Discussion of the first article of the "affirmations" and in particular Psalms 2

[agedman]

In the first article, the framers used Psalm 2 as a proof of "God’s desire for every person to be saved."

I thought I would begin by showing how one of their proofs was taken completely out of rational application.


Psalm 2:1-12;

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.​

I suppose the framers of the articles zeroed in on the very last verse to the neglect of the others.

However, one merely needs to look at the Psalm to understand that the context is NOT applicable to this current age but the millennial reign.

Verse 1 - 5 speaks of the coming tribulation rule of antichrist and God's reaction. Note that the counsel is "against the Lord and His anointed" The Lord and the believers of the tribulation is the proper application of that section of verses for it then fits the rest of the passage properly. No other rendering will place it in harmony with the rest. For someone to attempt to place it into the current age of grace (or church age) doesn't fit historically to the statements made in the verses.
Verse 6 Has God seating His Son upon the literal throne on this earth in Zion the holy city - Jerusalem. That is done during the Millennial reign.
Verse 8 Has God giving all the heathen for His Son's inheritance to the uttermost reaches of the whole earth? That is done during the Millennial reign.
Verses 9- 12 Has God having broken the heathen, all the kings of earth serving the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling? That is done during the Millennial reign.​

Certainly, all that have put their trust in Him are blessed; that does not remove the Psalm from being applicable ONLY to the millennial reign.

This is but ONE selection of verses taken out of proper application and embraced into another that it has no form to fit.

I will move to others of the "proofs" (or others may join in) to show how in application the "affirmations" are very weak in doctrine and stretch for support upon Scriptural scaffolding that is faulty.

I welcome your discussion of this passage and others of the first article as we systematically begin to discern the truth from error.

It is my hope that the typical BB reader will use their own Bibles and resource materials to tease out edification and enhance their own understanding of the great doctrines so that they will not be shoved about by just any wind of doctrine as a ship with no rudder.

Of course there will be disagreements on the thread(s), but as each participates, it is my desire that the truth of God's word and not mere humankind is exalted.

 

[jonathan.borland]

In the first article, the framers used Psalm 2 as a proof of "God’s desire for every person to be saved."

Actually, Article One is on "The Gospel."

I thought I would begin by showing how one of their proofs was taken completely out of rational application.

Allow me to quote Article One:

Articles of Affirmation and Denial. Article One: The Gospel:
We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.

We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.

Just so you know, any of the verses listed below an Article may be supportive of any of the phrases used in the statements of affirmation or denial. The force of your post is impotent since you didn't, nor can you, prove for what statement Psalm 2 was listed in support. Perhaps Psalm 2 was listed in reference to "a way of salvation . . . for any person" (Psalm 2:12b: "Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."). But what if Psalm 2:8 was intended specifically? Does it not support the idea of God's sovereignty in bequeathing the nations to his Son? John Piper specifically references this verse twice in just such a way in his Let the Nations Be Glad! God provides a way of salvation to all peoples, not just some of them.

 

[agedman]

All soteriological views support the first sentence and had that been the end, there would have been no disagreement.

However, because the second sentence defines the intent of the first sentence, and the denial seeks to clarify the first statement, I placed the emphasis of the post in the appropriate position.

The point of using the psalm is misplaced by the affirmation into an attempt to apply it to this modern age rather than to the appropriate group of humankind it is to be applied; because it does not support the statement, the affirmation is therefore weakened.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The point is you can't know exactly what part of the Article the crafters meant when they listed Psalm 2. Perhaps it was affirmation of "the Lord Jesus Christ" as in Matt 3:17; 4:3; Luke 3:22; John 1:49; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5. Perhaps it was to affirm that there's a "way of salvation . . . for any person," as in Psalm 2:12b. Perhaps it was to affirm that all the nations are called to serve the Lord (Psalm 2:8, 11). Perhaps it was to show the alternative to salvation that God offers to all who serve and trust in him, namely, terrifying judgment and death. So not only (1) can you not know what part of the Psalm the authors intended for what part of their Article 1, but also (2) you cannot prove that no part of the Psalm is applicable to any part of the statement.

 

[agedman]

The point is you can't know exactly what part of the Article the crafters meant when they listed Psalm 2.

Sure one can - it was clarified in the denial section of the statement.

Perhaps it was affirmation of "the Lord Jesus Christ" as in Matt 3:17; 4:3; Luke 3:22; John 1:49; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5. Perhaps it was to affirm that there's a "way of salvation . . . for any person," as in Psalm 2:12b.

