Studies in Romans 8 & 9

After my retirement in December 2013, I became involved in a Tuesday morning men's Bible Study at my church; West Cannon Baptist Church in Belmont, Michigan. The Bible study was going through the Epistle of Romans and using Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ detailed multi-volume exposition as the main reference.

Starting in early 2015, I was asked to share teaching responsibilities for the Bible Study in conjunction with my friend Bob who up to this time had been the only teacher. We worked it out that Bob would take a section of the Romans passage we were on, and then I would take the next section of verses.

What I am making available in this Google Drive folder is my notes for those studies I was responsible for. I have not done any editing to put these in more of a publishable or academic style form, but make them available “as is”. See link below.

Studies in Romans 8 & 9

Understanding “Immanuel” in Isaiah 7

“Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” (Isaiah 7:10-17)

Observations:

Ahaz was asked to request a sign, but in his unbelief refuses to do so. Isaiah in his rebuke of Ahaz announces the Lord will “give you (in context referring to Ahaz) a sign.” A time frame is given which is a critical part of the sign to Ahaz. A child will be born, and by the time the child attains a certain age of discernment Syria and Israel will be no more. Commentators debate what that age is, but none will say it is more than the age of 12. Both the child and the child’s age are critical components of the sign to Ahaz. The name Immanuel (God with us) was a sign to Ahaz that God had not abandoned His people. God’s purposes for His people would be accomplished in spite of Ahaz’s unbelief.

As Leupold observes, “The major difficulty happens to be that a contemporary person is almost demanded by the very situation involved… At the same time a contemporary child seems to be inexorably demanded by the passage.” (Exposition of Isaiah, H.C. Leupold)

Then we come to the Gospel of Matthew where this prophecy of Immanuel is cited:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:18-25)

Leupold holds the view that the fulfillment of the Isaiah 7 prophecy was delayed until the time Matthew speaks of. I find that explanation unsatisfactory and problematic. For the matter prophesied to be a sign to Ahaz, there had to be some kind of fulfillment in Ahaz’s lifetime. The birth of Isaiah's child, Maher-shalal-baz, in the immediate succeeding context of Isaiah 8:1-3 seems the best understanding of the immediate fulfillment of the sign prophecy to Ahaz in chapter 7.

How then are we to understand Matthew’s use of the Isaiah 7 prophecy of Immanuel?

The best understanding of Matthew’s reference is that the woman who at the time of the prophecy was an unmarried virgin and then became Isaiah’s wife and bore him the son spoken of in chapter 8, is a type or foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary. Likewise the child of Isaiah 8:1-3 was a type of or foreshadowing of the Messiah Jesus. This is in essence, the view of the following commentators:

"Language is selected such as, while partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events. The New Testament application of such prophecies is not a strained “accommodation”; rather the temporary fulfilment of an adaptation of the far-reaching prophecy to the present passing event, which foreshadows typically the great central end of prophecy, Jesus Christ (Rev 19:10). Evidently the wording is such as to apply more fully to Jesus Christ than to the prophet’s son; “virgin” applies, in its simplest sense, to the Virgin Mary, rather than to the prophetess who ceased to be a virgin when she “conceived”; “Immanuel,” God with us (Jn 1:14; Rev 21:3), cannot in a strict sense apply to Isaiah’s son, but only to Him who is presently called expressly (Is 9:6), “the Child, the Son, Wonderful (compare Is 8:18), the mighty God.” Local and temporary features (as in Is 7:15, 16) are added in every type; otherwise it would be no type, but the thing itself. There are resemblances to the great Antitype sufficient to be recognized by those who seek them; dissimilarities enough to confound those who do not desire to discover them." (Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown, “Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible”)

“A virgin shall conceive. The word for virgin here is carefully chosen. Etymologically ‘almậ does not necessarily signify a virgo intacta (an untouched maiden). In actual usage in the Hebrew Scriptures, however, it refers only to a maiden chaste and unmarried (so far as the context shows). This well fits the prospective mother alluded to in this situation. Judging from 8:1-4, the typical mother was the prophetess who became Isaiah’s wife within a short time after this prophecy was spoken. Therefore she was a virgin at the time this promise was given. She serves as a type of the Virgin Mary, who remained a virgin even after her miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. The son of this prophetess, correspondingly, is a type of the Messianic Immanuel as shortly will be explained.” (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Isaiah contribution by Gleason L. Archer Jr.)

