• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter

Ian Major

New Member
Skandelon said
Who says he couldn't pay for John Doe's sin and then punish him with enternal seperation if John chose to reject Christ's message of redemption? That seems to be very biblical. Men are judge based upon their acceptance or rejection of Christ's words.

That would be true, IF:
1. Christ paid for all sins except that of unbelief.
2. Men were punished in hell only for that sin.

Neither of these is true. Scripture gives no indication of an exception in the atonement. And it gives very clear indication that men are punished in hell for every one of their sins.

So the universal atonement dilemna remains.

In Him

Ian
 

npetreley

New Member
I know you wonder about how Abraham could be saved before Christ paid for his sins, but Scripture assures us he was. It is God who justified him the moment he believed, God who regarded him already washed by the blood of Christ. Abraham did not remain a sinner until Christ died. He was in the Paradise of God; in fact, it was named after him.
Thanks, Ian. Another way of illustrating this must be true is at the transfiguration:

Luke 3:30 And behold, two men talked with Him, who were Moses and Elijah, 31 who appeared in glory and spoke of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Moses and Elijah appeared in glory. Now, if we know by scripture that NOBODY is justified by the law, and we also know by scripture that those He foreknew, He predestined, those He predesitned He called, those He called He justified, and those He justified He also glorified, then it would seem logical that Moses and Elijah have already been foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified.

Yet here they are, glorified, talking to Jesus ABOUT His coming crucifixion, not about what Jesus had already accomplished.
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
If names were to be scrutinized, and these names were written in the book of life, and the owner of the book is the Lamb, and the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, then, it follows the blood of that Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, covered sufficiently the sins of the owners of the names written in the Lamb's book of life, and the writing was done before the foundation of the world.

I think this is how God was able to translate Enoch to heaven without him going thru physical death, the same with Elijah, before the cross.

This is why I personally believe that none of the elect will perish because their names are on the Lamb's Book of life, the same way that the unelect will perish, because their names are not in the Book of Life.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
I'd be careful using scriptures analogies of "the book of life" as support texts for Calvinism because Rev. 3:5 seems to imply that names could be erased from that book of life and Rev. 20:12 seems to indicate that one is placed in the book based upon their good deeds. I recognize the symbolism of these passages in Revelation can seem contradictory, so it's definitely not something you want to rest to much weight on. Plus the debate is, how does the name get in the book in the first place?
Are people's name added as they place their faith in God? Or as their deeds prove their faith to be true?

Is everyone's name written the book before the world began as an act of His divine foreknowledge of the future or His unchanging Sovereign decrees? Whose names are written before the foundation of the world and whose are added or blotted out at later times?
None of these questions are clearly answered in the pages of scripture, so our search for truth must continue elsewhere.
 
I

ILUVLIGHT

Guest
Hi Nepetreley;
The whole reason Paul uses the illustration of Abraham is to explain that through faith, righteousness is credited to our account.
This is true. but Abraham's Faith at the time didn't save Him. It did give him the opportunity to accept Christ when Christ descended into hell to free the Captives. Only then was he saved because Christ's Blood hadn't been shed. Believing that Christ blood would pay your penalty for sin in the future didn't save you because there is no remission until that blood is shed.
Show me where man can be saved by a future atonement. A price that hasn't been paid yet.

May God Bless You;
Mike
 
I

ILUVLIGHT

Guest
Hi Ian;
Hi, Mike. Npetreley put it well - this is exactly the opposite of what you say. I know you wonder about how Abraham could be saved before Christ paid for his sins, but Scripture assures us he was. It is God who justified him the moment he believed, God who regarded him already washed by the blood of Christ. Abraham did not remain a sinner until Christ died. He was in the Paradise of God; in fact, it was named after him.
I agree he was in paradise, but he was not saved as yet.He was held captive there. You tell me that it was God that justified Him. Would you care to show some scripture that says so.

I have one question was he regenerated first?.So that he could believe.

