Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Diognetus, & Irenaeus

Richardson, Cyril.  Early Christian Fathers. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1970.

A review of the late first and second century Churchmen is ordered up; it's been a few years and a retour and review is necessary.

This volume is available and modestly priced at:
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Fathers-Library-Classics/dp/0684829517/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376018173&sr=8-1&keywords=cyril+richardson+early+christian+fathers

This book covers: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Diognetus, Irenaeus and the Didache in an author-by-author context with discussions of background, authorship, and texts of each. The book is introduced with a brief overview of 2nd century Christianity and the development of its thought up until that point.

Letters in Crises:


 1. First Clement—introduction, bibliography and text. Undoubtedly, Mr. Clement teaches "justification by faith alone," as his teacher, St. Paul, had instructed the Roman and catholic church.
2. Ignatius’s Letters: To the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to old Polycarp
3. Polycarp—Letter to Philadelphia
4. Martyrdom of Polycarp—Letter of Smyrna to Philomelium

Church Manual:

 1. Didache
2. Early Sermon—commonly called Second Clement

Defenses of the Faith:

 1. Letter of Diognetus
2. First Apology of Justin Martyr
3. Plea of Athenagoras
4. Selections from Irenaeus: Against Heretics.

John Keble's edition of Irenaeus
is available online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=WsQUAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=irenaeus+against+heresies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WmIEUpTqEJSt4AOG9YCADw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=irenaeus%20against%20heresies&f=false

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons: Against Heresies. No location: CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing Platform, 2012. A hardcopy version is available at modest prices:
http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Irenaeus-Lyons-Against-Heresies/dp/1453624600/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1376018676&sr=8-3&keywords=irenaeus

The writeup or review says this:

“[Softcover] The complete text of "Against the Heresies," with fragments of other writings. Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons wrote his "Against Heresies" ca. A.D. 180 to uphold against Gnosticism the Christian rule of faith that he had received. To vindicate the Incarnation of God in human flesh, Irenaeus described and attacked their principal doctrine, the evil origin of the natural world. Affirming the unity of Old and New Testaments, the goodness of the Creator and the created world, and finally the mystery of divinization whereby human beings are elevated into the divine life, the saint produced an outstanding example of early Christian biblical theology. For Irenaeus, as for the other early Church fathers, the doctrines of Christianity safeguard the confession of God's saving love revealed through His Incarnation as Jesus Christ. Of such work there is no better example than Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John the Evangelist. Unlike other reprints, this version is completely re-typeset, while preserving original page-numbering. (Ex Fontibus Co.)”

There is also a children’s biography of Irenaeus by Mr. (rev. dr.) Sinclair Ferguson, a trusted voice for Reformed Churchmen.  Mr. Ferguson has other books in this series for youths and they are recommended.  The version on Polycarp was ordered for a Grandson and is excellent;  in fact, reading children's books is pretty good;  they give the orientation quickly and understandably;  alright, no smart comments please (poor attempt at humor) . 


Irenaeus of Lyons (Heroes of the Faith). Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2010. It is available at: http://www.amazon.com/Irenaeus-Lyons-Heroes-Sinclair-Ferguson/dp/1848710941/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376019520&sr=8-1&keywords=irenaeus+of+lyons

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Peter Vermigli: Providence and Predestination

Peter Martyr Vermigli
(Italian Pietro Martire Vermigli)
 (8 September 1499 – 12 November 1562),
sometimes simply Peter Martyr,
was an Italian theologian
of the Reformation period.
An accurate and brief comment is registered at www.wikipedia.org, a dangerous source and, generally, unacceptable source for scholars.  However, this is accurate about Peter Vermigli.
"Vermigli and Ochino were both invited to England by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1547, and given a pension of forty marks by the government. In 1548 Vermigli was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, in succession to Dr. Richard Smyth, and was incorporated D.D. In 1549 he took part in a great disputation on the Eucharist. He had abandoned Luther's doctrine of sacramental union and adopted the doctrine of a Real Presence conditioned by the faith of the recipient standard amongst Reformed theologians. Indeed, Vermigli appears to have profoundly affected the views of Cranmer and Ridley, and historians have proven definitively that Vermigli had a great deal of influence in the modifications of the Book of Common Prayer in 1552."

(H/T to Jake Griesel re: Peter Vermigli, who taught in England at Archbishop Cranmer's request).

"Not all those who are called are predestined. For Christ said: "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14). But they contend that the calling is universal and that God would wish everyone saved. If it is understood as universal calling because it is offered to all and no one is excluded by name, it is true. If it is also called universal because the death of Christ and his redemption is sufficient for the whole world; that also is most true. But if this universality is meant so that it is in everyone's hand to receive the promises, I deny it: because to some it is given, to others it is not given. As if we did not see also that for a long time the very preaching of the Gospel was not given to many places, ages, and nations. God would have all to be saved, provided they believe. He gives faith to whom it seems good to him. For he may justly do with his own what he will." - Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), “Providence and Predestination" in Philosophical Works, vol 4, p.332

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Revivalist/Predestinarian Enthusiasts "Enthuse" Over Lloyd-Jones's Sermon Release

Rev. Dr. Scott Clark. Recovering the Reformed
Confessions.  Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 2008.  Print.  A must-have,
a must-read, and must-ponder.
The Baptacostalists, including MacArthurian enthusiasts, quasi-Reformed enthusiasts (without Confessions or liturgies), Anabaptist exhorters, Phil Johnsonians at PyroManiacs (the title itself is telling), Frank Turkishites (again, no Confessions or liturgies), and (British-type) Evangelical types (like Dr. Carl Trueman) "enthuse" over the imminent release of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's sermons.  Oh my, the second coming? We even have a PCA Pastor--who won't be named--enthusing over the release of these sermons, as if older scholars haven't said what Martyn said.  Hodge, Luther, Calvin, Meyer or others? Or the great Confessions of the Reformation?

The "Biggest Announcement," the lead enthusiast of Crossway tells us, Justin Taylor.  Really?  Is it this big?

Was Westminster Chapel instrumental in catechetical instruction?  Liturgical education? 

