“And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus increased in favor with God. They point out that favor is actually the Greek word charis, which is usually translated as “grace.” Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace. They assert that this is consistent with standard lexical definitions of charis.
Strange as it may sound, the gospel is at stake! The Modern Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that only refers to favor shown to sinners. Grace can never be used in a general sense to mean "favor." If we ever allow this, then we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
One of the glorious implications of our innovative position is that God was not gracious from all eternity. Where there is no sin, there can be no grace. God could not be gracious until Adam sinned. Thus, according to Modern Reformed thinking, God wanted to be gracious but had to wait until man sinned. Thus, God was on the edge of his seat, hoping that Adam would sin, so that God could finally be gracious. Soli Deo Gloria!
For those who are not clear on our rational for this, it is very simple. We must insist that grace can only mean “favor in the presence of sin” because we have a whole host of abstract theological formulations that depend upon this flimsy lexical leap. Remember, the gospel is at stake.
Nevertheless, in order to keep our phoney-baloney commitment to sola scriptura we must tacitly acknowledge Luke’s alleged statement. He does seem to say that Jesus grew in charis with God. This presents a problem for those who believe that Jesus never sinned. How could Jesus grow in the charis of God?
In order to preserve the purity of the gospel of our Modern Reformation, we cannot abandon our ridiculous commitment to narrowly defining charis as “favor in the presence of sin.” Our only choice is to conclude that Jesus must have been a sinner.
Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace because Jesus was a sinner.
Showing posts with label NT - Luke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NT - Luke. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Luke 2:40
“The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the grace of God was upon Jesus. They are quick to point out that our English word “grace,” as well as the Greek charis, can simply mean “favor.” Thus, Jesus was under the favor, or grace, of God.
Believe it or not, this is an attack on the gospel. The Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that can only refer to favor shown to sinners. Thus, in no sense could Jesus be under the grace of God because Jesus was not a sinner.
This also has profound implications for understanding the time before the fall. Adam was not yet a sinner, and so, in no sense was Adam under the grace of God. Being created and given the privilege of living in the garden may seem grace-like, grace-tastic, and generally, grace-y. However, we must never say this was gracious because Adam was not yet a sinner. God was being nice, but not gracious.
Furthermore, this means that the pre-fall covenant could not have been a covenant of grace. There can be no grace unless sin is present. Since sin did not exist until after the fall, this means that grace could not have existed until after the fall.
Of course, all of this depends upon defining grace as “favor shown to sinners.” Should someone prove that grace does not always carry this precise definition, then our whole system would come crashing down like a house of cards.
This is why we must insist that grace always means “favor shown to sinners,” regardless of any Biblical evidence to the contrary. Being Reformed means stubbornly insisting upon using Biblical words in a far narrower sense than God actually used them in the Bible. Otherwise, you are attacking the gospel.
While Luke allegedly might have said that the grace of God was upon Jesus, no one who is truly Reformed would make such a gaffe. Thus, as a child, Jesus continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was not upon him.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the grace of God was upon Jesus. They are quick to point out that our English word “grace,” as well as the Greek charis, can simply mean “favor.” Thus, Jesus was under the favor, or grace, of God.
Believe it or not, this is an attack on the gospel. The Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that can only refer to favor shown to sinners. Thus, in no sense could Jesus be under the grace of God because Jesus was not a sinner.
This also has profound implications for understanding the time before the fall. Adam was not yet a sinner, and so, in no sense was Adam under the grace of God. Being created and given the privilege of living in the garden may seem grace-like, grace-tastic, and generally, grace-y. However, we must never say this was gracious because Adam was not yet a sinner. God was being nice, but not gracious.
Furthermore, this means that the pre-fall covenant could not have been a covenant of grace. There can be no grace unless sin is present. Since sin did not exist until after the fall, this means that grace could not have existed until after the fall.
Of course, all of this depends upon defining grace as “favor shown to sinners.” Should someone prove that grace does not always carry this precise definition, then our whole system would come crashing down like a house of cards.
This is why we must insist that grace always means “favor shown to sinners,” regardless of any Biblical evidence to the contrary. Being Reformed means stubbornly insisting upon using Biblical words in a far narrower sense than God actually used them in the Bible. Otherwise, you are attacking the gospel.
While Luke allegedly might have said that the grace of God was upon Jesus, no one who is truly Reformed would make such a gaffe. Thus, as a child, Jesus continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was not upon him.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Luke 5:32
“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is calling sinners to salvation. However, this is confusing justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. Repentance is not faith alone; therefore, repentance has no role in justification. Repentance is part of sanctification.
Thus, Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to sanctification.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is calling sinners to salvation. However, this is confusing justification and sanctification.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. Repentance is not faith alone; therefore, repentance has no role in justification. Repentance is part of sanctification.
Thus, Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to sanctification.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Luke 16:30
“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!” (Luke 16:30).
This is a well-known parable in which a rich man is suffering torment in Hades. He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers, stating “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!”