May God Bless You;
Mike
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Bob said In this all can agree. God is the one who measures the debt owed (in judgment) and then executes that judgment to insure that price in torment and suffering is "paid" and the "dissincentive" is exactly as the law demands.

This is nothing like the Calvinist "reimbursement" where SOMEONE is getting "paid".


God does not "torment Himself until He FEELS better about the sins of the saints". This is pretty basic and obvious - but Calvinism needs to ignore it.


Ian said:

All this to avoid explaining why the lost are punished for the sins you say Christ paid for!
Wrong.

Paying "attention" to the details - all this is to show exactly why God is able to PAY THE DEBT and also sinners who REFUSE that gift STILL have a DEBT to pay - since it is NOT the monetary "reimbursement" problem that Calvinist so like to imagine here.

Your idea that showing the RIGHT model is a way NOT to address the question - is quite an amazing leap.

It does your view not good to pretend you don't see the point made. Better to refute or debate it rather than pretend you don't get it.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Gina B

Active Member
*note* I'm throwing out stuff for the purpose of debate, what I say in this thread may or may not accurately represent my beliefs*

It seems that people are mistaking universal atonement with universal salvation, and they are worlds apart.
The cross is of no effect to a person who does not believe in it.
Yes, the sins of all were atoned for, but the responsibility is still man's if Jesus does not claim that person to the Father, and he cannot claim those that refuse to accept what was done on the cross. If one does not do that he, of his own free will, makes the blood of Jesus ineffectual as pertains to his own sin.
There is nothing in the bible that says "stay".
We are INVITED to come. That is a theme throughout the bible. Come to Jesus. Believe in him. Trust him. Come. Ask for forgiveness. Once you come you're told to GO, go and tell others and persuade them to come to Jesus too.

There are a few seeming exceptions in the bible to man's freewill. However, they are just that. Exceptions that show that God is all powerful. They do not serve to support the doctrine that we do not have freewill, they serve as a reminder that He is all powerful and will and can use any means neccessary to bring about his will. If anything these exceptions should serve as reinforcements that show the grace of God in allowing his own creation to come to him, to choose him the creator, of his own free will despite the fact that he is obviously able to make that choice for us.
Gina
 

GH

New Member
Good morning,

Can we really discuss Judas without looking at Peter as well?

(James 1:23,24,NIV) "For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.

(MT 16:21) From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

(MT 16:22,23) Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."(NIV)

John 13:26 - Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. 28"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

(MT 27:3-10) Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, [4] saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" [5] And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

Did you notice that the text does not say of Peter that "Satan entered him" as with Judas. Jesus directly called him "Satan," which means adversary. Peter was unwilling for the dark side of the Word to be fulfilled. Peter was not "mindful of the things of God." Trying to be the nice guy and saving Jesus' life was not the will of the Father. Jesus being betrayed, becoming the Lamb slain, being valued at 30 pieces of silver, and the purchase of the "field of blood" was "being mindful of the things of God." Judas was predestined just as Jesus being born at this time was predestined. Jesus chose Judas knowing his purpose; that prior to Satan entering Judas, his sins were really not much different than the other apostles.

Jesus called directly called Peter "Satan." Whereas, Satan had to enter Judas in order for him to fulfill the Scriptures. Could it be that Judas was not capable of betraying Jesus by himself! He had to be taken over. Peter did not need the help of Satan to not be mindful of the things of God. It was perfectly natural for him. When Satan wanted to "sift" Peter, Jesus prayed for "Satan" Peter. Why didn't Jesus just pray for Judas? Judas had to do what he did to fulfill Scripture that the redemption of the whole world from its bondage to sin might be accomplished! Judas was not a hearer only, as Peter was, but a "doer of the word." Not only was he a doer, but Jesus hastened Judas along to get it done. "What you are doing, do more quickly." (John 13:27) Judas fulfilled his purpose for being born, and when we get to that grand banquet, he will have "returned to his own place." (Acts 1:25)

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no, not one, including Judas, you, or myself. We have all fallen short, and we will all be redeemed by the saving work of the Son of the Father, Jesus Christ, the savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

The Lord created Adam placed him in a place where a Serpent, which the Creator also created, could deceive him. Adam and all his offspring fell into a pit and all died - in Adam all died, including you and I.