Oh, oh.  Justin Taylor tells us this is the "biggest announcement" from MJL Trust. So be it, but it ain't the "biggest announcement" in church history, Justin.


http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/04/11/the-biggest-announcement-the-martyn-lloyd-jones-trust-will-ever-make/?comments#comments


Justin Taylor|8:38 pm CT

The Biggest Announcement the Martyn-Lloyd Jones Trust Will Ever Make




Jonathan Catherwood:


This is probably the biggest announcement the MLJ Trust will ever make. Starting from tomorrow, April 12th, all 1,600 recorded sermons by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones will be available to download, at no cost, to anyone who wants to listen to them! There are no exceptions, so the Ephesians sermons, Romans sermons, etc. will all be available (it will take a few days to make sure that they are all included in the library). All one has to do is join the MLJ Library (membership is free of course) and start to download! Simply go to our newly updated site at http://www.mljtrust.org and click on “MLJ Library”.


This is a decision that the UK Board has been wrestling with for a long time, because by moving away from the sale of MP3 discs (and tapes before that), which has kept the Recordings Trust in existence for 30 years in God’s grace, they will become completely dependent (as we are in the United States MLJ Trust ministry), on the voluntary donations of brothers and sisters who feel called to support the ministry while downloading sermons.


In the end, however, and after much prayer and discussion, our brothers in the UK felt that as the world of low-cost distribution through the internet was now far reaching enough that most people around the world (even in developing countries) can gain access to this ministry through a computer, and as many other ministries have had a positive experience shifting to a voluntary donation approach to on-line sermons, they felt (as we do) that this change might be in accordance with God’s will.


While there is some nervousness about such a big change, it our our most earnest hope, on both sides of the Atlantic, that this announcement will help us to fulfill the objective that has fueled this ministry since its inception 30 years ago: To preserve, and make as widely available as possible, the doctrinal exposition of God’s word by the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a man who could never quite believe how God had used him for the benefit of the Gospel over his long ministry in the pulpit of Westminster Chapel.


This announcement eMail has been timed to coincide with our formal announcement at “Together for the Gospel”. This morning (Wednesday, April 11th), we will be making the announcement on stage to the approximately 7,000+ Christian leaders and teachers who will be attending, and we never forget that the participation of the MLJ Trust at this conference was made possible by the kind support of our subscribers.



HT:
@Phil_Johnson_

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

77 Sermons on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson

I remember Dad's lengthy series on Romans, Greek and Latin texts included.  Also, remember Jim Boice's sermons on Romans at Tenth Presb, Phila.  Dr. Patterson, Princeton, c. 1905, asked, "Want a Reformation?  Preach Romans."  Here we have a careful scholar, Dr. Ferguson, a scholar, a Presbyterian, and a man with a world class PhD (unlike our previous studies on Mahaney, enthusiasts, anti-intellectuals, hand-clappers and devoted lemmings). We have some work here.  Thanks to www.monergism.com for this post.


http://www.monergism.com/mp3/2011/11/77part_sermon_series_on_the_ep_1.php

Monday, August 9, 2010

10th Sunday After Trinity (Monday, 9 Aug 10)


The Tenth Sunday After Trinity
(Monday 9th August, 2010)

At Morning Prayer
Jeremiah 2:1-13
Romans 8:18-end
Psalms: 44-46

At Evening Prayer
Jeremiah 5:1-18
Matthew 21:23-end
Psalms: 47-49

At Holy Communion
Epistle: 1 Corinthians 12:1-11
Gospel: Luke 19:41-47

A Collect for The Tenth Sunday After Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

‎1. The Psalter-set for the Intro, Closing and all Psalms during the service, recommending:
http://www.stpaulsshop.org.uk/product/781/Psalms_Box_Set

2. Also, the 1662 BCP for Psalms (and the MP/EP/HC) at:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1662-Book-Common-...Prayer-NEW-Oxford-University-/130412177990?pt=AU_Non_Fiction_Books_2

3. All lections in the KJV, NASB, or ESV (if you must on the latter). They're all very accurate translations.

4. For Seminarians, Collegians, Pastors and Professors, the NT and OT lections in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

5. A disciplined day of worship, hearing His Most Holy Word, and asking for those things requisite for the body, as well as the soul.

Jubilate Deo, or Psalm 100, regularly follow the NT lection. After reading and pondering the dynamite in Romans 8.18-39, foreknowledge, predestination, justification, glorification and the certainty of faith, victory and conquest...

http://...www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtfkyyPQLAE&feature=related

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Romans 5.9, Justification, Future Salvation, Article XI

Romans 5.9 is gold:

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

πολλω ουν μαλλον δικαιωθεντες νυν εν τω αιματι αυτου σωθησομεθα δι αυτου απο της οργης

The aorist passive participle is "grand." (δικαιωθεντες νυν = having now been justified.) This is Mt. Everest.

The future passive indicative is equally grand. σωθησομεθα = we shall be saved.

We're talking mountaintop majestic peaks here. Grand beyond words.

Articles of Religion.
XI. Of the Justification of Man.

WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Monday, March 15, 2010

TBN, Pentecostals, Emergents, Rick Warren, Liberals and Romans 3




Posted on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=15983&post=94572&uid=308173344359#post94572

TBN, Pentecostals, Emergents, Rick Warren, Liberals and Romans 3

1. Some observations on Romans 3 and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s “A Commentary” (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), 205-210.

2. Paul rallies all around the Scripture: (1) All are dead, wicked, depraved and no one seeks God, 3.1-20. The “law“ exposes everybody. (2) There is a gratuitous, free, and all-availing propitiation and expiation in Christ Jesus. Justification is by faith apart from the works of the law and is received through faith alone. Redemption is free to those who believe, but TBN requires seed money. 3.9-20 is worth memorizing. Arminianism and Finneyism die here. Pentecostals die here, theologically. Warren, 40 days with Rick. Wrong, Rick. Romans 3.21-31 as well.

3. After meditating on Romans 3 all night, I then toured Osteen clips. I about died from lawful indignation. Joel's little blurb is nothing but an insult to Christ in his redemptive and resurrectional power, life and accomplishments. This fellow is a certifiable village idiot that must be driven off the scene. Listen to boy-Joel on the death and resurrection at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di9-PebV634

4. Then study Romans 3. Grrr!! The point of this thread is not to offer a commentary on Romans 3. That's for another time. It is about the black and white, night and day, difference between these false prophets and St. Paul's message. Grrrr!!!

