When people outside of the Reformed churches think about Reformed theology, they often think of the so-called “Five Points,” or TULIP. As it turns out, there is a lot more to the Canons of Dort (1619) than the five points or horticulture.  Read More...
​

Yes and yes. No, it’s not in the Scofield Reference or Ryrie Study Bibles. It seems that some of our dispensational friends have yet to read the memo. See this example sent to me a by a friend. This writer, whom I do not know, claims that folk such as we talk about the apostolic hermeneutic and claim to be able to replicate it but never say what it is.
One throws up one’s hands in amazement and wonder.
It’s isn’t that complicated. Pay close attention here:
​Read More....

A Response to a Premillennial Objection to Amillennialism

​

The Issue Under Debate
I am convinced that one of the major weaknesses of all forms of premillennialism is the presence of evil in the millennial age (The Presence of Evil in the Millennium -- A Huge Problem for Premillennarians). How do people in natural human bodies pass through the events associated with Christ’s return (the general resurrection, the final judgment, and the creation of a new heaven and earth) without being raised from the dead and appointed to their eternal destiny (heaven or hell)? There is a related question also raised by the premillennial understanding of redemptive history; “how can evil exist on the earth, while Jesus rules over the nations from David’s throne in Jerusalem after he has judged the nations?” Premillennarians seek to avoid this conundrum by assigning final judgment and elimination of evil to the close of the millennial age, fully one thousand years after Jesus returns. But the millennial age is not future as premillennarians claim, it is a present reality. Christ’s return is the final consummation, the summing up of all things, not but another step on the way to the final consummation a thousand years later.

Premillennarians respond to this amillennial challenge by asserting that the presence of evil in the millennial age was foretold by the Prophet Zechariah in the fourteenth chapter of his prophecy, thereby parrying the thrust of the amillennial argument.[1] The purpose of this essay is to set Zechariah’s prophecy in its context, summarize the varying interpretations of Zechariah 14 (including premillennialism and Reformed amillennialism), then interpret the entirety of the chapter, before drawing some final conclusions.
​
The Context for Zechariah’s Prophecy
Zechariah’s prophecy concludes in chapter fourteen with a remarkable glimpse of the time of the end–a day of cosmic upheaval, a time when YHWH will be acknowledged by all to be king over all the earth and Lord of all the nations. The seven-fold repetition of the phrase “on that day” throughout the final chapter points ahead from Zechariah’s time (about 518 B.C.) to the messianic age and beyond, indeed to the time of the end and the disruption of the entire created order. The scene given us in the final chapter of Zechariah is framed in the language of apocalyptic; dramatic scenes and images are used by the prophet to make important theological points. Zechariah describes a scene in which mountains split open, Jerusalem is raised to great heights, the surrounding land is leveled, and the waters reverse their course. In this prophetic oracle we are given a vision of the summing up of all things in the language of prophetic idiom (the language often used by Old Testament prophets),[2] which, in turn, is depicted in the New Testament as the day of Christ’s return, when our Lord raises the dead, judges all people, and renews the cosmos.
Read More....

When Jesus declared, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here,” (Matthew 12:6) and then told a Samaritan woman that he can give her “living water” (John 4:10-14), we are given a major clue that the pre-messianic understanding of God’s temple must be reinterpreted in the light of Jesus’ messianic mission.

The temple occupies a significant place in the witness of Israel’s prophets regarding God’s future eschatological blessing for the nation. This witness points forward to the coming of Jesus. When Jesus connects his mission to this prophetic expectation, we are greatly aided in our understanding of the nature and character of the millennial age as a present reality—not a future hope.

We begin with the Old Testament expectation regarding the temple in Jerusalem at the commencement of the era of “Second Temple” Judaism. Isaiah (2:2-4) and (Micah 4:1-5), both speak of God’s future blessing upon Israel in the last days, depicting it as a time when God’s people will go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the rebuilt and reconsecrated temple, where God’s people will once again renew themselves in the ways of the Lord.

In Isaiah 56, the prophet speaks of those who hold fast to God’s covenant (v. 4), and who love the name of the Lord and keep his Sabbaths (vv. 6-8). They will be brought to the holy mountain and house of the Lord, which is the temple and the house of prayer for all the nations (v. 7). A similar vision is given in Isaiah 66:20-21. Isaiah speaks of how the Israelites will bring their grain offerings to God’s temple, as God renews the priesthood (vv. 20-21). In Zechariah’s prophetic vision, we are told that one day the sacrifices of Israel will once again be offered and will be acceptable to God (Zechariah 14:16-19).

