What's your real name
You will most likely find out at the end of January ;^)
Ask @TTheologian
Previous
Would you rather have white hair or no hair?
A white mini fro would be epic.... Headed to bleach my hair now
In Luke 2:14 where it says "peace among those with whom he is pleased!" (ESV) Is this a reference to the elect?
Great Question! I think that within the context, the "elect" could be logically applied but it isn't specifically what is being spoken of by the angelic host. For 400 years Israel has yet o have a prophet. Exile after exile and with current Roman occupation, most of Israel has concluded that God had forgotten them. After centuries of silence, messengers of the Lord come and announce to shepherds,
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"
I think a few conclusions can be made as we consider this text.
1. God chose to break his silence to a group of shepherds in the outskirts of Bethlehem.
2. The Shepherds are people whom God is well-pleased.
Why was God well pleased with the shepherds? Well, I believe it is because the shepherds represented true Israel. They were Israelites who had not forgotten the covenant promise of God to his people. Yes, this would make them the elect but the emphasis of the text is not election but the pleasure God finds in covenantal faithfulness. In this specific case, the reward for simple faith was the witnessing of angelic messengers proclaiming the arrival of the Messiah! There is no partiality with God. He could have gone to some more wealthy or socially elite Jews who were still covenant keepers but to demonstrate his impartiality he went to shepherds and allowed them to behold the Glory of God incarnate. These shepherds went away singing praise to God and so we know they were elect, but the text isn't emphasizing that doctrine in my opinion. The text is emphasizing God's faithfulness to keep covenant and the pleasure & reward he gives to those who trust in Him. Hope that helps. Grace and Peace!
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"
I think a few conclusions can be made as we consider this text.
1. God chose to break his silence to a group of shepherds in the outskirts of Bethlehem.
2. The Shepherds are people whom God is well-pleased.
Why was God well pleased with the shepherds? Well, I believe it is because the shepherds represented true Israel. They were Israelites who had not forgotten the covenant promise of God to his people. Yes, this would make them the elect but the emphasis of the text is not election but the pleasure God finds in covenantal faithfulness. In this specific case, the reward for simple faith was the witnessing of angelic messengers proclaiming the arrival of the Messiah! There is no partiality with God. He could have gone to some more wealthy or socially elite Jews who were still covenant keepers but to demonstrate his impartiality he went to shepherds and allowed them to behold the Glory of God incarnate. These shepherds went away singing praise to God and so we know they were elect, but the text isn't emphasizing that doctrine in my opinion. The text is emphasizing God's faithfulness to keep covenant and the pleasure & reward he gives to those who trust in Him. Hope that helps. Grace and Peace!
Related users
Wondering if u can un-pack Matt 22:1-14 for me. I understand there is an effectual call vs general call in scripture but the word called here (Kletos) seems to translate into the same as the other effectual calls. But then it doesn't make sense if it is saying some of the called are still not chosen
Great Question, to answer it we have to look at a few different necessities for proper Biblical exegesis (interpretation). Of course it is always helpful to look at the original Greek when studying a text of Scripture. However, there are other tools we must apply as well in order to get the right meaning of a text. As it relates to this specific text, one of the most critical issues we have to take into account is the nature of a "proverb".
Not saying your doing this, but many times people can read a proverb the same way they read an Epistle. When the proverbs are read this way, the reader ends up reading much more into a proverb than was originally intended. To put it simply, A proverb was an illustration that was generally meant to convey one central truth. This differs from the purpose of an epistle which is meant to teach or expound on various theological issues. When you read Romans 9, every word written is meant to mean a specific thing and as one reads through it they leave with dozens of theologian truths which are built up one upon another. it is from those numerous theological truths that work together that were establish doctrine.
A parable however was intended for something different. The intent of a parable, as I've said, was meant to convey one central truth. With that being said, we should not look to a parable in order to establish a doctrine of election. Exegetically, that is the role of the Epistles and sermons. We look to a parable and seek to understand what central idea Christ is trying to teach. In this case the, "Many are called and few are chosen" is not referring to election but to the call of all to come to the father. Even though all hear the Gospel call, the father telling them to come to His table, only a few heed. Jesus tells us why they heed in another passage (they are the Father's sheep and hear his voice). This call is not a effectual calling, Its the Gospel call. Same word is used because when we call men to come to Christ, we are ambassadors pleading with divine authority. Don't get hung up on the Greek, check out full context and be careful with the parables :^)
Great Question!
Not saying your doing this, but many times people can read a proverb the same way they read an Epistle. When the proverbs are read this way, the reader ends up reading much more into a proverb than was originally intended. To put it simply, A proverb was an illustration that was generally meant to convey one central truth. This differs from the purpose of an epistle which is meant to teach or expound on various theological issues. When you read Romans 9, every word written is meant to mean a specific thing and as one reads through it they leave with dozens of theologian truths which are built up one upon another. it is from those numerous theological truths that work together that were establish doctrine.
A parable however was intended for something different. The intent of a parable, as I've said, was meant to convey one central truth. With that being said, we should not look to a parable in order to establish a doctrine of election. Exegetically, that is the role of the Epistles and sermons. We look to a parable and seek to understand what central idea Christ is trying to teach. In this case the, "Many are called and few are chosen" is not referring to election but to the call of all to come to the father. Even though all hear the Gospel call, the father telling them to come to His table, only a few heed. Jesus tells us why they heed in another passage (they are the Father's sheep and hear his voice). This call is not a effectual calling, Its the Gospel call. Same word is used because when we call men to come to Christ, we are ambassadors pleading with divine authority. Don't get hung up on the Greek, check out full context and be careful with the parables :^)
Great Question!
Liked by:
David
What's the name of your podcast?
