Archive

Archive for May, 2020

A fourth perversion of Acts 2:39 by Pedobaptist

This short passage is subjected to a fourth perversion. They maintain that the gospel covenant is a continuance of the covenant of circumcision! Their language is, “When God took Abraham into covenant, he said, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed; Genesis 17:7 and accordingly every Israelite had his son circumcised at eight days old. Now it is proper for an Israelite when he is to enter into a new dispensation of this covenant, to ask, What must be done With my children?” And is the gospel a new dispensation of this covenant that God made with Abraham, according to which “every Israelite had his son circumcised at eight days old? The gospel a new dispensation of the covenant of circumcision! And does Peter so teach? No such thing appears, either in this text, or elsewhere.

R. B. C. Howell- The Evils of Infant Baptism- Chapter 2- Infant Baptism is an evil because its defense leads to most injurious perversions of the Word of God

 

God has made many covenants at divers times

II. We will now consider THE COVENANT: “He will ever be mindful of his covenant.”

God has made many covenants at divers times, and none of these covenants has he ever broken. Let me briefly mention these covenants. There was the covenant with Adam, the covenant of works: “Obey me, and thou shalt live; disobey me, and thou shalt die.” That covenant God did not break. He did not subject Adam to pain or misery until he had first broken the covenant, and so became the inevitable heir of suffering. God made a covenant with Noah that the waters should no more go over the earth; and the rainbow, the sign of that covenant, has lit up the sky ever since at various intervals, and the earth has not been drowned with a flood a second time. He made a covenant with Abraham, that he would give the land of Canaan to be the heritage of his seed; and that covenant hath he kept, neither hath he altered the thing that went out of his lips. He made a covenant with David, that his seed should sit upon his throne; and that covenant he kept.

Charles H. Spurgeon- “Covenant Blessings”- On a Thursday Evening in the summer of 1858, delivered at New Park street Chapel, Southwark, intended for reading on the Lord’s Day, July 1st, 1900, another sermon on this subject is sermon 3261 called “The Covenant”

 

The Wednesday Word: The Satisfactory Sacrifice

When Jesus called out, “It is finished” (John 19:30) it was a declaration that His redeeming work had been accomplished. Because redemption happened in the past, in history, redemption cannot be undone or added to. Nothing more is needed. It is finished.

At the cross, there was a once-and-for-all completed sacrifice for sin. We were purchased, bought and paid for by the shedding of Christ’s precious blood.

Since the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was completed at Calvary it is incorrect to say that redemption was finalised when Christ sprinkled His blood upon the heavenly mercy seat. There are those who incorrectly teach that the blood of Jesus had to be applied to the heavenly mercy seat to redeem us. They say that if Jesus’ blood had soaked into the ground at Calvary, then sins could not have been taken away.

Wrong!

Christ ascended into heaven because His work of atonement was finished, not in order to complete it. Of course, He sprinkled His blood on the mercy seat but that was not to achieve redemption. He had already accomplished redemption at the cross. This is made clear when we read, “But by His own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12).

Notice how eternal redemption had already been obtained before Christ came to the mercy seat.

So, let’s say it again. To complete redemption, Jesus did not need to present His blood in heaven.

Why not?

Because our redemption was, by that stage, already un fait accompli (an accomplished fact: a done deal). See Hebrews 9:7-12, 24-25; 10:19; 13:12, 20; 1 John 2:2.

Before we continue with this thought, here’s another gospel truth about Jesus! He, unlike the Old Testament high priest, did not have to make a sin-offering for Himself

Why Not?

Because He was already perfect, sinless and flawless. He was without sin (Hebrews 7:26). There was no need, therefore, for Christ to shed blood for His own redemption. He was the only man who has ever lived who didn’t need a saviour.

But, back to what we were saying. Christ entered heaven having secured our eternal redemption at the cross—He is now enthroned in heaven as the High Priest who completed the work of redemption (Hebrews 1:3; 8:1).

Nothing else needed to be added to the work of atonement.

Nothing!

Redemption was not a partially completed work.