Judas did the will of the Father and fulfilled the Scriptures. Peter, who we all love, tried to prevent Jesus' crucifixion and was called "Satan" by our Lord. Peter, who was not mindful of the will of God, was restored. Is there more room in your heart for mercy for yourself? If there is, then there is also more room for you to have mercy on others, especially those vessels of less honor in our eyes. Lift up the Judases of the world to our wonderful Father who freely forgives, Who bestows mercy upon the undeserving.

2 Corinthians 5:19
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.


GH
 

Ian Major

New Member
ILUVLIGHT said
I agree he was in paradise, but he was not saved as yet.He was held captive there. You tell me that it was God that justified Him. Would you care to show some scripture that says so.

Held captive there? Well, in a sense the elect are the captivity whom Christ led captive, the prisoners He freed, but the issue is: was Abraham saved before Christ arose? I think you will agree that justified = saved. So was he justified before Christ died?
Rom.4: 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
James 2: 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Abraham is here declared to have been justified before Christ died and rose again.

I have one question was he regenerated first?.So that he could believe.

Yes. The salvation of the OT saints was no different from ours. The gifts and priveleges were less, however.

In Him

Ian
 

Ian Major

New Member
Bob Ryan said
Paying "attention" to the details - all this is to show exactly why God is able to PAY THE DEBT and also sinners who REFUSE that gift STILL have a DEBT to pay - since it is NOT the monetary "reimbursement" problem that Calvinist so like to imagine here.

I must be very stupid to have missed the answer; all I got was 'It is not reimbursement'. Please explain how the wicked dead owe a debt to God, pay that debt in punishment, but that is not the same debt Christ paid for them.

Sounds to me like you were just pretending it is not so. Saying it is not doesn't make it so.

Please say it slowly so that everyone hear can understand:
'Christ paid for those sins; they pay for those sins; but it is not double payment because...'

In Him

Ian
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
'...Christ's payment will not have been applied to them, because they were not covered by the blood. In the original Passover, God had warned that the blood of a lamb must be applied to the doorpost in order for the death angel to pass over them. The blood was not effective if it was not applied. Many non-Calvinists fall into a trap of trying to argue that no one will be condemned for their sin, but only for rejecting Christ. But the Bible is clear that those who reject Christ are still "in their sins" (John 8:24), (condemned for the acts, not just the condition). Christ's blood (like the original Passover blood) must be applied for those sins to be forgiven. Calvinists can go into their argument that this blood then did not "actually" save anyone. But this was the very shadow of Christ's work, from which the whole concept of Him as "the Lamb" who sheds His blood for sin comes from, and the principle is the same. (In the Calvinist scheme, God would only provide lambs for certain people, yet still hold the others "responsible"). Now instead of a physical work (applying blood), the blood is spiritually applied when one simply believes. And instead of every person sacrificing their own lamb, one Lamb was sacrificed once for all. But each person's application of that blood is still in their own time.

And as for the argument about "payment", Bob is right. The one owed the "debt" (the victim, survivors or "society") does not "receive" anything in cases like murder. Like the warning "you'll pay" if one does something. Payment in that case simply indicates a negative consequence for the violator, not a positive reward for the victim. I guess in such cases the bastract ideal of "justice" is what "receives" the payment. Like with God, we say it is His justice that is paid by either Christ's death or the sinner's punishment; not that He personally "receives" anything Himself. (Of course, Calvinism does often justify its doctrine of reprobation on God "receiving" "glory" by preordaining individuals to wrath {perhaps this is the whole problem in this question}, but then is God really exacting justice for being "violated" in that scenario, or is it all His script anyway?)