The Super Theologian Q&A
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-super-theologian-q-a/id927205539?mt=2&i=322310328
Subscribe and write me a review on iTunes!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-super-theologian-q-a/id927205539?mt=2&i=322310328
Subscribe and write me a review on iTunes!
Will you give your opinion on Daniel 11:37? Should it read "God of his fathers" or "god of his fathers"? Since you are a super hero and all. I think the latter is correct. Thanks and God bless
Clearly it is referring to gods (lowercase). The the specific verse you referenced is in the context of a curse. The King being referenced is puffed up and God is going to allow him to worship self before oncoming judgement. The log is so puffed up that he isn't even going to worship his families ancestral pagan Gods. Just himself. This King is pagan and is not in any way seeking to worship the Living God. Context makes this clear. Daniel 11:37 is referring better translated with a lowercase "g". Most modern translations get this. The King James oddly gets it wrong...
whats your favorite color?
Blue :^)
I am so sorry and thank you for answering my question on your podcast. The Scripture I meant to quote was 1Tim5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Ah, I had a hunch that was what you were referring to. I think the issue really does become an issue of whether or not a person can provide and isn't or whether they need help to get to a place where they can provide. I think we all are prone to make assumptions about others that are not necessarily true. For instance, it is commonplace for white brothers & sisters to assume affirmative action isn't necessary because blacks have same opportunity. However, they don't take into account the school systems, environment, financial difficulties, racial profiling, and a host of many other things that prevent them from having the same access to success (in a worldly sense) and their Caucasians. Another example would be a homeless man who may even be struggling with drug use. Do we write him off our seek to give him opportunities and see what he does with it. He may actually be harder working than originally assumed but just lacked opportunity albeit it because of his own sin & blindness. I think the fundamental question is, "to what extent do we give chances to those who don't deserve it." Never? Sometimes? Often? I think there is a balance that requires discernment. Of course Paul is speaking the word of God but I think that we can be quick to insert our own opinions into what Paul is actually saying. Of course this is just a summary but great question, hope this was helpful.
What would be the title of your autobiography?
"Fly High But Live Grounded: Exalting Jesus Above The Stratosphere"
I wanted to let you know that your podcast meant a lot to me. I was the one who asked about my parents. I wanted to let you know you were very influential in me coming to reformed theology. Good luck in your ministry and Soli Deo Gloria!
Wow, what an Amazing encouragement brother! Thank you very much!
It would be awesome if you could do me a favor and post a review on iTunes for me as soon as the podcast becomes available there. iTunes is having technical difficulties but the more positive reviews I get, the more people who will be exposed to the podcast, the more time I'll put into it. Grace and peace brother. Be sure to call in and leave a question for me sometime!!
312-809-2300
It would be awesome if you could do me a favor and post a review on iTunes for me as soon as the podcast becomes available there. iTunes is having technical difficulties but the more positive reviews I get, the more people who will be exposed to the podcast, the more time I'll put into it. Grace and peace brother. Be sure to call in and leave a question for me sometime!!
312-809-2300
Liked by:
Will Standridge
What in the world is a "Carnal Christian" and where does this idea come from scripturally?
Carnal Christian is the idea that there are different kinds of Christians. There are those who have accepted Jesus as "Savior" but not Lord and those who accept him as "Lord & Savior". The Carnal Christian is the one who accepts Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. According to this theology, a person can be saved and continue in worldliness and sin without conviction. There saved, just Carnal. John MacArthur writes against this idea in his stellar book "The Gospel According to Jesus". The concept comes from the KJV translation of I Corinthians 3:3, "are ye not carnal?" The argument goes that since Paul referred to the Christians in Corinth as Carnal, there must be something called a "Carnal Christian." They completely miss the context of the passage. Paul is telling the Corinthian church that they are acting like unbelievers not Christians. A Christian is one who lives according to the Spirit not the flesh! There is no such thing as a "Carnal Christian". Only cultural Christianity held by many who do not truly know Christ.
Liked by:
David
Is it consistent for a Reformed Christian to think that gay 'marriage' is immoral but shouldn't be illegal?
Great Question! Yes, it would be inconsistent to affirm yourself a Reformed Christian and hold to that view. Here's why...
Bare with me, I promise I am answering your question!
The Battle Cry of the Reformation was the Latin phrase "Coram Deo". Literally, Coram Deo means "In The Presence of God". The idea behind the phrase was a direct assault upon Catholic Theology which taught and still teaches that there is a distinction between secular activity and sacred activity within a Christians life. The Reformers understood that this idea was propagated in order to keep average Christians in a lowlier class than the Priesthood. Average Christians practiced "secular" work and were therefor inferior, Priests practiced sacred work and were therefore inferior. Coram Sanctum meant that every act under a Christians life was done in the presence of God because it was done by a CHild of the most high God whom Christ died for and had made an heir. Jeremiah 31:34 states, "
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
Part of the New Covenant was that all Christians would be equal before God. NO HEIRARCHY! All aspects of life were holy because they were done by holy people!
The Reformers applied this to every area of life. The 1st few generations of Reformers took it too far by allowing state control over the church but the Baptist Reformers took the Reformation to the next level recognizing that it applied to government as Saints interacted with the state but the state could not assert itself over the church.
This has everything to do with your question! For a Christian to seek to not vote according to conscience is to live as if they can compartmentalize holiness. Christians are called to seek the flourishing of human life. Gay Marriage is not only damaging to the souls of those involved with it but it also dismantles the most fundamental building block of society....The Family. This goes a step forward if that Christian claims to be Reformed. Saints who walk in the tradition of the Reformers affirm the total sovereignty of God over all aspects of life including politics. I am not arguing for a theocracy but I am arguing that Christians must consider politics in light of Revelation and Conscience and not according to darkness. Reformed Christians are those who believe that every aspect of the Christian life, whether it is formal worship to burping a new born baby, it is done in the presence of God and is an Holy act. No consistently Protestant Christian (Reformed or Not) can believe something to be evil morally but ok legally. That is contrary to Christian thought and scripture. Thanks for the question!
