Westminster in 180 Days

Many scholars believe that Job 19:26 is better translated "out of my flesh shall I see God. Perhaps along the lines of 2 Corinthians 5:8 [note m].

On Hebrews 12:22, correct: I don't think that passage is talking about the future, but rather something we have in Christ presently.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 isn't explicit about bodily resurrection. What the Westminster Framework says is that the resurrection and last judgment occur simultaneously, not separated by 7 or 1000 or 1007 years. What Matthew 16 says it that the Day of Judgment would occur in the first century, before "that generation" died out. That must have been when the resurrection occurred. Unless there's another passage which speaks about another resurrection thousands of years in the future.

I might not understand your answer (which might be...

2010-04-05T17:45:06.241-05:00

I might not understand your answer (which might be involved in turn in your not understanding my question). I think I must be questioning the "Westminster framework" itself. I think I am remembering past discussions, remembering Russell, etc., etc. But more immediately, the only proof text for either of my quotes listed in the above comment that could possibly have anything to do with bodily resurrection as far as I can see is Job 19:26,27. Am I missing something? And about the timing of all this? Future??

Another question: why did you include the 22nd vs in the Hebrews 12:23 proof text quote? Is it not in effect this very same issue of the verses referring to past and present time frames? "You HAVE COME to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God..."

OK, Ive just reread the proof texts for all of this and I realize that I Thessalonians 4:14 could be construed in the "Westminster framework" to refer to bodily resurrection, but didn't Russell in the The Parousia say that this could have referred to a unique event involving the saints of the OT that took place at the end of the Old Age as Christ came again to fully bring in His Kingdom?

I might not understand your question, but in the W...

2010-04-05T12:41:58.500-05:00

I might not understand your question, but in the Westminster framework, the waiting by the individual takes place in the time dimension, but it's after the death of the individual, while time/history continues for the living, before the resurrection/end of time.

The subject of eschatology includes the "last things" of each individual's life, as well as the last things of all of human history. The Westminster Standards place far more emphasis on individual eschatology, while modern (premil) writers emphasize global events as "signs of the end times."

WCF ch 32, sec I....the souls of the righteous, be...

2010-04-05T11:51:05.676-05:00

WCF ch 32, sec I....the souls of the righteous, being them made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, WAITING FOR THE FULL REDEMPTION OF THEIR BODIES....

WLC Q89....TILL AT THE LAST DAY they be again united to their souls.

How can we be WAITING for anything TILL THE LAST DAY in ETERNITY?
Aren't these descriptions of things that logically take place ONLY IN THE TIME DIMENSION?

The purpose of putting a criminal to death in the ...

2010-03-30T02:52:29.671-05:00

The purpose of putting a criminal to death in the Old Covenant age was not solely to put him to death: it was to shed his blood to make atonement and cleanse the land in a way that could not be done with the usual animal sacrifices.

In the New Covenant age, the only blood that can make atonement is that of Christ. Shedding the criminal's blood would serve no Biblical purpose. Killing the criminal without even shedding his blood (e.g., lethal injection) is senseless vengeance.

In cases of capital crimes which have victims, the perpetrator should be made a bondservant of the victim's family, making some degree of restitution for the rest of his life.

Thanks for your response Kevin. That's a good,...

2010-03-29T23:21:05.795-05:00

Thanks for your response Kevin. That's a good, detailed answer. Applying the principle from the old testament passage into our time makes sense.

Are there any crimes in the New Covenant age that would warrant a criminal to be put to death by those who had jurisdiction over the criminal?

Great question! I would start with Exodus 21:28ff....

2010-03-29T00:13:17.435-05:00

Great question! I would start with Exodus 21:28ff., here in a modern translation:

If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned. The meat cannot be eaten but the owner of the ox is in the clear. But if the ox has a history of goring and the owner knew it and did nothing to guard against it, then if the ox kills a man or a woman, the ox is to be stoned and the owner given the death penalty. If a ransom is agreed upon instead of death, he must pay it in full as a redemption for his life.

The first question is to establish guilt. You can't just accuse someone of being a molester. The process in Matthew 18:15ff. must be followed. "Tell it to the church" means Church-Courts to establish guilt or innocence.

