Search

You searched for 'Book'

I've found 47 results!

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

Simon Wartanian | 16,181 views | 5,299 words | 0:27:50 hours | 06 March 2015 19:34

...aid that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. . . 284) says, “The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.”

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mat 26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Rom 1:9; Rom 9:1; Gal 1:20; Heb 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exo 22:11; Lev 5:1; 5:19; Deu 29:12, Deu 29:14.^[9]

God is the Being by which we must swear. The Lord Jesus is not doing away with swearing and taking oaths, but He is doing away with Jewish hypocrisy and false teaching concerning the Third Commandment. The Jews “avoided of God’s personal name and instead used reverent substitutions, clever liars could take an oath that seemed to appeal to God without technically doing so (23:16-22).”^[10] Therefore, we see here our Lord a clear understanding of the Third Commandment and exposing the hypocrisy of the Jews and the taking of God’s Name in vain. Furthermore, swearing by other things than God “would indicate idolatry, or apostasy, which the passage from Jeremiah (mentioned above concerning lust [Jer. 5:7-9]) also conveys.”^[11] The Lord Jesus did not do away with oaths, but showed their real intent and exposed false and sinful use of oaths. The Lord’s brother, James, also speaks to the same effect in James 5:12.

§4 The Plain And Common Sense Of The Words

An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. 1
1. Ps. 24:4; Jer. 4:2

An oath should be made in the plain and common sense of the words, using common definitions so as to avoid and confusion, or worse—deception. Therefore, our words should be without equivocation, meaning open to multiple interpretations, and also without mental reservation, which means by not telling the wh...

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

Simon Wartanian | 15,455 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

...mands us to take false (or unnecessary) oaths or to do things which the Lord has forbidden, disobedience to them is actually obedience to God. Just because God institutes all governments, whether good or evil, does not, in fact, mean that He approves of what they do. If Peter and John obeyed the command of the Sanhedrin, they would have been disobedient to God and the call that the Lord Christ gave them to proclaim His resurrection. Both good and evil governments are ordained by God. In fact, as observed by Calvin, “When God wants to judge a nation, He gives them wicked rulers.” Do we need to cite proof-texts for this idea? Is not the history of Israel from the Book of Judges and onward a clear demonstration of this truth?

Albert Barnes notes the following on the occasion of this passage:

(3) many of the early Christians were composed of Jewish converts. Yet the Jews had long been under Roman oppression, and had borne the foreign yoke with great uneasiness. The whole pagan magistracy they regarded as founded in a system of idolatry; as opposed to God and his kingdom; and as abomination in his sight. With these feelings they had become Christians; and it was natural that their former sentiments should exert an influence on them after their conversion. How far they should submit, if at all, to heathen magistrates, was a question of deep interest; and there was danger that the “Jewish” converts might prove to be disorderly and rebellious citizens of the empire.

(4) nor was the case much different with the “Gentile” converts. They would naturally look with abhorrence on the system of idolatry which they had just forsaken. They would regard all as opposed to God. They would denounce the “religion” of the pagans as abomination; and as that religion was interwoven with the civil institutions, there was danger also that they might denounce the government altogether, and be regarded as opposed to the laws of the land,

And he also added, ‘It is quite probable, however, that the main danger was, that the early Christians would err in “refusing” submission, even when it was proper, rather than in undue conformity to idolatrous rites and ceremonies.’^[3] Thus the Roman Christians were displaying an attitude of anarchy and not submitting at all to authorities. Therefore, the apostle writes this chapter to command them to obey and honor authority. Barnes also observes in what way these governments are ordained:

This word “ordained” denotes the “ordering” or “arrangement” which subsists in a “military” company, or army. God sets them “in order,” assigns them their location, changes and directs them as he pleases. This does not mean that he “originates” or causes the evil dispositions of rulers, but that he “directs” and “controls” their appointment. By this, we are not to infer:

That he approves their conduct; nor,

That what they do is always right; nor,

That it is our duty “always” to submit to them.^[3]

Likewise, John Gill’s observations are good and helpful:

The order of magistracy is of God; it is of his ordination and appointment, and of his ordering, disposing, and fixing in its proper bounds and limits. The several forms of government are of human will and pleasure; but government itself is an order of God. There may be men in power who assume it of themselves, and are of themselves, and not of God; and others that abuse the power that is lodged in them; who, though they are by divine permission, yet not of God’s appr...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 22,655 views | 13,619 words | 1:11:21 hours | 06 March 2015 23:22

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 30 Sacrament Ordinance Lord's Supper Table Of The Lord Communion Eucharist Transubstantiation Roman Catholicism Idolatry Means Of Grace

...pitiatory sacrifice which brings about the remission of sins. Holy Writ knows of no sacrifice of atonement on behalf of those who are dead, much less of the living in any other manner than the actual sacrifice of Christ on the cross for His elect.