Bare with me, I promise I am answering your question!
The Battle Cry of the Reformation was the Latin phrase "Coram Deo". Literally, Coram Deo means "In The Presence of God". The idea behind the phrase was a direct assault upon Catholic Theology which taught and still teaches that there is a distinction between secular activity and sacred activity within a Christians life. The Reformers understood that this idea was propagated in order to keep average Christians in a lowlier class than the Priesthood. Average Christians practiced "secular" work and were therefor inferior, Priests practiced sacred work and were therefore inferior. Coram Sanctum meant that every act under a Christians life was done in the presence of God because it was done by a CHild of the most high God whom Christ died for and had made an heir. Jeremiah 31:34 states, "
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
Part of the New Covenant was that all Christians would be equal before God. NO HEIRARCHY! All aspects of life were holy because they were done by holy people!
The Reformers applied this to every area of life. The 1st few generations of Reformers took it too far by allowing state control over the church but the Baptist Reformers took the Reformation to the next level recognizing that it applied to government as Saints interacted with the state but the state could not assert itself over the church.
This has everything to do with your question! For a Christian to seek to not vote according to conscience is to live as if they can compartmentalize holiness. Christians are called to seek the flourishing of human life. Gay Marriage is not only damaging to the souls of those involved with it but it also dismantles the most fundamental building block of society....The Family. This goes a step forward if that Christian claims to be Reformed. Saints who walk in the tradition of the Reformers affirm the total sovereignty of God over all aspects of life including politics. I am not arguing for a theocracy but I am arguing that Christians must consider politics in light of Revelation and Conscience and not according to darkness. Reformed Christians are those who believe that every aspect of the Christian life, whether it is formal worship to burping a new born baby, it is done in the presence of God and is an Holy act. No consistently Protestant Christian (Reformed or Not) can believe something to be evil morally but ok legally. That is contrary to Christian thought and scripture. Thanks for the question!
Oh and here's this bombshell. Lol. Since God is sovereign then can he choose his people even after they die? ;-)
Great Philosophical question. The simple answer is no but the reasons why the answer is no is a little complex. I'll try to wrap it up in a nutshell.
In essence, you are asking if God can back track on his own decree. To say it in simple terms, you are asking if God can change his mind on a promise he has made. You see, God has said in His word that the way He has chosen to do things is "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 8:27)."
God has already chosen for the only way of Salvation to be through his son by believing in the Gospel. God does choose his people before they are born but for him not to do so after they die is not inconsistent with Divine Sovereignty, it actually reinforces it. God knows those who will accept the Gospel because it is he who regenerates hearts. God does not need to "choose people" after they die because no elect dies prior to the Lord doing the work of regeneration. To make the claim that God elects after death would be akin to saying, "The Sovereign God of creation fell asleep on the Job and forgot to draw a soul whom he decreed to be his to himself." The King of Glory doesn't fall asleep on the Job! All those who are His will be drawn to him while they have the breath to claim Jesus is Lord. Furthermore, scripture tells us that election or "choosing" takes place before the foundation of the world not after a person's death.
Can God choose an elect after they die? The Sovereign God issued a sovereign decree stating that situation will never happen for all have already been elected until the end of history. He made that decree as the author of time!
In essence, you are asking if God can back track on his own decree. To say it in simple terms, you are asking if God can change his mind on a promise he has made. You see, God has said in His word that the way He has chosen to do things is "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 8:27)."
God has already chosen for the only way of Salvation to be through his son by believing in the Gospel. God does choose his people before they are born but for him not to do so after they die is not inconsistent with Divine Sovereignty, it actually reinforces it. God knows those who will accept the Gospel because it is he who regenerates hearts. God does not need to "choose people" after they die because no elect dies prior to the Lord doing the work of regeneration. To make the claim that God elects after death would be akin to saying, "The Sovereign God of creation fell asleep on the Job and forgot to draw a soul whom he decreed to be his to himself." The King of Glory doesn't fall asleep on the Job! All those who are His will be drawn to him while they have the breath to claim Jesus is Lord. Furthermore, scripture tells us that election or "choosing" takes place before the foundation of the world not after a person's death.
Can God choose an elect after they die? The Sovereign God issued a sovereign decree stating that situation will never happen for all have already been elected until the end of history. He made that decree as the author of time!
Liked by:
David
Could you expound on intentional dating? I agree but I would love for you to explain more on how that could look like, principles? Etc
Recreational dating is when a couple begins dating each other simply becomes they find one another attractive and entertaining. There are no expectations involved apart from having fun and exploring the dynamics of romance.
Intentional dating is when a couple recognizes that relationships were designed by God and we are called to different kinds of relationships during different times. As song of Solomon 8:4 says, "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that you not stir up or awaken love before its time." A godly man recognizes this and seeks to guard a sister from violating this Biblical Counsel. He does not pursue her for the sake of his own amusement. Intentional dating occurs when a man recognizes he has been called to marriage, he has established himself spiritually, financially, mentally and is ready to take on a wife. He then sees a woman who has the appearance of a potential spouse and he pursues her. I am not saying they get married immediately. I am saying that as the relationship begins, the woman knows what she is getting into. She is not giving her time to just "some guy". But she knows she is giving her time to a man who sees her as a potential spouse. The time together should still be guarded as they are not yet married but the time together is also intentional. They are getting to know each other not just for "fun's sake" but with the intention of knowing whether or not the other is a viable spouse. With this practice you don't see dating and engagements lasting years upon years. Intentional dating requires men to mature and step up as opposed to pro-longed adolescence. There are many benefits to this practice but at the end of the day, the best benefit is that its Biblical and it guards the physical and emotional purity of young people much more than worldly recreational dating.