Once the guilt of the molester is clearly established, the next question is one of "jurisdiction": who owns this goring ox? Who has responsibility for this child molester? The first answer would be his father. Another way to ask this question is to make it more practical and less abstract and hypothetical: how do you know about this child molester's existence? Is he your son? Then you have jurisdiction and it is your responsibility under the law of the goring ox to make sure it doesn't happen again. Is the molester your employee? Then you should tell his father. If you can't do this, then arguably you have jurisdiction and responsibility. Knowledge brings responsibility. Maybe the molester is a tenant in the apartment building you own. You certainly have a duty to other tenants.

Knowledge brings the first level of jurisdiction, and the law of the goring ox applies.

There are costs involved in keeping an ox from goring someone. Fences, electronic collars, or whatever it takes. If you know about a child molester, you need to take action until you can clearly establish jurisdiction, which establishes who needs to bear the costs of monitoring this goring ox.

In a free market in a Christian culture, "Goring Ox Protection Services" will be established to help those with jurisdiction take responsibility for their ox or molester. This may take the form of insurance: you pay a monthly premium, and if you have a goring ox, your Service will take on the responsibility of making sure it doesn't happen again. The Service may require that you belong to a church that has competent courts and doesn't convict innocent people. If a molester covered by your service molests again, not only does the service lose customers when word gets out, but they have to pay out a monetary judgment to the victim. Under secular civil governments such as ours, victims are seldom if ever compensated, even if the perpetrator pays a fine to the State.

If the person with jurisdiction doesn't have such insurance, representatives for such agencies would contact those who should have jurisdiction over the criminal, probably immediately after the trial court passes judgment, advertising their services, competing against other agencies on the basis of security (preventing recidivism) and cost.

People who refuse to subscribe or take responsibility for their goring ox would be black-listed by credit agencies.

Non-profit organizations would be formed to raise money to pay for such Goring Ox Services on behalf of those who have jurisdiction over potential criminals but can't afford to subscribe to their services.

Of course, we have no way of being able to predict exactly how this situation would be taken care of. This is just a suggestion. It all depends on how seriously society takes God's Law.

I understand that Christ's blood is the answer...

2010-03-28T22:10:31.263-05:00

I understand that Christ's blood is the answer to the atonement issue, but what I don't understand is how criminals should be handled in New Covenant times. For instance, how is this situation supposed to be handled: There is a child molester who will not repent and who keeps committing the same crime over and over?

I checked a few commentaries I have by members of ...

2010-03-25T14:56:05.201-05:00

I checked a few commentaries I have by members of the Westminster Assembly (or like-minded scholars) and none suggests such a connection. I'm tempted to think inclusion of that verse was just a typo.

On stage plays, see this [200mb pdf] by William Prynne.

Good point. I had thought about that (GMTA), but <...

2010-03-25T12:28:42.418-05:00

Good point. I had thought about that (GMTA), but some previous posts have already generated some investigation and study, so that doesn't have to wait until the end, and knowing that a sizeable pecentage of the list won't agree with my take, I'm thinking I'd rather not leave them on a potentially sour note, but rather end the series in agreement with the Westminster position.

If you end the study on eschatology, you might be ...

2010-03-25T06:50:12.219-05:00

If you end the study on eschatology, you might be able to interest some into a deeper investigation on the subject eschatology.

Deuteronomy 22:5 Identity theft? Claiming man'...

2010-03-23T10:25:57.877-05:00

Deuteronomy 22:5
Identity theft?
Claiming man's authorities by a woman, and the reverse,
through the outward appearances to confuse the roles or claim the
position of the other. (trivia comment: at the time of the Westminster writers, play actors could not go out on the street in their stage costumes, to avoid being confused as "royalty"or other "dignitaries", for they were mere "actors", pretending to have rank or authority. Could this kind of thinking cause the inclusion of the Deuteronomy verse?

This is a great study!

2010-03-18T09:34:24.517-05:00

This is a great study!

This is good! Thanks :D

2010-03-09T08:07:20.280-06:00

This is good! Thanks :D

Thanks :D.

