Secondary Causes? Not really.

So i had read something really interesting about Zwingli on secondary causes. Ill quote it later but it was interesting. He essentially says he does not believe that secondary causes are legitimate causes or should be called such things as cause for God alone is the true cause.What is a good way of talking about this? in my language its hard to speak without using secondary cause.

- Assumed secondary causes are nothing more than the observable effects of the immediate cause. It's a matter of perception, but only one is truth, for truth is objective and not subjective.

What the Bible says:

There are a few misconceptions the Arminian heretics seem to carry. First, God is one. This means that God's sovereignty does not override his other attributes but qualifies them. Also it means that God who is the sufficient one is in and of Himself first and foremost these qualities within Himself as the divine trinity. What I mean is that what God does outside of Himself is based upon who He is inside of Himself.  (Therefore I am not focusing too much on God's sovereignty as you are accusing me of missing the forest for the trees - this I will accuse you all of doing).

 

Romans 5:8 speaks of us (the Church, The elect, called out ones). As for John 1:29 - you must take Scripture as a whole and not impute meaning on a word that is foreign to the whole of Scripture. John is a theologian. When John says world he means that Christ is given to the elect who are dispersed not only amongst the Jews, but also the Gentiles. This is what made the "Love" of God so significant that no longer is it Jew and Gentile. This is the mystery revealed according to Paul.

 

The word "ALL" is an elastic term. It does not have to mean all people who ever existed universally, but it can also mean all the people who are part of a group. Say you have a class of students in a particular class the teacher ask - ok are we all here?

 

As for John 3:18 - the antithesis of this is given in John 3:16. Fortunately John limits the atonement even here to those who do believe. So who is it that God loves, who God gave the atonement to? those who do believe (who we later know as the Elect of God, the Sheep). The fact that John says these men are already condemned gives credence to the fact that God did not love these men at all.

 

Romans 6:23 - shows us the fact that Immortality is conditioned upon those being in Christ alone (Covenant language right here).

 

God I said sovereignly uses secondary causes (in a sense) to bring about His purposes. What this means is that God the immediate actor who controls all things (He alone has free will). But even if He controls all things directly, he is still not to be one who is responsible for the actions themselves. For one thing it is not God who does the acts. These men whom God causes to do the act does them. Unfortunately the evil act is a sign of God's hardening, whereas the good act (in some cases) is a sign of softening - like for the elect of God whom God softens.

 

The Gospel is proclaimed Christ alone did in fact in an act of imputation (not from us - but from God) took upon Himself the sins of His people. It is because Christ died for His people that by the grace of God these people are made new and given light to see. The Gospel is about God's Justice.

Repentance

Recently I have been considering a great deal about repentance. What is it exactly? In recent times I have considered that it is an act in which the sinner repents from his self-pride and turns to Christ by faith/assent alone in His gospel. The gospel says that no one is counted righteous outside of Christ, but that all have sinned and fall short of God's holiness which is His glory. It is only in Christ alone that the elect sinner is made right with God because Christ Jesus actually took upon Himself their sins so that by this the Spirit who works upon the particular sinners heart/mind repents from his wicked ways and turns to Christ trusting in Him alone for justification. From this all of our Christian life is about eradicating the false gospel/doctrine we once held dear to upholding the good news.

I am learning and growing in my knowledge of this. But I am no longer a Lordship-Salvationist guy.

Luke 16

The Church I attended today preached out of Luke 16. I find that my understanding of this passage is far different than how they understand it. The position of this passage seems quite clear - Christ rebukes the Pharisees for their love of money. These men are so enwrapped with themselves that they press into the Kingdom of God their own vices and guile. Christ says that God's word stands and will not pass away even to the small law. Of course this chapter is added to enforce the truth that Christ is the Perfector of the Law. He has done what no man has done.
If one wants to consider the whole Chapter it is that we are called to be faithful stewards of God's word. Teachers and Pastors have a greater responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God. As Calvin says this has less to do with our life and more to do with our doctrine.

 "And the master commended the unjust steward Here it is obvious that if we were to attempt to find a meaning for every minute circumstance, we would act absurdly. To make donations out of what belongs to another man, is an action which is very far from deserving applause; and who would patiently endure that an unprincipled villain should rob him of his property, and give it away according to his own fancy? It were indeed the grossest stupidity, if that man who beheld a portion of his substance taken away, should commend the person who stole the remainder of it and bestowed it on others. But Christ only meant what he adds a little afterwards, that ungodly and worldly men are more industrious and skillful in conducting the affairs of this fading life, than the children of God are anxious to obtain the heavenly and eternal life, or careful to make it the subject of their study and meditation.
By this comparison he charges us with highly criminal indifference, in not providing for the future, with at least as much earnestness as ungodly men display by attending to their own interests in this world. How disgraceful is it that the children of light, whom God enlightens by his Spirit and word, should slumber and neglect the hope of eternal blessedness held out to them, while worldly men are so eagerly bent on their own accommodations, and so provident and sagacious! Hence we infer, that our Lord does not intend to compare the wisdom of the Spirit to the wisdom of the flesh, (which could not have been done without pouring contempt on God himself,) but only to arouse believers to consider more attentively what belongs to the future life, and not to shut their eyes against the light of the Gospel, when they perceive that even the blind, amidst their darkness, see more clearly. And, indeed, the children of light ought to be more powerfully excited, when they behold the children of this world making provision against a distant period, for a life which is fading, and which passes in a moment" - John Calvin, Commentary on Luke 16:8