The purpose of Hell is not for God to get enjoyment out of it, but because the person has rejected Him all his life, so where is he going to go for eternity? Not in God's presence. So out from God's presence, away from all that is good, he suffers eternally. He "pays" for both his sins, and rejecting the only way of escape. The suffering actually isn't payment TO God, because one of the things all sides agree is that the reason He is there is because he CAN'T "pay" God back. Else, you could conceive of a timeless region beyone even "eternity" (which we generaly understand as an unending sequence of time), where it is "paid" and he gets out. (Perhaps Me2 believes something like this?). It is a state of eternal DEBT, moreso than eternal "payment".
 

Ian Major

New Member
Gina L said
Yes, the sins of all were atoned for, but the responsibility is still man's if Jesus does not claim that person to the Father, and he cannot claim those that refuse to accept what was done on the cross. If one does not do that he, of his own free will, makes the blood of Jesus ineffectual as pertains to his own sin.

OK, Gina, that is a pertinent point. You are saying the debt was paid, but that the sinner's failure to repent means that the debt is to be paid again. But the problem with them making 'the blood of Jesus ineffectual' is that the debt was already paid. Christ cannot un-suffer.

So the position you hold would require Christ's suffering NOT to be substitutionary, if it can be made of no effect. It would be a general suffering, the merits of which is banked, so that the sinner can draw on or not as he chooses. But if He ' bore our sins in His own body on the tree' 1 Peter 2:24, is the substitutionary atonement I think it is, MY sins were personally imputed to Christ, He suffered for them, and I will never do so. That would then be true for ALL those whose sins He bore.


There are a few seeming exceptions in the bible to man's freewill. However, they are just that. Exceptions that show that God is all powerful. They do not serve to support the doctrine that we do not have freewill, they serve as a reminder that He is all powerful and will and can use any means neccessary to bring about his will. If anything these exceptions should serve as reinforcements that show the grace of God in allowing his own creation to come to him, to choose him the creator, of his own free will despite the fact that he is obviously able to make that choice for us.

I suggest it is the other way around, Gina. All the free-will stuff is relates either to man having a choice - which Calvinists believe - or to the 'do this and live' challenge God brought to man to prove his utter inability to save himself.

The sovereign grace position is again and again shown to be God's way of salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. The difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is the ultimate revelation of His sovereign grace. Free-willism is replace by God's 'I will' - Jer.31: 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

In Him

Ian
 

Ian Major

New Member
GH said
Judas did the will of the Father and fulfilled the Scriptures. Peter, who we all love, tried to prevent Jesus' crucifixion and was called "Satan" by our Lord. Peter, who was not mindful of the will of God, was restored. Is there more room in your heart for mercy for yourself? If there is, then there is also more room for you to have mercy on others, especially those vessels of less honor in our eyes. Lift up the Judases of the world to our wonderful Father who freely forgives, Who bestows mercy upon the undeserving.

GH, I'm not sure if you are a Universalist or just a confused Arminian. But your theory comes crashing down with a simple examination of Scripture. Judas a servant who receives mercy? No, a wicked traitor, a thief from the beginning, one whom Satan dominated, one who was fore-ordinated of God to be the traitor, one of whom Christ said, The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Matt.26:24

No mercy - just judgement. Judas went 'to his own place'. Christ spoke of his end, none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.John 17:12. LOST. The son of PERDITION.

In Him

Ian
 

Ian Major

New Member
Eric B said
Many non-Calvinists fall into a trap of trying to argue that no one will be condemned for their sin, but only for rejecting Christ. But the Bible is clear that those who reject Christ are still "in their sins" (John 8:24), (condemned for the acts, not just the condition).

Good to hear we at least agree on that.

(In the Calvinist scheme, God would only provide lambs for certain people, yet still hold the others "responsible").

Were the Egyptians provided for? Or was it for only those in the housesholds of Israel? Were the Egyptians then not responsible for their sins?

