Search

You searched for 'Faith'

I've found 64 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 5: Of Divine Providence - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 16,284 views | 5,231 words | 0:28:11 hours | 04 March 2015 21:17

...s 27:21-25 Since they had been without food for a long time, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and incurred this injury and loss. 22 Yet now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. 23 For this very night there stood before me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, 24 and he said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you.’ 25 So take heart, men, for I have Faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told.

God had promised Paul to save him and those who are with him in the ship from death, but how? Does it matter how these people act or what they do? The Scripture further says:

Acts 27:31 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.”

Some people tried to escape from the ship, but God had determined to save only those who remain on the ship. God’s sovereignty worked out through the men staying in the ship. God used the means of the men staying on the ship to save them from death. Many more examples could be given, but we must believe that God ordains the ends as well as the means thereto. God didn’t just decree to save these men, no matter what. What if some of them tried to commit suicide, or jumped in the water, or tried to kill each other. God had decreed to save all of them, therefore, it doesn’t matter what they do, right? Wrong! See also paragraph 6 of chapter 3.

Dr. Sam Waldron comments on the second paragraph, which is also relevant here, writing:

A course of events consisting of a series of free and contingent events is said to produce a predetermined result. The proof of this statement is the many places in which free or random actions are the necessary conditions of divinely determined events (Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 27:23-24, 31; Matt. 5:20; Phil. 1:19; Prov. 20:18; Luke 14:25-33). Victory in war is predetermined (Prov. 21:31), but careful preparation of your equipment (Prov. 21:31) and wise guidance are recommended (Prov. 20:18). The random shot of the Syrian bowman was the means of bringing about the predetermined death of Ahab (1 Kings 22:28, 34). Ruth was a gift of the Lord to Boaz (Prov. 19:14), but she met him by coincidence (Ruth 2:3). Understanding that God controls the world through means should keep us from three things.^[3]

God ordains both the ends as well as the means. An instance of God working above and/or against the means is when He works supernaturally, as in the virgin birth of Christ, and Sarah bearing Isaac in her old age. The natural course of things do not allow such things, but such is the power of God that He transcends what is natural and normal, and can work over and against these. Not that these things are external to God or something. Rather, these are laws which He Himself has instituted, and sometimes, for His purposes, it pleases Him to work above and against them.

§4 His determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; 1 and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ord...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,595 views | 3,261 words | 0:17:00 hours | 05 March 2015 19:57

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 20 General Revelation Special Revelation The Necessity Of The Gospel The Work Of The Holy Spirit

...is than to confess the necessity of special revelation over against those who would reject special revelation and claim that they can come to salvation merely through general revelation.

§1 God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ

The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them Faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners. 1
1. Gen. 3:15 with Eph. 2:12; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 11:13; Luke 2:25, 38; 23:51; Rom. 4:13-16; Gal. 3:15-22; Rev. 13:8^[2]

The covenant of works that was given to Adam was broken by sin and thereby made unprofitable unto life (see also chapter 6:1). Now, it only administers its curse—death. Therefore, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ (Gen. 3:15; Eph. 2:12) as He had purposed to save the elect by Christ from all eternity. In this promise of Christ, the gospel was revealed as the means of calling the elect (Gal. 3:8; Luke 2:25, 38). As the gospel was revealed in this promise, God worked to beget in the elect Faith and repentance so that they would embrace this promise, which was effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners (Gal. 3:15-22). This promise of Christ was, essentially or in substance, the promise of the gospel and salvation, which is what Christ accomplished on behalf of the elect.

Salvation was always through Christ, whether people were consciously aware of that or not. They were saved by Faith alone and by not works. By loosely reading the Old Testament and seeing the absence of the cross, we may think that salvation was by works under the Old Testament, but now, in the New Testament era, it is by grace. This is completely false and a grave mistake. Salvation has always been by grace. The reason that this is so is because the Adamic Covenant (see here), which could have provided eternal life if Adam obeyed, was broken. When that covenant was broken, the promise of eternal life by obedience was likewise broken and became unprofitable for Adam’s fallen and sin-cursed descendants. The Covenant of Works which was made with Adam in Eden lost the ability to give eternal life because it is now broken. That covenant did not contain provisions for atonement and now it could only administer the curse of that covenant—death. We see in Genesis 3 that just after God, the covenant Lord, confronts Adam and Eve with their sin, He likewise gives the promise of the Savior:

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

This is indisputably a promise of the Savior, the first one and that is why it is called the Proto-Evangelium, meaning, the first (giving-out of the) gospel. God promises a Seed, an Offspring Who would conquer the serpent, who is the Devil. At this point of time, it seems pretty vague, but as time goes by we come to know more about this Offspring and Seed. For example, Abraham is promised that in his “offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). So now we know not only He will be the child of Eve, but will also be a descendent of Abraham. From Genesis 49:10 we learn that the Offspring and the Messiah will come from the loins of Judah. As we ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 12: Of Adoption - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 12,341 views | 2,439 words | 0:12:42 hours | 04 March 2015 21:56

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 12 Chapter Twelve Adoption Children Of God

...ast off (John 6:37-39). It is for the purpose of us sharing in His holiness (Heb. 12:10). We are never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30), meaning that we are absolutely safe in our state of adoption and grace. God will not disinherit us, but He will discipline us when we sin. Since we are sealed it means that we will inherit the promises for we are heirs of eternal salvation (Heb. 1:14; 9:15). Salvation has been promised for us from all eternity and now it is being realized in our effectual calling, Faith, justification, adoption and all the other graces which God lavishes upon us.

The Golden Chain of Romans 8:29-30 continues. After our justification, the Lord takes us into His fold and adopts us for the sake of Christ as children and heirs of Him. This is done to all who are justified. It is not a privilege only of some believers, but the privilege of all the believers. All who are justified are also made children of God. “Vouchsafe” is an old word meaning “to condescend to grant or bestow something.” Just like God condescended to make a covenant with man (chapter 7:1), so likewise the Lord condescends and by grace gives us privileges that we actually do not deserve. It is by grace—something that we don’t deserve.

In and for Christ

The privilege of adoption is found only in the beloved Son of the Father–in the Lord Jesus Christ. We should not look anywhere else, but only in Christ through Whom adoption into God’s family is possible. Yes, there is indeed a sense in which all are children of God in that He has created them, but the Bible never focuses on that (Acts 17:26-27). The New Testament, again and again, speaks about our adoption into God’s family-centered in Jesus Christ our Lord. Paul says in Galatians 3:26 that it is in Christ that we are children of God. It is not that we simply are His creation, but we are children and we are adopted into God’s family in Christ and through Faith. Thus, the Faithless are not admitted into God’s family. This privilege is only in Christ and through Faith. This is a blessed privilege in virtue of the Covenant of Grace and not the Covenant of Works in Adam for all men.

We are made children by regeneration. We are spiritually born of God and thus in this way and through Christ, we are rightly children of God. We are adopted and received as children through Faith and regeneration (John 1:12-13). It was God’s purpose even before the foundation of the world that we would be welcomed into His family through Christ (Eph. 1:5). God predestined us for the grace and privilege of adoption. God elected us so that we would be His children for the glory of His holy Name and the praise of His grace. It was God’s purpose that we would be redeemed and cleansed from sin so that we would be adopted into His fold through Christ (Gal. 4:4-5). Through Christ we are made heirs of God’s promises, we are made true children of Abraham through Faith and thus the Abrahamic promises have their fulfillment in the Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ (Gal. 3:29; 2 Cor. 1:20). As Christ is the rightful heir of everything (Heb. 1:2), so we who are in the Son are heirs to what the Lord Jesus is an heir. We are co-heirs with the Lord (Rom. 8:17). In and through Christ we are made the true Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). The Lord says that He is the True Vine (John 15:1-2), which was a clear picture of Israel (e.g. Hos 10:1) and that we are in Him. If Jesus is the true Israel and we are in H...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 23: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,848 views | 5,299 words | 0:27:50 hours | 06 March 2015 19:34

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 23 Oaths Vows Swearing Allegiance

... Matthew 5:33-37. The Anabaptist Mennonite Network writes:

Many [Anabaptists] refused to swear oaths. Oaths were very important in sixteenth-century Europe, encouraging truth-telling in court and loyalty to the state. Anabaptists often rejected these, citing Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5 and arguing that they should always be truthful, not just under oath. Nor would they swear loyalty to any secular authority.^[1]

An example of the Anabaptist stance on oaths and vows comes from their own mounts. The Schleitheim Confession of Faith comes from 1527 and was written by Michael Sattler in Germany. J. C. Wenger, a translator of the confession, explains:

The Schleitheim Confession was widely circulated. Ulrich Zwingli translated it into Latin and attempted to refute it already in 1527. It was in print in its original German form as early as 1533. John Calvin used a now-lost French translation of the Seven Articles in his refutation of Anabaptism published in 1544.^[2]

All this means is that it is a very good representative of Anabaptist teaching. Therefore, it is also representative of what it says on vows and oaths:

Seventh. We are agreed as follows concerning the oath: The oath is a confirmation among those who are quarreling or making promises. In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God’s Name, but only in truth, not falsely. Christ, who teaches the perfection of the Law, prohibits all swearing to His [followers], whether true or false, -- neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by our head, -- and that for the reason which He shortly thereafter gives, For you are not able to make one hair white or black. So you see it is for this reason that all swearing is forbidden: we cannot fulfill that which we promise when we swear, for we cannot change [even] the very least thing on us.^[2]

The seventh and last article goes on to answer some common objections made against the first statement. A century later (1632), the Dutch Mennonites still confessed the same of what was said by Sattler:

XV. Of the Swearing of Oaths

Concerning the swearing of oaths we believe and confess that the Lord Christ has set aside and forbidden the same to His disciples, that they should not swear at all, but that yea should be yea, and nay, nay; from which we understand that all oaths, high and low, are forbidden, and that instead of them we are to confirm all our promises and obligations, yea, all our declarations and testimonies of any matter, only with our word yea, in that which is yea, and with nay, in that which is nay; yet, that we must always, in all matters, and with everyone, adhere to, keep, follow, and fulfill the same, as though we had confirmed it with a solemn oath. And if we do this, we trust that no one, not even the Magistracy itself, will have just reason to lay a greater burden on our mind and conscience. Matt. 5:34, 35; Jas. 5:12; II Cor. 1:17.^[3]

This means that the teaching of the Anabaptists on this point was still alive. Thus the Reformed confessions added a chapter addressing this issue. This is likewise important for our forefather to confess since they were falsely called Anabaptists, as the title of the First London Confession read: “The CONFESSION OF Faith, Of those CHURCHES ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 24: Of the Civil Magistrate - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,132 views | 5,667 words | 0:29:28 hours | 06 March 2015 19:38

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 24 Civil Magistrates Civil Government Romans 13

...Resistance to Government is resistance to God (v. 2)

Therefore, resistance to civil governments in things which God has not forbidden and are not contrary to His Word will bring the judgment of the state and of God upon the person. But this does not mean that God will punish in the same way which the civil government punishes. A few years after the composition of the Epistle to the Romans, the Rome Empire began to require its citizens to worship Caesar and declare “Caesar is Lord” instead of “Jesus is Lord.” The civil government did, in fact, punish Christians, feeding them to lions and burning them at the stake. But, will God punish the disobedience of the Faithful Christians because they disobeyed the civil government? Absolutely not. In fact, He will reward those who gave their lives for the sake of Christ! In this, we see an instance which brings the wrath of the government upon the person, while it brings the glory and acceptance of God upon the same. In these instances, the government is disobeying God and forsaking its God-given function and is storing up wrath for it. We also noted the instance of the apostles Peter and John in Acts 4:19-20; 5:28-29. Had they obeyed their government, they would have been in disobedience to God.

But notice also what is said in v. 2: “resists what God has appointed”. The apostle is speaking not only of those who resist the established government, but they who resist the ordinance and establishment of the government. They resist the idea of any government and basically want anarchy. They will incur the judgment of God because they are resisting that which God has ordained, namely, civil government.

Purpose of the Civil Magistrate (vv. 3-4)

The reason why we should not resist authorities is because they are to encourage the good and punish the evil. This is, at least, how it is supposed to be, but we all know better. Therefore, this point strengthens even more what we said concerning disobedience to evil governments is obedience to God. What shall we do when the government punishes those who will not offer incense and declare “Caesar is Lord”? The government did punish the Christians, but God welcomed them into glory. This means that the government is not fulfilling its God-given purpose and is in rebellion against God and will be judged in righteousness for their evil conduct. But, if we live under a “decent” government, there are still a lot of biblical laws which they uphold as a byproduct of Judeo-Christian values. Many civil governments uphold all kinds of laws that have their basis in God. Therefore, when one disobeys these things, they are disobeying God. But when one rejects, for example, homosexuality or polygamy, they are not rebelling against God, but merely against the government. They are standing against the government for God. They may incur the punishment of the government, but not that of God because He has spoken something else concerning that subject.