But that is exactly the point. They have taken Psalm 2 out of audience and context and attempted to affirm what it was never meant to affirm. Psalm 2 does NOT affirm that salvation is to "any person."

Perhaps it was to affirm that all the nations are called to serve the Lord (Psalm 2:8, 11). Perhaps it was to show the alternative to salvation that God offers to all who serve and trust in him, namely, terrifying judgment and death. So not only (1) can you not know what part of the Psalm the authors intended for what part of their Article 1, but also (2) you cannot prove that no part of the Psalm is applicable to any part of the statement.

I have made proof, twice now.

There is no other proper application of the Psalm. Attempts to move it into this current (age of grace) are not consistent within the context of the Psalm nor is it historically consistent with humankind at this time.

The Psalm is prophetic in application, and, as has been posted, can only fit into tribulation/millennial times.

To state that I cannot "not know what part of the Psalm the authors intended for what part of their Article 1" is lacking because I used BOTH what the article supports and what the article denies.

By NOT separating them, but putting them in the view of what they agree with and disagree with (as they did), I have shown that what they would agree is factual and Scriptural is actually both false and Scripturally misleading.

Perhaps I should have quoted the whole article 1, rather than merely posting the thrust of article one. But, certainly the reader understands that what I posted is actually truthful to the statement of affirmation and denial.

In the attempt to parse out each sentence and state this is applied to only this or that is NOT what I have done, but what you are attempting.

I took the whole of the psalm and showed how each statement of the psalm refuted the whole of the affirmation statement - both the affirming and the denying.

 

[asterisktom]

However, one merely needs to look at the Psalm to understand that the context is NOT applicable to this current age but the millennial reign.

Verse 1 - 5 speaks of the coming tribulation rule of antichrist and God's reaction. Note that the counsel is "against the Lord and His anointed" The Lord and the believers of the tribulation is the proper application of that section of verses for it then fits the rest of the passage properly. No other rendering will place it in harmony with the rest. For someone to attempt to place it into the current age of grace (or church age) doesn't fit historically to the statements made in the verses.​

I don't see the application of these verses as either Millennial or current church age. There is a third choice: It was fulfilled in the 1st century. That is how the very early church understood this very Psalm, and that is how the inspired Luke recorded it in Acts 4:

Act 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
Act 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Act 4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
Act 4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

The raging kings of the earth of Psalm 2 were the "chief priests and elders" and Herod and Pilate, along with the like-minded Jews and Gentiles. Instead of "kissing the Son" or "reverencing the Son" (margin) they are "gathered together" against the "holy child".

They assumed it was already fulfilled. Why can't we? I don't see how it can be clearer, nor why someone can Scripturally invoke a future re-fulfillment.​

 

[jonathan.borland]

Agedman, I respectfully disagree and stick to the points mentioned in my previous two points, that you cannot prove which word, phrase, or clause the Psalm (or even what part(s) of the Psalm) was meant to support. Therefore there is nothing to rebut except your own surmise of what words the Psalm was meant to support!

 

[mandym]

In the first article, the framers used Psalm 2 as a proof of "God’s desire for every person to be saved."

This statement is misleading at best and completely incorrect at worst. Psalm 2 is only one of thirteen sections of scripture. Your presentation here makes it appear as if the was the only one. That misrepresents it. Not very honest. Here are all the verses used by them:

Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9

I thought I would begin by showing how one of their proofs was taken completely out of rational application.

Statements like this is exactly why the statement of affirmations and denial was written. It is pejorative, belittling and unnecessary. It is the very thing that drives the conflict between cals and non cals in the convention. In fact it is immature because it lacks any measure of self control.

Psalm 2:1-12;

I suppose the framers of the articles zeroed in on the very last verse to the neglect of the others.

You suppose? You want to first yank one verse out of thirteen sections of scripture and then you want to suppose? For someone who deems himself such an intellect you created a weak and dishonest argument here.

However, one merely needs to look at the Psalm to understand that the context is NOT applicable to this current age but the millennial reign.

Anyone can see you skipped verse 7 here that debunks your whole theory of this belonging to the Millennium.

Certainly, all that have put their trust in Him are blessed; that does not remove the Psalm from being applicable ONLY to the millennial reign.

I have to say I do not understand this point at all.