This view of type and fulfillment best satisfies the demand for an immediate fulfillment in the time of Isaiah and Ahaz, and allowing for an understanding of Jesus Christ being the fullness of what is meant by the name Immanuel per Matthew’s citation. This is what is pointed to by the more direct prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.”

Receiving Christ

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name..." (John 1:12)

The above verse which has been used in some popular Gospel presentations, is that verse used to press upon the the unbeliever's conscience the need to receive Christ. It is phrased several different ways; "Receive Christ as your personal savior." or "Receive Christ as your Lord and savior." among others,

This of course begs several questions. Who is the "Him" we are to receive? also, what does it mean to "receive" Him?

In the context of the verse above, the "Him" is the one who is the Word that was with the Father in verses 1-4, and became flesh and dwelt among (vs 14). It is the "Him" who has been eternally with the Father and eternally begotten of the Father in the relationship of Father and Son.

In this context, the one who is the savior is the one who is Lord. Only He who is Lord can save us. How Savior and Lord became separated in the minds of some, I do not know. II Corinthians 2:17 speaks of those who ""corrupt the Gospel"... The imagery is that of a bartender watering down the wine. What the buyer gets is not the undiluted 100% pure wine they thought they were paying for. We need to be wary in our use of John 1:12 not to water down the meaning of the text as it comes to us in the broader context of John 1.

And what did John have in mind when he used the word "receive" in John 1:12 as quoted above? John 20:30-31 gives us the answer.

"Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

There is much more that could be said on this point, but I will leave that for another time.

~ The Billy Goat ~

Tradition and Authority

For these determined “Biblicists” had their contemporary philosophy in their heads, took it with them to the Bible and so most certainly read themselves into the Bible no less than Church Fathers and Scholastics. They were no doubt free of Church dogma but not of their own dogmas and conceptions.

Luther and Calvin did not go to work on the Bible in this way. Neither should we. It is in the Church that the Bible is read; it is by the Church that the Bible is heard. That means that in reading the Bible we should also hear what the Church, the Church that is distinguished from my person, has up to now read and heard from the Bible. Are we at liberty to ignore all that? Do the great teachers of the Church, do the Councils not possess a –certainly not heavenly—but, even so, earthly, human “authority”? We should not be too ready to say, "No."

To my mind the whole question of tradition falls under the Fifth Commandment: Honor father and mother! Certainly that is a limited authority; we have to obey God more than father and mother. But we have also to obey father and mother.

And so I should call to all those who get excited when they hear the words Orthodoxy, Council, Catechism: Dear friends, no excitement! There is no question of bondage and constraint. It is merely that in the Church the same kind of obedience as, I hope, you pay to your father and mother, is demanded of you towards the Church’s past, toward the “elders” of the Church.

Karl Barth, Credo, “Appendix: Answers to Questions”

Yes I Believe in the Rapture, and I don't Apologize for Doing So!

This post was triggered by recent Blog discussions of Harold Camping's misguided predictions regarding the timing of what he calls the pre-tribulational rapture of the church.   If you read this after May 21, 2011, according to Harold you missed it.

We let the dispensationalist debate about the rapture cloud the meaning of the word “rapture” and its context in the 1Thessalonians 4:13-17 passage. At the end of that passage Paul tells us to “comfort one another with these words..” The snatching or taking up (rapture) is taught in the passage. The issue is not one of will there be or not be a rapture. The real question is when it will occur?

I am very well aware, and have been for many a year, that the 1 Thessalonians 4 passage has behind it a picture of the King approaching a city and the dignitaries of the city going out to meet that King, and escorting the King into the city. . I also read in verse 17,  “arpagasometha ‘en nephlais” and “eis aera”. (Pardon my crude transliteration.) The initial meeting does not take place on the “ge” (earth), but in the clouds; that is, "in the air".  We will then escort the King down to the “ge” (earth).

