An Overview of Kenneth Gentry’s “The Divorce of Israel” By Jack Kettler
Introduction:
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.’s two-volume work, “The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation 18:1-19:3,” represents a significant contribution to the field of biblical eschatology, particularly within the frameworks of redemptive-historical interpretation and preterism. This scholarly commentary delves into the prophetic literature of the Book of Revelation, offering a detailed examination through the lens of realized eschatology.
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation:
Gentry’s approach employs redemptive-historical hermeneutics, which posits that the Bible’s narrative is not merely a collection of disjointed events but a cohesive story of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. In “The Divorce of Israel,” Gentry argues that the fall of Babylon, as depicted in Revelation, should not be understood as a future, end-times event but as an event within the historical context of the New Testament, particularly the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This perspective aligns the events of Revelation with the culmination of Old Testament prophecies, where the failure of Israel to uphold the covenant leads to its ‘divorce’ from God, symbolized by the fall of Babylon.
Gentry meticulously traces this theme through biblical texts, suggesting that the judgment on Babylon (Israel) in Revelation represents the final act of God’s historical dealings with the Old Covenant nation, thereby ushering in the New Covenant era. His method involves synthesizing Old Testament prophecies with New Testament fulfillment, arguing that the destruction of Jerusalem was both a literal historical event and a profound theological statement about the transition from the Mosaic to the Messianic covenant.
Preterist Perspective:
Central to Gentry’s commentary is his commitment to preterism, specifically a partial preterist viewpoint. In this context, Preterism interprets much of the prophecy in Revelation as having been fulfilled in the first century, particularly around the Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple. Gentry’s preterist interpretation of Revelation 18-19 posits that these chapters primarily concern the judgment on Jerusalem, not a far-future apocalypse.
He argues that the language of divine judgment in Revelation reflects a common biblical motif that describes significant historical and theological turning points, such as the destruction of Babylon, Tyre, and Nineveh in the Old Testament. Gentry’s detailed analysis includes historical accounts from Josephus and other sources to support his claim that the events described in Revelation align with the first-century Jewish calamity.
Thematic Focus:
1. Covenantal Dynamics: Gentry explores the covenantal relationship between God and Israel, culminating in a ‘divorce’ due to Israel’s unfaithfulness, which he correlates with the destruction of the Temple.
2. Symbolic Language: He interprets the symbolic language of Revelation not as literal future events but as a theological commentary on contemporary historical events, using apocalyptic imagery to convey divine judgment.
3. Eschatological Fulfillment: Gentry contends that Israel’s eschatological hopes find fulfillment in the coming of Christ and the establishment of the church rather than in a future millennial kingdom.
4. The Role of Babylon: According to Gentry, the city of Babylon in Revelation is not a literal city in the end times but a symbol of the corrupt socio-religious system of Jerusalem under the Old Covenant.
Critical Reception:
Gentry’s work has been both praised for its detailed exegesis and criticized for its interpretive framework. Critics often challenge his preterist views, arguing that such interpretations do not account for certain prophecies that seem to transcend the first-century context. However, supporters applaud his rigorous scholarly approach and ability to integrate historical data with biblical theology.
Conclusion:
“The Divorce of Israel” by Kenneth Gentry is a comprehensive exploration of the redemptive-historical and preterist interpretations of crucial passages in Revelation. His work challenges traditional futurist interpretations and invites a reconsideration of how eschatological prophecies might have been fulfilled in the historical events of the first century. Gentry’s commentary provides a rich, albeit controversial, resource for scholars, theologians, and students of biblical prophecy, offering a nuanced perspective of divine judgment and redemption in Christian theology.
Note: The Divorce of Israel is mentioned by Paul, “For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” (Romans 11:24) The divorce of Israel is not permanent, as Paul explains, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” (Romans 11:26)
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI at the direction of Jack Kettler.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The Regulative Principle of Worship By Jack Kettler
Reformed theology adheres to the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), which posits that only those elements explicitly commanded or modeled in Scripture are permissible in God’s worship. This principle contrasts with the normative principle, which allows for elements not forbidden by Scripture.
Understanding the Regulative Principle:
1. Divine Sovereignty: The RPW underscores God’s sovereignty over how He is to be worshipped, asserting that human innovations in worship could lead to idolatry or the worship of a false god.
2. Scriptural Basis: The principle is derived from several Scriptural passages:
· Deuteronomy 4:2 – “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.”
· Leviticus 10:1-3 – The story of Nadab and Abihu, who offered “strange fire” before the Lord and were consumed, illustrating that unauthorized worship can lead to divine displeasure.
· Exodus 20:4-6 – The Second Commandment against idolatry, interpreted broadly to mean not making or worshipping God in ways not prescribed by Him.
3. Historical Development: This principle was particularly emphasized during the Protestant Reformation by figures like John Calvin and later by the Puritans. It influenced the Westminster Assembly’s documents, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, “The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.”
4. Practical Implications: In practice, this means that elements of worship must find their warrant in Scripture. For example:
· Preaching – Based on the command to “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2).
· Prayer – Commanded throughout Scripture (e.g., Philippians 4:6).
· Singing of Psalms – Often exclusively Psalms due to direct commands like in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, though interpretations vary on the inclusion of hymns and spiritual songs.
5. Critique and Application: Critics argue that strict application could potentially limit the church’s ability to adapt culturally relevant expressions of worship. However, proponents maintain that such limitations ensure purity and divine approval in worship.
Biblical Proof:
· Exodus 20:4-6 – Prohibits making any likeness or image for worship, setting a boundary on human creativity in worship.
· Deuteronomy 12:29-32 – Warns against adopting the worship practices of other nations, emphasizing the uniqueness of how God should be worshipped.
· John 4:23-24 – Jesus teaches that true worshippers will worship in spirit and in truth, often interpreted within Reformed circles as worshipping according to the truth revealed in Scripture.
