Search

You searched for 'Liberty'

I've found 20 results!

A Review of RC Sproul's Willing to Believe & Thoughts on Free Will

Simon Wartanian | 11,778 views | 3,709 words | 0:19:03 hours | 22 February 2015 00:23

...red and challenged Pelagius and it was because of his prayer that Pelagius was outraged. They are so radically different from each other.

Augustine believed and taught the doctrine of Original Sin. The doctrine teaches that because of Adam’s disobedience and because Adam was the representative of the whole human race (the root of the tree), therefore by his disobedience the whole human race was thrown into misery and sin. He stood in the place of those born of men and women. He believed that death (both spiritual and physical) was the punishment of the disobedience of our first parents.

He taught that all men have free will (liberum arbitrium). What they lacked was Liberty (libertas). Augustine defined free will as the power to make free choices without any compulsion from the outside. In that sense every person has free will and is free to do as he pleases. What man in the Fall has lost is libertas. Augustine (and RC) understands libertas as the ability do that which is required of us. God commands man to be holy and obey Him, but since the Fall man has not been able to do that because he lost the libertas to will to that which is good. Because as Jonathan Edwards later would clearly say is that man choses according to his pleasure and desires, the only problem is that the Scriptures everywhere describe our desires as sinful. Man is free do all that he desires (liberum arbitrium), but in the Fall he has lost his desire to do good (libertas).

At this point RC introduces some helpful Latin phrases (I love the fact that he many times explains what words mean):

Posse non peccare is the possibility not to sin. This is what Adam and Eve had when they were originally created by God.
Posse peccare is the possibility to sin. This obviously Adam and Eve did.
Non posse non peccare is the impossibility not to sin. These all the descendants of Adam until freed by Christ have.
Non posse peccare is the impossibility to sin. This is what those in Christ will have in the eternal state.

Augustine like all Calvinists rejected Pelagius’ foreknowledge view of election and taught that God predestined according to His good pleasure without “looking into the future.” He predestined not because men believed, but He predestined so that men would believe.

Martin Luther

Some more than thousand years later there came a dispute between Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther. Luther taught the Augustinian view of freedom and predestination and Erasmus was on the Semi-Pelagian side, only he seemed to think that this topic has no much significance for the average Christian. Luther responded by saying that how isn’t it of any significance for people to know if they must do things for salvation or it comes wholly by the grace of God. For Luther, the subject of free will could not be divorced from Sola Fide and Sola Gratia and it is therefore important to understand. Luther taught the doctrine of Augustine, who taught the doctrine of Paul, who taught the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Luther strengthened the argument of foreknowledge in regards to free will. He said that if God knows all things, then there could be no choice B. Foreknowledge makes certain that our choices will happen. Luther taught that “God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will.” As RC says about Luther’s view: God wills what he foreknows and foreknows what...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 4: Of Creation - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 22,412 views | 6,589 words | 0:34:34 hours | 04 March 2015 21:12

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 4 Creation Young Earth Creationism Image Of God Imago Dei

...nbsp;being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; 2 having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the Liberty of their own will, which was subject to change. 3

Gen. 1:27; 2:7; James 2:26; Matt. 10:28; Eccl. 12:7
Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1-3; 9:6; Eccl. 7:29; 1 Cor 11:7; James 3:9; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24
Rom. 1:32; 2:12a, 14-15; Gen. 3:6; Eccl. 7:29; Rom. 5:12

Man is created as male and female with reasonable and immortal souls (Gen. 1:27; 2:7), distinguished from animals. Furthermore, man was rendered fit unto the life to God for which they were created. Man was created after the image of God (Gen. 1:26), which consisted in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24). The law of God was written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15). It was not something external to them and most importantly, they had the power to fulfill it. While all men have the law on their hearts (Rom. 2:15), yet they do not possess the power to fulfill it. Something important to note here is that the law of God, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments, is not only formulated in the “thou shalt not’s”, but also positively in “thou shalt.” The seventh commandment to a sinless man, for example, would be, “You shall be faithful to your wife and cling fast to her.” The same concepts could be communicated in forms of “thou shalt.” Furthermore, the Confession speaks here of the law of God, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments (see chapter 19), yet the wording of a specific commandment could be different from the time before and after the Fall.

Man, in his original state had the power to fulfill the law, but also to transgressing it, which Adam and Eve did. They were not fixed in their state, but were still in the time of their probation and were left to the Liberty of their own will. This does not mean that God was not Sovereign over Adam and Eve’s decision, as God’s decree does not violate man’s Liberty as chapter 3 teaches. Had Adam obeyed past his time of probation, he would have earned eternal life and blessedness for all his descendants.