Intentional dating is when a couple recognizes that relationships were designed by God and we are called to different kinds of relationships during different times. As song of Solomon 8:4 says, "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that you not stir up or awaken love before its time." A godly man recognizes this and seeks to guard a sister from violating this Biblical Counsel. He does not pursue her for the sake of his own amusement. Intentional dating occurs when a man recognizes he has been called to marriage, he has established himself spiritually, financially, mentally and is ready to take on a wife. He then sees a woman who has the appearance of a potential spouse and he pursues her. I am not saying they get married immediately. I am saying that as the relationship begins, the woman knows what she is getting into. She is not giving her time to just "some guy". But she knows she is giving her time to a man who sees her as a potential spouse. The time together should still be guarded as they are not yet married but the time together is also intentional. They are getting to know each other not just for "fun's sake" but with the intention of knowing whether or not the other is a viable spouse. With this practice you don't see dating and engagements lasting years upon years. Intentional dating requires men to mature and step up as opposed to pro-longed adolescence. There are many benefits to this practice but at the end of the day, the best benefit is that its Biblical and it guards the physical and emotional purity of young people much more than worldly recreational dating.
I have multiple ?'s on the topic of marriage. What do you think is the best approach for couples to build a relationship before marriage? What questions should someone ask before proposing? What is your opinion on arranged marriages? What do you believe about divorce? And remarriage after divorce?
I believe that recreational dating is Spiritually, physically, and emotionally unhelpful. I believe that intentional dating (Date-ship), kind of a combination of Courtship and dating is probably the best way for couples to build relationship before marriage. Also, I think that any couple who is pursuing a relationship leading to marriage without church or church community group accountability is setting itself up for failure or heartache. Relationships are to be pursued within the church as a community and not through autonomy.
I ____ a Christian?
What is ____ view of Scripture?
Is _____ truly pursuing the Lord?
What are _____ primary doctrinal beliefs related to conversion, Baptism, and the Nature of God (Trinity)
What are ____ desires for life ministry (mission field, local church service, no church at all, etc.)
There are literally dozens and dozens more questions. I would need more specific questions to answer.
The massive majority of the world practices arranged marriage to some extent. Ethically I don't have a problem with it if by arranged marriage you mean parents have set something up but the final affirmation of it is contingent upon the child's willingness and desire to pursue the marriage. If by arranged marriage you mean parents "forcing" child to marry someone then there are a lot of issues with that.
Though it is Biblically permissible for a Christian to get divorced on the grounds of adultery or Abandonment that is by NO MEANS the Biblical ideal or expectation. Jesus himself said that no man should separate what God has joined! A Christian seeking divorce on these grounds without first pursuing reconciliation may not be "sinning" in their divorce but they are not living in light of the Cross. As a Biblical Counselor, I tell every couple I counsel who is in the midst of adultery that their marriage cannot only be restored but it can be better than it ever has been by the Power of the Spirit ministered through the Word (AND I'VE SEEN IT). God hates divorce and 99.99% of the time Divorce is a cop out from Pursuing hard reconciliation and is not necessary but hinders growth Christ-like growth which occurs thru suffering and forgiving those who sin against us. I never counsel towards divorce but there are extenuating circumstances in which I can understand Christians going that route. Much more could be said on this issue.
I ____ a Christian?
What is ____ view of Scripture?
Is _____ truly pursuing the Lord?
What are _____ primary doctrinal beliefs related to conversion, Baptism, and the Nature of God (Trinity)
What are ____ desires for life ministry (mission field, local church service, no church at all, etc.)
There are literally dozens and dozens more questions. I would need more specific questions to answer.
The massive majority of the world practices arranged marriage to some extent. Ethically I don't have a problem with it if by arranged marriage you mean parents have set something up but the final affirmation of it is contingent upon the child's willingness and desire to pursue the marriage. If by arranged marriage you mean parents "forcing" child to marry someone then there are a lot of issues with that.
Though it is Biblically permissible for a Christian to get divorced on the grounds of adultery or Abandonment that is by NO MEANS the Biblical ideal or expectation. Jesus himself said that no man should separate what God has joined! A Christian seeking divorce on these grounds without first pursuing reconciliation may not be "sinning" in their divorce but they are not living in light of the Cross. As a Biblical Counselor, I tell every couple I counsel who is in the midst of adultery that their marriage cannot only be restored but it can be better than it ever has been by the Power of the Spirit ministered through the Word (AND I'VE SEEN IT). God hates divorce and 99.99% of the time Divorce is a cop out from Pursuing hard reconciliation and is not necessary but hinders growth Christ-like growth which occurs thru suffering and forgiving those who sin against us. I never counsel towards divorce but there are extenuating circumstances in which I can understand Christians going that route. Much more could be said on this issue.
Liked by:
Calvinist Batman
What is one thing you would never wear?
My underwear over my Super suit... like some Arminian Super-Heroes I know....
When Jesus said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do," did he do it? Did God forgive them?