Like with God, we say it is His justice that is paid by either Christ's death or the sinner's punishment; not that He personally "receives" anything Himself.

This is mere playing with words. God receives recompense for the insult done to His honour. Can He hold it in His hand? Can society hold in its hand what the offender pays to them? Of course it is beyond such crass imagery. But the payment, the payer and the payee are crystal clear.

The suffering actually isn't payment TO God, because one of the things all sides agree is that the reason He is there is because he CAN'T "pay" God back. Else, you could conceive of a timeless region beyone even "eternity" (which we generaly understand as an unending sequence of time), where it is "paid" and he gets out. (Perhaps Me2 believes something like this?). It is a state of eternal DEBT, moreso than eternal "payment".

No, all sides do not agree that. We agree man cannot give back to God his lost righteousness, cannot merit peace with Him. But man certainly pays and goes on paying eternally his infinite debt to the infinitely holy God. Man can never pay enough, THAT is why hell is forever. Can you account for eternal punishment otherwise? A mere place of banishment is not what hell is about - it is a place of conscious PUNISHMENT; and of various degrees of punishment. A place of eternal debt and eternal payment on that debt.

In Him

Ian
 

Gina B

Active Member
Originally posted by Ian Major:
Gina L said
Yes, the sins of all were atoned for, but the responsibility is still man's if Jesus does not claim that person to the Father, and he cannot claim those that refuse to accept what was done on the cross. If one does not do that he, of his own free will, makes the blood of Jesus ineffectual as pertains to his own sin.

OK, Gina, that is a pertinent point. You are saying the debt was paid, but that the sinner's failure to repent means that the debt is to be paid again. But the problem with them making 'the blood of Jesus ineffectual' is that the debt was already paid. Christ cannot un-suffer.

So the position you hold would require Christ's suffering NOT to be substitutionary, if it can be made of no effect. It would be a general suffering, the merits of which is banked, so that the sinner can draw on or not as he chooses. But if He ' bore our sins in His own body on the tree' 1 Peter 2:24, is the substitutionary atonement I think it is, MY sins were personally imputed to Christ, He suffered for them, and I will never do so. That would then be true for ALL those whose sins He bore.


There are a few seeming exceptions in the bible to man's freewill. However, they are just that. Exceptions that show that God is all powerful. They do not serve to support the doctrine that we do not have freewill, they serve as a reminder that He is all powerful and will and can use any means neccessary to bring about his will. If anything these exceptions should serve as reinforcements that show the grace of God in allowing his own creation to come to him, to choose him the creator, of his own free will despite the fact that he is obviously able to make that choice for us.

I suggest it is the other way around, Gina. All the free-will stuff is relates either to man having a choice - which Calvinists believe - or to the 'do this and live' challenge God brought to man to prove his utter inability to save himself.

The sovereign grace position is again and again shown to be God's way of salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. The difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is the ultimate revelation of His sovereign grace. Free-willism is replace by God's 'I will' - Jer.31: 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

In Him

Ian
But the problem with them making 'the blood of Jesus ineffectual' is that the debt was already paid.

Wrong. They debt was taken upon Christ, but our debt is to the Father. Jesus must present us pure to the Father. The Son cannot present us to the Father until we accept the Son's atonement.
I can hand you a money order for you to pay your credit card bill with, made out directly to the company. I have put my work into earning that money and now stand here and hold it out for you, saying "come, believe this and it will be sent in to pay your bill".
If you refuse to come then it doesn't mean I didn't pay your bill or earn the money to do so, it means you didn't accept it and that piece of paper is worthless TO YOU. Your whole bill will still be your own responsibility.
We can go on and attempt to continue making analogies that never quite match up to what the bible says, capable of all twists and turns to keep it from being a true analogy, but it doesn't change the fact that Jesus said "Come unto me".
Judas was called, but he didn't come.
He kissed the face of God and then continued on his self-destructive way.
Peter was called. He came. He made a mistake in attempting to look back, but he still stepped out in faith and Jesus bore him up.