A government should encourage the good and punish the evil. In fact, this is how Peter summarizes the role of the governors as to “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (2 Pet. 4:12).

The reason that civil governments (when not contradicting the Word) are to be obeyed is because they are God’s representatives. God exercises His rule through them. They are God’s servants and His tool to order and govern the world. The civil magistrate is a servant of God, carrying the approval or judgment of God upon it...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 25: Of Marriage - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,061 views | 4,518 words | 0:23:28 hours | 06 March 2015 19:40

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 25 Chapter Twenty-five Marriage One Man One Woman Homosexuality

... Monogamy is essential to marriage as defined by the Creator. The question of homosexuality, as it hot now, never crossed the minds of the framers of the Confession as it was obvious that the Bible was against it.

Marriage is a life-long covenant between a man and a woman wherein God is a witness (Mal. 2:15). It is a life-long vow (see chapter 23 on oaths and vows). In marriage, the man and the woman call upon God as a witness to the vows that they make to each other and bind themselves by the vow, in presence of God, to be Faithful to each other. Marriage was instituted by God in the Garden, before the Fall on day six. The Lord wanted to find for Adam a mate, so He brought to him all the animals, yet “for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:20). Therefore, the LORD put Adam to sleep and made a woman from his side. The Lord created a human with the same nature as Adam’s, yet, different character and with different parts which complement each other. Then we read:

Gen. 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Herein we have the institution of marriage. Adam had finally found someone like him and yet, at the same time, not exactly like him. The mate of Adam was to be “a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18, 20). She was to help and assist Adam, completing him. The various translations of this phrase all communicate the idea that Eve was not inferior in being to Adam, but was created to compliment him and complete him. In a sense, Adam was not yet whole without Eve. Verse 20 is translated as follows:

ESV	a helper fit for him
NIV	suitable helper
ISV	companion corresponding to him
NET	companion who corresponded to him
NASB	a helper suitable for him
LXXE	a help like to himself
HCSB	helper...as his complement
KJV	an help meet for him
YLT	an helper -- as his counterpart

Adam and Eve were equal in nature, value, and being. Adam was not superior in being or value to Eve. But authority was given to Adam even before the Fall over Eve, yet this authority was not because Adam was superior in being. Albert Barnes notes on this phrase that it meant “an equal, a companion, a sharer of his thoughts, his observations, his joys, his purposes, his enterprises.”^[2] Matthew Henry’s observation is well-known:

That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. Adam lost a rib, and without any diminution to his strength or comeliness (for, doubtless, the flesh was closed without a scar); but in lieu thereof he had a help meet for him, which abundantly made up his loss: what God takes away from his people he will, one way or other, restore with advantage.^[3]

This Hebrew word in vv. 18, 20 means “‘as over against,’ ‘according to his front presence’ - i:e., corresponding to, his counterpart-one like himself in form and constitution, disposition, and affections, and altogether suitable to his nature and wants.”^[4] Matthew Poole likewise notes:

Meet for him; a most emphatical phrase, signifying thus much, one correspondent to him, suitable both to his nature and necessity, one

altogether like to him in shape and constitution, disposition and affection; a second self; or one to be at hand and near to h...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 9: Of Free Will - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 22,990 views | 16,462 words | 1:25:57 hours | 04 March 2015 21:41

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 9 Chapter Nine Free Will Libertarian Free Will Determinism Fatalism Compatibilism Incompatibilism Moral Agency Jonathan Edwards The Freedom Of The Will

...ons. Therefore, the freedom spoken of here is not autonomous freedom. Chapter 3:1 says:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and Faithfulness in accomplishing his decree. (See commentary)

His sovereignty, orchestration and ordaining extends to all things whatsoever comes to pass, the good and the bad. Chapter 5 which speaks of God’s providence is even clearer on this:

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

If even the evil actions of men are under His control, how much more the good actions? For the case that God ordains and is sovereign even over the evil actions of men and yet holds them accountable, see chapter 3 section 1 where I try to argue just that from the biblical texts. Consistent with what the Confession said in chapters 3 and 5, the freedom spoken by the 1689 is not a freedom of will from God’s sovereignty, but freedom of will within God’s sovereign decree.