No, I do not believe Jesus forgave them because forgiveness of sins is contingent upon acceptance of the Gospel and repentance and faith. Notice the language used in that passage. Throughout the Gospels narratives, Jesus repeatedly says that he has been given the authority to forgive sins. He exercises that authority numerous times in the gospel narratives as sinners come to him in faith and repentance. However, In the passage you are referring to, Jesus doesn't forgive them. Did you see that? Jesus has authority to forgive and instead of forgiving he makes a plea to the father! Why? The answer I believe is because they were not repentant. Jesus did not want God to forgive them apart from the sacrifice he was making which they mocked. Jesus was setting an example of what it looks like to love your enemies. The implications of that text is not the forgiveness of unrepentant sinners, the implications are that Jesus was sinless until death and that he is the perfect model as to what it looks like to love our enemies and be more burdened for their salvation than our comfort. Great question!
Do you believe God lets young children and babies go to hell? and why? I know with Calvinism, God predestines each person, but it just doesn't seem right to let babies and little children who don't understand the gospel to suffer.
Thank you for the question Jessica and I think there are two different angles I'd like to take in answering it. First, Let's take a look at what the Bible says about children, and people in general.
Genesis 6:5 says, “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” This text is clear that the Human Heart regardless of age is corrupt. Anyone with children known this. Its a matter of weeks before your baby begins to yell and screem when he/she doesn’t get what they want.
They begin snatching from others as early as 1-2. Temper Tantrums at 3. “MINE” at 3-4. Lying by 4-5…
David says in Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Again, Christian anthropology says that mankind is corrupt from Birth b/c of the sin of Adam which is passed on through his “federal headship”. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” That is unfortunately every heart.
Generally, if a person wants to defend the idea that babies and small children go to heaven without embracing the gospel, they will assert a doctrine called “Age of Innocence”. The reality is, “Age of Innocence” is not Biblical doctrine at all. The Jews didn’t believe it as they understood the Tanakh (Old Testament Hebrew Bible. The Early Church never held to the idea because there is no mention of it in the Old Testament or New Testament either and it contradicts what the Bible teaches about mankind.
there are two dangers Christians must avoid when trying to think through this issue. One is to develop an understanding of babies, Children, mankind, and the Gospel that is not based on scripture but from their own finite and fallen understanding of morality and love. The second is to place themselves judge over the word of God. In your question beloved, I can see the potential for this danger as you write, "it just doesn't seem right". Right according to who? Now I am Reformed and I don't believe babies and small children who die are predestined for hell but we must be careful how we approach the issue. If God saw fit for to be that way... By the fact God decrees it means it would be good and just. We must be willing to submit to God as moral standard and not us. "Willing" to submit, I dont think he has but be I must be willing. For lack of space let me refer you to this EXCELLENT article by Albert Mohler for robust answer to your question.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/
On how we are to understand God as standard for morality and love, let me refer you to my article
https://medium.com/@TTheologian/the-love-of-god-c1414007a9c6
In short, I believe Jesus, through the Cross, made provision for children & the mentally disabled who R not intellectually capable of grasping the Gospel (they are elect).
Genesis 6:5 says, “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” This text is clear that the Human Heart regardless of age is corrupt. Anyone with children known this. Its a matter of weeks before your baby begins to yell and screem when he/she doesn’t get what they want.
They begin snatching from others as early as 1-2. Temper Tantrums at 3. “MINE” at 3-4. Lying by 4-5…
David says in Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Again, Christian anthropology says that mankind is corrupt from Birth b/c of the sin of Adam which is passed on through his “federal headship”. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” That is unfortunately every heart.
Generally, if a person wants to defend the idea that babies and small children go to heaven without embracing the gospel, they will assert a doctrine called “Age of Innocence”. The reality is, “Age of Innocence” is not Biblical doctrine at all. The Jews didn’t believe it as they understood the Tanakh (Old Testament Hebrew Bible. The Early Church never held to the idea because there is no mention of it in the Old Testament or New Testament either and it contradicts what the Bible teaches about mankind.
there are two dangers Christians must avoid when trying to think through this issue. One is to develop an understanding of babies, Children, mankind, and the Gospel that is not based on scripture but from their own finite and fallen understanding of morality and love. The second is to place themselves judge over the word of God. In your question beloved, I can see the potential for this danger as you write, "it just doesn't seem right". Right according to who? Now I am Reformed and I don't believe babies and small children who die are predestined for hell but we must be careful how we approach the issue. If God saw fit for to be that way... By the fact God decrees it means it would be good and just. We must be willing to submit to God as moral standard and not us. "Willing" to submit, I dont think he has but be I must be willing. For lack of space let me refer you to this EXCELLENT article by Albert Mohler for robust answer to your question.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/
On how we are to understand God as standard for morality and love, let me refer you to my article
https://medium.com/@TTheologian/the-love-of-god-c1414007a9c6
In short, I believe Jesus, through the Cross, made provision for children & the mentally disabled who R not intellectually capable of grasping the Gospel (they are elect).
Liked by:
Jessica Spencer
I saw when asked about your eschatology you hold an Amill view but think classic premill is viable. I was wondering if you would consider the sort of dispensational premill view men such as MacArthur & his colleagues at Grace to You hold, as a viable eschatological view. @AnonLayPerson
No, in all honestly I don't think MacArthur's Dispensational Premilll. Holds up. It has many holes, especially when it relates to the New Covenant and his view of Jeremiah 31:31 and Ezekiel 36 as not referring to the church but to Israel...