There seems to be an assumption by many dispensatinalists and non-dispensatiinalists alike that believers “being taken away someplace else other then earth” is a sin qua non of any rapture theology.  My contention is that it is not; that one can hold a rapture theology consistent with the picture of the royal approach of the King.

Jerome supposedly translated “arpagasometha” with the Latin word from which we get the English word “rapture”. You may argue that word, but please don’t argue with "arpagasometha ‘en nephlais” or the factual events Paul says will happen.

It bothers me GREATLY that non-dispensationalists diss the rapture concept as though it is ONLY a dispensatinalist concept. If the “snatching up” (rapture) is not a Biblical concept then why did Paul talk about it at all?  I have my doubts about the pre-trib rapture of the church. I have no doubts whatsoever about the rapture of those believers still alive on earth at Christ’s return. We are in danger of letting the debate about timing steal from us the comfort Paul intended for us to get from his words, and in doing so we miss Paul's pastoral intent in writing about the matter in the first place.

In that light I refuse to give up the concept of the rapture because I refuse to give up clearly Biblical concepts period. And pardon me if I get a little passionate about reclaiming a Biblical concept from the dispensational abuse of the concept.  Pastoral concern demands no less.

Peace…

The Sin of All Sins

In a recent blog post titled Defining Deviancy Down and the Wrath of God Ardel Caneday engages in an extended essay on how we should understand Romans 1:21-27.

The bottom line is that the primary sin the Apostle Paul is dealing with in that passage is not homosexual perversion but man's heart idolatry. This assessment of the essay is a bit of over simplification so I encourage you to read the whole of Dr. Caneday's post here.

As I thought about the things discussed in the essay, I came to a realization.

If we make sexual perversion "the sin of all sins" we are focusing on the issue of what man does; we are being anthropocentric. When we recognize the "sin of all sins" is heart idolatry, the issue becomes one of who God is, and our thinking is now Theocentric. The heart of man's estrangement from God is self-worship in the place of the worship we owe our creator God. All other sins flow from that, and as Dr. Caneday has rightly pointed out, that is the message of Romans 1:21-27.

Thankfully the Apostle doesn't end with Romans 1:22-27. As we read on into the rest of the epistle, the mercy and grace of God as revealed in Jesus Christ is proclaimed.

To God alone be the glory!

~ The Billy Goat ~

The Faithfulness of Christ as a Theme in Paul's Theology Presentation Copy

This presentation by Dr. A.B. Caneday is a bit technical, but if you can follow the thought, you will find it helpful in understanding Paul's letter to the Galations.

God's Intent and Purpose for His Word

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)

In the context of Isaiah 55, the section quoted above has to do with God keeping His promises to those He invites to "Come" in verse 1, and "Seek" in verse 6. Verses 10-11 are given as an encouragement to heed the call to repentance that is being presented in the chapter.

The principle enunciated in this passage is that the words that come from God's mouth have a purpose and intent, and that purpose and intent will be achieved. It is on the basis of that principle that the hearers of Isaiah's day could have assurance that God would honor the promises given in the context of Isaiah 55.

Without doubt all of God's Word is given with an intent and purpose. It is our job in studying a particular passage of Scripture to discern what that intent and purpose was and is. The Word accomplishes what He intends and purposes, not what we may intend or purpose.

This means we need to be very careful how we handle and apply the Word of God. We need to make very sure that our intent and purpose in exegeting and applying a passage of Scripture lines up with God's intent and purpose for that passage. We do not have the option of bringing our own agenda into a text or passage of Scripture. This constraint points to several hermeneutic principles we dare not ignore.