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the rich man is concerned about the salvation of his five brothers. Notice how they make repentance a metonym or even synonym for conversion. However, this does violence to the gospel of our modern Reformation.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. This justification is received by faith alone, which means that works such as repentance have no part in justification. Rather, repentance is part of sanctification.
Obviously, the rich man is not concerned about the salvation of his five brothers because he does not mention justification or faith alone. Thus, they must already be believers; otherwise, the rich man would have said, “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will have faith alone.”
Instead, the rich man says, “They will repent.” Thus, he is concerned about their sanctification, but not their justification. The rich man wants Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers so that they will be sanctified.
This is a well-known parable in which a rich man is suffering torment in Hades. He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers, stating “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!”
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the rich man is concerned about the salvation of his five brothers. Notice how they make repentance a metonym or even synonym for conversion. However, this does violence to the gospel of our modern Reformation.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. This justification is received by faith alone, which means that works such as repentance have no part in justification. Rather, repentance is part of sanctification.
Obviously, the rich man is not concerned about the salvation of his five brothers because he does not mention justification or faith alone. Thus, they must already be believers; otherwise, the rich man would have said, “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will have faith alone.”
Instead, the rich man says, “They will repent.” Thus, he is concerned about their sanctification, but not their justification. The rich man wants Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers so that they will be sanctified.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Luke 15:7
“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7).
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is talking about the joy in heaven over each conversion. Notice how Federal Visionists equate repentance with conversion. They even argue that repentance can be a synonym for conversion. However, this is inconsistent with Reformed categories of Systematic Theology.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is not part of justification. Repentance is a work, and thus, repentance is part of sanctification.
While heaven might rejoice over conversions, we cannot say this with confidence because Jesus is not speaking about conversions. He is speaking about repentance, or sanctification. Thus, heaven rejoices over sanctification.
Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is talking about the joy in heaven over each conversion. Notice how Federal Visionists equate repentance with conversion. They even argue that repentance can be a synonym for conversion. However, this is inconsistent with Reformed categories of Systematic Theology.
The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is not part of justification. Repentance is a work, and thus, repentance is part of sanctification.
While heaven might rejoice over conversions, we cannot say this with confidence because Jesus is not speaking about conversions. He is speaking about repentance, or sanctification. Thus, heaven rejoices over sanctification.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Luke 24:46-47
“Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47).
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus wants the church to proclaim repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as if there is some link between repentance and forgiveness. Of course, this is nothing but works righteousness, attempting to out-pelagian Pelagius.
The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is obtained by justification, which is received by faith alone. Obviously, this excludes works such as repentance.
Notwithstanding, some still insist on taking Jesus’ words literally. So, what did Jesus mean by “repentance for forgiveness of sins?”
Here’s where knowing Greek helps us stay Reformed. “Repentance” comes from two Greek words: meta (change) and noiea (mind). So, repentance is simply changing your mind. Repentance has nothing to do with the so-called “turning from sin.” This kind of repentance is entirely optional. You can find more Reformed thoughts on repentance here.
Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that Jesus wants the church to proclaim repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as if there is some link between repentance and forgiveness. Of course, this is nothing but works righteousness, attempting to out-pelagian Pelagius.
The Reformed faith has always held that forgiveness of sins is obtained by justification, which is received by faith alone. Obviously, this excludes works such as repentance.
Notwithstanding, some still insist on taking Jesus’ words literally. So, what did Jesus mean by “repentance for forgiveness of sins?”
Here’s where knowing Greek helps us stay Reformed. “Repentance” comes from two Greek words: meta (change) and noiea (mind). So, repentance is simply changing your mind. Repentance has nothing to do with the so-called “turning from sin.” This kind of repentance is entirely optional. You can find more Reformed thoughts on repentance here.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Luke 1:5-6
“In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:5-6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it seems to support two of their favorite false doctrines: 1) righteousness does not always mean perfection; 2) keeping the law does not always require perfection. These false doctrines betray theological immaturity and a lack of familiarity with the doctrines of the Reformation.
First, we know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, Luke must be speaking of the positional righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth. They have been righteous in Christ by possessing the alien righteousness of Christ.
Second, Luke does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth actually walked blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. Only Jesus kept the Covenant of Works and merited eternal life by his own righteousness. This must be referring to what Christ accomplished for them. Remember, “all our righteousness is like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
Federal Visionists love this verse because it seems to support two of their favorite false doctrines: 1) righteousness does not always mean perfection; 2) keeping the law does not always require perfection. These false doctrines betray theological immaturity and a lack of familiarity with the doctrines of the Reformation.
First, we know that “there is none righteous” (Romans 3:10). Thus, Luke must be speaking of the positional righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth. They have been righteous in Christ by possessing the alien righteousness of Christ.
Second, Luke does not mean that Zacharias and Elizabeth actually walked blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. Only Jesus kept the Covenant of Works and merited eternal life by his own righteousness. This must be referring to what Christ accomplished for them. Remember, “all our righteousness is like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)