Man is the epitome of creation, he is the crown of creation. Man is the only image of God of everything that God created. But what does it mean that man was made in the image and likeness of God as Genesis 1:26-27 teaches? A most basic observation about what man being made in the image of God means is that man resembles or reflects God. That is what images do and that is the idea communicated through words like image or likeness. Man is in some way like God. While the plants are made and reproduce “according to [their] kind” (Gen. 1:11-12), sea creatures “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:21), land animals “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:24-25), man alone is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27). In v. 26, God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. In v. 27, the narrator says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”. This sets man apart from the rest of creation as the epitome of the created earth. Furthermore, God gets very personally involved in the creation of man as it is clear in Genesis 2. The rest of creation was made by divine fiat and speech, but when it comes to man, God’s hands get involved! Some have tried to find different meanings or senses for the words image and likene...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 60,773 views | 75,562 words | 6:40:27 hours | 04 March 2015 21:39

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Exposition Reformed Baptist Chapter 8 Christ The Mediator Prophet Priest King Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Arminianism Universal Atonement Hypostatic Union Humanity Of Christ God-Man

...tend Christ to die for those whom He knows will have no share in His blessings. Those who oppose the Calvinists basically hold to that the death of Christ “is so applied to all, and yet the fruits of this death are never so much as once made known to far the greatest part of those all”^[45] (book II, chapter 5). (3) It is contrary to reason to hold that a ransom has been paid, but upon the payment of the ransom “those captives not be made free and set at Liberty”^[45] (book II, chapter 5). As we have argued above, faith is the key the enjoyment of those blessings and faith itself is a gift, therefore, this argument cannot be discarded simply because we do not immediately enjoy the blessings of redemption. Since the ransom has been paid, its benefits will, in God’s own time, be applied to all for whom the ransom was given. (4) It is contrary to Scripture as argued above.

Arguments Against the Universality of Redemption

Book III presents 16 arguments against the general ransom theory and in favor of Particular Atonement. Here are the arguments as summarized by Dr. J. I. Packer (slightly edited by me):

From the fact that the new covenant, which Christ’s death ratified, is not made with all men (chapter 1).
From the fact that the gospel, which reveals faith in Christ to be the only way of salvation, is not published to all men (chapter 1).
From the dilemmas involved in asserting that the divine intention in Christ’s death was to redeem every man (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ is said to die for one of the two classes (elect and reprobate) into which God divided men, and not for the other (chapter 2).
From the fact that Scripture nowhere asserts that Christ dies for all men, as such (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ died as sponsor (surety) for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ is a mediator, and as such a priest, for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ’s death cleanses and sanctifies those for whom He died, whereas not all men and sanctified (chapter 3).
From the fact that faith (which is necessary for salvation) was procured by the death of Christ, whereas not all men have faith (chapter 4).
From the fact that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt is a type of Christ’s saving work (chapter 4).

The next five arguments form a group on their own. They have a common form and are all taken from the biblical terms in which Christ’s work is described.

(i). From the fact that Christ’s death wrought redemption (deliverance by payment) (chapter 5).
(ii). From the fact that Christ’s death effected reconciliation between God and men (chapter 6).
(iii). From the fact that Christ’s death made satisfaction for sins (chapter 7, 8, 9).
(iv). From the fact that Christ’s death merited salvation for men (chapter 10).
(v). From the fact that Christ died for men (chapter 10).
From particular texts: Gen. 3:15: Matt. 7:33; 11:25; John 10:11ff.; Rom. 8:32-34; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; John 17:9; Eph. 5:25 (chapter 11).

These are great chapters, especially chapters XI-XV, which deal with important and essential benefits of Christ’s death in some detail as they retain to the subject of atonement. I’d like to take a quick look at a few of his arguments.

The New Covenant (Arg. I)

The Covenant of Grace, i.e., the New Covenant according to 1689 Federalism, is made only with the elect (see chapter 7 for more on Covenant Theology). If that is truly the case, then we have a pro...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 16: Of Good Works - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 16,890 views | 8,785 words | 0:46:07 hours | 05 March 2015 18:58

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Good Works Fruits Of Salvation

...sus quotes the words of Isaiah approvingly when he says, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matt. 15:8-9 from Isa. 29:13). From this passage, we learn that whenever we add things to the Lord’s commandments and teach them as if they were the Lord’s, we dishonor Him and worship Him falsely. Therefore, the Confession is explicit that “Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word”, so that only God would be the Lord of the conscience (see also chapter 21 on the Liberty of the conscious).