A passage or text of Scripture can not be divorced from its immediate and broader context, specifically the place of that text or passage in the unfolding of redemptive history. This also means approaching the text from the perspective of Biblical theology in contrast to bringing our systematic theology into the text.¹

The crux of the issue comes in the applications the preacher or teacher makes from the text in hand. We've all seen it done at one time or another. A pastor or teacher takes a passage or text of Scripture, and proceeds to squeeze out of that text or passage every possible application even remotely connected or possible, and that without regard to the original intent and context of the passage. Over time under such preaching and teaching, one begins to suspect the preacher or teacher is more interested in using scripture to promote their own particular agenda or fancy then discerning and focusing on God's intent and purpose.

Does God have more then one intent and purpose for a given text? The answer is a qualified yes... There is the intent and purpose for the original audience and the intent and purpose for those of us who are removed in time from that original audience. But it is my contention that the purpose for us today in the New Covenant is not that far removed from the purpose for the original audience, and that there is an organic connection between the two that should constrain how we make applications from said text or passage to our day and age.

The power of God's Word is realized in our preaching and teaching when our intent and purpose lines up with God's intent and purpose for His Word. We need stay out of the way and let the Word be the Word.

Peace,

~ The Billy Goat ~

¹ "Toward An Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching & Teaching" Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (Baker Books, 1981); pgs 161-162

The Love of God

"But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, to such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them." (Ps 103:17,18

Just a few questions.

Is grace conditional? (By definition it is unconditional.) Can the love that extends grace (John 3:16) be conditional? Is the Psalm telling us how we earn God's mercy, or is it describing the person to whom God has shown mercy? (A subtle distinction.) Does He love us because we love Him, or do we love Him because He first loved us? Why do some Calvinists who say they believe in Sovereign Grace treat a passage of Scripture as though they were Arminians by insisting for that God's love is conditional?

The Christan life is lived the same way we first came to Him, by faith and in response to a love totally undeserved and therefore of necessity unconditional with regard to anything we can do.

I don't see any way you can make God's love conditional without making the Christian life one of legalism and not of grace. It is the grace of God that teaches us how to live the Christan life (Titus 2).

Kyrie eleison!

~ The Billy Goat ~

The Christian and Scripture

I just came across Bob Kelleman's blog at RPM Ministries. He is in the midst of a current series of posts dealing with Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity. It is not my intent to do another McLaren post, but rather to post here some quotes from Dr. Kelleman's blog writings.

"Unfortunately, in some Evangelical circles, we’ve done great work in exegeting and studying Scripture, but we’ve done lesser work in understanding people and culture. So we end up answering questions no one is asking. We end up listening to God’s story but ignoring or only half listening to the human story of suffering, sin, struggle, and sanctification. We end up giving people Scripture but not our souls, truth apart from relationship, content apart from community."


"...It’s not enough to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture if we do not equally believe in the relevancy of Scripture. It’s not enough to believe in the authority of Scripture, if we do not equally believe in the profundity of Scripture."

John Calvin on John 3:16

What did Calvin actually say?

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time; for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

I included the whole of Calvin's comments on John 3:16 to provide context to the parts I underlined in the above quote. It's pretty clear in these words, that Calvin viewed John 3:16 as a declaration of the free and indiscriminate offer of the Gospel to all men, and that in contrast to understanding John 3:16 in terms of the scope of the atonement; limited vs. unlimited. In the context of the free offer of the Gospel, Calvin affirms that the term world (kosmos) is a reference to "all men without exception".

This same attention to context is found in Calvin's comments on I John 2:2. Calvin affirms the statement that in the atonement "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect", but then says that though a true statement, that statement doesn't fit the I John 2:2 passage. Instead, according to Calvin, John is using the term "world" in the context of "all who would believe" and those who were "scattered through various regions of the earth."

"Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?... They.. have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world..."

Again in his comments on II Peter 3:9, Calvin calls us to context:

"9. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."...

...Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. (A similar view was taken by Estius, Piscator, and Beza. — Ed.)"

Once again Calvin views a "universalist" passage in terms of the free offer of the Gospel, and does not try to twist and contort the passage into an affirmation of limited atonement. How often have we seen or heard or read Calvinist or Reformed brethern who try to contort or twist John 3:16 or II Peter 3:9 to make limited atonement the main purpose and teaching of those passages?

For myself, I prefer Calvin's exegesis over theirs.

Solo Deo gloria!