Reformed theology’s regulative principle thus seeks to preserve worship’s purity and God-ordained nature, ensuring it reflects divine will rather than human innovation. This principle, deeply rooted in Scripture, continues to influence worship practices in many Reformed churches today.
Elements Commanded or Modeled in Scripture:
1. The preaching of the Word:
· 2 Timothy 4:2 – “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”
2. Prayer:
· Philippians 4:6 – “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”
· 1 Timothy 2:1 – “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people.”
3. Singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs:
· Ephesians 5:19 – “Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart.”
· Colossians 3:16 – “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
4. Reading of Scripture:
· 1 Timothy 4:13 – “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.”
5. Administration of Sacraments:
· Baptism – Commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28:19 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
· The Lord’s Supper – Instituted by Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 – “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread…”
6. Confession of Sin:
· 1 John 1:9 – “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
7. Giving of Tithes and Offerings:
· 1 Corinthians 16:2 – “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so there will be no collecting when I come.”
8. Benediction:
· Numbers 6:24-26 – “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.”
Practical Application:
· Worship Services are often structured around these elements, with sermons, communal prayers, singing (which might be exclusively psalms in some stricter interpretations), scripture readings, and the sacraments.
· Consistency with Biblical Model: These elements are seen as consistent with how the early church worshipped as depicted in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 2:42 – “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”).
In practice, these elements are considered not just permissible but mandated or modeled for God’s worship, ensuring that every act of worship aligns with divine prescription rather than human invention.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
What did Job mean by receiving evil from the hand of the Lord? By Jack Kettler
Job states: “But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” (Job 2:10)
A Reformed Theological Perspective:
1. Sovereignty of God: From a Reformed viewpoint, Job’s response exemplifies the principle of divine sovereignty. God’s control over good and evil events underscores His omnipotence and the comprehensive nature of His providence. Job acknowledges that all events, whether perceived as good or evil, originate from or are permitted by God for His purposes.
2. Acceptance of Suffering: Job’s acceptance of suffering is not resignation but an act of faith. It reflects the Reformed understanding that God’s will, even in suffering, is for the ultimate good of His elect. Job does not blame God but accepts adversity as part of the divine plan, including the discipline or testing of faith.
3. Human Sinfulness and Divine Holiness: Job’s rebuke of his wife positions him as understanding the folly of human perspective against divine wisdom. This aligns with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity – that even in wisdom, human judgment is flawed compared to God’s perfect will. Despite his deep suffering, Job does not sin with his lips, emphasizing the holiness and righteousness of God even in the darkest times.
4. Theodicy: The passage touches on the problem of evil and suffering. From a Reformed perspective, Job’s stance is not about explaining evil but about trusting God’s righteousness despite evil. This trust is foundational in Reformed theology, where the mystery of God’s ways is acknowledged while maintaining His justice and love.
5. Faith and Obedience: Job’s response is not merely theological but deeply practical. It reflects a faith that endures trials, trusting in God’s character rather than immediate circumstances. This resonates with the Reformed emphasis on perseverance in faith, where true faith is proven through endurance and obedience to God, even in suffering.
6. Contrast with Human Wisdom: Job’s wife represents a common human reaction to suffering—despair or rebellion. Job’s rebuke highlights the folly of human wisdom, which cannot fathom divine purposes. This contrasts with divine wisdom, which sees beyond immediate pain to eternal purposes, a fundamental tenet in Reformed thought, where God’s wisdom often transcends human understanding.
What did Job mean by receiving evil from the hand of the Lord?
In the context of the Book of Job in the Old Testament of the Bible, Job is a man who experiences extreme suffering, which includes loss of wealth, family, and health. When his wife suggests that he curse God and die, Job responds with a famous line:
“Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10).
Here are some interpretations of what Job might have meant:
· Acceptance of Suffering: Job expresses a philosophical or theological acceptance that if one accepts blessings from God, one should also be prepared to accept adversity or suffering, seeing both as part of life’s experiences from God’s hand.
· The Sovereignty of God: This statement reflects an understanding that God is sovereign over all things, including both good and evil events in human life. Job acknowledges that everything, whether perceived as good or evil, comes under God’s control or permission.
· Test of Faith: Job’s response can be seen as a test of his faith. He is questioning whether praising God in prosperity is consistent but then renouncing Him in adversity. His statement could be seen as a resolve to remain faithful regardless of circumstances.
· Human Perception vs. Divine Purpose: This might also hint at the idea that what humans perceive as “evil” or suffering might serve a higher purpose or be part of a divine plan that humans cannot fully comprehend due to their limited perspective.
· Moral and Theological Reflection: Job’s words invite more profound reflection on the nature of God, justice, and suffering. It challenges the simplistic view that righteousness always leads to prosperity, suggesting instead that life’s complexities often defy simple explanations.
Theologically, this has been debated:
· Traditional Views: Some traditional interpretations might see this as an acknowledgment that God allows evil or permits it for reasons beyond human understanding, not that God directly does evil.
· Modern Interpretations: Some modern scholars might argue about the implications of attributing evil directly to God, often suggesting that “evil” here might refer more to misfortune or calamity rather than moral evil.
Job’s acceptance of both good and evil from God’s hand underscores a profound trust in divine wisdom, even when that wisdom appears harsh or incomprehensible from a human perspective. This narrative is pivotal in exploring the problem of suffering within the context of faith in a just and omnipotent God.
The word evil exegeted:
In Job 2:10, the Hebrew word often translated as “evil” is רע (pronounced “ra'”). Here’s a detailed exegesis:
1. Etymology and Basic Meaning: רע (ra’) fundamentally means “bad,” “evil,” or “displeasing” in Hebrew. It can refer to moral evil, calamity, disaster, or something that is not good.