It is God Who teaches us through His will “what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). And it is God Who is and determines the criteria of what good works constitute. It is His holy character as revealed in His Word. It is also God Who works in us His good works. We cannot really do any good works which are pleasing in His sight without His will and direction. That’s why Paul tells us that “...it is God Who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). The Holy Spirit in Hebrews 13:21 tells us that it is God Who “equip[s] you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight”. The glory of the New Covenant is the fact that we have God’s Law on our hearts and given the ability by the Spirit to obey God from the heart (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:25-27). In fact, God has created us believers and predestined us from all eternity that we should walk in good works (Eph. 2:10).

Therefore, good works, first of all, are commanded by God and derived from His Law, and moreover, they are brought forth by God in us. It is God Who is the measure of what is good. Whatever reflects His holy character is good, and whatever does not, is evil. He is the standard. It is written, “...the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed” (1 Sam. 2:3).

2 Tim. 3:6-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Performed In Faith

For works to be truly “good” in God’s sight, they have to be done in faith. Romans 14:23 tells us “But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Therefore, anything that is not done in and through faith in Jesus Christ the Lord, is sin and not really a “good work” in the sight of God. Even if a billionaire would donate all his money and give it to the poor, strictly in God’s eyes that would not be a good work because it lacked a crucial component, namely, good works are to be performed through faith in Jesus Christ.

We perform our works in thankfulness to God for our identity in Christ and that we are able through faith to please God (Heb. 11:6). We don’t perform them thinking that we are better than others, or that God will love us more, but we perform them to the glory of God and to display His goodness to us. If our faith is really living, then it will inevitably produce good works. Paul speaks of the Thessalonians’ “work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 1:3). They did good while believing and hoping in the Lord Jesus Christ. Their works came as a result and were supported by their living faith. In his second letter ...

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

Simon Wartanian | 41,450 views | 43,749 words | 3:48:12 hours | 05 March 2015 19:18

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

...e clear teaching on the impossibility of apostasy for the elect, teach that elect persons do, in fact, perish because of food (or perished, since that is not a relevant issue anymore). Paul’s point here is not to teach that some of the elect may, in fact, perish, but it is rather to warn stronger believers not to lay stumbling blocks in the way of weaker believers, whether it be food or anything else. We are to “pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19) and therefore if I know that my weak brother has issues with food that I’m eating, I should not eat that before him, lest his faith weakens even more. These passages warn us against using our Liberty in a way to make others stumble. Therefore, Paul calls believers to not be a stumbling block to others because of their Liberty saying, “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (Rom. 14:20-21). Paul says that it does not matter if we eat this food or do not before God (1 Cor. 8:8). It doesn’t affect our justification neither will one be destroyed or perish because he ate food sacrificed to idols, but the conscience of the weaker brother is wounded if we use our Liberty in such a way (1 Cor. 8:12-13). This is not a conclusive proof that some of the elect do, in fact, perish eternally.

Galatians 5:1-4 – You have fallen away from grace

Gal. 5:1-4 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Here the phrase “fallen away from grace” appears and therefore some suppose that this is a strong proof that some of the true, regenerate and elect believers do, in fact, fall away and perish. But I do not believe that this is the case. First, let us say a word about the letter to the Galatians.

The letter was written by the apostle Paul around 49 A.D. to a congregation which was being troubled by Jewish Christians who were seeking to place Gentile Christians under the yoke of the Old Testament Law, teaching that they must be circumcised to be saved, like in Acts 15:1. But Paul sees through the deceit of these false teachers declaring that if anyone adds anything to the gospel, even if it was an angel from heaven, let them be damned (Gal. 1:8-9). The apostle further says that the believers must know what it means to be circumcised, namely, it means being obliged to keep the whole Law of Moses and thereby place themselves under the yoke of the Law (Gal. 5:3; cf. Rom. 2:25-29). This means that they are trying to please God by works, rather than by faith (Heb. 11:6). The context of the Epistle is therefore between the antithesis of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Epistle is not teaching that Christians do not have to obey God, but rather it is teaching that salvation is not of works, but of faith (e.g., Gal. 2:16). Therefore, what these false teachers are doing is seeking to damn the believers through making them think that their works are the basis of their justification. Now we turn to examine our passag...