I suggest it is the other way around, Gina. All the free-will stuff is relates either to man having a choice - which Calvinists believe - or to the 'do this and live' challenge God brought to man to prove his utter inability to save himself.

"Do this and live" is still a choice. I seriously doubt thatn any free willer on this forum believes that man is not utterly incapable of saving himself. The belief is that under the influence of the Holy Ghost, man is capable of obeying the holy call to ask Jesus to plead for him to the Father, and that the Son will never deny any that come to him for that purpose.

The covenanat you quoted is a promise of what will be fulfilled in the end. That hasn't happened yet, obviously, if you read the end of the chapter that states the land will be in that state from that point on forevermore.
(or something like that, it's not in front of me but same meaning)

Gina
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
Since we are speaking of Covenants, here is an extract about the Eternal Covenant of Grace from an article written by Elder Vernon Johnson and found at THE BIBLE TRUTH FORUM at THIS URL :

covenant of redemption as stated in Rom. 8:28-30 is an unconditional covenant, i.e., there are no conditions placed on man, but God is responsible for carrying out all the actions in that covenant.
Before we study each of the actions in the covenant of redemption listed in Rom. 8:28-30, let us look at an old testament passage that teaches us about the covenant of redemption. This passage is found in II Sam. 23:1-7. This passage begins by telling us that the words that follow are the last words of David. Then it tells us that though the words were spoken by David as his last words, that he was just a mouth-piece for the Holy Spirit, "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue." In other words the words spoken were actually the words of the Holy Spirit with David being used as a mouth-piece!

Next, in verse 3 we are told that the Holy Spirit is relating to us a conversation between the "God of Israel" and the "Rock of Israel:" "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me..." Thus in this conversation the Rock of Israel spake to the God of Israel and what followed were the words which the "Rock of Israel" spake to the "God of Israel." I Cor. 10:4 tells us that the "Rock of Israel" is "Christ:" "...for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." Therefore the words that followed in II Sam. 23:3-7 were the words of Christ, the Rock of Israel, to God, the Father, the God of Israel.

In verses 3 and 4 Christ set forth his own requirements to rule as King. Then beginning with verse 5 He relates to us provision of the covenant of redemption. First He says, "Although my house be not so with God..." The Lord's house was composed of sinners. They stood before God condemned by sin. They were not righteous or worthy of eternal glory. Next Christ said "yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant..." Now we see that this covenant was between Christ and God the Father. The covenant was not made with man. While the family of God is embraced by this covenant, they are not parties to this covenant.

The Lord went further and said "ordered in all things and sure..." This covenant between God the Father and God the Son covered all the details. There was nothing left to chance. This covenant is SURE. All the provisions will be carried out just as God ordained them. In addition, the Lord went on: "for this is all my salvation..." This salvation is a salvation that the Lord performs as stated in Matt. 1:21, "he shall save his people from their sins." Notice that when Christ said "all my salvation" that this statement excludes the works of men in bringing it about. It is "all" of the Lord. The Lord went on to say "and all my desire..." God always accomplishes his will: he is never frustrated or disappointed with anything he sets out to do.

Again the Lord said further, "Although he make it not to grow." This covenant neither increases nor decreases in scope or coverage. It results in all its provisions being carried out to its fulfillment and embraces in the end all those who were embraced in the beginning. It neither grows nor diminishes.

Next in v.6 the Lord said, "But the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands." The sons of Belial are representative of our sins. The fact that they cannot be taken with hands illustrates our helplessness in attempting to do any thing to save ourselves from sin. All of our works are as filthy rags before God. Finally, the Lord said, "But the man that shall touch them must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place." Who was it that was "fenced with iron and the staff of a spear?" It was Jesus who was nailed to the cross with iron nails through his hands and his feet and who at the end had a spear driven through his side. It was he and he alone that could deliver and did deliver us from our sins. Fire is a figure of God's judgment found often in the scriptures. In the same place where Christ was crucified were our sins utterly burned with the fire of God's judgment. They were completely burned with "fire in the same place." Since our sins were utterly burned, then there is nothing left for the sinner to do to be made righteous before God's bar of justice. According to this everlasting covenant of redemption Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. He has delivered us from our sins. Praise be to his Holy name.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)

Rom. 8:28-30 is commonly called the "Covenant of Redemption." In our next essay we will consider the "all things" that "work together for good." In this essay we will look at the "purpose" of God. Verse 28 above speaks of those who "love God" "who are the called according to his purpose."