2. Context in Job 2:10: In this verse, Job responds to his wife, who has suggested he “curse God and die.” Job replies, “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” (or “evil” in many translations). Here, רע likely encompasses both the idea of moral or ethical evil and the broader sense of misfortune, trouble, or adversity.
3. Theological Implications: Divine Sovereignty: Job acknowledges that both good (טוֹב – tov) and evil (רע – ra’) come from God. This doesn’t necessarily mean God is the originator of moral evil but rather that all events, good or bad, fall under His sovereignty.
4. Human Response: Job’s statement reflects a profound acceptance of life’s dualities, suggesting a theological worldview where trials are part of divine governance, not necessarily punitive but certainly within God’s plan.
5. Contrast with Other Scriptures: In other parts of the Bible, רע is used in contexts that denote moral evil (e.g., in commandments against doing evil). However, in contexts like Job or in discussions of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis, it might imply the full spectrum of human experience, not just moral categories.
6. Cultural Context: In ancient Near Eastern thought, including Hebrew culture, רע could describe anything contrary to well-being, harmony, or divine order. Thus, in Job’s context, it might refer to ethical or moral evil and any form of suffering or calamity.
7. Translation Variability: Different translations might render רע as “trouble,” “harm,” “disaster,” or “adversity” to capture the nuance of the context in Job rather than the strictly moral “evil.”
In summary, in Job 2:10, רע (evil) encapsulates the broader concept of adversity or misfortune that comes into human life, which Job accepts as part of divine governance, not just limited to moral or ethical wrongdoing. This reflects Job’s profound faith and acceptance of life’s hardships as part of a larger, divinely ordained plan.
In conclusion, Job 2:10, from a Reformed perspective, underscores the sovereignty of God, the acceptance of divine will in all circumstances, the contrast between human folly and divine wisdom, and the perseverance of faith. Job’s reaction is a personal response and a theological stance on how believers should understand and react to divine providence, even in extreme suffering.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Is the washing of feet in John 13:1-17 a commandment?By Jack Kettler
“It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean. When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly, I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.” (John 13:1-17) (Uderlinnig emphasis mine)
Having heard a sermon on this text recently, it seemed prudent to address some questions individuals may have.
Is the washing of feet in John 13:1-17 a commandment, or is it a culturally conditioned directive?
The washing of feet in John 13:1-17, where Jesus washes the disciples’ feet, is often debated in terms of whether it constitutes a direct commandment for all Christians or if it’s more of a culturally conditioned act meant to convey a broader principle.
Here are some points to consider:
1. Jesus’ Example and Command: Jesus explicitly says in John 13:14-15, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.” This can be interpreted as a direct command to perform the act of foot washing.
2. Cultural Context: In the time of Jesus, foot washing was a common act of hospitality and humility, especially necessary due to the dusty roads and the wearing of sandals. It was often done by the lowest servant in a household. Therefore, Jesus’ act was profoundly symbolic of humility and service.
3. Symbolic Interpretation: Many scholars and theologians argue that while the literal act of washing feet might not be directly applicable in all cultures today due to different social norms, the underlying principle of humility, service, and love is what Jesus intended to emphasize. This interpretation suggests that while the act itself might be culturally conditioned, the commandment to serve others in humility is universal.
4. Practical Application: Some Christian denominations have taken this passage to institute foot washing as a regular practice (like some Anabaptist groups or during Maundy Thursday services in various churches). However, for many, the principle is applied in acts of service and humility in various forms, not necessarily through literal foot washing.
5. Biblical Interpretation: There’s a spectrum in biblical interpretation. Some might argue for a literal application of all biblical directives, while others might see Jesus’ actions and words as illustrative of a broader ethic of love and service.
Given these points:
· If it’s a Commandment: Jesus does use imperative language, suggesting a command to emulate his act of service. However, whether this command is to be taken literally or symbolically can vary.
· If it’s Culturally Conditioned: The act of foot washing was culturally specific, but the principle of serving others in humility transcends cultural boundaries. Thus, while the literal act might not be universally practiced, the principle it represents is seen as a commandment.
What was John Calvin’s position on John 13: 1-17?
John Calvin, the prominent Protestant Reformer, provided extensive commentary on various passages of the Bible, including John 13:1-17, which describes Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. Here’s a summary of Calvin’s position on this passage:
1. Humility and Service: Calvin emphasizes that Jesus washing the disciples’ feet is a profound example of humility and service. He sees this act as Jesus demonstrating that no service is beneath the dignity of a Christian, no matter how lowly or menial it might seem. This act serves as a model for all believers to follow, showing that true greatness in the Kingdom of God is measured by one’s willingness to serve others.
2. Spiritual Cleansing: In his commentary, Calvin discusses the dialogue between Jesus and Peter, particularly focusing on Jesus’ words about being clean. He interprets this not just as physical cleanliness but as spiritual purity. Calvin points out that while the disciples were generally clean (justified by faith), they still needed ongoing sanctification, symbolized by the washing of their feet. This highlights the need for continual repentance and cleansing from daily sins.
3. The Role of Christ: Calvin also uses this passage to discuss the role of Christ as the servant who cleanses his people. He connects this act to Christ’s ultimate act of service on the cross, where he cleanses believers from all sin.
4. The Example for Disciples: Calvin stresses that Jesus did not just perform this act for its own sake but as an example for the disciples to emulate. He argues that Christians are called to serve one another in love, humility, and without seeking personal glory.
5. Theological Implications: Beyond practical application, Calvin sees theological depth in this act. It underscores the doctrine of grace, where Christ, the Lord, stoops to serve, illustrating the nature of divine love and grace that is freely given, not earned.
Calvin’s commentary often goes into great detail, linking practical Christian living with deep theological truths. For John 13:1-17, he weaves together the themes of humility, service, spiritual cleansing, and the exemplary life of Christ for believers to follow. If you’re looking for a direct quote or a more detailed analysis, you might want to refer to Calvin’s “Commentary on the Gospel According to John,” where he expounds on these verses in depth.