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

Simon Wartanian | 41,026 views | 35,236 words | 3:04:25 hours | 04 March 2015 20:52

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

...tures, but Scripture is not to be judged by these things. We may indeed be corrected in our interpretation of Scripture by these things, but Scripture is not judged or corrected by them. If, in the writings of men we find things for which we see no warrant in the infallible Word, we are not bound to believe these. But if in the Word we find doctrines which we don’t want to believe, we are sinning and are disobeying God Whose Word Scripture is. Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible alone can bind the conscious to obedience, since it alone is the Word of God, and God alone is the Lord of the conscious (see chapter 21).

On the other hand, Roman Catholics believe that sacred tradition and Scripture share the same authority. That’s why these can believe unbiblical doctrines and practice unbiblical things as prayers to the dead, infant baptism, penance, the assumption of Mary, the ever-virginity of Mary, Mary as Queen of Heaven, Popery, infallibility of the Pope, Purgatory and the list goes on, which have no warrant in Scripture, but they find in “Sacred Tradition.” Lest I be accused of misrepresenting them, here are a few statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. First, they say that they have the same source:

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.^[11]

Sacred Tradition is described to be divine and together with the Holy Scripture “to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” I beg to differ. You would be hard-pressed to find a single passage in Scripture which attributes the things attributed to Scripture to “Sacred Tradition.” It is interesting at this point to note, that it was Sola Scriptura, dependence upon the Scripture alone as the highest authority, which ignited the Reformation. Scripture and Sacred Tradition allows the Roman Catholic Church to bind the consciousness of men with man-made doctrines, which the Holy Scriptures know nothing about. But since it is the assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that both Scripture and Tradition have the same divine source, then it is reasonable to assume that Tradition is to be obeyed also. Our problem really is that tradition is nowhere described in such a way in the only special revelation of God—the Bible, therefore, “Sacred Tradition” is not of God. Moreover, this “Sacred Tradition” is binding only as interpreted and explained by the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, basically, they accept as tradition what accords with their doctrine and deny that which disagrees with them. The words of Jesus to the Pharisees come to mind, “in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:7-8). And by teaching the tradition of men they make “void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13). Since Scripture is not the sole and final authority for the Roman Catholic Church, they can teach their false doctrine as authoritative and as binding upon the consciousness of their members, without any warrant from Holy Writ. In this way, by teaching “Sacred Tradition” and attributing to “Sacred Tr...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 29: Of Baptism - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 44,902 views | 45,510 words | 3:58:30 hours | 06 March 2015 23:14

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

...ins, one of the signers of this Confession, in 1691, wrote a short book entitled “Believers Baptism from Heaven, and of Divine Institution. Infants Baptism from Earth, and Human Invention”, in which he makes the following observations on the Great Commission texts from Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28:19:

Doct 1. It’s the unalterable Will of Jesus Christ, who is King and Law-giver to his Gospel-Church, that all Persons believe before they are baptized.

Doct. 2. It’s the indispensable Duty of all true Believers to be Baptized.

I call it an indispensable Duty, because I know no Place where our Lord hath left this to the Liberty of Believers to do it, or leave it undone, as best pleaseth them.^[43]

Baptism is not an optional thing in the Christian life, rather, it should take place at the beginning of the Christian life. Moreover, it is the duty of every true believer to be baptized. Negligence of this ordinance is a sin and is disobedience to our Lord and Master. For those calling the name of Christ, but have not been properly baptized yet, what is hindering you? Isn’t your Lord’s command and example enough motivation for you? What are you waiting for? To stop sinning before you get baptized? In that case, you won’t ever be baptized! Obey your Master, and enter the waters of baptism and signify your union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection! As Collins observed, “Nothing sure can be more obliging Believers unto Obedience, than their Saviour’s Precept and Precedent.”^[43]

The Book Of Acts

In the Book of Acts, we see that several times that repentance and/or faith is the prerequisite for baptism which was that what the Great Commission required and implied. Let us begin at the very start.

On the day of Pentecost, after Peter preached a sermon through which God brought 3000 souls to Christ, it is said that “those who received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). No infants were baptized, but only those who received the word preached and heeded the command to be baptized (Acts 2:38) were baptized by water. An explicit statement is made about the subjects of baptism and those are identified as those who received the preaching of the gospel. Everyone was called to receive and believe in the gospel and only they who believed were baptized. They were not merely temporary believers or people who heard a message and at the moment of excitement accepted it. Rather, they are said to have “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). The joined and committed themselves to the New Covenant community of faith.