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Romans 3.9: Why I am not Roman, Orthodox, or Evangelical Arminian

Romans 3.9

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

9 τι ουν προεχομεθα ου παντως προητιασαμεθα γαρ ιουδαιους τε και ελληνας παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι
Observations:

Observations:

1. Verse 9. “To return to the discussion,” following Romans 3.1-8 and the casuistic questions about God’s faithfulness, truthfulness, and justice. What should be said? Are Jews superior? Or are Gentiles? There’s nothing to choose here since both were equally indicted, the Gentiles (Romans 1.18-32) and the Jews (Romans 2.17-29). Both ethnic and all linguistic groups are under sin.

2. Whether Jew or Gentile regarding privileges, one over the other in either direction, such is answered by a “sweeping denial. (Murray, 102). Paul answers: “No, not at all.” The sense of the answer is: “not by any means,” “in no respect,” or “altogether not.”

3. Irrespective of birth or privilege, e.g. the Hebrew exposure and possession of the “oracles of God” (Romans 3.1), all--without exception or exemption, are “under sin.” παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι

4. Romans 3.9-20, if we may, is the closing argument of the universal indictment of Romans 1.18-2.24. The gavel has dropped. "All are under sin."

5. The series of statements drawn from the Old Testament are decisive for Paul. There are no rabbis, apocryphal literature or self-statements. The Scripture triumphantly concludes the case.

6. This section deals with sin, loss of communion with God, the fugitive impulse in the fallen human, the alienation of affections, the twistedness of fallen reason in theological matters, inherent opposition to God and His kingdom, and the specifics of sin’s venomous anti-God character, its internal and external nature.

7. This will raise the question of the origin of sin: confer Romans 5.12ff., inter alia. To be discussed later.

8. Murray powerfully summarizes it this way: “To be `under sin’ is to be under the dominion of sin, and the pervasiveness of the resulting perversity is demonstrated in the manifold ways in which it is manifested. The apostle has selected a series of indictments drawn from the Old Testament and covering the wide range of human character and activity to show that, from whatever aspect men may be viewed, the verdict of Scripture is one of universal and total depravity. The quotation of verses 10-18 is not deprived from any one place in the Old Testament. The apostle places together various passages which when thus combined provide a unified summary of the witness of the Old Testament to the pervasive sinfulness of mankind.”

Correlations (larger considerations and relationships):

1. The classic religions contained a general view that the gods are offended and must be propitiated some way. Humans are hard-wired for his.

2. Contemporaries still think—often—that entrance into Christ’s kingdom is works-based, self-propitiation perhaps with layers of Christian theology. “God judges the heart.” Contemporary evangelicalism has no sensitivities about Law and Gospel.

3. Psalm 143.2; Prov.20.9; Ecc.7.20; Gal.3.22; James 3.2; 1 John 1.8,10 are a few among many texts on the universality of the fall and its effects.

4. Sin is not the result of imitating bad examples: Psalm 51.5; Job.14.4; Jn.3.6.

5. Federal theology re: imputed guilt and inherited corruption.

6. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Pelagius, Hugo St.
Victor, Peter the Lombard, Anselm, Bonaventura, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Socinus, Arminius, Reformation Confessions and liturgies, Barth and Brunner.

7. Arminians and man’s inherited inability and hence, guiltlessness. "God can't judge someone for something he or she is unable to perform," the operational assumption in Arminianism and Orthodoxy. Arminians and a “gracious ability” based on common grace, enabling them to turn to God.

8. Jonathan Edwards on the “natural ability” versus the “moral inability.” Freedom of the Will, 1741. How this corrupted New England Calvinism with the New Haven theology.

9. Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will, 1525.

10. Immaculate Conception and the Romish doctrine.

11. Trent, 6th Session, Canon 1: “…although in the free will by no means extinct, though its powers were weakened and bowed down.” In other words, though the will is injured, corrupted and defiled, yet it is not wholly lost, destroyed or annihilated. (Chemnitz, 1.413)

12. Greek patriarch, Cyril Lucar, 1631. Schaff’s Creeds, 1.57ff. Cyril, later repudiated by the Orthodox, believes: “…the freedom of the will before regeneration is denied. (Ch. XIV).” Pisteuomen en tois ouk anagennhqeisai to autexousion nekron einai. Cyril's views on the effect of the fall is summarized by Schaff: “This is in direct opposition to the traditional Greek doctrine which emphasizes liberium arbitrium even more than the Roman, and was never affected by the Augustinian anthropology.”

13. Arminius is straight from the play book of Orthodoxy: “God has from eternity predestined to glory those who would, in his foreknowledge, make good use of their free will in accepting the salvation, and condemned those who would reject it. The Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional predestination is condemned as abominable, impious, and blasphemous.” Confessio Dosithei, Schaff, op.cit., I.63. We understand that anti-Reformation man, Metropolitan Jonah, with his fooled appearance at the ACNA hugfest, 23 Jun 2009, tolerated by the duplicitous, cowardly, and un-Reformed in American Anglican leadership.

14. Romanism: “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted.” Catholic Catechism, 405. (Misnamed: it should be called the Romanist Catechism since the Catholic Churches of the Reformation own the title. Another usurpation by them.) Paul will take a different view than the Papists.

Interpretation:

1. Paul presents total depravity of all humans. They “under sin” and the dominion of sin, with the resulting perversity substantiated by a series of indictments drawn from the Old Testament. These indictments cover the wide range of human character and activity to show that the verdict of Scripture is one of universal and total depravity. For St. Paul, what the "Word " says is what "God says."

Applications:

1. Continue to expose the lies of Rome, Orthodoxy, and contemporary evangelicalism (non-Reformed, Arminian).

2. Expose the weaknesses of the Reformed facilitators who are soft on the proud Wesley brothers.

3. Expose the sola duplicita, non solas, sola admixta, sola confusa, and sola stupida of the ACNA and its facilitators. The leaders know what they are doing; the poor sheep don’t know and perhaps don’t care. Caveat emptor.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Romans 3.9-20: Sanday and Headlam

Observations from Sanday and Headlam, ICC. The death knell to Arminianism and any variants thereof.