In summary, while Jesus’ directive can be seen as a commandment, many interpret it as commanding the spirit of the act rather than the act itself, due to cultural shifts. Therefore, it might be more accurate to say it’s both: a culturally conditioned act that conveys a timeless commandment of love and service.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
What does Jesus mean by hate in Luke 14:26? By Jack Kettler
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
The above passage from Luke has perplexed many young Christians. How is this passage to be understood, and in particular, what is meant by hate? Is it literal?
A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26:
Luke 14:26 presents a complex and often misunderstood passage where Jesus declares, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” This statement seems to contradict the broader biblical commandment to honor one’s parents and love one’s neighbor. However, a Reformed theological exegesis of this verse suggests a deeper meaning.
In Reformed theology, the term “hate” in this context does not imply a sinful emotion of hostility or anger but rather a relative comparison in terms of loyalty and devotion. Jesus is not advocating for actual hatred or disregard of family or self, but emphasizing the radical commitment required to follow Him.
This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s call’s supremacy and discipleship’s radical nature. Jesus’ words in Luke 14:26 echo His earlier statement in Matthew 10:37, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” The point is not that one should actually hate family members or oneself but that one’s allegiance to Christ must be absolute, surpassing all other loyalties.
This interpretation is also consistent with the Reformed emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the total depravity of man. Reformed theology teaches that man is so corrupted by sin that he cannot come to Christ unless God first regenerates him. In this light, the call to hate one’s family and oneself can be seen as a call to renounce one’s own sinful nature and to rely completely on God’s grace, a comforting truth for all believers.
The exegesis is stated in logical form:
Premise 1: Reformed theology interprets the term “hate” in Luke 14:26 as a relative comparison of loyalty and devotion rather than a sinful emotion of hostility or anger.
Premise 2: Jesus emphasizes the radical commitment required to follow Him, surpassing all other loyalties.
Premise 3: This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s supremacy and the radical nature of discipleship.
Premise 4: Reformed theology teaches that man is so corrupted by sin that he cannot come to Christ unless God first regenerates him.
Conclusion: A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26 understands Jesus’ words as a call to absolute, radical commitment to Christ, surpassing all other loyalties, consistent with Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, human depravity, and the radical nature of discipleship.
In summary:
A Reformed theological exegesis of Luke 14:26 understands Jesus’ words not as a call to actual hatred but as a call to absolute, radical commitment to Christ, surpassing all other loyalties. This interpretation is consistent with Reformed doctrines of God’s sovereignty, human depravity, and the radical nature of discipleship.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism saves? By Jack Kettler
“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21)
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8)
Does Peter contradict Paul? Are believers saved by baptism or grace?
No, Peter does not contradict Paul. Both passages address different aspects of salvation.
In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter emphasizes the role of baptism as a symbol of salvation. He says that the act of baptism itself does not save us, but it is a sign or symbol of the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. The “answer of a good conscience toward God” refers to the faith and repentance that are necessary for salvation.
In Ephesians 2:8, Paul emphasizes the role of grace in salvation. He says that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned by our own works. Faith is the means by which we receive this gift of salvation.
Both passages emphasize different aspects of the same truth: salvation is a gift from God, received by faith in Jesus Christ, and symbolized by baptism.
An Introduction:
Reformed theologians typically interpret 1 Peter 3:21 to mean that baptism is a sign and seal of salvation rather than a requirement for salvation. This interpretation is based on several key points:
1. The context of 1 Peter 3:20-21: The passage refers to the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark during the flood. The ark is seen as a type or figure of baptism, and the water of the flood is a type of the water of baptism. Just as the ark saved Noah and his family, this is how baptism saves believers. However, the Reformed view emphasizes that it is not the physical act of baptism that saves, but the faith in Christ symbolized by baptism.
2. The phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” indicates that the physical act of baptism itself does not remove sin or save. Rather, it is the “answer of a good conscience toward God” that saves through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
3. The emphasis on faith: Reformed theologians often point out that the New Testament consistently emphasizes faith, not baptism, as the means of salvation. For example, Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
4. The analogy with the Lord’s Supper: Reformed theologians often draw an analogy between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Just as the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper symbolize Christ’s body and blood but do not actually become them, this is how the water of baptism symbolizes the washing away of sin but does not actually accomplish this.
Here is a logical representation of the passage:
1. The example of Noah’s preservation in the flood is a figure (type) of our baptism.
2. Our baptism does not save us by the physical act of washing away the filth of the flesh.
3. Our baptism saves us by providing an appeal to God with a good conscience.
4. This appeal to God with a good conscience is made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
5. The resurrection of Jesus Christ, which demonstrates his power and authority, is the means by which he defends and preserves us today.
In logical form:
∀x (x is saved by baptism ↔ x appeals to God with a good conscience)
∀x (x appeals to God with a good conscience ↔ x is preserved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ)
In summary:
Reformed theologians believe that 1 Peter 3:21 teaches baptism as a sign and seal of salvation but not a requirement for salvation. The passage compares the salvation of Noah and his family in the flood to the salvation of believers through baptism. It emphasizes that baptism, like the flood, is a type or figure of salvation, but the faith and repentance symbolized by baptism will save believers, not the physical act of washing. The passage also highlights the role of grace in salvation, stating that it is a gift from God that cannot be earned by our own works.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
This is not fair, cries the Arminian By Jack Kettler
“Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” (Romans 9:20-23)
How is the objection to God’s sovereign choices answered?
Paul, in Romans 9:20-23, answers the objector. Unfortunately, many Christians do not like the answer that Paul provides. The following study will explore Paul’s answer in greater detail.