Philip went and proclaimed the gospel to the Samaritans and it is said that “when they believed Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:13). They who believed Philip’s preaching and message, they were the same ones who were baptized. But, we have in this instance Simon Magus who was not a believer but went on with the crowd and later showed his depravity. Yet, it remains to be that only those who wanted to be baptized and who “believed” the word preached, were baptized. Only professing believers were baptized. Philip did not invite them to be baptized before he could preach the gospel. Neither did he begin baptizing before he could in some way discern that they believed the message. Even when he was deceived, he did not baptize Simon knowing that he was...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 31: Of the State of Man after Death and Of the Resurrection of the Dead - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 42,049 views | 63,926 words | 5:35:37 hours | 06 March 2015 23:27

...quo;what is devoid of truth and appropriateness…perverseness, depravity…frailty, want of vigour”^[11] by Thayer. The whole creation was subject to vanity, futility and depravity because of man’s sin. But since the sin problem was solved by the Savior, so also the effects of sin on the world will be removed from the world by the Savior. There will be a time, Paul says, in which “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v. 21). The creation will share in the same Liberty and freedom from bondage which the children of God share in, namely, freedom from the bondage of sin and corruption. The glory of the LORD will fill the whole earth and He will be its light.

Paul compares the post-Fall Creation to the pains of childbirth. These pains will stop with the birth of the child. This is the time when the children of God will also receive Liberty from the bondage of sin in body and soul. In v. 23, Paul connects the personified longings of the creation and the real longings of the children of God together. They both want their complete redemption from sin and bondage, as they eagerly wait for that time when it will fully be accomplished and applied. Then our adoption will be consummated. We are adopted now, adoption is a present reality (e.g., Rom. 8:15). But Paul teaches here that there is also a future aspect of our adoption in glorified body and soul. The “redemption of our bodies” (v. 23) is the resurrection to life when our soul is united to our imperishable, immortal, and glorious body. That is the Christian hope. That is what Paul was hoping for (Acts 23:6; 24:21).

In this passage, Paul pinpoints the redemption of the earth at the same time of the redemption of God’s children’s bodies, i.e., the resurrection, which as we argued above happens at the Parousia of Christ. We deny the cultural conception of Heaven as being somewhere over the clouds and were “good people” look down on us. The promise of God is that the meek shall inherit the earth (e.g., Matt. 5:5) and that we will see God in our flesh (Job 19:26), not have bodiless existence for all eternity. To be sure, as we argued in paragraph 1, the Intermediate State consists in the bodiless existence of both the righteous and the wicked, yet at the resurrection, the body is united with the soul to form the whole and complete man as God designed us to be (Gen. 2:7). This is my Father’s world. The Father will not leave this world to Hell, but will renew it and we shall live with Him upon this renewed Earth.

2 Peter 3:10-13

2 Pet. 3:10-13 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Notice that the renewal of the present Cosmos is connected with the Day of the Lord, which is the Parousia of Christ. It is said to happen when (the day of) the Lord will come like a thief. Then fire will be used as a purifying agent to rid the w...

John Owen's Case For Particular Atonement

Simon Wartanian | 17,595 views | 15,628 words | 1:22:53 hours | 21 March 2017 23:01

John Owen Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Particular Atonement Calvinism Five Point Calvinism Arminianism

...ld intend Christ to die for those whom He knows will have no share in His blessings. Those who oppose the Calvinists basically hold to that the death of Christ “is so applied to all, and yet the fruits of this death are never so much as once made known to far the greatest part of those all”^[15] (book II, chapter 5). (3) It is contrary to reason to hold that a ransom has been paid, but upon the payment of the ransom “those captives not be made free and set at Liberty”^[15] (book II, chapter 5). As we have argued above, faith is the key the enjoyment of those blessings and faith itself is a gift, therefore, this argument cannot be discarded simply because we do not immediately enjoy the blessings of redemption. Since the ransom has been paid, its benefits will, in God's own time, be applied to all for whom the ransom was given. (4) It is contrary to Scripture as argued above.

Arguments Against the Universality of Redemption

Book III presents 16 arguments against the general ransom theory and in favor of Particular Atonement. Here are the arguments as summarized by Dr. J. I. Packer (slightly edited by me):

From the fact that the new covenant, which Christ’s death ratified, is not made with all men (chapter 1).
From the fact that the gospel, which reveals faith in Christ to be the only way of salvation, is not published to all men (chapter 1).
From the dilemmas involved in asserting that the divine intention in Christ’ death was to redeem every man (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ is said to die for one of the two classes (elect and reprobate) into which God divided men, and not for the other (chapter 2).
From the fact that Scripture nowhere asserts that Christ dies for all men, as such (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ died as sponsor (surety) for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ is a Mediator, and as such a priest, for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ’s death cleanses and sanctifies those for whom He died, whereas not all men and sanctified (chapter 3).
From the fact that faith (which is necessary for salvation) was procured by the death of Christ, whereas not all men have faith (chapter 4).
From the fact that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt is a type of Christ’s saving work (chapter 4).