Edwards on the Will

R.C. Sproul, in Willing to Believe, presents Augustine as having taught the following four conditions of the will:

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 Adam and Eve also had prior to the Fall.
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.

Points 1 and 2 concern the State of Innocence (paragraph 2). Point 3 is for those under the State of Sin (paragraph 3). Point 4 is for the State of Glory (paragraph 5). Those who are redeemed in Christ are yet not fixed in any one point, but find themselves in points 1-3.

The Nature and Determination of the Will (Part I, section I-II)

But what is freedom in the Calvinistic sense, then? What do we mean when we speak of freedom of choice? Many agree that none better than Edwards has defended the Freedom of Will as understood by Calvinists:

And therefore I observe, that the Will (without any metaphysical refining) is, That by which the mind chooses any thing. The faculty of the will, is that power, or principle of mind, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.

If any think it is a more perfect definition of the will, to say, that it is that by which the soul either chooses or refuses, I am content with it; though I think it enough to say, it is that by which the ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,485 views | 1,873 words | 0:09:53 hours | 06 March 2015 23:11

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 28 Sacraments Ordinances Baptism Lord's Supper

...eme Unction or Last Rites, the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is administered both to the dying and to those who are gravely ill or are about to undergo a serious operation, for the recovery of their health and for spiritual strength.^[3]

Instead of merely two, the Roman Catholic Church has declared as sacraments five more things. The sacraments, according to Roman Catholic theology, in themselves administer grace. While on the other hand, Reformed theology says that the sacraments/ordinances do not in themselves administer grace, but must be joined with Faith for them to be effective. According to the Roman system, “Instead of being the external manifestation of a preceding union with Christ, they are the physical means of constituting and maintaining this union.”^[2]

§2 To Be Administered By Those Only Who Are Qualified

These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ. 1
1. Matt. 24:45-51; 28:19-20; Luke 12:41-44; 1 Cor. 4:1; Titus 1:5-7

The holy appointments or ordinances are to be administered by those only who are qualified and called to this task, according to the commission of Christ.

Now here there is a little difficulty. Who are the persons qualified to do these things? In a local church, those persons would be the elders. But, does this exclude any regular member in administering the ordinances or helping in the administration thereof? I do not see any biblical command that only the elders may do these things, nor any prohibition against regular members helping. Obviously, within the local gathering of God’s people, the elders would undertake to administer the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. They may, perhaps, ask the help of some brothers or sisters for the Lord’s Supper, for example, to pray for the bread and wine and distribute the elements. I do not see why that would not be permissible. Obviously, having the elders administer the ordinances is much better, as they are the ones who are in the position to lead the church and are known as the church leaders. Therefore, having them baptize a person or administer the Lord’s Supper, is much more authoritative than a regular member. Philip, for example, who was not an elder, baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:38). I do not advise people to go and baptize others outside the church. That is not my point. But rather, my point is that I see nothing in the Bible (I am open for change) which restricts the administration of the ordinances to elders alone.

As for the Lord’s Table, the disciples in the early church in Jerusalem, it seems, were regularly celebrating it (e.g., Acts 2:42). But the Lord’s Supper was especially celebrated on the Lord’s Day in the corporate gathering of God’s people (Acts 20:7). The people of God were gathered on the first day in Troas to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians, when they came “together as a church” (1 Cor. 11:18) observed the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). This would indicate that the Lord’s Supper is generally to be administered on the Lord’s Day in the corporate gathering of God’s people. The Lord’s Supper should not be celebrated by one person, but rather in a gathering of more people. There may be occasions when a group would want to celebrate the Lord’s Supper outside of the gathering of the church, or a sick brother or sister not in the corporate gathering may want to partake of the Lord’s Table. I do not see a...

A Short Review of Sam Waldron's Modern Exposition of 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

Simon Wartanian | 6,677 views | 606 words | 0:03:08 hours | 23 February 2015 19:14

Review Book Review Sam Waldron Modern Exposition Of 1689 Baptist Confession Of Faith 1689 Reformed Baptist

...

Introduction to the Confession

It was a while back that I somehow came into contact (I don't remember how, maybe through James White?) with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and I found myself at home in it. Though I did not study it very deeply. This time I have taken the time to go through it with Sam Waldron which I though he did a very good job.