The Biblical View

Nobody, having the Bible alone, would come to the same conclusion on the Lord’s Supper as a Roman Catholic would. It is obvious that the Roman Catholic does not rely on Scripture alone, but Scripture plus tradition, which brings about this abominable practice. The biblical view is that Christ offered a bloody sacrifice once for all time, never to be repeated again. In fact, the primary critique of the Book of Hebrews about Old Testament religion is in its repeated sacrifices (e.g. Heb. 10:11). But the Roman Catholic religion not only remembers that one sacrifice but repeats it in an unbloody manner again and again, through which forgiveness of sins is attained, i.e., it is propitious. But the Bible teaches that Christ made a propitious sacrifice once for all time.

I believe a simple reading of Hebrews refutes all the superstitions of the Catholic Church regarding the Mass and the supposed sacrifice of Christ therein. For example, we read in Hebrews 9:25-28 that Christ’s sacrifice, in contrast to the Jewish ceremonial system, was not to be offered repeatedly. But rather, “he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (v. 26). His coming as the sacrifice was once for all time, never to be repeated, whether bloody or unbloody, and this is the sacrifice that propitiates God. Furthermore, it is also said that “Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time” (v. 28). This passage explicitly teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all time, never to be repeated. Hebrews 10:12-14 is likewise a total refutation of the sacrifice of the Mass. Roman Catholics may try various ways to evade the teaching of these passages. whether to speak vaguely about their abominable doctrine, or try to offer unsatisfactory interpretations of Hebrews. We’ve said this and we have not even touched upon the priesthood. The New Testament knows nothing of a sacramental priesthood, but rather acknowledges that all believers are priests (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:5; 5:10). Therefore, the whole priesthood thing and the priest, whom Roman Catholics believe possesses the power to bring about the change in the substance of the bread and wine, and offer the sacrifice, is totally absent from Holy Writ. There is only one High Priest whom the New Testament acknowledges who was the Offering and the Offerer at the same time of a perfect once for all propitiatory sacrifice.

Furthermore, neither Christ nor His apostles ever celebrated or commanded any practice which resembles the sacrifice of the Mass. Roman Catholics may claim all they want that this is Apostolic Tradition which the Church has practiced for 2000 years, but if it is not commanded in Holy Writ, it is forbidden. Every addition to His word is a lie, especially in the area of worship. This is the centerpiece of Roman Catholic worship and it is found nowhere in Holy Scripture. Not only that, but its claims are contradicted by Holy Scripture. What Christ actually commands is to “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). The disciples were to partake of the bread and wine and thereby remember their Master. They would remember His Person, but most especially, His p...

Quotes from A. W. Pink's The Divine Covenants

Simon Wartanian | 5,881 views | 780 words | 0:04:06 hours | 16 June 2017 22:13

AW Pink Covenant Theology Divine Covenants Covenant Of Grace New Covenant Westminster Federalism 1689 Federalism

...

This is my organized citations from A. W. Pink’s The Divine Covenants. The whole Book is available online and that is how I collected these citations and corrected some typos and other minor errors.

It has been argued by Brandon Adams that the major theses of Pink was consistent with 1689 Federalism, which teaches that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. All the other OT covenants were not “administrations” of the Covenant of Grace. You will not find in this work the model of “one covenant, multiple administrations” that is associated with Westminster Federalism. Rather, you will find that all of the OT covenants “adumbrated” the “everlasting covenant of grace”, were subservient to the divine purpose of mercy and grace and contained gracious promises.