Romans 3:9-20 (English Standard Version)

No One Is Righteous

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
10 as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips."
14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known."
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes."
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

9 τι ουν προεχομεθα ου παντως προητιασαμεθα γαρ ιουδαιους τε και ελληνας παντας υφ αμαρτιαν ειναι
10 καθως γεγραπται οτι ουκ εστιν δικαιος ουδε εις
11 ουκ εστιν συνιων ουκ εστιν εκζητων τον θεον
12 παντες εξεκλιναν αμα ηχρεωθησαν ουκ εστιν ποιων χρηστοτητα ουκ εστιν εως ενος
13 ταφος ανεωγμενος ο λαρυγξ αυτων ταις γλωσσαις αυτων εδολιουσαν ιος ασπιδων υπο τα χειλη αυτων
14 ων το στομα αρας και πικριας γεμει
15 οξεις οι ποδες αυτων εκχεαι αιμα
16 συντριμμα και ταλαιπωρια εν ταις οδοις αυτων
17 και οδον ειρηνης ουκ εγνωσαν
18 ουκ εστιν φοβος θεου απεναντι των οφθαλμων αυτων
19 οιδαμεν δε οτι οσα ο νομος λεγει τοις εν τω νομω λαλει ινα παν στομα φραγη και υποδικος γενηται πας ο κοσμος τω θεω
20 διοτι εξ εργων νομου ου δικαιωθησεται πασα σαρξ ενωπιον αυτου δια γαρ νομου επιγνωσις αμαρτιας

Observations:

1. Sanday and Headlam give a verse by verse summary before proceeding to a verse by verse analysis. We summarize that here.

2. Verse 9. “To return to the discussion,” following Romans 3.1-8 and the casuistic questions about God’s faithfulness, truthfulness, and justice. What should be said? Are Jews superior? Or are Gentiles? There’s nothing to choose here since both were equally indicted, the Gentiles (Romans 1.18-32) and the Jews (Romans 2.17-29). Both ethnic and all linguistic groups are under sin.

3. Verse 10. From Psalm 14. The Psalmist can’t find a single righteous man.

4. Verse 11. There is none that shows with “moral or religious intelligence” and none “to show any desire to God.”

5. Verse 12. They have all turned aside. They are like “milk turned sour and bad.” There is not one single right-doer among them.

6. Verse 13. Psalm 5.9 is quoted and affords details: a mouth like a grave spewing for the death-smells. The mouth “vents forth lying and depraved speech.” The tongue goes to the grave and is from the grave. We add that the Psalms repeatedly talks about lying lips, smooth speech and flattery as a cover for deceit, and worse. The venom of snakes lies under the smooth speech.

7. Verse 14. The throat, tongue, and lips are full “of nothing but cursing and venom.”

8. Verse 15. Eager to commit murder and bloodshed.

9. Verse 16. On target for “ruin and misery.”

10. Verse 17. Aliens to peace.

11. Verse 18. Summary standard? The fear of God does not supply any standard.

12. Verse 19. Thus all have sinned. Not even the Jew can claim this. The Law of Moses “stops” the Jewish mouth from “all excuse and that all mankind might be held accountable.”

13. Verse 20. This is the conclusion of the whole argument. By the works of the law, not mortal can “be declared righteous in God’s sight. Paul says: “20For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.” The only effect of the Law was to open men’s eyes to their sinfulness, not to enable them to do better.

Correlations:

1. Arminianism, Wesleyanism, contemporary evangelicalism.

2. Romanism.

3. Para-church groups like Campus Crusade, Intervarsity, etc.

4. Western theology, Synod of Orange, Augustine, Anselm, Bradwardine.

5. Liberal theology. J. Gresham Machen.

Interpretation:

The inescapable consequences and details of the Fall are brought to an excellent summary.

Applications:

1. Disseminate.

2. Support Pauline-based Gospel. Encourage those in Pelagian and semi-Pelagian churches, fellowships, etc., to get as far away as possible from them---said to include, but not limited to many so-called evangelical bodies.

3. Examine harmartiology in the Book of Common Prayer and Reformation Confessions.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

2-Infant Baptism: Luther and Confessional Lutherans

2-Sacraments. Infant Baptism

By Dr. Francis Nigel Lee


http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html


Luther's antirebaptismal work Concerning Rebaptism


In his own work Concerning Rebaptism (1528), Luther thrashed the Anabaptists. They had over-emphasized the subjective and downgraded the objective side of the rite. Yet, Luther retorted, important as faith is -- the Word, and not faith, is the basis of baptism. Any would-be baptizer who regards faith on the part of the baptizee as essential for the validity of the baptism -- can never consistently administer baptism. For he can never be certain that faith really is present.

It is possible, conceded Luther, that some might conceivably doubt the validity of their own infant baptisms. For they might well have no irrebutable evidence that they even then already truly believed. They might then conceivably wish to request (re-)baptism -- when adults.

That request, however, should not be granted. Instead, insisted Luther, the one making this request should be told that even if he were thus to be 'baptized' a second time -- Satan might well soon trouble him again, as to whether he then too really had faith. Then he would have to be 'baptized' yet again -- a third time -- and so on, ad infinitum, for just as long as any such doubts kept recurring.

"For it often happens that one who thinks that he has faith," explained Luther, "has none whatever -- and that one who thinks that he has no faith but only doubts, actually believes. We are not told 'he who knows that he believes' [shall be saved]..., but 'he that believes [and is baptized] shall be saved!' [Mark 16:16]....

"The man who bases his baptism on his faith -- is not only uncertain.... He is...godless and hypocritical.... For he puts his trust in what is not his own -- viz., a gift which God has given him -- and not in the Word of God alone." Consequently, even though at the time of baptism there be no faith -- the baptism, nevertheless, is still valid.99

The condemnation of Anabaptism in the Lutheran Symbols


The 1530 Augsburg Confession (later endorsed also by John Calvin), declared100 that the Lutheran churches "condemn the Anabaptists...who imagine that the Holy Spirit is given to men without the outward Word, through their own preparation and works.... They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the baptism of children....

"They condemn the Anabaptists...who teach that those who have once been holy, cannot fall again.... They condemn the Anabaptists who...contend that some men may attain to such a perfection in this life that they cannot sin.... They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid...civil offices [to Christians].... They condemn the Anabaptists who think that there shall be an end of torments to condemned men and the devils."