~ The Billy Goat ~

References:

Above quotations copied from:

• Commentary on John - Volume 1; John Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  
• Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles: II Peter; John Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  
• Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles: I JohnJohn Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  

The above sources were compared to:

Calvin's New Testement Commentaries (Erdmans; 1961)

• "The Gospel According to St. John: Part One 1 - 10"; translated by T.H.L. Parker
  
• "The Gospel According to St. John: Part Two 11 - 21 & The First Epistle of John"; translated by T.H.L. Parker
  
• "Hebrews and I and II Peter"; translated by W.B. Johnston

A New Kind of Christianity or an Old Kind of Heresey?

(Reviews of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity.)

Dr. Mike Wittmer did an extended critical review of Brian McClaren's A New Kind of Christianity. Here are links to those posts:

• A New Kind of Christianity, Introduction
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 1
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 2
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Interlude
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 3
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 4
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 5, Part 1
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 5, Part 2
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 6
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 7
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Questions 8-9
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 10
  
  

A New Kind of Christianity: Review by Tim Challies

Why Brian McLaren’s New Book is Good for the Emerging Church
by Trevin Wax

Kevin DeYoung's two part review:
Christianity and McLarenism (1)
Christianity and McLarenism (2)

Review: Brian McLaren's 'A New Kind of Christianity'
Scot McKnight at Christianity Today

~ The Billy Goat ~

Like an Ill-fitting Shirt

I've been pondering lately how it is some theological constructions or systems are like ill-fitting shirts. You may be able to put such a shirt on, but there is always something about it that doesn't fit that well; a certain amount of discomfort across the chest, or in the armpits, or overly long floppy sleeves that get in the way or to much shirt tail to tuck in or not enough shirt tail to remain tucked in..

I thought I might make a list of some of those "ill-fitting shirts":

Traditional Dispensationalism

Covenant Theology: Yes, both of these systems are ill-fitting.

New Covenant Theology: Doesn't really fit that much better then the other two shirts. Any theological system we construct is going to have it's weaknesses and no theological system, including Reformed theology, is equal to the Gospel Itself. Do we have the Christian humility to recognize and accept that?

Amillianalism I tried wearing this shirt for a number of years, then I figured out where that tightness across the chest was coming from.

Premillinialism: I hold a historic pre-mill position, but am not afraid to admit it doesn't answer all the questions. It does however fit somewhat better then the amill shirt does. To bad some amill folks don't realize their position doesn't answer all the questions either.

Postmillinialism This shirt is one I could never get into at all since one arm sleeve is in the middle of the collar, and the other arm sleeve is in the middle of the lower back.

By now I'm sure I probably stepped on a number of sacred cows. Sorry, but I don't feel your pain nor do I really care at all about your pontifical outrage.

To conclude I will step on a few more toes by saying that each of the theological constructs and systems named above have to some degree or another contributed positively to Evangelical understanding and thought. But with that said, though some of these shirts may be relatively more comfortable then others, none of them are a perfect fit.

~ The Billy Goat ~

On the Book of Revelation being revelation.

The last book of the Bible is not unnecessary. You can not put the book of Revelation all together from the other 65 books of the Bible. The other 65 books do inform the book of Revelation, BUT the book of Revelation ALSO informs the other 65 books. If it does not, then it does not stand on an equal level with those other 65 books. Believing that the book of Revelation is necessary, and God's revelation in Scripture would be incomplete without the book of Revelation, we are then faced with some basic foundational questions as we approach this last book of the Bible. What is the purpose of the book of Revelation in relation to the totality of the revelation we have in the other 65 books? What does the book of Revelation give us that was not found in the other 65 books, but was needed to complete God’s revelation in Scripture? It is at this point the amillennialists insistence that they are interpreting the book of Revelation according to the "analogy of Scripture", with the implied assumption and allegation that premillinialists ignore the "analogy of Scripture" is exposed for the hollow argument it is. As another has put it:

“Use the clear texts interpret the difficult ones.” I don’t remember where I learned that but I do remember learning it and using it. It stuck with me for a long time. Then I took a class with Grant Osborne and he made a great point about this approach. He said, in effect, that what is a difficult text for you may not be a difficult text for someone else. Grant is an Arminian and so the texts that he finds clear can be troublesome for Calvinists. And visa versa. You have to include the “difficult” texts in the formulation of your theology. If you ignore them till the end and then make them fit, you’re in danger of misreading them. Wise words! Probably the very best thing I learned in his class... I don’t want to oversimplify the complexities of handling the Book of Revelation but I don’t want to treat it as second class revelation either.... ("The Saints and the Millennium" By Tim Etherington | August 18, 2009)

To which I reply, "Neither do I." ~ The Billy Goat ~

On Making Practical Applications from a Passage of Scripture

I once went to a church that prided itself on the practical applications made from the pulpit; applications which would take up the bulk of the 1 hour plus sermons. The problem was, way to many of the applications made had little connection to the main intent and purpose of the passage discussed. As a result a careful exegetical and contextual exposition of the passage would end up being thrown to the wind as the preacher, all to often, would grab a hold of any faint allusion or possible interpretation to go off on their latest “trolley car" issue.

Any application from a given passage of Scripture needs to flow from the historical redemptive context, meaning, and intent of the passage. To press applications beyond that is to turn the Bible into a book of moralisms instead of the unfolding Redemptive Story it is. It’s at this very point that I found Walter Kaiser’s “Toward an Exegetical Theology” particularly helpful.

There will also be times when we come across things God wants us to know about Himself and His work in historical redemption where the practical application is not that apparent or clear. That does not make that doctrine data any less valuable. It still remains something God wants us to know even if His reason for wanting us to know it is not clear or apparent to us.

What this means for the preacher is that instead of trying to wring all the possible applications out of a passage he can, he will limit his applications to those few that flow from the historical redemptive context, purpose, and intent of the passage. In doing so he will help his people focus on that very meaning, intent, and purpose of the passage instead of distracting them with a plethora of applications that actually distract from that meaning, intent, and purpose. And yes, that means the preacher will have to do his homework/preparation, and may have to sweat a little in doing so.

How much of the desire to get something “practical” out of the sermon or worship service is a subtle way of making me and my "felt needs" the center focus instead of God and His glory? Let's make the practical applications that are there and intended, but always remembering it is not primarily about us.

Peace...

~ The Billy Goat ~

The Brian McClaren File

This Changes Everything: An Interview with Brian McLaren
posted by Melvin Bray @ 2/06/2008

"Q: Some might say that heretofore environmentalism, conservationism and other such movements have been very much focused on staving off the catastrophe that is our inevitable future. In this perhaps they find some small common ground with the predominant trends in eschatology. In what ways do you believe the way of Jesus speaks into these convergent themes of inevitable doom, transforming them into meaningful efforts of hope and sustainability?

A: Many Christians seem to believe that God’s relationship with the universe is deterministic, that God has already filmed the future in his mind, and what we’re seeing unfold in history is the showing of a movie that’s already “in the can” so to speak. I don’t believe that. I believe God’s relationship with creation—including us—is interactive. God gives us warnings, which are an invitation to change our ways. God gives us promises, which are an invitation to persevere when the going gets tough. A great example is the prophet Jonah. He was sent to Nineveh to prophesy doom, in hopes that the people would repent so the prophecy wouldn’t come true."

[Brian misses again.... For him God is not sovereign. What about all the prophecy that was fulfilled?]
-----------------------------------------

Interview with Author Brian McLaren
~ by Samir Selmanovic Sep 18, 2007


"This is really one of the key themes of my life – this belief that the issue isn’t Christianity, but Jesus. Depending on your background and what you’re exposed to, the Christian religion can have more or less credibility and appeal. But Jesus has an almost universal appeal. So that’s where I want to work from – not a “Christianity-centered” viewpoint, but from a Christ-centered viewpoint. In the book, I try to take Jesus’ teachings and example and show what resources they can bring to people today in grappling with global crises – whatever the religion of the people is who are getting involved. I don’t want to make the Christian religion the issue, or Western Civilization the issue, or whatever … I want to help people see the resources that Jesus offers to everybody as we and future generations face unprecedented global crises."