 

[agedman]

Agedman, I respectfully disagree and stick to the points mentioned in my previous two points, that you cannot prove which word, phrase, or clause the Psalm (or even what part(s) of the Psalm) was meant to support. Therefore there is nothing to rebut except your own surmise of what words the Psalm was meant to support!

Then by default, the Psalm doesn't support the view of the authors of the affirmation, either.

So, the Psalms would automatically be removed and the support is lost - which is close to what I stated anyway.

 

[mandym]

Then by default, the Psalm doesn't support the view of the authors of the affirmation, either.

What? You fail to make clear your own point and because there is nothing given by you to rebut the conclusion should be by all that the Psalm doesn't support it?

Where do we start here:

1. This is a circular argument you have made.

2. You have created a strawman

3. Your argument is illogical and unclear

 

[agedman]

This statement is misleading at best and completely incorrect at worst. Psalm 2 is only one of thirteen sections of scripture. Your presentation here makes it appear as if the was the only one. That misrepresents it. Not very honest. Here are all the verses used by them:

Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9



Statements like this is exactly why the statement of affirmations and denial was written. It is pejorative, belittling and unnecessary. It is the very thing that drives the conflict between cals and non cals in the convention. In fact it is immature because it lacks any measure of self control.




You suppose? You want to first yank one verse out of thirteen sections of scripture and then you want to suppose? For someone who deems himself such an intellect you created a weak and dishonest argument here.



Anyone can see you skipped verse 7 here that debunks your whole theory of this belonging to the Millennium.



I have to say I do not understand this point at all.

Interesting points, but you missed the rest of the threads. I didn't single out ONE and neglect the others, I didn't combine them all in the same thread.

For you to call my honesty into question is inappropriate, for I clearly stated this was ONE, assuming that the reader had enough understanding to realize there were others. Perhaps not.

You mentioned "pejorative statements" and perhaps, to someone that is actually espousing a view of cal or non-cal, they might make such a claim. However, I did not make or take any specific view when approaching the Scriptures on this matter, nor did I state my own view. I merely took the Psalm at it own words and extrapolated a completely different scenario which lent support to the very denial the authors of the affirmation would desire to squelch.

I didn't intentionally skip verse seven, but it doesn't disprove any of what I showed the Psalm to mean. It is a statement affirming that God establishes His only begotten Son upon the throne of David. In the same way as more than once God spoke, "This is My Son..." You are grasping at smoke if you think that verse 7 "debunks" what I stated.

Your final statement expressing that you don't understand my final comment seems a bit troubling.

Look again at the last verse (12); the last statement of that verse.

You will see to what I was referring.

Now that you realize that I did not neglect the other verses, that I did not state my own view, and systematically by verse showed the use of the Psalm, do you still hold the same view of this agedman? Probably.

 

[agedman]

I don't see the application of these verses as either Millennial or current church age. There is a third choice: It was fulfilled in the 1st century. That is how the very early church understood this very Psalm, and that is how the inspired Luke recorded it in Acts 4:

Act 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
Act 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Act 4:29 And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
Act 4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

The raging kings of the earth of Psalm 2 were the "chief priests and elders" and Herod and Pilate, along with the like-minded Jews and Gentiles. Instead of "kissing the Son" or "reverencing the Son" (margin) they are "gathered together" against the "holy child".

They assumed it was already fulfilled. Why can't we? I don't see how it can be clearer, nor why someone can Scripturally invoke a future re-fulfillment.

If you hold to acts fulfilling the Psalm 2 Scriptures, then you do you not also have to have the also use Psalm 46?

There is no reason that in their zeal the early believers responded with the cry of the Psalms, and like you stated, there is no reason why latter fulfillment could also be applied. That is most certainly very good insight.

BUT, according to the terms of the affirmation, that is not the point in which the authors would ascribe to Psalm 2.

 

[mandym]

Interesting points, but you missed the rest of the threads. I didn't single out ONE and neglect the others, I didn't combine them all in the same thread.

You made a definitive statement:

In the first article, the framers used Psalm 2 as a proof of "God’s desire for every person to be saved."

That statement was divorced from everything else.

You mentioned "pejorative statements" and perhaps, to someone that is actually espousing a view of cal or non-cal, they might make such a claim.

Pejorative or not is nto determined by espousing one view or the other. But what is clear is the following accusation you made is unkind and pejorative in nature:

"I thought I would begin by showing how one of their proofs was taken completely out of rational application."