The passage from Romans 9:20-23 presents a profound defense of God’s sovereign right to elect some to salvation while passing over others. Paul, in his wisdom, anticipates an objection from his audience, asking who they are to question God’s actions (v. 20). Paul then employs a powerful metaphor of a potter and clay to illustrate the unfathomable authority God holds over His creation (v. 21). Just as a potter has the right to shape and use clay as he sees fit, so too does God have the right to create and use people as He chooses (v. 21).
Moreover, in v. 21, Paul uses the argument from the lesser to the greater, suggesting that if a potter has the power to shape and mold his clay as he pleases, then surely God, the creator of all things, has even greater power to form and order his creatures as he sees fit. The authority of God over his creations far surpasses that of a potter over his clay. Unlike the potter, who did not create the clay, both the clay and the potter were made by God. This implies that there is no difference in the material or substance out of which the potter creates various vessels, just as there is no difference in the nature of mankind. All are born into the same corrupt state, both those who are chosen and those who are rejected, those who become vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath. The text also expresses that, as the potter forms vessels of honor or dishonor, of nobler or viler use, from the same lump of clay, according to his will, without needing to justify his actions to his creations, so God may choose some and reject others, without being accountable to his creatures. The potter does not take anything away from the clay, regardless of the form he gives it; similarly, the Creator does no wrong to the creature, no matter how he disposes of it.
Summarizing Paul’s thought thus far:
1. He thereby manifesteth his great displeasure against sin and his power to take vengeance on sinners. Seeing:
2. He bears long with them in their sins; exerciseth great patience towards them in the midst of their provocations, giving them space to repent if they call or will. And seeing:
3. They are vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction, partly by themselves and their own sensual courses, partly by God’s righteous judgment, who gives them up thereunto.
Next, Paul proceeds to describe two types of vessels that God has created: those prepared for destruction and those prepared for glory (v. 22). The former are described as ‘vessels of wrath,’ while the latter are ‘vessels of mercy.’ This distinction is not based on merit or demerit in the vessels themselves but on God’s divine will and purpose (v. 23), reassuring us of His perfect plan.
In these verses (22-23), a response is provided to the objection raised in Romans 9:19 concerning God’s right and power to dispose of his creatures as he sees fit, akin to a potter’s treatment of his clay. The apostle anticipates potential accusations of tyranny and partiality against God and offers justification for his disparate treatment of different individuals.
The reasons for God’s actions are outlined as follows:
1. By taking a severe course with some, God demonstrates his intense displeasure against sin and his ability to exact vengeance upon sinners.
2. He exhibits remarkable patience towards these individuals, tolerating their transgressions and allowing them to repent if they choose to do so.
3. These individuals are described as vessels of wrath, destined for destruction, due to their own sinful actions and God’s righteous judgment, which has left them in such a state.
The passage concludes with Paul emphasizing that God has endured the vessels of wrath with much patience, a testament to His boundless mercy, allowing them to remain in their state of sin for a time in order to display His wrath and power (v. 22). This is done so that He might make known the riches of His glory to the vessels of mercy, whom He has prepared for glory from the beginning (v. 23).
In summary, the passage teaches that God’s election of some to salvation and passing over of others is a sovereign act that is not based on human merit or demerit. It is a manifestation of His perfect justice and mercy, and it ultimately glorifies His name and displays His power and wrath against sin.
On an emotional level, how, according to Reformed theology, does one respond to someone who says, “I did not ask to be created?”
Reformed theology suggests that while a person didn’t ask to be created, their existence is part of a divine plan. So, instead of focusing on the fact that an individual didn’t get a say in being born, maybe consider that they are here for a reason.
Or,
According to Reformed theology, a person’s response to being created without consent might be acknowledging the mystery of existence and God’s sovereignty. It’s like being handed a script for a play you didn’t audition for. One can either spend the whole performance complaining about the part they were given or make the most of it and try to understand God’s plan.
A theological response:
A Reformed theologian would likely respond to this objection by emphasizing God’s absolute sovereignty over all of His creation. According to the Reformed view, God is the ultimate authority and the source of all existence. As such, He has the right to create and to do with His creation as He sees fit.
In response to the objection that one did not ask to be created, a Reformed theologian might point to the passage from Romans 9:20-23, which states that the created thing (i.e., the person) has no right to question the Creator. Just as a potter has the right to shape and use the clay as he sees fit, so too does God have the right to create and use people as He chooses.
Furthermore, a Reformed theologian might argue that the objection misunderstands the nature of God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty does not depend on the consent or approval of His creatures. Rather, it is an inherent aspect of His being as the omnipotent Creator.
In short, a Reformed theologian would likely respond to this objection by affirming the absolute sovereignty of God and emphasizing that His right to create and to elect some to salvation while passing over others does not depend on the consent or approval of His creatures.
Two Principles, Sovereignty and Responsibility:
The first theological principle posits that from the beginning of time, God has predestined a group of individuals from the entirety of fallen humanity for His own purpose without considering any inherent merit of those chosen. This divine selection is not based on personal worthiness but on God’s sovereign will. Moreover, God ensures this chosen group’s salvation through the atonement of their sins by Jesus Christ and by exerting His authority to overcome their resistance and lead them to faith.
The second principle underscores that individuals who ultimately face damnation and separation from God do so as a consequence of their own culpable pride and sinfulness. No innocent individuals are condemned; all who are lost have willfully turned away from the evident manifestations of God’s power and glory in nature and the gospel. Those who genuinely seek salvation through Christ are not denied it. No one is held accountable for failing to acknowledge, believe, or obey a truth that was inaccessible to them. All instances of damnation and judgment are a direct result of conscious rebellion against the revealed knowledge of God.
In conclusion, Paul’s argument in Romans 9:20-23 can be stated in logical form as follows:
Premise 1: God is the creator and has the right to use his creation as he sees fit.
Premise 2: Humans are part of God’s creation and, therefore, subject to his will.