Thanks for responding! Hamilton actually disagrees that the Spirit indwelt believers in the old covenant. He says "circumcision of the heart" was an equivalent of regeneration, distinguishing the act of regeneration entirely from the Spirit's indwelling, which replaced the temple in the new covenant
Thanks for pointing that out. Somehow the link for Hamilton's book posted to the last question but not the paragraph where I discussed it. I do Think Hamilton's work is the best out dealing with the issue from a Biblical Theological standpoint. I recommended the work because I think it is fair, well-written, and very compelling. As of now I disagree with him ultimately because I don't think his position answers well the issues you brought up. However, I am not completely firm on my view here. I think Hamilton's is very plausible, which is why I recommended it. I just haven't come over yet. He has definitely spent more time studying this issue than me and is far more theologically astute then I am and so I definitely wanted to offer an alternative. As of now, I am not ultimately convinced but I am more than open to changing my mind on the issue :^)
How should Christians reconcile faith before Pentecost with the doctrines of total depravity and regeneration by the Holy Spirit after Pentecost? In other words, how could people like the men of Hebrews 11 have had faith apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
Great question and I think you kind of answer it yourself :^)
I believe that the Old Testament saints did have the Holy Spirit. They were absolutely regenerate and the only way a person like Joseph could have resisted tempation (lust) is if he was empowered by the Spirit to do so. I also believe that the disciples were indwelt with the Spirit before Pentecost. The Disciples certainly were regenerate prior to pentecost, otherwise they wouldn't have ever believed upon Jesus. I believe they were indwelt with the Spirit as well. I think this is crystal clear. Naturally with that said the question comes... "Then what happened at Pentecost?"
Well, the Bible tells us! Peter tells the guests that Pentecost was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel in 2:28-32. Joel 2 is not a passage about the indwelling of the Spirit, it is a passage about the Spirit's work of giving Supernatural Gifts to his whole church rather than just specific individuals. David for instance had the Spirit though he did not understand this himself due to his limited revelation. As Biblical Theologians, we can look back and say, "wow, David had the Spirit and operated as a Spirit led man (after God's own heart)." David may not of known the source for his zeal for the Lord but the source was still the Holy Spirit. The critical distinction that must be understood regarding this issue is recognizing what the actual prophecy of Joel is (that Peter said Pentecost fulfilled) and what is the role of the Spirit as he indwells believers. Apart from the work of the Spirit in regeneration there is no one who seeks after God. Apart from the work of the Spirit in convicting men of sin, comforting, and empowering them against temptation- there is no hope of victory in the life of a descendant of Adam. Feel free to hit me back up for clarity. This is a complex issue that i'm covering in a very short overview. Here is a book refering if you would like to read more about the Holy Spirit and his indwelling work in the Old Testament.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Indwelling-Presence-Testaments-Commentary/dp/0805443835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410987621&sr=8-1&keywords=hamilton+indwelling
I believe that the Old Testament saints did have the Holy Spirit. They were absolutely regenerate and the only way a person like Joseph could have resisted tempation (lust) is if he was empowered by the Spirit to do so. I also believe that the disciples were indwelt with the Spirit before Pentecost. The Disciples certainly were regenerate prior to pentecost, otherwise they wouldn't have ever believed upon Jesus. I believe they were indwelt with the Spirit as well. I think this is crystal clear. Naturally with that said the question comes... "Then what happened at Pentecost?"
Well, the Bible tells us! Peter tells the guests that Pentecost was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel in 2:28-32. Joel 2 is not a passage about the indwelling of the Spirit, it is a passage about the Spirit's work of giving Supernatural Gifts to his whole church rather than just specific individuals. David for instance had the Spirit though he did not understand this himself due to his limited revelation. As Biblical Theologians, we can look back and say, "wow, David had the Spirit and operated as a Spirit led man (after God's own heart)." David may not of known the source for his zeal for the Lord but the source was still the Holy Spirit. The critical distinction that must be understood regarding this issue is recognizing what the actual prophecy of Joel is (that Peter said Pentecost fulfilled) and what is the role of the Spirit as he indwells believers. Apart from the work of the Spirit in regeneration there is no one who seeks after God. Apart from the work of the Spirit in convicting men of sin, comforting, and empowering them against temptation- there is no hope of victory in the life of a descendant of Adam. Feel free to hit me back up for clarity. This is a complex issue that i'm covering in a very short overview. Here is a book refering if you would like to read more about the Holy Spirit and his indwelling work in the Old Testament.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Indwelling-Presence-Testaments-Commentary/dp/0805443835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410987621&sr=8-1&keywords=hamilton+indwelling
Is sinless perfection a heretical idea? Does the Greatest Commandment in Matthew 22 destroy the idea that "sinless perfection" can be attained in one's lifetime? What other passages disprove this idea? What denominations/cults believe in SP?
It depends on the doctrine of "sinless perfection" you are referring to. Wesley held to a form of it but it wasn't heretical as he did not believe he had ever attained it and it didn't have to do with all sin but rather wilful sin. Wesley, believed that a person could so walk in holiness that they would be able to avoid wilful sin. He built this idea off of a high view of the work of the Spirit. He truly believed that no Christian had to sin as the Spirit promises to empower believers, believers are dead to sin, and Christians have the power in Christ to flee temptation as God will always provide a means of exscape. These are all Biblical truths. The problem is that Wesley failed to apply practical theology into his Biblical and systematic theology. Wesley was Arminian and he lacked a proper understanding of the nature of the human heart, even post regeneration. He had an over-realized eschatology in relation to the heart of God's people and regeneration. Regeneration certainly makes the heart new but the flesh is not wholly renewed and although the heart of a born again Christian is inclined towards righteousness and not unrighteousness, throughout a Christians life he will have successes and failures regarding righteousness. Al Calvin said, "the human heart is an idol factory." The unconverted heart is an idol factory by nature and the regenerated heart is by nature a heart that desires righteousness but is constantly bombarded with the flesh. I disagree with sinless perfection but I understand it and am sympathetic to its goal.
As far as cults are concerned, generally they differ than Wesley. Their view of sinless perfection is one of self-rightouesness. Wesley believed it was possible, cults believe it is not only possible but that they have attained it. Two very different things. Much more could be said in response to your question but for the sake of time, I'll leave it here. If you would like me to elaborate more or ask a follow up... feel free!