[ Is it just me, or is this another reiteration of the old quest for the "historical Jesus"?]
-------------------------------------------------------------

Leaders call 'Emerging Church Movement' a threat to Gospel Posted on Mar 23, 2005 by David Roach

"When asked whether a person must trust Christ as dying to make atonement for sin in order to be a Christian, McLaren replied, "I want to help people understand everything they can about the cross. ... I wouldn't say that having that understanding (Jesus dying as a substitute for sinful humanity) is all that it means to be a Christian. I think that some people might have that understanding and not be interested in following Jesus. They want Jesus' blood to pay for their sins so they can go to heaven, but they aren't really interested in following Jesus in this life."..."

[So what if "some people might have that understanding and not be interested in following Jesus." What a few "might" do invalidates the doctrine? Maybe it is not all there is to being a Christian but the Apostle Paul makes it a pretty core and indispensable item in I Cor. 15.]

On Finding an Evangelical Hermeneutics: An Exploratory Essay

Every once in a while I come across a book or article, and as I am reading that book or article, I get a sense that what I am reading is of real fundamental and profound importance to the Evangelical church at large. Of course only time will tell if my sense and assessment of said book or article is accurate.

Back at the beginning of the 1990's, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary celebrated it's first 100 years of existence. Upon that occasion, a number of Evangelical scholars presented lectures marking the event. Speakers included John R. W. Stott, Eugene Peterson, Gordon D, Fee, and others. In 1992, those lectures were collected and published in essay form by Gordon-Conwell as a collection titled, The Vision Continues: Essays marking the Centennial of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

The essay that caught my attention was the one by Gordon D. Fee titled Heremeneutics Today: A Prescriptive View. Fee himself suggests the title of his essay might better be called "On Finding an Evangelical Hermeneutics: An Exploratory Essay". Unfortunately this essay does not appear to be available on the WWW, and copyright considerations hinder me from publishing it in its entirety on my site.

In the essay Fee talks about the tension that exists in understanding the Scripture as God's Word coming through human writers. That tension is then illustrated by comparison with interpretive assumptions of the fundamentalist camp on one side, and the liberal camp on the other. The best summary I can give of Fee's discussion is found in Fee's own words in the final paragraph of the essay.

" To conclude: To insist that the very nature of Scripture as the evangelical understands it has locked in a degree of ambiguity, accommodation and diversity, causes some people to capitulate in despair, either toward the certainties of fundamentalism or the ambiguities of liberalism. I, for one, opt for what I call "the radical middle". If God gave us His Word this way, and I believe He did, then our task is to hold on to both realities -- its eternality and historical particularity -- with equal vigor. If we cannot always have absolute certainty as to meaning or application, we can certainly move toward a higher degree of common understanding. As I see it, the way toward that higher level of commonality is still to be found at the crucial point of authorial intentionality which by its very nature we would insist is thereby also the Holy Spirit's intentionality. If God did not speak timeless aphorisms, He did speak an eternal Word. That Word had specific intent in its historically particular moments. The task of exegete and theologian alike is to discover, or if you will, hear that Word in terms of God's original intent. I would argue that it is that same Word, with its same intent, that should now address us in our historical setting. Instead of seeing this as a debility, we should see it as the greater glory of Scripture and praise God for it. That He would so speak to their historically particular context is precisely what gives us hope that He will always through that same Word speak again and again to ours and to all of humankind's individual historical contexts."

Hopefully someday this article can be republished in its entirety. Such publication would be a real contribution to the Evangelical discussion of hermeneutical issues.

Sola Scriptura!

~ The Billy Goat ~

Some Thoughts on Preaching, Systematic Theology, & Biblical Theology
posted by "Paulos"

"If we teach and preach the Scriptures in the categories of the Scriptures, I find that people are much more ready to embrace and to believe things than if we teach and preach the Scriptures in the categories of systematic theology...