The next five arguments form a group on their own. They have a common form and are all taken from the biblical terms in which Christ’s work is described.

(i). From the fact that Christ’s death wrought redemption (deliverance by payment) (chapter 5).
(ii). From the fact that Christ’s death effected reconciliation between God and men (chapter 6).
(iii). From the fact that Christ’s death made satisfaction for sins (chapter 7, 8, 9).
(iv). From the fact that Christ’s death merited salvation for men (chapter 10).
(v). From the fact that Christ died for men (chapter 10).
From particular texts: Gen. 3:15: Matt. 7:33; 11:25; John 10:11ff.; Rom. 8:32-34; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; John 17:9; Eph. 5:25 (chapter 11).

These are great chapters, especially chapters XI-XV, which deal with important essential benefits of Christ's death in some detail as they retain to the subject of atonement. I'd like to take a quick look at a few of his arguments.

The New Covenant (Arg. I)

The Covenant of Grace, i.e., the New Covenant according to 1689 Federalism, is made only with the elect (see chapter 7 for more on Covenant Theology). If that is tr...

A Review of Perspectives on the Doctrine of God

Simon Wartanian | 3,388 views | 2,894 words | 0:14:58 hours | 14 May 2022 21:35

Theology Proper Arminianism Calvinism Open Theism Review

...ery least, a denial that God is the all-determining reality” (p. 148). As to God’s omnipotence and sovereignty, “God is in charge (because he is God and therefore the omnipotent Creator of all) but not fully in control (because he chooses to relinquish some control to others)” (pp. 148-149). Obviously, these are statements which naturally trigger Calvinists. God gives His creatures free will which is the same type of freedom which He has/had when He created the world: “Nothing within God or external to God caused him to create the world. Something inclined him to do it, and he chose to do it, which is different from having to do it. God shared something of this Liberty of decision and action with his human creatures” (p. 150). Furthermore, free will is only free when the agent could have done otherwise (p. 150) although “Occasionally God suspends free will with dramatic intervention that virtually forces a person to decide or act in some way” (p. 151). Calvinists usually take the compatibilist route to human freedom and divine determinism, while Arminians are non-compatibilists (pp. 151-152).

Dr. Olson includes a section on misconceptions about free will theism (or Arminianism). This is helpful to battle some common unfair caricatures, but in it he also makes some revealing statements which are likewise troubling for the Reformed. In what sense is free will theism (read classical Arminianism) God-centered? Because it concerns itself with the character of God and desires to do justice to His loving-kindness (p. 154). Libertarian free will is needed to protect God and not to make Him the determiner of evil (or as Olson often uses in his response to the Calvinist side, “the author of sin and evil”). But what if humans did not possess libertarian free will? Then “God would be virtually indistinguishable from the devil” (p. 154). Thus, the only way that God can remain good and show His loving-kindness is to give humans libertarian free will. This is problematic in my opinion to subject God to our standards and to judge Him as if He is a creature. Here, I worry, as does Dr. Ware, “deeply for Olson and others who think the way that they do when it well may be the case that the view of God they find indistinguishable from Satan turns out to be the true and living God of the Bible” (p. 195).

Throughout the chapter, Dr. Olson also uses the fact that God created people Whom He could save but does not and who will spend an eternity in hell as if it is only an argument against Calvinism (e.g., pp. 154, 160-161; on p. 161, he even compares hell to a concentration camp!). This is an object against any self-respecting Christian theist position which does not deny God’s comprehensive foreknowledge. If God doesn’t want them to go to hell, then He could have struck down their parents or not bring them into being better than allowing them to be born, trying to save them and ultimately being eternally disappointed. I’m sure anyone in hell would have preferred to not exist rather than having their free will “violated.” The Calvinist is satisfied in his conviction that nothing happens outside or without God’s will and those who are in hell, God wanted them to be there because of their sin and He will be glorified in their damnation. This is indeed a horrible decree, but it is nonetheless for the glory of the triune God. Either God had a purpose in their destruction and brought them into being or He did not. Dr. Olson’s answer is “People determine ...