Premise 3: It is not appropriate for the created (humans) to question the creator (God).
Conclusion: Therefore, it is not appropriate for humans to question God’s actions or decisions.
The argument can be further broken down as follows:
1. God has the right to use his creation as he sees fit (implied in the potter-clay analogy).
2. Humans are part of God’s creation.
3. Therefore, God has the right to use humans as he sees fit.
4. It is not appropriate for the created (humans) to question the creator (God).
5. Therefore, it is not appropriate for humans to question God’s actions or decisions.
This logical form captures the essence of Paul’s argument, which is based on the sovereignty of God and the relationship between the creator and the created.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The believer’s eternal security is guaranteed by their justification. By Jack Kettler
A comprehensive exploration of the doctrine and its profound implications is not only beneficial but crucial to fully comprehend the assertion in this study’s title. It’s not uncommon to encounter those whose understanding of justification is lacking. For instance, some may interpret justification as “just as if I never did it.” While this interpretation holds truth, it only scratches the surface of the profound riches of Christ’s grace in justification.
To start, scratching the surface:
Justification is an act of God’s free grace. It’s not about infusing righteousness into us, but rather God pardoning our sins and accepting us as righteous because of Christ’s work. Moreover, it’s not for anything we’ve done or will do but for Christ’s sake alone. This is an improvement on the above simplistic view.
Explaining the doctrine of justification:
The phrase “Simul Justus Et Peccator” is a Latin expression commonly associated with Reformed theology, particularly in the context of the Protestant Reformation. It translates to “simultaneously justified and sinner” in English. This concept captures a key aspect of a Reformed understanding of the Christian’s state before God and what it means to be justified.
The English word justification comes from the Latin word justificare. Luther saw in Scripture that being justified involved the believer being made righteous by Christ’s righteousness, not our own. Hence, it is called justitia alienum, a foreign or alien righteousness, a righteousness that belongs to someone else, namely, Christ. Christ’s righteousness is credited to us through the instrumentality of faith, which is a gracious gift as seen in Ephesians 2:8.
In Reformed theology, “Simul Justus Et Peccator” emphasizes a paradoxical tension in a believer’s life. It acknowledges that, through faith in Christ, a person is justified before God and declared righteous on account of Christ’s atonement for their sins. Justification is seen as an act of God’s grace, not based on human merit but on the imputed righteousness of Christ. Moreover, this justification is a one-time event. This will become clear as the study unfolds.
However, at the same time, believers continue to grapple with their sinfulness. The phrase underscores the ongoing reality of human sinfulness and the struggle against sin that Christians experience throughout their lives. Despite being justified in the sight of God, believers still contend with the effects of sin in their daily lives.
In summary, “Simul Justus Et Peccator” encapsulates the Reformed theological understanding that believers are both justified before God through faith in Christ and, at the same time, continue to struggle with sin as they await the full realization of their redemption. It reflects the tension between the already accomplished justification and the ongoing process of sanctification in the Christian life.
Scriptural proof for the phrase “Simul Justus Et Peccator:”
The phrase “Simul Justus Et Peccator” is not explicitly found in the Bible but is a theological concept derived from biblical teachings. The idea behind the phrase is rooted in various passages that highlight the tension between justification and the ongoing reality of sin in a believer’s life.
Common Bible verses that are often referenced in support of this concept:
1. Romans 3:23-24: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”
Romans 3:23-24 emphasizes the universal reality of sin but also points to justification through God’s grace in Christ.
2. Romans 7:14-25: “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”
In Romans 7:14-25, the Apostle Paul describes his ongoing struggle with sin while acknowledging his deliverance through Jesus Christ.
3. Philippians 3:12-14: “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus..”
Paul in Philippians 3:12-14 acknowledges that he is not yet perfect but continues to press on toward Christ, indicating an ongoing process.
4. 1 John 1:8-10: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”
This passage from 1 John 1:8-10 underscores the need for ongoing confession of sin and the assurance of forgiveness through Christ.
Justification is a Forensic Declaration:
The Protestant doctrine of Justification is forensic because it involves God declaring sinners righteous based on Christ’s righteousness rather than their own merit or works. This declaration is a legal, judicial act of God, not a process of making the sinner righteous over time, such as the infused righteousness scheme, which confuses justification and sanctification.
Scriptural support for a forensic declaration includes:
1. Romans 3:21 – 24: “But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
2. Romans 4:2-8 – “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.’”
3. Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
4. Galatians 2:15 – 16: “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”
5. Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”
These passages show that justification is a declaration of God based on faith in Christ, not on the sinner’s own works or merit. This declaration is a one-time event; to maintain otherwise opens the door to complete nonsense and contradictions.
An important further clarification:
Justification is a free act of God. What sins are considered when someone receives this declaration of justification? Are only past sins up until the present considered when the recipient is declared just, or are all of a person’s past, present, and future sins considered?
According to Reformed theology, when someone receives the declaration of justification, all of their sins are considered—past, present, and future. This is often referred to as the “full, free, and irrevocable” nature of justification.
Reformed theologians emphasized that justification is not a process such as sanctification but a one-time declaration by God based on Christ’s finished work on the cross. This means that when a person is justified, all of their sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven and covered by Christ’s righteousness. At this point, the diligent student can see that justification and the believer’s security are inseparable. Security follows from justification.
This understanding is rooted in passages like Romans 8:1, which states, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Reformed theologians interpret this to mean that once a person is in Christ, they are forever free from condemnation, regardless of their future sins.
To review, Reformed theology teaches that when a person receives the declaration of justification, all of their sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven and covered by Christ’s righteousness, which guarantees their eternal security.
The Reformed doctrine of eternal security, often referred to as the “perseverance of the saints,” holds that once a person is truly saved, they cannot lose their salvation. This doctrine is based on several key points:
1. God’s Sovereignty: Reformed theology emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation. If God has chosen someone for salvation, He is believed to ensure their perseverance until the end.