Much offense that many ministers attribute to the nature of the teaching actually is due to the way we teach rather than the thing we teach. If we wrap our teachings in the categories of Scripture rather than in the worn categories of systematic theology, we run the risk of having our preaching and teaching being received. I think this risk is worth taking..."

I would encourage you to click through the link above, and read all of Paulos' post on the relation of Biblical theology and systematic theology to preaching. This post articulates a number of issues and concerns I've pondered on over the years, and I give this article a hearty "AMEN!!!"

By grace alone,

~ The Billy Goat ~

The Black Cat In the Dark Room
"My philosophy teacher in college once said, "A philosopher is a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat, that is not there."

"..It is one thing to say that you use principles in Scripture to build a system, and quite another to say you can do what ever you like. Likewise, it is one thing to build a system on 'necessary consequences' instead of actual Bible texts and admit that logic supplied many of your 'facts,' and quite another thing to build a system with logic and then boast that your entire system is totally biblical. It is one thing to believe you have caught the cat,1 but it is quite another to bring him out of the dark room of your own prejudices and sit him under the clear light of biblical texts of Scripture..." (John Reisinger)

" Sometimes, the Bible doesn’t give you enough evidence, one way or the other, to settle a question beyond the possibility of a continuing discussion and debate. If this is true, and if the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit does not remove this ambiguity, then there are points beyond which dicsussion and debate ought to proceed only with considerable and generous amounts of respectful humility." (
The Humility Zone)

One of my convictions is that I do not have to have hard, set in stone, convictions on every last little detail of theology, and that there are areas of theology where I should hold my own convictions with a loose hand, and a great deal of humility. The above articles by John Reisinger and Michael Spencer articulate some of the same concerns. To say such is not a deniel of the sufficancy of Scripture. On the contrary it is an affirmation of the sufficency of Scripture. I've seen ministries where it was insisted that the "black cat" was indeed in the room. What I saw in those ministries was not very pretty at all. In fact it often became really ugly. We have not been called to the boundage of men.

Sola Scriptura!

~ The Billy Goat ~

Exegetical Expository Preaching
Excerpts from an article at Mark Dever's IX Marks Ministries.

"God's Word has something to say about what we preach and how we preach it. What you'll find on the following pages is a brief Biblical rationale for the primacy of expositional preaching in the local church. But that's not all. You'll also find some practical resources to encourage and facilitate the continuing development and increasing fruitfulness of your own expositional ministry...

The content of expositional preaching is the true word of God. An exposition of Scripture simply seeks to uncover, explain, and apply the divinely intended meaning of the text...

The goali of expositional preaching is for the people of God to hear and heed the Word of God. In this sense,expositional preachers are modern day prophets, serving merely as conduits through which the Word of God may flow into the people of God in order to do the work of God in them...

Expositional preaching is the only kind of preaching that, by definition, ensures that the agenda of the sermon is determined by the agenda of the text.

Therefore, a long-term commitment to expositional preaching is the most helpful way for a preacher to discipline himself to remain faithful to God’s Word over a lifetime of ministry...

Preaching is prophetic because it conveys God's Word to God's people. Exposition best handles the prophetic nature of preaching because the expositional sermon is unique for taking the point of the passage as the point of the message. It is therefore the best way to remain faithful to the content and intent of God's Word in any given text....

God's Word is the conduit of God's power that accomplishes God's purpose. The power is not in the preacher himself, his stories, his illustrations, or his technique. The power is in God's Word - the message preached.

This means that if the Christian preacher is to preach with real Spiritual power, he must discern what God has said in His Word, and then be faithful to say it. In other words, the point of the text should be the point of the sermon...

Benefits for the Congregation

The congregation is released from slavery to the preacher's hobbyhorse texts and topics..." (For complete article click here.)

My wife and I are very thankful for the exegetical expository based ministry we have the privilage of sitting under at our current church. Being under such a ministry has caused us to realize how far our former church had wandered from the discipline of exegetical expository preaching. The above article does an excellent job of setting forth the Biblical basis for and the benefits of expository preaching. I highly recommend you read the full article.

Sola Scriptura!

~ The Billy Goat ~