With such prophetic expectation in the minds of virtually every Jew living in first century Palestine, it is no wonder that Jesus’ declaration of God’s coming judgment upon the magnificent temple as rebuilt by Herod came as both a shock and an offense. “Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2). How dare this man say that the prophetic expectation of a glorious temple is fulfilled in his own person. Jesus challenged this misguided expectation, by declaring “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). It was not until after Jesus had died and was raised from the dead, that the meaning of these words became clear; when Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple, he was speaking of his own body (John 2:22). This self-identification is what he meant when he said that one greater than the temple is here!
Read More....

Are good works necessary for Christians? If so, in what sense? There was an enormous historical dispute among Protestants about whether it is right to say good works are “necessary for salvation.” After a long debate among themselves, the Lutherans rejected the language of good works as “necessary for salvation,” and opted instead to say that they are “signs of eternal salvation.” The Reformed, on the other hand, believed the dispute was largely a debate over words, and they couldn’t see any significant difference between saying, “good works are necessary for salvation,” and it is “impossible to be saved without good works.”

The Marrow Men of Scotland, including James Hog, Thomas Boston, and Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, jointly composed a document of answers to questions from the Commission of the General Assembly, which in part, addressed the question of the necessity of good works. They said they preferred not to speak of good works as being “necessary for salvation” because of “the danger of symbolizing with the Papists and other enemies of the grace of the gospel.” They feared that to say good works are “necessary for salvation” might imply that human beings cause their own salvation or that they save themselves by their good works.
​
The Marrow Men did, however, affirm that good works are “consequents and effects of salvation already obtained, or antecedents, disposing and preparing the subject for the salvation to be obtained,” but they denied that good works are “causes or proper means of obtaining the possession of salvation.” They would rather say, “holiness is necessary in them that shall be saved than necessary forsalvation; that we are saved not by good works, but rather to them, as fruits and effects of saving grace; or that holiness is necessary unto salvation, not so much as a means to an and, but as part of the end itself.” In other words, good works are not necessary in order to obtain salvation, but God saves us in part by giving us good works as gifts purchased by the merits of Christ. God saves us from sin and disobedience by giving us holiness and good works.

​Read More Here
​

“[T]hat we must be reconciled to God, and justified by the remission of our sins, and imputation of righteousness, before any sincere obedience to the law; that we may be enabled for the practice of it...
​Read More Here!

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion today about what it means to be “under the law.” And there’s confusion about what it doesn’t mean. Some suggest that all of the members of the Old Covenant were “under the law.” Others say that for a believer to accept any commands or directives from God is to be “under the law.” Some believe that to accept the moral law, revealed in the Old Testament, as normative for the believer is to be under the law. But the phrase “under the law” is technical terminology in the Pauline epistles for something very specific.

1. Consider the meaning of the phrase “under the law” in Pauline literature.

Perhaps the best way to understand the phrase is to study the Galatian heresy. Paul used the phrase “under the law” five times in his letter to the Galatians (3:23; 4:4; 4:5; 4:21; 5:18), more than any of his other letters. But how were the false teachers in Galatia attempting to bring God’s people back “under the law?”

First, to be “under the law” is to attempt to secure God’s verdict of justification by the law. Paul says in Galatians 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” The false teachers were teaching Christians that they had to keep the whole law of God for their justification, not only the Ten Commandments, but circumcision and the Jewish food laws and festivals. This was a false gospel (Gal 1:6-7).

Second, to be “under the law” is to attempt to obtain the Spirit through obedience to the law. 

Keep Reading....

Tom Hicks​ serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.

While the debate rages (or rambles) on in Reformed circles about the Christian’s motivation for obedience, a piece that seems to be missing from much of the discussion is the crucial role that love plays in our obedience to our Heavenly Father.

It seems that one of the major bones of contention between the two sides is that some want to preserve a place where it is legitimate to motivate the Christian to general growth and obedience by preaching threats of punishment to induce fear in the believer.
​
It is crucial to note here that I am not discussing the role of the law in confronting unrepentant sin. It ought to go without questioning that pastors must confront sin in the life of their congregants with the law of God. Should pastors meet with resistance and/or rejection of God’s law in their people, then reminding them of the possible judgment that awaits such open rebellion is a very necessary and very pastoral means of caring for their sheep.

​Read the Rest HERE!!