2. The Power of Christ’s Death: The doctrine of eternal security is closely tied to the belief that Christ’s death is fully atoned for the sins of those who believe in Him. Since Christ’s sacrifice is considered sufficient and complete, it would be inconsistent for a believer to lose their salvation.
3. The Seal of the Holy Spirit: The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells believers and acts as a seal, guaranteeing their inheritance in Christ. This is seen as proof that a believer cannot lose their salvation, as the Spirit’s presence is a permanent mark of God’s ownership.
4. The Nature of Faith: In Reformed theology, faith is not seen as something that can be lost or abandoned by the believer but rather as a gift from God that is preserved by Him.
5. The Promises of Scripture: The doctrine of eternal security is supported by various Bible passages that promise the believer’s security. For example, John 10:28-29 states that no one can snatch believers out of the Father’s hand.
In summary, the Reformed doctrine of eternal security holds that once a person is truly saved, they are eternally secure in Christ, and their salvation cannot be lost. This is based on the belief in God’s sovereignty, the power of Christ’s death, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, the nature of faith, and the promises of Scripture.
Justification from the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 11:
“I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.
III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith, a foundational document for many Protestant denominations, affirms the eternal security of believers in the following statement:
“They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” This quotation is found in the chapter “Of the Perseverance of the Saints,” specifically in section 1.
The Confession teaches that believers who have been chosen by God, called by Him, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit will not ultimately fall away from their faith but will continue in their spiritual journey and be saved eternally.
The Golden Chain of Salvation:
The “Golden Chain of Salvation” in Romans 8:29-30 refers to a sequence of five actions of God in the process of salvation:
1. Foreknowledge (Romans 8:29)
2. Predestination (Romans 8:29)
3. Calling (Romans 8:30)
4. Justification (Romans 8:30)
5. Glorification (Romans 8:30)
These verses in the King James Version read as follows:
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29)
“Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)
In Review:
In theological terms, the doctrine of justification refers to the act by which God declares a sinner righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. It is a legal or forensic term, meaning that God declares the sinner to be not guilty and righteous, not because of any righteousness of their own, but because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them.
The significance of justification being a past-tense event lies in its finality and completeness. When a person places their faith in Jesus Christ, they are immediately and fully justified. This means they are forgiven of all their sins – past, present, and future – and declared righteous in God’s sight. This justification is not a process that happens over time but a once-for-all event.
This doctrine is important because it emphasizes God’s grace in salvation. It is not something that we can earn or work towards, but a free gift that is given to us by God’s grace alone. It also provides assurance of salvation, as it is not based on our own performance or worthiness but on the finished work of Christ on the cross.
In summary, the fact that the believer’s justification is a past-tense event underscores the completeness and finality of God’s forgiveness and righteousness in the believer’s life and the assurance of salvation that comes from God’s grace alone.
Romans chapter 8, verses 29 and 30. As you know, these verses are what we’re calling “God’s golden chain of salvation,” and there are five links in this golden chain of salvation. It begins in eternity past in verse 29. It extends into time and then into eternity’s future in verse 30.
In closing, true justification guarantees the eternal security of believers, logically stated:
Premise 1: True justification is a forensic declaration by God that a person is righteous based on their faith in Christ.
Premise 2: God’s declarations are true and cannot be revoked or contradicted.
Premise 3: A person who is truly justified has been declared righteous by God and has been given eternal life.
Conclusion: Therefore, true justification guarantees the eternal security of believers, as God’s declaration of their righteousness cannot be revoked, and they have been given eternal life.
Justification and the believer’s eternal security are inseparably linked. If you have been justified, you will be glorified!
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44)
Regarding verse 44, it can be said:
In the Gospel of John, chapter 6, verse 44, one encounters a profound and theologically rich passage that has been a subject of intense debate among scholars and theologians for centuries.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
This verse is part of Jesus’s larger discourse, commonly known as the “Bread of Life Discourse,” in which he discusses the nature of salvation, the role of faith, and the relationship between the Father and the Son.
From a Reformed theological perspective, John 6:44 is often interpreted in light of the doctrine of predestination, which posits that God chose certain individuals for salvation before the world was created. This view is grounded in the belief that human beings cannot come to God on their own accord due to their fallen nature.
In John 6:44, the Greek verb “ἑλκύω” (helkúō), translated as “draws” in most English translations, is significant. The term can carry the connotation of “pulling” or “dragging,” which some Reformed theologians interpret as implying a strong, irresistible action on the part of God. This interpretation aligns with the Reformed understanding of God’s sovereign grace in salvation, where God initiates and ensures the completion of the process.
The verse also emphasizes the role of the Father in the salvation process. It suggests that the Father “draws” people to Jesus, implying a divine initiative that precedes and enables human response. This aligns with the Reformed doctrine of “monergism,” which posits that salvation is entirely a work of God, with no cooperation or contribution from the human side.
Furthermore, John 6:44 is often connected with John 6:37, which states:
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me, I will never drive away.” (John 6:37)
This verse reinforces the idea that the Father’s “drawing” is a sovereign act that results in the individual coming to Jesus. Thus, the “coming” to Jesus is seen as a result of the Father’s drawing, not as a condition for it.
Several supporting passages in agreement with John 6:44:
1. Ephesians 1:5 – “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”
2. Romans 8:29-30 – “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son… Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified.”
3. Ephesians 1:11 – “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”
4. Romans 11:2 – “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.”
5. 1 Peter 1:2 – “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”
6. Ephesians 1:4 – “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.”
7. Romans 8:30 – “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified.”
8. 2 Timothy 1:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”
9. Ephesians 1:11 – “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”
10. Romans 9:11 – “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.”
In conclusion, from a Reformed theological perspective, John 6:44 is a crucial verse that underscores God’s sovereign grace in salvation. It highlights the divine initiative in drawing people to Jesus and the monergistic nature of the salvation process. While this interpretation has been the subject of much debate, it remains a foundational aspect of Reformed Soteriology.