Also in the Formula of Concord, the later Lutherans declared101 that "the Anabaptists are divided into many sects -- of which some maintain more, some fewer, errors. Nevertheless, in a general way -- they all profess such a doctrine as can be tolerated neither in the Church; nor by the police and in the commonwealth; nor in daily [domestic and social] life."

The Formula then mentions "Anabaptist Articles which cannot be endured in the Church." It claims that "this 'righteousness' of the Anabaptists consists in great part in a certain arbitrary and humanly-devised sanctimony, and in truth is nothing else than some new sort of monkery."

These intolerable Anabaptist Articles include the one "that infants, not baptized, are not sinners before God -- but just and innocent." Concerning "baptism," continues the Lutheran Formula of Concord, "in the opinion of the Anabaptists, they [infants] have no need" of baptism or of salvation. "Infants [say the Anabaptists] ought not to be baptized until they attain the use of reason, and are able themselves to profess their faith....

"They [the Anabaptists] neither make much account of the baptism of children, nor take care to have their children baptized -- which conflicts with the express words of the divine promise (Genesis 17:7 sqq.). For this only holds good to those who observe the covenant of God and do not contemn it."

The Anabaptists again quite wrongly further teach "that a godly man ought to have no dealings at all with the Ministers of the Church who teach the Gospel of Christ according to the tenor of the Augsburg Confession, and rebuke the preachings and errors of the Anabaptists." Thus, they 'shunned' saints!

The Formula also condemns "Anabaptist Articles which cannot be endured in the Commonwealth. I. That the office of the magistrate is not, under the New Testament, a condition of life that pleases God. II. That a Christian man cannot discharge the office of a magistrate with a safe and quiet conscience. III. That a Christian man cannot with a safe conscience administer and execute the office of a magistrate if matters so require against the wicked, nor subjects implore for their defence that power which the magistrate has received of God. IV. That a Christian man cannot with a safe conscience take an oath, nor swear obedience and fidelity to his prince or magistrate. V. That the magistrate, under the New Testament, cannot with a good conscience punish criminals with death." Anabaptism spurns the Bible's death penalty!

The Formula next condemns "Anabaptist Articles which cannot be endured in daily life. I. That a godly man cannot with safe conscience hold or possess any property, but that whatever means he may possess he is bound to bestow them all as common good. II. That a Christian man cannot with a safe conscience either keep an inn, or carry on trade, or forge weapons. III. That it is permitted married people who think differently in religion to divorce themselves, and to contract matrimony with some other person who agrees with them in religion." Anabaptism hates capital, weapons, and marital fidelity!

The Formula further condemns the following "Errors of the [Anabaptist] Schwenkfeldians. I. That all those who affirm Christ according to the flesh to be a creature, have no true knowledge of the heavenly King and His reign. II. That the flesh of Christ through its exaltation has in such wise received all the divine attributes, that Christ as He is man is altogether like to the Father...and that the flesh of Christ pertains to the essence of the Blessed Trinity. III. That the ministry of the Word...is not that instrument whereby God the Holy Ghost teaches men.... IV. That the water of baptism is not a means whereby the Lord seals adoption in the children of God."

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Romans 3.5-8: Predestination Lurks Beneath

Romans 3.5-8

5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

5 ει δε η αδικια ημων θεου δικαιοσυνην συνιστησιν τι ερουμεν μη αδικος ο θεος ο επιφερων την οργην κατα ανθρωπον λεγω 6 μη γενοιτο επει πως κρινει ο θεος τον κοσμον 7 ει δε η αληθεια του θεου εν τω εμω ψευσματι επερισσευσεν εις την δοξαν αυτου τι ετι καγω ως αμαρτωλος κρινομαι 8και μη καθως βλασφημουμεθα [και] καθως φασιν τινες ημας λεγειν οτι ποιησωμεν τα κακα ινα ελθη τα αγαθα ων το κριμα ενδικον εστιν

Observations.

1. Two questions come to the fore as possible-likely abuses of Romans 3.1-4: that the unbelief and infidelity of humans (many) being unable, but rather, serving to advance, the righteousness of God.

a. 5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say?

b. 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

2. Human “unrighteousness” and the “righteousness of God” are brought into close relationship. “Serves to show” (συνιστησιν) indicates: “put together,” “make good by argument,””prove,” “establish.” This question still obtains and applies in discussions about predestination and election.

3. Murray catches the sense: “For it is plausible and apparently inevitable logic to say that God cannot justly inflict punishment upon the action of which is instrumental in the more glorious display of the truth and righteousness which are his glory.” (96)

4. It is evident that some Jews (Jewish Christians?) and other anti-predestinarians (Gentile Christians?) didn’t like Paul’s arguments about predestination (supra vide 3.1-4). No doubt, Paul had heard these raucous calumnies before.

5. Murray puts the objection another way: “The inference proposed in verse 8 is that if the truth of God, that is to say, his faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, has been more abundantly exemplified by man’s unbelief and contradiction and God thereby glorified, then the agent of this unbelief cannot any longer be regarded as a sinner.”

Correlation:

1. History of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, as unities, yet in its diverse forms: Romanism, Arminianism, Tractarianism, modern day evangelicalism.

2. Study of denominational proclivities. Modern Anglicans, e.g. ACNA, could care less about the question; they would like it to go away. Article XVII is not a matter of concern. We know that Anglican Evangelicals have long associated themselves with Wesleyans. Methodists, Pentecostals and other enthusiasts, Baptists, and the mainline liberals.

Interpretation:

Paul is placing two common objections to predestination before his reader.

To be continued.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Romans 3.3-4: Murray



Pickup with Cranfield and Murray on 3.3-4.

Romans 3.3-4:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

3τι γaρ ει ηπιστησαν τινες μη η απιστια αυτων την πιστιν του θεου καταργησει 4μη γενοιτο γινεσθω δε ο θεος αληθης πας δε ανθρωπος ψευστης καθαπερ γεγραπται οπως αν δικαιωθης εν τοις λογοις σου και νικησεις εν τω κρινεσθαι σε

Observations:

1. One question is in view, to wit, “If some of Israel did not believe in Abraham’s Messiah, or did not embrace the OT oracles, shall that unbelief make the fidelity of God and His promises of no effect…shall those Abrahamic promises, yeah that Gospel, yeah those oracles centuries before, be overcome, defeated or over-turned?”