As far as cults are concerned, generally they differ than Wesley. Their view of sinless perfection is one of self-rightouesness. Wesley believed it was possible, cults believe it is not only possible but that they have attained it. Two very different things. Much more could be said in response to your question but for the sake of time, I'll leave it here. If you would like me to elaborate more or ask a follow up... feel free!
My 5 yr old's been asking about God and Satan lately. I heard the wife use the "when you let Jesus into your heart" approach. Having a reformed view I cringe at this and don't want to raise my children with a worldly understanding. Any suggestions on how to better explain Gospel to a 5 yr old?
Yeah sure! I am very encouraged brother to hear from a fellow father who has such a desire for their child to know the Gospel and have a genuine faith in Christ. I pray the Lord saves your children at a young age.
For me, I also have a 5 year old Child and by God's amazing grace me, my wife, our friends, and the elders of our church are very confident that she has experienced the New Birth. We still don't anticipate Baptism for at least a few years though.
The first thing I would say is that you never want to underestimate your child's capabilities in understanding truth. The Spirit can bare witness to truth in a 80 year old or a 4-5 year old. I do think there are dynamics related to a child's intellectual gifts. For us, our daughter's intellellectual maturity is beyond her age (this isn't just personal assessment but has been acknowleged by doctors adnd teachers) and so we were able to have really robust conversations about the nature of sin, regeneration, and repentance.
Any child however can understand this simple truth. They know what faithful obedience is and they know they cannot attain it. When they disobey, it's not enough for them to just be disciplined. That is teaching them consequences to actions but not the Gospel. It's not enough for you to sternly remind them of rules, that is teaching children legalism not Gospel. It isn't even enough to teach them that Jesus loves them and that they should welcome Jesus into their heart. That is a sweet sentiment but it isn' the Gospel. The proper understanding a child should have of their heart is,
"you need a new heart because the heart you have desires to disobey and not obey. It is good to obey even when you don't want to because God is worthy of your obedience. However, True obedience comes from the heart. Jesus offers to send his Spirit to live in you and empower you to do what is write but the Spirit will not come until you have a new heart. Let's pray to God that he would give you a new Heart like it speaks about in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (read that text to them and explain it slowly and simply)."
The Gospel, "The reason you are having problems obeying mommy and daddy is because you are a sinner like me. I'm just like you, there are many times where I do things that doesn't honor God either (give examples). That's why I need Jesus. Jesus died so that I could be forgiven for my sin. not only that, Jesus also lived a life without disobedience and when we believe in what he has done for us, he is willing to give us his perfect life as a gift! Do you know what that means? It means that when God looks at a Christian, he doesn't see their sin, he sees Jesus' perfectness. You have a lot of Sin that God can look at. But only Jesus can save you from the punishment you deserve for it from God. Not only that, but only Jesus can cover your sin as you come to God. In Jesus, you can be forgiven and adopted into God's family!"
These are just outlines...follow up Questions?
For me, I also have a 5 year old Child and by God's amazing grace me, my wife, our friends, and the elders of our church are very confident that she has experienced the New Birth. We still don't anticipate Baptism for at least a few years though.
The first thing I would say is that you never want to underestimate your child's capabilities in understanding truth. The Spirit can bare witness to truth in a 80 year old or a 4-5 year old. I do think there are dynamics related to a child's intellectual gifts. For us, our daughter's intellellectual maturity is beyond her age (this isn't just personal assessment but has been acknowleged by doctors adnd teachers) and so we were able to have really robust conversations about the nature of sin, regeneration, and repentance.
Any child however can understand this simple truth. They know what faithful obedience is and they know they cannot attain it. When they disobey, it's not enough for them to just be disciplined. That is teaching them consequences to actions but not the Gospel. It's not enough for you to sternly remind them of rules, that is teaching children legalism not Gospel. It isn't even enough to teach them that Jesus loves them and that they should welcome Jesus into their heart. That is a sweet sentiment but it isn' the Gospel. The proper understanding a child should have of their heart is,
"you need a new heart because the heart you have desires to disobey and not obey. It is good to obey even when you don't want to because God is worthy of your obedience. However, True obedience comes from the heart. Jesus offers to send his Spirit to live in you and empower you to do what is write but the Spirit will not come until you have a new heart. Let's pray to God that he would give you a new Heart like it speaks about in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (read that text to them and explain it slowly and simply)."
The Gospel, "The reason you are having problems obeying mommy and daddy is because you are a sinner like me. I'm just like you, there are many times where I do things that doesn't honor God either (give examples). That's why I need Jesus. Jesus died so that I could be forgiven for my sin. not only that, Jesus also lived a life without disobedience and when we believe in what he has done for us, he is willing to give us his perfect life as a gift! Do you know what that means? It means that when God looks at a Christian, he doesn't see their sin, he sees Jesus' perfectness. You have a lot of Sin that God can look at. But only Jesus can save you from the punishment you deserve for it from God. Not only that, but only Jesus can cover your sin as you come to God. In Jesus, you can be forgiven and adopted into God's family!"
These are just outlines...follow up Questions?
Liked by:
David
Is sin always sin, 24/7? Or at there things which are not sin most days, but are sin other days? I.e. working, cooking, gardening, watching the news...?
Simple answer is yes. Here are a few examples.
1. One day you could be extremely hungry and eating a certain portion is completely legitimate. Another day you could be less hungry and eating the same portion is gluttony. In
2. There is a time for leisure and when relaxing actually glorifies God as it is a humble recognition that you as a creature needs rest, At another time, Leisure can be the fruit of sluggardness and self-centeredness.
3. You skip church because you are offended by a certain saint and don't want to see them. You skip church because your child is sick, your evangelizing, or are on vacation.