A real-world example of the above exegesis from John 6:44:
C.S. Lewis’s quote about being brought to the faith “kicking and screaming” is:
“In the Trinity Term of 1929, I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”
Lewis made this statement in his autobiography Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. He described his conversion as reluctant, feeling he was:
“dragged into the kingdom kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape.”
Whether or not one’s conversion was like Lews’ or not John Bunyan’s allegorical Holy War is relevant and instructive:
John Bunyan’s The Holy War, published in 1682, is a complex and layered allegory that explores the spiritual journey of the human soul through the metaphor of a besieged city. The narrative unfolds in the town of Mansoul, which is initially under the rule of King Shaddai but is later captured by the forces of Diabolus. The story traces Mansoul’s struggle under Diabolus’s rule and its eventual liberation by the army of Emanuel, a figure representing Christ.
Bunyan’s allegory operates on multiple levels. On the surface, it is a dramatic tale of a city’s fall and redemption. However, beneath this narrative lies a deeper, more personal allegory reflecting Bunyan’s spiritual journey and understanding of the Christian faith. The characters and events in the story are symbolic representations of spiritual and psychological states. For example, the town of Mansoul represents the human soul, while Diabolus and Emanuel represent the forces of evil and good, respectively.
Bunyan’s use of allegory in The Holy War is sophisticated and multi-layered, allowing him to explore complex theological and psychological concepts in a narrative form. Through his characters and their experiences, Bunyan illustrates the battle between good and evil, the nature of sin and redemption, and the role of faith in the Christian life.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” (Hebrews 6:4)
From a Reformed theological perspective, Hebrews 6:4 is a challenging and often debated passage. The verse can be understood in parts: ‘For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.’
Reformed theologians generally interpret this passage in the context of the broader argument of the book of Hebrews, which is to warn against apostasy and encourage perseverance in the faith. The author is addressing a group of Jewish Christians who were tempted to return to Judaism and abandon their faith in Christ.
The key phrase in verse 4 is “if they fall away.” Reformed theologians generally understand this phrase to refer to a hypothetical situation rather than an actual event. In other words, the author is not saying that genuine believers can lose their salvation, but rather that if such a thing were possible (which it is not), it would be impossible to be restored to repentance.
Reformed theologians also emphasize the severity of the sin of apostasy. The author compares it to crucifying Christ again and putting Him to an open shame. This is a strong warning against turning away from the faith and highlights the seriousness of the sin of apostasy.
Several Reformed theologians who can be referenced in defense of the above interpretation of Hebrews 6:4 include:
· John Calvin – The Institutes of the Christian Religion
· R.C. Sproul – The Holiness of God
· Wayne Grudem – Systematic Theology
· Michael Horton – The Christian Faith
· Herman Bavinck – Reformed Dogmatics
· Louis Berkhof – Systematic Theology
· John Owen – The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
· Francis Turretin – Institutes of Elenctic Theology
These theologians provide a Reformed perspective on the passage and can be appealed to in defense of the above interpretation.
To make a logical argument that this interpretation is required to avoid contradictions with other portions of scripture, the following should be considered:
1. The context of the passage: The passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 is part of a more extensive section (Hebrews 5:11-6:20) that addresses the need for spiritual maturity and perseverance in the faith. The author warns against falling away from the faith and emphasizes the importance of moving forward in spiritual growth.
2. The use of conditional language: The passage uses conditional language (“if they fall away”) to describe the impossibility of being restored to repentance. This suggests that the author is presenting a hypothetical scenario rather than stating a certainty.
3. The broader biblical teaching on salvation: The Bible consistently teaches that salvation is a gift of God’s grace, received through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9). It also teaches that true believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit and are kept secure in Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14; John 10:28-29). If the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 were interpreted to mean that true believers can lose their salvation, it would contradict these clear biblical teachings.
4. The nature of God’s love and grace: The Bible teaches that God’s love and grace are unconditional and unchanging (Romans 8:38-39; Hebrews 13:8). If the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 were interpreted to mean that God’s love and grace can be lost or forfeited, it would contradict these teachings.
5. The need for a consistent hermeneutic: A consistent hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is essential for understanding the Bible correctly. If the passage in Hebrews 6:4-6 were interpreted to mean that true believers can lose their salvation, it would require an inconsistent hermeneutic that contradicts Scripture’s clear teachings on salvation, God’s love and grace, and the perseverance of the saints.
6. Considering these points, we can make a logical numbered argument that interpreting Hebrews 6:4-6 as a hypothetical warning against apostasy, rather than a statement that true believers can lose their salvation, is required to avoid contradictions with other portions of Scripture.
Additional thoughts:
In Hebrews 6:4, the term “enlightened” describes a person exposed to the gospel’s truth to a certain degree. However, this enlightenment does not necessarily equate to a true conversion or salvation.
Think of it like this: just because someone has tasted a delicious meal doesn’t mean they’ve eaten the whole thing and are now nourished by it. Similarly, just because someone has been exposed to the light of the gospel doesn’t mean they’ve fully embraced it and been transformed by it.
True conversion involves more than intellectual understanding or emotional experience; it requires genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. So, while enlightenment is a good start, it’s different from being truly saved.
In other words, enlightenment is like a spark that can ignite a fire, not the fire itself. True conversion is the fire that burns within, fueled by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.
In conclusion:
From a Reformed theological perspective, Hebrews 6:4 is a hypothetical warning against apostasy and a solid encouragement to persevere in the faith. The passage does not teach that genuine believers can lose their salvation but rather that the sin of apostasy is a serious and shameful act that should be avoided at all costs.
The above study was Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 