faith in the New testament is referred to as blind. Meaning that it is not developed by the human mind, but instead is delivered by God
2Corinthians 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
What is saving faith?
A. Saving faith is in Christ
Christ is the object of saving faith.
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
1 John 5:13-15
B. Saving faith is the by-product of the gospel.
10:17 So belief `cometh' of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Romans 10:9-17
Is saving faith true?
A. Saving faith is rational
If faith were irrational it could not be perceived or verified as true. It may even be a lie.
1 Corinthians 14:33
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
How can Protestants have faith without works?
A. Faith means belief.
As stated earlier the Bible says we will be justified without our own righteousness.
Romans 3:19-23
"19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
B. There are good works, they are imputed by Christ as grace.
Christ was the sinless spotless lamb. Therefore, His good deeds gave him credit in the eyes of God.
C. Regeneration and good works/sanctification come as the by-product of saving faith alone.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10
Good works can only be considered good after justification and regeneration.
Philippians 3:7-8
7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Saving faith is without works, yet it will by nature create good works.
14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
Romans 14:23
James 2:18
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
We must remember there is one faith unto salvation.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ephesians 4:4-6
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)