2010-03-09T07:37:39.372-06:00

Thanks :D.

whoops, that was 23.. yeah.

2010-03-09T07:35:08.608-06:00

whoops, that was 23.. yeah.

I assume you mean Lev 23. Nope, I don't have a...

2010-03-08T20:17:35.178-06:00

I assume you mean Lev 23. Nope, I don't have any links. I haven't heard Lev. 23 mentioned for 25 years.

Your statement is not "subjective," it&#...

2010-03-08T18:08:32.606-06:00

Your statement is not "subjective," it's just objective on a secondary level.

I'm not saying you should blindly accept FP while you're still in the process of studying the Bible. If you haven't yet completed your study of the Bible, the safe thing to do is rely on the teaching of theologians who have (Proverbs 11:14). I respect that totally. That's where I started. Eventually I realized that the theologians were quoting each other more than the Bible, and where they quoted the Bible (e.g., Matthew 24) they were clearly wrong, and the better theologians among them pointed this out. It was the non-FP'ers who persuaded me to be open to FP.

I'm just saying you should always be willing to believe whatever you're convinced the Bible really is saying, even if this conclusion implies that the theologians are wrong. As long as you're willing to continue studying like a Berean, then the fact that your convictions are not based directly on the Bible, but on what the theologians say, is OK with me.

For now. :-)

I think YOU should use the word FULL, CONSISTENT o...

2010-03-08T17:14:55.161-06:00

I think YOU should use the word FULL, CONSISTENT or HYPER, the neo-platonic crowd can use the word IDEALIST and Gary can use the word PARTIAL. I'm the referee!!(jk) LOL

Thanks! Do you have any links related to the Lev ...

2010-03-08T15:35:19.351-06:00

Thanks! Do you have any links related to the Lev 3 passage?

I agree with your central point that we must rest ...

2010-03-08T09:27:21.409-06:00

I agree with your central point that we must rest in the hands of God through his chosen revelation (scripture) and not in hand-me-down tradition (that is ungrounded once judged by scripture).

I am not willing at this time to accept FP while in Berean process. I err on the side of the "theologians".

That's my subjective statement... you all can do what you want at your own risk.

good luck.

Church and Kingdom equated! Wonderful!
2010-03-05T11:15:05.994-06:00
Church and Kingdom equated! Wonderful!

Is this sarcasm?

When the theologians equate the two, they usually limit Christ's Kingdom to the four walls of the institutional church. They don't want responsibility for anything going on outside the church, Mon.-Fri.

being a member of a Church does not mean you are saved?

Unsaved, unregenerate, unbelievers can be members of the visible church, but they are not members of the invisible Church. I think Acts 2:47 is talking about those who truly were being saved, but you can't infer from that verse that there might be someone in the church who was not saved.

Matthew 13 proves that Christ is King over a Kingdom that includes unbelievers (tares, etc.).

Kingdom as Government/Empire/NewWorldOrder - A Checklist in progress

Generally, a great collection of Kingdom verses to...

2010-03-05T10:40:33.269-06:00
Generally, a great collection of Kingdom verses to buttress these propositions! Church and Kingdom equated! Wonderful!

But WCF II last phrase--"out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation", with Acts 2:47 as the proof text, does this just reemphasize the point that just being a member of a Church does not mean you are saved?

On it's face, there's nothing wrong with w...

2010-03-02T16:40:43.883-06:00
On it's face, there's nothing wrong with what Herod did. It was his secret intentions that were wrong. If the State really wanted to worship Jesus, it would be appropriate to call a "synod" or council to get the needed info.

Herod does not publicly promote a "Two Kingdoms" view -- far from it. He admits his duty to obey Jesus. "2K" advocates say the State only has to obey "natural law," not Jesus and the Bible.

So, Herod's question to the priests ( to lead ...

2010-03-02T11:49:32.664-06:00
So, Herod's question to the priests ( to lead Herod to the Christ child, and, then, kill Him ) supports the magistrate's authority to call a synod ( to approve a new hymnal, or whatever )? Can we leave this unchallenged? According to the mind of God? Yes, but does this follow to establish a "Two Kingdoms" defense in the Westminster Confession?