He did not leave things half-done.

Our salvation does not depend upon something we need to do to complete it.

Christ did not have to do some atoning act in heaven. Redemption was finished, done, complete! The mission was accomplished! (John 19:30).

The sacrifice of Christ was made once for all on the cross. Any theory of atonement, therefore, which teaches that Jesus Christ needed to take His blood with Him into heaven (or hell) to complete our salvation, denies the finished work of the cross.

We do not need another sacrifice. We do not need the mythical bloodless sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Mass in order to be made right with God.

We Do not need another sacrifice. The one we have will do just fine.

We do not need another sacrifice. Jesus Christ willingly offered Himself in our place by shedding His blood as the price of our redemption (Matthew 20:28).

We do not need another sacrifice. Every person who trusts on Jesus Christ for salvation is eternally secure in Him (John 10:28-29). We have been redeemed out of slavery forever (Galatians 3:13; 4:4-5). He purchased us with His blood and took us out of the marketplace. We are no longer available; we are off limits. We are now owned by God….and He refuses to re-sell His precious possessions which He bought with His blood (Acts 20:28).

And that’s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee

www.milesmckee.com   

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination Chapter XXVI- A Comparison with the Mohammedan doctrine of predestination

The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination

Chapter XXVI

A COMPARISON WITH THE MOHAMMEDAN DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION

2. MOHAMMEDAN TENDENCY TOWARD FATALISM

As a matter of fact, however, Mohammedanism places such an emphasis on God as the sole cause of all events that second causes are practically excluded. The idea that man is in any way the cause of his own acts has nearly ceased to exist, and Fatalism, the normal belief of the Arabs in their state of semi civilization before Mohammed, is the controlling force in the speculations and practices of the Moslem world. “According to these traditions,” says Dr. Zwemer, “and the interpretation of them for more than ten centuries in the life of Moslems, this kind of Predestination should be called Fatalism and nothing else. For Fatalism is the doctrine of an inevitable necessity and implies an omnipotent and arbitrary sovereign power.” 4

Practically, Mohammedanism holds to a predestination of ends regardless of means. The contrast with the Christian system is seen in the following story. A ship crowded with Englishmen and Mohammedans was ploughing through the waves. Accidentally one of the passengers fell overboard. The Mohammedans looked after him with indifference, saying, “If it is written in the book of destiny that he shall be saved, he shall be saved without us; and if it is written that he shall perish, we can do nothing”; and with that they left him. But the Englishmen said, “Perhaps it is written that we should save him.” They threw him a rope and he was saved.

Loraine Boettner- The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

 

The ideal fitness of Adam to act as the head of his race, and the ideal circumstances under which the decisive test was to be made, must forever shut every fair and honest mouth against objecting to the arrangement God proposed to Adam

The ideal fitness of Adam to act as the head of his race, and the ideal circumstances under which the decisive test was to be made, must forever shut every fair and honest mouth against objecting to the arrangement God proposed to Adam, and the fearful consequences which his sad failure have brought down upon us. It has been well said, “Had we been present—had we and all the human race been brought into existence at once—and had God proposed to us, that we should choose one of our number to be our representative that he might enter into covenant with him on our behalf—should we not, with one voice, have chosen our first parent for this responsible office? Should we not have said, ‘He is a perfect man and bears the image and likeness of God,—if any one is to stand for us let him be the man’; Now,—since the angels who stood for themselves, fell—why should we wish to stand for ourselves. And if it be reasonable that one stand for us—why should we complain, when God has chosen the same person for this office, that we would have chosen, had we been in existence, and capable of choosing ourselves?” (G. S. Bishop).

