Archive for November, 2014

God’s Covering Requirement Is Because Of The Angels

November 28, 2014

I Corinthians 11:10 teaches a woman ought to wear the covering BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS: For this cause ought the woman to have power (a sign of authority, ASV) on her head because of the angels.

I ask – has anything changed about this reason for the covering? Nobody even knows for sure exactly what this means, so how could they know this reason/rule doesn’t apply anymore?

Therefore God’s covering requirement still applies Today – Because of the Angels!

Advertisements

Does Romans 9 Teach Unconditional Salvation?

November 22, 2014

Some have taken Rom 9:15-16 (“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”) to teach unconditional salvation. But the context shows us the text is not talking about individual election to salvation, but the choosing of the Gentile nation as a whole (more of them accepted the gospel).

God chose the Jews as his special people (nation) in the Old Testament. God elected Isaac, and then Jacob over Esau to be the men his chosen people would descend from (verse 7b). The potter and clay illustration in verse 21 is taken from Jer 18:6-10 which is discussing God’s favor or punishment “concerning a nation.” So Romans 9 is a discussion of choosing a nation (Genesis 25:23, Malachi 1:1-4), not any individual’s eternal destiny. The point is → just as God had the right to choose the Israelites as his chosen people back then, so now he also has the right to select another people (the Gentiles, verse 24).

Verse 15 quotes from Exod 33:13-19 where God reiterates that the Jews are his chosen people. That is the sense in which God would have mercy, He would bless them as his chosen people. Even the Calvinist agrees this is not talking about individual salvation, because not all Jews were saved.

God’s people now are equal to the saved (from whatever nation), and that salvation is conditional:

· Rom 9:30 … the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

· Rom 9:33 … whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

We become a “vessel of mercy” (9:23) conditionally: II Tim 2:21 – If a man … purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, … meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

“Mercy” (individual forgiveness of sins) is conditional:

· Proverbs 28:13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

· Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and … let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Conclusion: Romans 9 does not teach unconditional salvation, but defends God’s sovereign right to accept the Gentiles on par with the Jews (Gal 3:28).

Regular Observance Of The Lord’s Supper

November 16, 2014

Regarding the example of the disciples eating the Lord’s Supper in Acts 20:7, consider the following illustrations:

If our house payment is due on the 1st day of the month, how often should we pay it? Every month, right?

The Passover was to be observed on the 14th day of the 1st month (Leviticus 23:5). How often were the Israelites to observe it? Every year, correct?

The Israelites were to observe the Sabbath day of rest on the 7th day (Exodus 20:8-10). How often were they to observe it? – Every week as all would agree. Even though the ten commandments didn’t say every 7th day, since every week had a 7th day in it, the Israelites knew to observe the Sabbath every 7th day.

In the same vein, consider that the Lord’s Supper was eaten by Jesus’ disciples on the 1st day week (Acts 20:7). Since we are to follow their example (Phil 4:9, etc), how often would that mean we should eat the Lord’s Supper? Since every week has a 1st day in it, shouldn’t we eat the Lord’s Supper once a week, every 1st day?

Conclusion: The Bible teaches congregations must come together to eat the Lord’s Supper EVERY 1st day of the week.

Why Do Faithful Congregations Eat The Lord’s Supper Every First Day Of The Week?

November 8, 2014

Acts 20:7 reads "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them …." I Cor 10:16 shows the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 is referring to the Lord’s Supper.

All believers admit we should follow the Bible (II Tim 3:16-17). Some don’t do a very good job of it, but all admit we should. Well, if we are going to follow Acts 20:7, how often would we eat the Lord’s Supper?

Suppose we woke up on the first day of the week (Sunday in our society) and made up our mind that we were going to follow the Bible that day. Wouldn’t we follow Acts 20:7 and eat the Lord’s Supper that day? Then suppose we woke up the next day on Monday and decided again we were going to follow the Bible that day. We would NOT eat the Lord’s Supper that day would we?, because the example of Acts 20:7 is the first day of week. I suggest we would do the same on Tuesday through Saturday. Then when Sunday came around again and we woke up and made up our mind we were going to follow the Bible that day, wouldn’t we follow Acts 20:7 and eat the Lord’s Supper again that day? Do you see how that if we are trying to follow the Bible every day, we would end up eating the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week, because every week has a first day in it?