Introduction to Covenant Theology

Before beginning my study of the confession, through a brother I got into the subject of Baptist Covenant Theology, I got the work of Pascal Denault The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology and Waldron's A Reformed Baptist Manifesto. Sometime later I got the recent Recovering a Covenantal Heritage volume. I have been more and more interested in this stream of Reformed Theology.

Introduction to Baptistic Convictions & Calvinism

I first became baptistic simply through reading the New Testament and finding no evidence of any infant baptism. I was baptized in the Armenian Church as an infant and was attending a Baptist church in Holland and was convinced that my baptism was no baptism. So on 14-06-2013^[1] I was baptized after a profession of Faith. At that time I was in the process of studying the Doctrines of Grace. Sometime later, by the grace of God I came to embrace and glory in them.

The Confession

The first and foremost thing that I love about this Confession is it's high, high, high view of God's sovereign freedom. I love it and that is exactly how I believe that God is, the Sovereign King over every molecule.
I love the fact of the Baptists' deep commitment to the truth and the sole authority of the Bible and their appeal to the Bible. I could not really find any disagreements with the Confession, so I feel home in it and I'm not ashamed to identify myself as a Reformed Baptist.

What I loved about Dr Waldron's work is his way of explaining the Confession and going through the biblical evidence (as I have been reading Grudem, I would have loved it if Dr Waldron would cite portions of the passages that he was using as proof, rather most of the time, only references were given).

When I started studying the Confession I didn't realizes that a confession is actually a Systematic Theology! :)

Dr Waldron explained things very well, I especially liked his extensive treatment of chapters 29 (Of Baptism), 31 (of the state of man after death and of the resurrection of the dead) and 32 (Of the last judgment). There he interacted with the other side and provided some answers. With the explanations he went also through more detail.

During my study of the 1689 I left some comments about my thoughts on each paragraph that can be viewed here: https://www.thecalvinist.net/post/1689-Second-Baptist-Confession-Of-Faith-With-Commentary-And-Highlighting/922

Also I have opened a new section wherein I try to go in detail to explain why I agree with the formulation of doctrines in the 1689. The section is found here: https://www.thecalvinist.net/1689

Few minor problems with the book

One thing that was frustrating me, was the load of typos there. It's not that I'm a grammar nazi, but the quality of the work is so great that the multitude of the typos, wrong headings above pages (pages 103, 381), no spacing between words, wrong numeration really were the only downside, which could have been prevented. Hopefully, they will update it in the future, otherwise we'll just have to wait for James Renihan's exposition of the 16...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 4: Of Creation - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 20,663 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

...3Age Of The Earth

This is a more tricky and hotly debated subject than the days of Genesis. I’m a Young Earth Creationist, thus I do believe the Earth to be young and around 6 to 10 thousand years based on the genealogies of Genesis. They do not seem to contain any gaps, and even if they did, they would not mount up to millions of years. Millions of years will only come when you first make the days of Genesis to be long ages, not because of anything in the text, but because we’re forcing something upon the text. I’m also comfortable with this view based on giants who went before me in interpreting the text. It is not a hot issue for me. I accept it by Faith based on what I can see in the Word of God. This Confession says that everything was made in the space of six days, it’s not a giant leap to assume that they meant regular days like the ones they had.

Martin Luther tried to refute the error that Augustine introduced in saying that God basically made everything in 1 day or a moment, saying:

When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.^[3]

It is interesting to see what Calvin says about the age of the earth in the 16th century. Speaking of objections to the preaching the doctrine of predestination, he gives other doctrines which are mocked by the ungodly:

A rebellious spirit will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him. Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world. For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains in his treatise, De Bono Perseverantiae (cap. 14ñ20).^[4]

In the debates and discussions about the age of the earth between Christians, I have never yet heard someone bring up Christians from the past who believed the earth was millions of years old. It is the common and traditional Christian position that the earth is relatively young. In a lot of old literature (commentaries or books), people would reference events from the creation of Adam, and these numbers would not be in tens of thousands or millions. Even the Jews, seeing how Josephus does his chronology in The Antiquities of the Jews, believed in a relatively young earth. The reason to doubt the age of the earth was not exegetical, but was external and I believe, forced on the text of Scripture. While it may be possible that there are gaps in the chronologies of Genesis, I have not st...