Search

You searched for 'Fellowship'

I've found 24 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 25: Of Marriage - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,073 views | 4,518 words | 0:23:28 hours | 06 March 2015 19:40

...g an unbelieving girl- or boyfriend, the unlawfulness of that relationship becomes even more clear. In the first instance, there already was a marriage covenant and Paul said it is better to get out if the unbeliever wants out. So, how much more in the case when there is not yet a marriage? The fact is, while the idea of evangelizing the unbelieving partner in a marriage or love relationship may be desirable for some, it is utterly unbiblical and in direct violation of God’s command.

2 Cor. 6:14-16 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what Fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial [worthlessness, unprofitableness, i.e. Satan]? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Not much needs to be said about the passage. While some maintain that this “yoking” comes even in the realm of business, no one doubts that this “yoking” in the least speaks of marriage. The unbelieving partner is not one with Christ and is, therefore, an idolater. Paul’s description here is pretty black and white. He contrasts righteousness with lawlessness; light with darkness; Christ with Satan; believer with unbeliever; the temple of God with idols. This is not a minor issue. This concerns God’s holy institution of life-long marriage. The nature of the ones joined together, if unequally yoked, is fundamentally different. This joining together will harm the Christian spouse in that they cannot share the most important part of their lives with their partner. There will always be a hole and blank space in that relationship. No Christian should knowingly have a relationship with an unbeliever, much less marry one.

§4 Marriage Ought Not To Be Within The Degrees Of Consanguinity Or Affinity

Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity, forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful, by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. 1
1. Lev. 18:6-18; Amos 2:7; Mark 6:18; 1 Cor. 5:1

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman, but there are limits. It is not to be within the degrees of consanguinity, i.e., blood relatives or affinity, i.e., those related by marriage (step-brother, step-sister) as forbidden in the Word. Consanguinity defines the relationship through blood, affinity defines the relationship by marriage. The Mosaic law speaks about the degrees of consanguinity in Leviticus 18 and there are various limitations put there. Such a relationship would be incestuous and it will never be made lawful. It does not matter if a law of man would accept the validity of incestuous marriages, biblically speaking, these cannot be valid marriages. Even the consent of the parties involved does not matter. Therefore, they may not live together as man and wife since there is no valid marriage between them.

Incest is clearly forbidden from the law of Moses onward. Prior to Sinai, it was not forbidden, neither was it forbidden in the beginning, for otherwise, we could not have multiplied from one man and one woman. Therefore, it was necessary and it was not yet declared sinful until the giving of the law to Israel. See espe...

A Review of Jeffrey D. Johnson's The Fatal Flaw

Simon Wartanian | 11,229 views | 4,031 words | 0:20:42 hours | 27 November 2015 22:25

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology 1689 Federalism Westminster Baptism Infant Baptism Book Review Jeffrey Johnson The Fatal Flaw

...redobaptist. They teach that the covenants of God were made with the believers and their seed. This is one basic aspect of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace (from their perspective), which they assume would continue to the last administration of the Covenant of Grace, that is – the New Covenant. This is understandable. Thus, they counter the non-covenantal credobaptism with the following:

“Unless an express statue of repeal and prohibition of the former privilege can be produced, the natural conclusion is that the old rule remained in force as regards their place of infant children of the believer within the visible Fellowship of faith to which their parent belongs.” (p. 28, from Douglas Bannerman)

The tables have now been turned. The non-covenantal Credobaptist demands proof for infant baptism, the covenantal Paedobaptist argues from the previous administrations of the covenant of grace and places the burden of proof in the hands of the Credobaptist.

For the non-covenantal Credobaptist to win the argument, he would have to provide a prohibition for infant baptism, or an explicit statement about the exclusion of infants from the New Covenant.

The Critique of the Westminster Position

Throughout the book Jeffery Johnson tries to demonstrate why the Westminster position is inconsistent and unbiblical. He starts by examining the analogy between baptism and circumcision (chapter 2).

Baptism is the New Circumcision?

While examining circumcision under the Old Testament Johnson finds these discrepancies:

Male Exclusivity – Circumcision was restricted to males.
Jewish Citizenship - Circumcision was the requirement for citizenship in Israel, not faith. Membership within the covenant was not based upon faith, but upon bearing the sign of the covenant.
Unbelieving Adults – Not only infants, but all adults would have been circumcised. Abraham was circumcised when he was 99. Genesis 17 says that not only Abraham’s direct family, but everyone in his house (even the slaves) had to be circumcised and receive the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. We can’t simply assume that everyone in Abraham’s house was already a believer in the true God. Obviously there would have been some adult unbelievers who received the sign.
Children of Unbelievers – The Westminster position says that the promise is given to believers and their seed. But why? Under the Old Testament it did not matter if the parents had true faith. Their children had to be circumcised and thus receive the sign of the covenant.
Different Meaning – Circumcision under the Old Testament had nation and political significance which baptism does not have. Circumcision was the sign for the Abrahamic Covenant which the Jewish males bore in their body. It set them apart as God’s national old covenant people.
Different Participants – From the above mentioned differences between baptism and circumcision do not have the same participants. Unbelievers had received the sign of the covenant which our Presbyterian brethren would never knowingly do. Furthermore, circumcision under the Old Testament was properly administered to children of unbelievers, but this the Westminster position would not do.

There is an analogy between circumcision and baptism, but it is wrong and unbiblical to make them identical.

The New Testament teaches that circumcision was replaced by circumcision of the heart. We do not believe that the NT teaches that circumcision...