2. We get an emphatic denial in strong terms. “4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar.” Paul affirms that "every one" without exception or exemption, King, Provincial Governor, High Priest of Israel, rabbis or others who would claim that God's promises to Abraham and His children had failed---liars! Of course, Re-baptizers or Baptists must be included in this astounding claim. Murray says this is an “arresting way of placing in the forefront the indefectible faithfulness of God to His Word.” (95)

3. The context is Jewish unbelief during Paul’s day. The Gospel of John puts it this way (1.11-13): “11He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

4. Although this matter will arise later, if one examines Romans 3.1-4, John 1.11-13, and Romans 9.5ff, one will see that embracing the promises in the first place, the act and life of faith, is at the divine initiative—believers of any genetic stock are born again by only One’s will, the Divine, not the human’s will or belief…”who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The widespread rejection of Christ was because they were not His elect sheep. John and Paul develop this throughout their writings. That's why we're Calvinists, because like Calvin, we accept the Scriptural testimonies. No Arminianism is tolerated in John 1.13. Just read the text.
For examples of confused nonsense amongst Anglicans, especially in the comments, see: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24947/#407478. It comes from exceedingly weak Churchmen and Bible exegetes.

5. Following upon this passage, God’s determinations and purposes are not governed by what is extraneous to Himself. This is why we believe in unconditional election and with its indubitable corrollary, to wit, that Jesus sheep and the sheep only are redeemed. The atonement has its design and intent, co-extensive with its application to the elect. At the above URL, you'll see the Anglican confusions.

Interpretation:

God’s Word is not invalidated by human response, in this case, the unbelieving genetic Jew. The Gospel preached to Abraham and his children is still in force, despite denials by vast multitudes of genetic Jews.

A few corrollaries by deduction.

First, Christ is not made "Lord" by human decision. That would be like the blind man saying no sun existed because he saw no light.

Second, God's Word is not "made" God's Word by human response (e.g. neo-orthodoxy). It is what it is, even if millions denied it's authority like Romanism. Eight were left during Noah's time. 7000 during Elijah's. Paul lived to see the majority of genetic Jews reject the promises to Abraham and his children. We live in a day where children are, willy nilly, by Baptists cut off from the Abrahamic promises.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Romans 3.3-4: Sandlay and Headlam


ICC, Sandlay & Headlam
Romans 3.3-4:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

3τι γaρ ει ηπιστησαν τινες μη η απιστια αυτων την πιστιν του θεου καταργησει 4μη γενοιτο γινεσθω δε ο θεος αληθης πας δε ανθρωπος ψευστης καθαπερ γεγραπται οπως αν δικαιωθης εν τοις λογοις σου και νικησεις εν τω κρινεσθαι σε

Observations.
1. The “some” is important in 3.1. “Some” but not “all” descendents of Abraham were unfaithful. Roman 9-11 is the commentary on this personal pronoun, “some.” Who was the “seed of Israel?” What is the “seed” of Galatians 3.16, but “Christ and His seed,” believers. The promises to Abraham are not dashed; they have continuing and abiding validity as missions are done throughout the nations.

2. Anyone asserting otherwise is a liar, ψευστης. This puts a nasty and judicial condemnation and squeeze to the Anabaptists or Wiedertaufer. Asserting that God’s promises to believers and their children (Gen.17.7; Gal.3.6-9; inter alia) is the opposite of truth. The Southern Baptists and the other 500-type Baptists in the U.S. won’t like these verses, among others. Same for the enthusiasts. It also puts the squeeze on anyone group, genetic Jews included, that denies the Abrahamic promises and covenant of grace for this admininstration of it, post-resurrectionally.

3. Paul affirms that God is a God of truth over against human denials of the infallibility of God’s promises. ο θεος αληθης

4. “Even as it is written,” is Paul’s constant refrain. He does not quote rabbis or apocryphal literature. καθαπερ γεγραπται. Paul’s use of the OT indicates the abiding role and rule of the OT (Romans 15.3-4; 1 Cor.10.1ff).
5. Paul quotes from Psalm 51.5: “…so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.”
6. S & H, summarize it: “The sense of the original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God’s judgment on him. The result of his sin is that God is pronounced righteous in His sentence, free from blame in his judging. St. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put on trial and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which He has fulfilled, though man will not believe in their fulfillment.” The Anabaptists and, especially, the dispensationalists are on public report for their indecent, unjust and lying denials of the continuing Gospel promises to Abrahamic descendents, that is, Churchmen and their children.

7. The pronouncement of God’s justice, over against the denial of the promises, is juridical. “…That you may be justified in your words…” Every man who denies the Abrahamic promises is a liar and God is—juridically—pronounced righteous. Δικαιωθης, that you may be pronounced just and right. The term “justify” is the storm centre of the book, as it is today. Hence, our photo above.

8. The text speaks of God’s sovereignty in his judgment, to wit, “…and prevail when you are judged." Or “conquer.” Other terms might be triumph, defeat, or overcome. The ESV uses the suitable rendering, “prevail.”

Interpretation.

The question at bar is the advantages of the genetic (and by implication spiritual) Jew. The promises to Abraham have not fallen to the ground at all. Anyone who says otherwise, e.g. Baptists, dispensationalists, or genetic Jews are liars. God is true, just and shall prevail in his words and judgments.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Romans 3.3-4

ICC, Sandlay & Headlam
Romans 3.3-4:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

3τι γaρ ει ηπιστησαν τινες μη η απιστια αυτων την πιστιν του θεου καταργησει 4 μη γενοιτο γινεσθω δε ο θεος αληθης πας δε ανθρωπος ψευστης καθαπερ γεγραπται οπως αν δικαιωθης εν τοις λογοις σου και νικησεις εν τω κρινεσθαι σε
Observations:

1. St. Paul has wrestled with this issue of Jewish “unbelief” in the promises of the OT. They unbelieving Jew has been “unfaithful” (ηπιστησαν ). This subject will receive a more intense review in chapters 9-11.
2. There is also a contrast between human infidelity and God’s fidelity to His promises.
3. Human infidelity does not abrogate, deny or disannul the divine promises fulfilled in Christ.
4. Καταργησει = nullify in the ESV. S & H observe = to render inert or inactive. The term is used 25 times by Paul. It’s foundational sense is “to make sterile or barren.” Abrogate, invalidate, cancel, annul, overthrow, undo, revoke or terminate might be useful synonyms.
5. Paul puts his forth, if we might, like a good rabbi. “By not means!” 4μη γενοιτο γινεσθω. “Let it not be so!” In Paul’s writings, fourteen of fifteen times it indicates “strong abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be falsely drawn from his argument.” S & H points to Burton’s M. and T., section 177. (Moods and Tenses?)
6. A quote, 71: “It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom, once in 1 Cor., twice in Gal.). It occurs five times in the LXX, not however standing alone as here, but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Gen.xliv.7,17; Josh.xxii.29; xxiv.16; 1 Kings xx [xxi].3.)