However, I did not make or take any specific view when approaching the Scriptures on this matter, nor did I state my own view. I merely took the Psalm at it own words and extrapolated a completely different scenario which lent support to the very denial the authors of the affirmation would desire to squelch.

Yes you did.

I didn't intentionally skip verse seven, but it doesn't disprove any of what I showed the Psalm to mean. It is a statement affirming that God establishes His only begotten Son upon the throne of David. In the same way as more than once God spoke, "This is My Son..." You are grasping at smoke if you think that verse 7 "debunks" what I stated.

You have imposed on this passage a time period that does not fit. I checked with several Calvinist commentators and none of them place this in the Millennium. Even Gill places this to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Your final statement expressing that you don't understand my final comment seems a bit troubling.

Don't go overboard and be troubled. Quite the overreaction. Just clarify.

Look again at the last verse (12); the last statement of that verse.

You will see to what I was referring.

I don't have a problem with that part of the verse, it does nothing to support your argument, and you continue to be vague and fail to give clear explanation to support your position.

Now that you realize that I did not neglect the other verses,

I realize no such thing.

that I did not state my own view,

I am sorry but this is just an odd statement. Of course you stated your own view as I am stating mine. If you are trying to imply that somehow you are completely objective here then you need to take that down the road. I aint buying it.

and systematically by verse showed the use of the Psalm, do you still hold the same view of this agedman? Probably.

You did not such thing. You quoted scripture followed by your personal claims and no support or clarification. Thus far your argument as been weak.

 

[agedman]

...

I posted, "In the first article, the framers used Psalm 2 as a proof of "God’s desire for every person to be saved.'"

Are you saying that statement wasn't the truth?

I really don't see the argument you are raising unless it is a vain attempt to discredit in a "pejorative" way.


I posted, "I thought I would begin by showing how one of their proofs was taken completely out of rational application."

Then it would seem that it is incumbent for you to prove that Psalms 2 does rationally apply to support the author's affirmation statement. Not merely that I may not have made correct application.

You said, "You have imposed on this passage a time period that does not fit. I checked with several Calvinist commentators and none of them place this in the Millennium. Even Gill places this to the destruction of Jerusalem."

Good!

It shows all the more that I am not taking any specific view but merely showing that the Psalms 2 passage doesn't support what the authors of the affirmation desire by applying it to a viable option.

It would be no less true if I did quote Gill or others, Psalm 2 doesn't support the desire of the authors of the affirmation.

 

[mandym]

I posted, "I thought I would begin by showing how one of their proofs was taken completely out of rational application."

And you failed to do that because you made a claim with no support. You gave no explanation, you offered no other authorities nothing. Such arguments made in any research paper under peer review would be dismissed quickly.

 

[agedman]

And you failed to do that because you made a claim with no support. You gave no explanation, you offered no other authorities nothing. Such arguments made in any research paper under peer review would be dismissed quickly.

I certainly gave explanation - verse by verse appropriate application, and the lack of other authorities was purposeful and not unusual on the BB. I often look for alternatives to what I hold as my own doctrinal statement(s) and in that way constantly challenge my own hold of Scriptures.

Therefore in these threads, I desired no one to claim as YOU did that I was assuming a view such as Cal or Non-cal.

As I have stated many times on the BB, that in any post in which I use Scriptures, I call for the BB to make certain that my usage is without error. I am not ashamed to be accountable to the scholars of the BB, even if we end in disagreement over some nuance of soteriology, eschatology, or some other "ology."


Mandym, we may disagree on exactly the fulfillment of Psalms 2, what various authors have postulated is the date of fulfillment, even if it will be fulfilled again at a future time, but it remains that Psalms 2 is not applicable to the first assertion of the affirmations.

 

[mandym]

I certainly gave explanation - verse by verse appropriate application,

Show me exactly what that was.

 

[mandym]

but it remains that Psalms 2 is not applicable to the first assertion of the affirmations.

You have done nothing to establish this except make a claim. A scripture and a claim does not establish anything.

 

[agedman]

You have done nothing to establish this except make a claim. A scripture and a claim does not establish anything.

You are right!!!!

It doesn't establish any support of the affirmation.

Glad you finally got it!!!!

 

[mandym]

You are right!!!!

It doesn't establish any support of the affirmation.

Glad you finally got it!!!!

So you lose the debate and this is how you save face? Seriously.