Arthur W. Pink- The Divine Covenants-Part Two-The Adamic Covenant

 

If ye have family troubles, there are others who have borne the same

But, Christian men! Ye are not alone in this. If ye have family troubles, there are others who have borne the same. Remember Ephraim! Though God had promised that Ephraim should abound as a tribe with tens of thousands, yet it is recorded in 1 Chronicles 7:20-22: “And the sons of Ephraim, Shuthelah and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in that land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle. And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him.” Abraham himself had his Ishmael, and he cried to God on account thereof. Think of Eli, a man who served God as a high priest, and though he could rule the people, he could not rule his sons; and great was his grief thereat. Ah! some of you, my brethren in the gospel, may lift your hands to heaven, and ye may utter this morning these words with a deep and solemn emphasis-you may write “Although” in capitals, for it is more than true with some of you-”Although my house be not so with God.”

Charles H. Spurgeon- “David’s Dying Song,” A sermon delivered on Sabbath Morning, April 15th, 1855

 

Free Ebook Friday: The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven

by John Cotton

To the Reader

“THE greatest commotions in Kingdoms have for the most part been raised and maintained for and about Power, and Liberties, of the Rulers and the Ruled, together with the due bounds and limits of either: And the like hath fallen out in Churches, and is con-tinued to this day in the sharpest contentions (though now the seat of the war is changed) who should be the first adequate, and complete subject of that Church-power, which Christ hath left on earth; how bounded, and to whom committed. This controversy is in a special manner the lot of these present times: And now that most parties (that can pretend any thing towards it) have in several ages had their turns and vicissitudes of so long a possession of it, and their pleas for their several pretences, have been so much and so long heard, it may well be hoped it is near determining; and that Christ will shortly settle this power upon the right heirs, to whom he primitively did be-queath it.

In those former darker times, this golden Ball was thrown up by the Clergy (so called) alone to run for among themselves: And as they quietly possessed the name,……….”

This is the book that John Owen credited with convincing him that Congregational church government is the biblical way.

Download the PDF here.

A third perversion of Acts 2:39 by Pedobaptist

A third perversion of this passage is committed. Our Pedobaptist brethren insist that the promise in question, relates to the blessings pledged in the covenant with Abraham. The promise as stated by Peter, was the gift of the Holy Ghost to believers. But their version is wholly different. They interpret the apostle as saying to the Jews: Your children [infants] shall [still] have as they have had, an interest in the covenant [with Abraham] and a title to the external seal of it,” all which the gospel gives to you, and consequently to them!

R. B. C. Howell- The Evils of Infant Baptism- Chapter 2- Infant Baptism is an evil because its defense leads to most injurious perversions of the Word of God

 

Learning to Preach from the Puritans

by Joel R. Beeke

The Puritan movement from the mid-sixteenth century to the early eighteenth century has been called the golden age of preaching. Through preaching and publishing their sermons, the Puritans sought to reform their church, their hearers, and their nation at large. Though they ultimately failed to reform the Church of England, they succeeded in reforming everyday life, ushering in, as Alexander F. Mitchell says, “a season of spiritual revival as deep and extensive as any that has since occurred in the history of the British Churches.”[1]

The Puritans set high standards for themselves as preachers. They were men of their own times in many ways, but they embraced sound, enduring principles of proclaiming God’s truth that every Christian preacher should adopt as his own. Here are a few of the principles ministers in the twenty-first….

Read the entire article at Credomagazine.

Benjamin Keach on Justification

by Tom Nettles

Editor’s Introduction

Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) became a Baptist at age 15, preached as a General Baptist, and suffered persecution, imprisonment, and the pillory for his convictions as a Baptist. After serving as an elder in a General Baptist congregation from 1668-1672, he became a Particular Baptist minister and founded the church at Horse-lie-Down in Southwark in London. He spent the remainder of his years as a zealous preacher of the gospel, an effective polemicist, a theoretician on principles of biblical interpretation, a poet, a hymn-writer, and a writer of allegory. His clear and bold defense of the doctrines of grace was informed by his previous years as an Arminian. He lived with sincere conviction that the doctrine of justification by faith was indeed the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. His sermons and expositional writings were filled with explanations of the centrality of this doctrine to a proper understanding of the grace of God.

In an exposition of Luke 7:42, “And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both,” Keach had an applicatory section explain how grace reigns through righteousness. Grace is not elevated in an unjust way………..

Read the entire article at Founders Ministries.