Hebrews 6:4-6, Apostasy and Calvinism

Simon Wartanian | 19,420 views | 11,271 words | 0:59:55 hours | 15 May 2016 15:27

Hebrews 6 Apostasy Perseverance Of The Saints Reformed Theology Calvinism Falling Away From Grace

...e . . . but were not saved. Jesus said to them: “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers” (v. 23). These, then, “have tasted” the power and blessings of the new covenant, but they have not personally prized, cherished, embraced, loved, trusted, treasured, or savored the atoning death of Jesus as their only hope for eternal life.^[12]

Dr. Grudem observes the following on these apostates:

What has happened to these people? They are at least people who have been affiliated closely with the Fellowship of the church. They have had some sorrow for sin and a decision to forsake their sin (repentance). They have clearly understood the gospel and given some assent to it (they have been enlightened). They have come to appreciate the attractiveness of the Christian life and the change that comes about in people’s lives because of becoming a Christian, and they have probably had answers to prayers in their own lives and felt the power of the Holy Spirit at work, perhaps even using some spiritual gifts (they have become ‘associated with’ the work of the Holy Spirit or have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the heavenly gift and the powers of the age to come). They have been exposed to the true preaching of the Word and have appreciated much of its teachings (they have tasted the goodness of the Word of God). These factors are all positive, and people who have experienced these things may be genuine Christians. But these factors alone are not enough to give conclusive evidence of any of the decisive beginning stages of the Christian life (regeneration, saving faith and repentance unto life, justification, adoption, initial sanctification). In fact, these experiences are all preliminary to those decisive beginning stages of the Christian life. The actual spiritual status of those who have experienced these things is still unclear^[12]

Lastly, Dr. John Frame weighs in on this with the example of Judas who experienced these things:

Can we regard the people in this passage as false believers? I think we can. Think of Judas Iscariot, chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve disciples. By joining Jesus’ band of followers, he turned away from the sinful world, a kind of repentance. Doubtless he received the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, either from Jesus or from John. He was enlightened by hearing Jesus’ teaching. He tasted the heavenly gift [Dr. Frame understands this to refer to supernatural gifts] as he watched Jesus heal and prophesy.1267 He shared the Spirit, at least as much as King Saul did when he prophesied, and people asked, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Sam. 10:11). Judas also tasted the good word of Christ and Jesus’ miraculous powers, the powers of the age to come, the powers of the coming kingdom. Judas himself preached Christ and worked miracles in his name (Matt. 10:1–42). But he proved to be reprobate, unbelieving. He betrayed Jesus, who said of him that it would have been better if he had not been born. Externally, he seemed to be a believer, and indeed, he had many advantages that believers have, hearing Jesus’ words and watching his miracles.

Perhaps even more to the focus of the letter to the Hebrews: OT Israel was much like this—enlightened in comparison with the other nations, experiencing all sorts of heavenly gifts, powers, and words. But many of the Israelites were wicked and turned against God.^[13]

Then have fallen away

This falling away, is a total falling...

John Owen's Case For Particular Atonement

Simon Wartanian | 15,773 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

... “us”, namely, the believers who are actually reconciled to God. The “world” here is a reference to believers everywhere in the world, much like how the redeemed are described in Revelation 5:9. But the main point to be taken from this passage is that this reconciliation is directly connected to the non-imputation of trespasses. But, if we take the interpretation of “world” as everyone without exception, then we have a huge problem, namely, that God will, in fact, impute sin to the wicked on the day of wrath. Therefore, this means that He has not been reconciled to them, for to be reconciled means to have Fellowship and friendship with God, and according to the passage at hand, to have the non-imputation of sins. But this is in fact not the case nor will it be for everyone without exception.

If the opposing position will attack us on the point that even the elect do not enjoy this reconciliation immediately, although it was purchased at the cross, then we reply: It is true, but everyone for whom this reconciliation was made, will, in fact, enjoy this reconciliation with God. In fact, the means of enjoying this reconciliation is provided for by God through the work of His Son, namely, our faith, which is a gift. But this is not the case with the non-Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement and reconciliation. For the non-Calvinists claim that Christ died for everyone without exception and tried (?) to reconcile everyone without exception to God, yet the majority of humanity either does not know of this reconciliation or rejects it. The Calvinist doesn't run into the trouble of a reconciliation that does not reconcile, or an atonement that does not save, but needs our deciding choice.

To put it at length in the words of Dr. Owen:

Now, how this reconciliation can possibly be reconciled with universal redemption, I am no way able to discern; for if reconciliation be the proper effect of the death of Christ, as is confessed by all, then if he died for all, I ask how cometh it to pass, — First, That God is not reconciled to all? as he is not, for his wrath abideth on some, John 3:36, and reconciliation is the aversion of wrath. Secondly, That all are not reconciled to God? as they are not, for “by nature all are the children of wrath,” Eph. 2:3; and some all their lives do nothing but “treasure up wrath against the day of wrath,” Rom. 2:5. Thirdly, How, then, can it be that reconciliation should be wrought between God and all men, and yet neither God reconciled to all nor all reconciled to God? Fourthly, If God be reconciled to all, when doth he begin to be unreconciled towards them that perish? by what alteration is it? in his will or nature? Fifthly, If all be reconciled by the death of Christ, when do they begin to be unreconciled who perish, being born children of wrath? Sixthly, Seeing that reconciliation on the part of God consists in the turning away of his wrath and not imputing of iniquity, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, which is justification, rendering us blessed, Rom. 4:6–8, why, if God be reconciled to all, are not all justified and made blessed through a non-imputation of their sin? They who have found out a redemption where none are redeemed, and a reconciliation where none are reconciled, can easily answer these and such other questions; which to do I leave them to their leisure, and in the meantime conclude this part of our argument. That reconciliation which is the renewing of lost friendship, the slaying of enmity, the maki...