4. Sex with a boyfriend or girlfriend is sin but within covenantal marriage is glorious.
5. Killing a person because they offended you is murder. Killing a man who has invaded your home and threatening your family is necessary.
These are just 5 of many examples of when something can be sin at one point and not be at another. Sin at it's core is when we elevate a good desire in our heart to the thrown of our hearts where only God belongs. To put it another way, Sin is when a desire becomes a need. Therefore, sin is the perversion of something good and so in almost every case, something that is sinful could be good if put in its proper place. There are of course exceptions to this such as murder, theft, etc. But generally- sin is the perversion of something good and in that there are times and contexts where something sinful would not be if submitted to its proper place in our hearts. So much more could be said on this but I think this should suffice given the general nature of your question.
1. One day you could be extremely hungry and eating a certain portion is completely legitimate. Another day you could be less hungry and eating the same portion is gluttony. In
2. There is a time for leisure and when relaxing actually glorifies God as it is a humble recognition that you as a creature needs rest, At another time, Leisure can be the fruit of sluggardness and self-centeredness.
3. You skip church because you are offended by a certain saint and don't want to see them. You skip church because your child is sick, your evangelizing, or are on vacation.
4. Sex with a boyfriend or girlfriend is sin but within covenantal marriage is glorious.
5. Killing a person because they offended you is murder. Killing a man who has invaded your home and threatening your family is necessary.
These are just 5 of many examples of when something can be sin at one point and not be at another. Sin at it's core is when we elevate a good desire in our heart to the thrown of our hearts where only God belongs. To put it another way, Sin is when a desire becomes a need. Therefore, sin is the perversion of something good and so in almost every case, something that is sinful could be good if put in its proper place. There are of course exceptions to this such as murder, theft, etc. But generally- sin is the perversion of something good and in that there are times and contexts where something sinful would not be if submitted to its proper place in our hearts. So much more could be said on this but I think this should suffice given the general nature of your question.
Re: Sola Scriptura. I'm reading there are a couple traditions on this view- tradition 0 and tradition 1 (this being what reformers follow) it states that scripture can only be interpreted correctly by the church vs individually (tradition 0) Is this right? Can you dumb this down for me?
The Reformers held that "The Church" was not the sole authority of Biblical Interpretation. The Reformers held to what is called the "Perspicuity or Clarity of Scripture." This doctrine taught that the Bible is not an esoteric or ambiguous work of Revelation but is rather a divine work that can be clearly understood by anyone who sought to read and understand it. It was this understanding of Scripture which led the reformers to say that interpretation was not something only the religious elite were able to do but was something every saint could do for themselves. DO NOT mistake this for postmodernism which teaches everyone's truth or interpretation is true for them. The Reformers believed in absolute truth and they did not affirm that everyone's personal interpretation of scripture was as valid as another. That wasn't the point. The point was that there was not a hierarchy in the church of those who could understand God's word and those that couldn't. What the Reformers sought to do was provide the saints not only with the scripture but also the tools/principles of interpretation so that they could arrive at correct conclusions concerning the meaning of certain texts. Therefore, the Reformers taught that scripture could be interpreted rightly by individuals who had the Spirit and who practiced sound hermeneutics (the art of interpreting ancient texts).
The Catholic church had another view. They believed that tradition, the Pope, and the scripture were equal authorities. They believed that Revelation was too lofty for the average Christian mind to comprehend and so it was their duty to interpret it for the people. In addition to this, the Church did not want any translations of the Bible into any language other then Latin and they desired this so they could hold on to a kind of monopoly on God's word. By not allowing (even to the point of murdering) people from translating the Bible into their language, they could ensure the interpretation of Scripture was what they wanted it to be and ultimately, by the testimony of history, control the people of God. This understanding of Scripture began as a noble thing as the Catholic Church had a very high view of Scripture and wanted to preserve it's "absoluteness". Over time however, that high view of Scripture was lost and tradition became something that was considered just as authoritative as God's word!
The Protestant Reformers held to Sola Scriptura which states that the Scriptures are the sole authority IN MATTERS OF FAITH & PRACTICE. People who try to discredit Sola Scriptura by making statements such as, "The Bible doesn't tell me how to change the oil in my car so Sola Scriptura is wrong!" are just ignorant and don't understand the issue.The Catholic Church has 3 things that it considers equal authorities
1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Magisterium (Pope speaking from chair of Peter "ex Cathedra")
all are equal authorities!!! I disagree with this
The Catholic church had another view. They believed that tradition, the Pope, and the scripture were equal authorities. They believed that Revelation was too lofty for the average Christian mind to comprehend and so it was their duty to interpret it for the people. In addition to this, the Church did not want any translations of the Bible into any language other then Latin and they desired this so they could hold on to a kind of monopoly on God's word. By not allowing (even to the point of murdering) people from translating the Bible into their language, they could ensure the interpretation of Scripture was what they wanted it to be and ultimately, by the testimony of history, control the people of God. This understanding of Scripture began as a noble thing as the Catholic Church had a very high view of Scripture and wanted to preserve it's "absoluteness". Over time however, that high view of Scripture was lost and tradition became something that was considered just as authoritative as God's word!
The Protestant Reformers held to Sola Scriptura which states that the Scriptures are the sole authority IN MATTERS OF FAITH & PRACTICE. People who try to discredit Sola Scriptura by making statements such as, "The Bible doesn't tell me how to change the oil in my car so Sola Scriptura is wrong!" are just ignorant and don't understand the issue.The Catholic Church has 3 things that it considers equal authorities
1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Magisterium (Pope speaking from chair of Peter "ex Cathedra")
all are equal authorities!!! I disagree with this
Liked by:
David
Next