Does The Last Phrase Of Hebrews 8:13 Mean The Old Law Was Not Done Away Until 70 AD?

November 1, 2014

At the end of a context where the Hebrews writer is quoting Jeremiah 31 to establish the fact that Christians are under the “new covenant” not the “old covenant,” some are confused by the fact that the phrase “Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” is in the present tense. The 70 ADers especially use this point to try to establish their theory that the old law was not done away until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

This is a mistake. The phrase in question is a truism, meaning it is a truth that can be applied to many different situations. As a general rule, anything that gets old loses its usefulness. The writer here applies this truism to his case in point. In this context, the truism is not meant to indicate the old covenant had not been done away yet at the time of the writing, but just the opposite. For example suppose I wrote today “My three brothers and I never could get my Dad to use a computer. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, you know.” The phrase “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” would be a truism. The fact that it is in the present tense doesn’t mean we couldn’t get my Dad to learn something new at the time I wrote the sentence (today), but said truism is meant to be applied to the time my Dad was still living and we were trying to get him to learn how to make use of a PC. Similarly the Hebrews writer is saying that when Jer 31:31ff was fulfilled, leading up to when the new covenant went into effect, the old covenant was ready to vanish away. And since it was ready to vanish away, it did. That is the point of Heb 8:13b.

A second illustration: After seeing me change the oil and seeing an old oil filter sitting on the ground, my wife might ask me why I change the oil filter whenever I change our oil. I could reply “when an oil filter becomes old and gooky, it is ready to be replaced.” I don’t mean by the use of the word “ready” that the oil filter has not been replaced yet; instead I am stating a truism to justify why I just did replace it. The point of Heb 8:6ff is that Jesus the high priest has obtained (past tense) a more excellent ministry, he is (presently) the mediator of a better covenant, which was (past tense) established (enacted ASV) upon better promises. The writer quotes Jer 31:31ff to prove that point – that the first covenant had been done away to make a “place” for the second.

You can tell this is the meaning from the immediate context. The very purpose of Heb 8:8-13 is to establish the fact that the prediction by Jeremiah (that one day a new covenant would come, absolving the need for the old covenant) had been fulfilled, and so the Christians being written to were governed by that new covenant (not the old). Its conclusion in verse 13 is that God “hath made the first (covenant, ptd) old” – past tense. And all would admit the following three stated features of the new covenant had already been in force for a number of years before the book of Hebrews was written:

· verse 10 new law written on hearts

· verse 11 all children of God already know the Lord

· verse 12 God not to remember sins anymore

The remote context also bears out this fact:

· Heb 7:12 teaches the law had already changed else Jesus couldn’t currently be our high priest

· Heb 7:18,22 follows that up by teaching the old law was disannulled leading to Jesus being made a surety of a better testament

· Heb 10:9 teaches one of the reasons Jesus came (the first time) was to take away the first law so that he could establish the second (there is no overlapping of the two laws)

And the rest of the New Testament confirms the old law passed some decades previous to the writing of Hebrews:

· Col 2:14-17 says Jesus took the old law “out of the way” when he died on the cross

· Rom 7:4-7 indicates Christians were already dead to and delivered from the old law at the point of writing

· II Cor 3 shows the old law was already done away, abolished, taken away at that point

· Gal 3:19 teaches the old law was added till the seed should come, referring to the first coming of Christ, not 70 AD

· Gal 3:24-25 proves Christians were no longer under the schoolmaster (the law) after the first coming of Christ

· Eph 2:14-16’s argues Jesus had abolished the old law (past tense) therefore allowing Jew and Gentile to be one (at that time)

Conclusion: There is no sense (from God’s standpoint) the old law was still in effect until the destruction of Jerusalem. It was completely and unequivocally done away via Jesus’ crucifixion.