Correlations:

1. Paul and Jesus’ views of the Old Testament from other texts.
2. Infant baptism and covenantal language in the New Testament, e.g. household baptisms and families.
3. Baptist literature, especially dispensational works.
4. Mainline liberal theology which denies divine providence and election.

Interpretation:

Paul is expounding in 3.1-8 on the faithfulness and justice of God. In 3.1-2, the ancient church had the advantage, light, power, teachings and Gospel of the Old Testament, of which circumcision was the sign and seal. In 3.3-4, we learn that human infidelity, Jewish unbelief, does not annul the fidelity and promises of God.

Application:

1. Be prepared to tell a genetic Jew that Christians are children of Abraham and that they are not. Also, the consequences of their rejection of Abraham’s Messiah.
2. Engage with the Baptist denials.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Romans 3.1-2: Biblical Literacy, Lections, Practices

Romans 3.1-2. S & H, Cranfield, and John Murray.

1τι ουν το περισσον του ιουδαιου η τις η ωφελεια της περιτομης 2πολυ κατα παντα τροπον πρωτον μεν [γαρ] οτι επιστευθησαν τα λογια του θεου

Romans 3.1-2: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Observations.

1. Romans 3.1ff and the foregoing argument, 2.25-29, upon first view, might appear to invalidate God’s covenantal institutions under the Old Testament: "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." It might appear that circumcision (Genesis 17) “creates liability and disadvantage.” (Murray, 91)
2. Paul anticipates this objection.
3. He asks, in his rabbinic way, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?”
4. Paul allows no depreciation of the Old Testament, like the Anabaptists, the Wiedertaufer, or Re-baptizers.
5. Elsewhere, Paul will argue that human unbelief does not nullify God’s promises.
6. We find here a harsh rebuke to Anabaptists, charismatics and other enthusiasts who deny the role of infant baptism. We also find a rebuke to Reformation Churchmen, e.g. national leaders included with their national magazines, books, and magazines, who have facilitated Anabaptists by failure to call them out into the public arena for correction, discussion and--we pray--liberation from their great sin. Is.58.
7. Later, in Romans 9.4-5, Paul will extol the privileges to Israel: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”
8. Paul speaks of the deposit of the “oracles of God,” the pre-eminent privilege of the Old Testament saint.
9. The Old Testament church was “entrusted” (επιστευθησαν )with these oracles. The Jewish saint was to trust, treasure, attest and declare this Word above words, this Word from another world, this Sovereign Word, to their children and to all mankind. It was not their’s to belittle, dismiss or take in light, irreverent and thoughtless ways.
10. The Old Testament is the “oracular Word of God.”
11. For Saint Paul, the “written Word of God” is God’s Speech. What "is written" is what the "Holy Ghost speaks." See Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.10, for an excellent paragraph.
12. The Word of God “written” is “fixed and in abiding” form, lest Montanists, enthusiasts, deceivers, charismatics and others distort, twist and/or deny the fixed and abiding Word.

Correlations:

1. Paul and Jesus’ views of the Old Testament from other texts.
2. Infant baptism and covenantal language in the New Testament, e.g. household baptisms and families.
3. Baptist literature.
4. John MacArthur, Alistar Begg, Mike Dever, Mark Driscoll’s statements about circumcision and baptism.
5. Mainline liberal theology.
6. Bible reading patterns in modern life.
7. Bible reading in various liturgies.

Interpretation:

Paul is expounding in 3.1-8 on the faithfulness and justice of God. In 3.1-2, the ancient church had the advantage, light, power, teachings and Gospel of the Old Testament, of which circumcision was the sign and seal.

Application:

1. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Ps.122), to wit, that Anabaptists would stand down, stop being divisive and surrender. Then and only then shall we have peace.
2. Prayer for Zion, that we may call those from the mainline to the Gospel.
3. Evaluate studies on Bible literacy, lections, and practices in liturgies, churches, and modern life. All talk no show? This applies to all denominations.
4. Encourage Catholic Christians in the Reformation Churches, especially those faithful shepherds in the war in the Church Militant. Psalm 44.1-8.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Romans 3.1-8: Developments from Sandlay & Headlam


Romans 3.1-8, more from Sandlay and Headlam.

Observations:

1. The epistle’s characteristic is to imagine an objector and respondent, a plaintiff and defendant, be they actual or imagined. It’s rather Socratic, if not rabbinic. Paul plies his own position with question and provides answers. S & H propose imagined plaintiffs, although we believe these were questions long entertained by St. Paul himself and/or encountered in real life.

2. S & H offer only five passages. We bring forward additional passages. We will colour the questions.

a. Romans 3.1-4: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

b. Romans 4.1-3: What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

c. Romans 4.9-10: Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

d. Romans 6.1-4: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as) Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in) newness of life.

e. Romans 6.15-19: What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
f. Romans 7.7ff.: What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

g. Romans 9.14-15: What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
h. Romans 9.19-23: You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

i. Romans 9. 30-32: What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,
j. Romans 10.8-9: But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

k. Romans 10.14-16: How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel.

l. Romans 10. 18-19: But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

m. Romans 11.1-5: I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God’s reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

n. Romans 11.7-8: What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day."

o. Romans 11.11-12: So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

p. Romans 11.15-16: For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Correlations:

1. Comparison with other Pauline epistles and well as Jesus’ teaching methods: parables and direct discourse.

2. Studies in logic.

Interpretation:

Paul uses an interrogative method with declarations of his own throughout, at least, Romans 3-11.

It has been said that a good litigator understands his opponents arguments; if the litigator misrepresents the opponent’s claims, he is viewed either as lazy or dishonest; his reputation goes down. However, if a litigator fairly represents his opponents arguments and answers their points, he is diligent and the case will be weighed on the merits (ideal); at least he will gain a good reputation for honesty.