Chronologically, God purposed to call a people, then he called those he purposed to call, and then as a consequence of this calling they love God. No man loves God before he is called of God. According to 1 John 4:7, "everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God." God's calling is the "cause," the new birth is the "effect," and love of God is the "consequence."

God is a God of purpose. He does not work his will based on chance or happenstance. He purposes to do something, then he does according to his purpose. The scriptures speak of the purpose of God thusly:

A. Isa. 46:11 - "I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it."

B. Eph. 3:11 - "According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."

C. Eph. 1:9 - "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself."

D. Eph. 1;11 - "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the council of his own will."

E. II Tim. 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.

F. Rom. 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..."

From the above we make the following observations about God's purpose:

A. What God purposes to do, he does. According to Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:35, "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" No force in heaven and earth can stop or hinder God from doing what he has purposed to do. Once God purposes to do something, it WILL be done.

B. God had an eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus. Mortal time bound man has a difficult time understanding something that is eternal, i.e., has no beginning or no end. Yet what God has purposed in Christ Jesus has no beginning and has no end. It is infinitely old and will last an eternity. The Covenant of Redemption expresses God's eternal purpose in Christ Jesus.

C. God's purpose is his good pleasure. It pleased God to choose, save, call and glorify a people to be his.

D. God purposed our eternal inheritance.

E. In God's purpose, he councils only with himself, he does not council with anyone else. Of course, when you have all wisdom and all knowledge there is no reason to council with anyone else!

F. God works all things after the council of his own will. God does not have to alter anything according to changed circumstances. The God who has all power and all knowledge can and does purpose according to his will and then executes his purpose without change or need of change.

G. Our salvation from sin and our holy calling is according to that which God purposed in Christ before the world began. God purposed to save us and God purposed to call us. Now, here in time he executes his purpose. He saves us and he calls us. Thus our salvation and calling are not by chance or happenstance, but by God's eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

H. God purposed to choose a people to be his and according to Eph. 1:4 he chose them before the world began. His choice was not based on works but was by grace.

To be able to purpose something, then bring it about exactly as he purposed it, speaks of God's wisdom, power, knowledge, and character. As one old testament verse states "I am God, I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." God purposes and never changes from that he purposes. He does according to his purpose and it comes to pass just exactly as He purposed it.

In the Covenant of Redemption God purposed to foreknow, predestinate, call, justify, and glorify a people. The end result is that they are chosen, predestinated, called justified, and glorified just as God purposed. As a side note, we love God because he called us. The fact that we love God is evidence we are embraced in this Covenant of Redemption.
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
sorry, folks, part of the article was not copied when I did the copy/paste. Here is what is missing on the first paragraph:

In our previous essay we noted that God makes two types of covenants -conditional and unconditional covenants. We also noted that the covenant of redemption as stated .....
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
Apparently, the Everlasting Covenant of Grace was between the Three in One, the Eternal God, and man is nowhere even considered.

Salvation is ALL of the Lord. Independent of preachers, teachers, or man choosing Him.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>

Were the Egyptians provided for? Or was it for only those in the housesholds of Israel? Were the Egyptians then not responsible for their sins?
According to Paul in Romans 1 the Gentiles are responsible because of the revelation they were given. Jews were given the Law and prophets and Gentiles were given natural revelation and their conscience. Both groups therefore stand without excuse because both were given everything they need for faith, by which they would be credited righteousness.
 
Top