There are some statements which could be interpreted in favor of Westminster Federalism, which I have also included under the heading “Westminster Sounding Statements”. But in reading these we must keep in mind the main theses of the work and how Pink uses certain words, for example, “administration.” I do believe that a fair interpretation can be given to these statements without doing violence to the meaning of Pink, but I’ll leave that task to the interested reader.

One difficult statement for me to interpret has to do with the idea of “renewal.” For example:

Just as the various Messianic prophecies, given by God at different times and at wide intervals, were suited to the local occasions when they were first made, so it was in the different renewals of His covenant of grace. Each of those renewals—unto Abraham, Moses, David and so forth—adumbrated some special feature of the everlasting covenant into which God had entered with the Mediator; but the immediate circumstances of each of those favored men molded, or gave form to, each particular feature of the eternal agreement which was severally shadowed forth unto them.^[1]

What does Pink mean by “renewal”? It seems to be “adumbrating” (an old word which he uses a lot meaning “disclose, foreshadow”) features from the Covenant of Grace. This is confirmed when we look to the chapters on those covenants which he mentions in the above citations. These covenants are subordinate to the ultimate “everlasting covenant of grace” and reveal it, but they are distinguished. The idea of “renewal” being a further adumbration of the Covenant of Grace is also confirmed in another quote:

They were all of them revelations of God’s gracious purpose, exhibited at first in an obscure form, but unfolding according to an obvious law of progress: each renewal adding something to what was previously known, so that the path of the just was as the shining light, which shone more and more unto the perfect day, when the shadows were displaced by the substance itself.^[1]

...

Benjamin Keach's Gold Refined, or Baptism in its Primitive Puirty (1689) transcribed and formatted

Simon Wartanian | 4,201 views | 169 words | 0:00:52 hours | 10 February 2020 19:55

Reformed Baptist Particular Baptist Benjamin Keach Baptism Baptizo Infant Baptism Rantism Covenant Theology Dipping Transcribed Gold Refined Primitive Purity

I’ve found myself lately to be diving into the subject of baptism again and especially searching old resources. Some great Books were transcribed and available at Reformed Baptist Disk, but many more are not yet transcribed or properly formatted. But there are a lot of works which are available in scanned form (especially on Google Books) and image-to-text form on Early English Books. I first came across these sites and resources thanks to Samuel Renihan’s blog post. Tip: use the Wayback Machine to access some (currently) dead links. I’ve also formatted Isaac Backus’ A Short Description of the Difference between the Bond-Woman and the Free, but it still needs a proof read. But I will post it here soon, Lord willing. But for now:

Benjamin Keach – Gold Refin’d, or Baptism in its Primitive Purity (1689)

See the Book here.

If you find any mistakes and would like to report them, then feel free to respond back to this message or message me at admin@thecalvinist.net.

The Early Church Fathers on Eschatology (especially the millennial question)

Simon Wartanian | 3,791 views | 207 words | 0:01:03 hours | 02 January 2022 14:56

Amillennialism Premillennialism Eschatology Second Coming Final Judgment Resurrection Revelation

This work is based on Dr. Charles E. Hill’s fine work entitled Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. In it, he surveys eschatological thought in the first three centuries of the church. One focus of the study is the interesting observation of something common in all premillennialists (except one, Methodius of Olympus [c. 270-311]) that did not believe in the immediate entry of believers into heaven. Rather, believers and unbelievers were held in some subterranean place until the resurrection and the millennium. On the other hand, those who believed in an intermediate state in heaven, gave no indications of chiliasm (belief in an earthly millennium), but rather, some of them even give explicit evidence of non-chiliasm (i.e., amillennialism). What I’ve done here, is search for the fuller statements of the authors from the early church which are freely available in the Schaff sets on CCEL, and included citations of Dr. Hill from the Book itself.

I thought of sharing it on the internet for anyone interested in these issues. In reading these statements, you will find both the good and the bad of the exegesis of the ancient fathers.

(For those not able to see the IFrame, here is the link.)

An extensive compilation of Scripture canon lists: texts and spreadsheet

Simon Wartanian | 2,489 views | 611 words | 0:03:010 hours | 05 September 2023 19:34

Canon Of Scripture Protestant Canon Roman Catholic Canon Apocrypha Early Church Canon Lists

...li>Early lists of the Books of the New Testament (islamic-awareness.org)

...