Application:

1. Pay much more attention to Paul’s method hereafter.

2. Pay attention to the other epistles during daily and evening lections or readings.Pay attention to Paul’s use of Scripture. He nowhere quotes rabbinic or apocryphal sources, but uses the Old Testament. A model for all Churchmen; pay attention to this in other epistles.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Romans 3.1-8 (Cranfield, ICC)

Romans 3.1-8

Consulting with International Critical Commentary under C.E.B. Cranfield (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977). We are comparing this with Sandlay and Headlam’s ICC of 1908.

Observations:

1. Paul is denying the name of “Jew” to those who are “outward Jews” but “not inwardly circumcised Jews.” (Romans 2.28, 29)
2. Is he denying that the Abrahamic promises do not apply to non-Christian Jews? Yes. Thanks to a request for clarification from one of our readers, Peter Otajian, we add this, using his words: "In other words, Paul is asserting that the Abrahamic promises do not apply to non-Christian Jews, who rejected their Messiah. It only applies to Christian Jews, who have received the circumcision of the heart through the work wrought in their hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit." Thanks Peter, well put.
3. Is the Abrahamic covenant still in force? Yes.
4. Do the promises of Abraham apply to Christians, Jew or Gentile, in the new administration of the covenant? Yes.
5. Paul takes over the “term” Jew and gives it new meaning.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Romans 3.1-8


Continued. We are working with International Critical Commentary, Sandlay and Headlam, Fifth Edition (EdinburghL T. & T. Clark, 1908).

Rom 3.1-8

Observations:

1. Sanday and Headlam develop the implicit objections that swirl in this section, 3.1-8. We’ll elaborate once we get to the micro-analysis of the text.

2. If God requires an inward and spiritual change, what has happened to the privileged position of ancient Israel and the position of the Jew, an Abrahamic descendant? What is gained by circumcision, the sign and seal of the covenant, the "outward sign of the invisible and internal grace?"

3. Answer: The first gain is that the Jews were committed to the coming of the Messiah. They were taught and trained to look for Him. Their Levitical system taught them about sin and redemption, grace and forgiveness, holiness and their fallenness, and more.

4. Another answer and advantage for the Jew is found at Romans 9.4-5: “They are Israelites, and to them belong) the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

5. The objector continues, “Yes, I see what you mean. The Bible surely teaches all that at Romans 9.4-5. They indeed had those advantages in training over the centuries. But a vast number of Jews—today, Paul—according to genes and the flesh, have denied and rejected the Messiah. Are the promises then null and void to them? I don’t get it? How do you answer this?”

6. Romans 9-11 is the fuller answer to the question; 9.6ff observes that not all Abraham’s children were children of the seed and promise, but the elect only. Election and eternal predestination is the answer. Another amplification of that point is noted at Romans 11.7-8: “What then?) Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, `God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.’”

7. Another objection arises. “Well, then, if that sort of unrighteousness is merely a foil to exhibit God’s righteousness, what kind of justice is that? To punish men for a divine determination not to save the non-elect?”

8. Answer: “If this objection were to stand, itself, God would be incapacitated from judging anyone.”

9. Another answer amplifies and stuns the reader at Romans 9.19-24: “You will say to me then, `Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, `Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Observations on observations:

1. Paul is dealing with objections doubtlessly encountered during his varied ministries throughout the Mediterranean that dealt with (larger, but not total) Jewish rejection of the Christian message.

2. In addition to developing the themes of sin, judgment, justification, sanctification, baptism, church, state and various ethical responses, Paul provides a redemptive-historical approach connecting the older and new covenantal administration, a biblical philosophy of history.

3. Unlike the dispensationalists with their “two people” of God theory, “Genetic Israel and the Church,” Paul teaches the continuity and unity of the NT Church with ancient Israel. Believers are Abraham’s children. Galatians 3.6-8, inter alia.

4. This disjunction of the OT and NT is the soil in which the denial of the continuous outworking of the Abrahamic promises are denied, e.g. Anabaptists, Charismatic enthusiasts, and others of all sorts.

5. Anabaptists, Charismatics (the few that read) and other enthusiasts say very silly and mind-numbing things like, “Circumcision was outward and meant nothing inward,” e.g. justification, sanctification. There are some scholarly Anabaptists who say these grossly infantile things. Dispensationalists have been notorious for this, although adjustments to some of these things have been made. We are not current on their literature and revisions to these salutary objections.

6. Paul does not hesitate to address “election and predestination,” although in the last analysis he does not give us the ultimate reason for the judgment of the reprobate. Clearly, their own sins condemn them. That is sufficient. However, the reason for not “electing” head-for-head-Israelites, to whom were the varied advantages, is not given. It’s a limit beyond which we may not proceed.

Correlations to related issues:

1. Obviously, the study of the entire OT record is the presupposition of Romans. That is a given.

2. Covenant and election. See Dr. Scott Clark’s various publications.

3. Federal vision.

4. Mainline liberalism. Given their hermeneutics, consider their complete disability and inabilities to address sin, judgment, justification and this history of philosophy.

5. Universalism in the (Romanist) Catholic Catechism of the Church. Also, Peter Kreeft's work on universalism. Also, Billy Graham's gross mis-statements.

6. Particular redemption and the Synod of Dordt.

7. Infant baptism and the Abrahamic covenant. Anabaptist theology.

8. Dispensationalism.

9. Amillenialism.

10. Romanist and Anglo-Catholic sacerdotalism, to wit, baptism effects head-for-head regeneration.

11. Lutheran and Reformed views of baptism.

12. Arminianism.

Interpretation.

Paul is engaging casuistical and probably some honest objections to Jewish inquiries in relation to the OT promises. What's the situation for the Jew with his ancient privileges?

Application.

1. See the correlations, all of which require study and response in the Church Militant: Romery, Anglo-Catholics, Anabaptists, Dispensationalists, Federal Vision, and Sacraments.

2. Add Cranfield’s discussion as the days unfold. Also, Calvin, Luther, Hodge, Murray and Lenski.

3. Highlight the abominable inadequacies of mainline liberalism. Perhaps do some satire on them.

4. Highlight the inadequacies of making covenant co-extensive with election, as if every head circumcised or baptized were elect from before the foundation of the world.