"by 'mammon' are designed riches, wealth, and substance; (See Gill on Matthew 6:24) and is called 'mammon of unrighteousness', because such wealth is often unrighteously detained, and is not made use of to right and good purposes, by the owners of it; or because, generally speaking, it is possessed by unrighteous men; and, for the most part, used in an unrighteous manner, in luxury, pride and intemperance, and is the root, instrument, and means of such unrighteousness: or it maybe rendered 'mammon of hurt', or 'hurtful mammon'; as it often is to those who are over anxious and desirous of it, or other disuse or misuse of it: or, as best of all, 'mammon of falsehood', or 'deceitful mammon'; so in the Targum ^F23, frequent mention is made of (rqvd Nwmm) , 'mammon of falsity'; and stands opposed to "true riches" in ( Luke 16:10 ) for worldly riches are very empty and fallacious; wherefore deceitfulness is ascribed to them; and they are called uncertain riches, which are not to be depended upon. ( Matthew 13:22 ) ( 1 Timothy 6:17 ) unless it should be rather thought that it is so called, because gotten in an unrighteous way; as it was by Zacchaeus, and might be by Matthew, one of the disciples, Christ now speaks to, and the publicans and sinners, who were lately become his followers, and whom he advises, as the highest piece of wisdom and prudence, to dispose of in such a manner, as of it to 'make' themselves 'friends'; not God, Father, Son, and Spirit. These indeed are friends to the saints, but they are not made so by money; reconciliation and redemption are not procured this way; nor is the favour of the judge to be got by such means; the only means of reconciliation, are the blood and death of Christ; though indeed acts of beneficence, rightly performed, are well pleasing to God: nor are the angels meant, who are very friendly to all good men; nor rich men, to whom riches are not to be given, ( Proverbs 22:16 ) but rather riches themselves, which, if not rightly used, and so made friends of, will cry, and be a witness against the owners of them, ( James 5:1-3 ) though it may be the poor saints are intended; who by their prayers are capable of doing either a great deal of hurt, or a great deal of good; and it is the interest of rich men to make them their friends:" John Gill, Commentary

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters

The free grace and Titus 1:15-16

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work." - Titus 1:15-16

First of all I would like to say that Paul writes similar language in which he writes in Romans 14 and perhaps elsewhere. The kingdom of God is not about eating or drinking, but about righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. To the pure all things are pure. Nothing can separate you dear Christian who have now received Christ as Saviour from the love of God. There is no clean thing to abstain from.
However, second, for the unbelieving one nothing is pure. All things are unclean to him. While they may take the things that God created as good and distort them for their own evil purposes and intentions ultimately they are damnable to God.
Thirdly, about these men although they may profess to know God as in the Gospel, they in fact deny him by their works. Please read this carefully. This means not that they sinned necessarily did things against God's holy character or nature - although that may be true. However, it is just as much true that they as the Jews did in Romans 10 that although they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Scripture says that Christ is the end of the law for all who believe. What this text tells us is that salvation is by grace alone and not by works. No man can boast before God's sovereign grace. However, these men in their pride self-righteousness - perhaps circumcising themselves (Judiazers) - denied the God, who saves us in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone, by their works. (I hope this is clear please if you have any questions ask)

False accusations of the High and Ultra-High Calvinist who reject Common Grace

"I am not sure that calling persons 'hyper-Calvinists' means much except that you disagree with them. Does it mean that they say 'providence' instead of 'common grace'? Does it mean that they deny that God loves the non-elect? Does it mean that their version of covenant theology is different from yours?"

Philippians 2:5-11

The question is on this early Hymn (whether compromised - made up by Paul or the Church) whether the exaltation is because of Christ Obedience or something else or could it be both obedience and something else?

Christ obeyed by humbling Himself and taking on a form of a human being and submitting himself to death even death on a cross. Therefore God highly exalted him. Although, this is a great interpretation of the text and I think we read in Hebrews 12:2 that Christ received his reward or something like that, I will say however that this is the secondary issue or reasoning why God exalted him. With the first reasoning being the something else which the text does say - That although Christ was in the form of God He did not take equality with God a thing to be grasp but made himself nothing taking upon himself a form of a slave. Now the text is clear Christ was in the form of God I have no need to go through the meaning of this word. However, my goal is to show you that I think this is the reason why Christ was highly exalted not because He was obedient to death - that would imply to say that because one obeys God's law that God will automatically grant a high estate. But, my position on this matter is not that this reward idea is not grounded in the text that is probably true as well. But my position is that the reason why Christ was highly exalted after He submitted Himself to death on the Cross is because of who He was and is that Christ is the eternal God that is above all things and goes before all things. This means that because It was Christ who is God and humbled himself - although he had every right not too - and becoming man (something in which most religions had never taught - that God himself becomes one of us) and after having obeyed God to the point of death even death on a cross, God highly exalted him because He is God. Jesus prayed that God would give Him the glory which he had before in eternity past. (I hope that is clear)

Is my positioning historical? I think so as Athanasius says

"For if being God he became man, and having come down from the height he is said 'to be exalted,' where is he exalted, being God? It is clear that since God is the highest, his Word is also the highest. Therefore, how is one who is in the Father able to be exalted more and be 'like the Father in all things'? Therefore he is without need of every addition, and he is not as these things have been written, what was the need that he humbled himself in order that he should seek to receive that which he has?"

Or elsewhere, 

"And, if now he had his improvement according to them, remembering his own glory before the world and above the world, how did the Son say, 'glorify me, O Father, with the glory which I had with you before the existence of the world' (John 17:5)? But if now he has been exalted according to them, how before this time 'did he bend the heavens and come down' (Ps. 18:9) and again, 'The highest gave his voice (psalm 18:13)? Therefore, if even before the existence of the world the Son had glory and ' was Lord of glory and the Highest' and came down from heaven and is always worshiped; then having come down he was not improved, but rather he improved the things which needed improvement. If he has descended to effect their improvement, he did not have the title of Son and God as a reward; rather, he himself has made us sons to the Father, and deified men, having become man himself."