The Potter’s House: Sunday, November 25, 2012
Gospel Review from Chapter One of, False Reformation: Four Tenets of Luther and Calvin’s Egregious False Gospel
Something new has happened at the Potter’s House. We have a set schedule leading up to the 2013 TANC conference which includes the publishing of two, maybe three books. However, because contentions from our Reformed friends closely relate to our present study in the book of Romans, Susan and I have decided to write a book that addresses our contentions in a more specific way. Lord willing, what will hopefully be more of a booklet than a book will be ready for print in, or about ten days. The first chapter of the book will serve as an apt review of what we have covered in Romans thus far. So, the message this morning will be a reading of the first chapter: “What is the gospel?”
PPT visitors can follow the progress of the book on our blog. An updated pdf file will be posted periodically. The book will delve deeply into what Luther and Calvin specifically wrote about the gospel. It will also make the case that present-day New Calvinists have a factual understanding of what the Reformers believed about the gospel. These are men who understand enough to be dangerous, and have ruined Luther and Calvin’s masterful nuances.
All prayers are greatly appreciated. With that, let’s take another look at the gospel from chapter one.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I would make one correction on page 22 where you quote.
“Jesus Christ said that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.”
In the greek, the word for “keep” is τηρησατε. It is in the imperative aorist active meaning it is a command. The King James rightly renders this as “keep my commandments”, rather than in the future indicative “you will keep my commandments”. The latter is a foregone conclusion meaning it will happen automatically. The former would be more supported by your point regarding sanctification meaning that it is something we have to work at and thus we are exhorted to do it.
It is interesting that the King James is translated from the textus receptus where the verb “keep” is in the imperative aorist. The ESV and all other modern translations use Wescott-Hort where the verb for “keep” is in the future indicative. It is no surprise since this rendering would support an Augustinian/Reformed/Calvinistic theology.
LikeLike
Andy,
Thanks for this–it is for this very reason that I am posting the book as it is put together. I am hoping that more friends of PPT will chime in. And yes, as you know, I am using the ESV, and I am finding the same thing that you mention here all over the place. In fact, I got hung up on a surprising glitch concerning 1Peter 2:1-3. KVJ: “you grow THEREBY.” ESV: “that by it you may grow up to salvation.” I had to bail because I ran out of time to look into it further. But the implications are huge if you understand the issues.
LikeLike
Change: “Jesus Christ said that if we love Him—keep His commandments. In the very next sentence, Christ said the following:”
LikeLike
Oh how subtle, eh, for the most “literal” translation. The propaganda for the ESV has been incredibly successful.
LikeLike
Very good pick up Andy.
LikeLike
Good work on the first chapter Paul- very concise.
LikeLike
T4H,
Thanks, that’s the idea. Something simple that people can understand.
LikeLike
Talk about subtle, the difference between the two tenses is only one letter.
τηρησατε – aorist, imperative, found in “textus receptus” manuscript.
τηρησετε – future, indicative, found in Wescott-Hort manuscript.
LikeLike
“Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation-” before you reject this translation, you might want to take a look at the Greek text. And re: ” keep” vs. “you will keep,” the TR is wrong in a number of other places as well. Wescott-Hort is not the only text that has this rendering.
LikeLike
“we are talking about actual Bible terminally that explains the gospel of first importance (1 Corinthians 1:30, 6:11, Romans 8:30).” Did you mean Bible terminology? What you have written will have no validity unless you document your claims with citations from those with whom you disagree.
LikeLike
Anon,
This blog is pregnant with massive documentation. TTANC has one citation for nearly every page. I am not going to waste any more time with you–you are a troll and a pain in the, uh, neck. However, you have contributed something: I need to stop posting anonymous comments from
cowardssuch as yourself. Ok, that was a little harsh.LikeLike
For example, who says the following and where?
Many in the Reformed tradition complain that this is “legal fiction” because mortals are unable to live perfect lives. They have a problem with us being declared righteous while our present lives are imperfect.
LikeLike
Anon–no more anonymous comments on this blog–new rule.
LikeLike
It would be nice to know who is saying this. “Many in the Reformed tradition complain that this is “legal fiction” because mortals are unable to live perfect lives. They have a problem with us being declared righteous while our present lives are imperfect.”
LikeLike
Jimmy,
This is the last time I am posting any of your comments, so enjoy it. Rome argued against forensic justification as legal fiction because they understood the Reformers believed in all righteousness being alien. The Reformers in turn accused them of the same thing by saying infused grace was a partial righteousness that did not uphold the law perfectly.One place this is discussed is here: http://reformedreader.wordpress.com/tag/legal-fiction/ Reformed pastors use the accusation against those who deny the total depravity of the saints with this question: Did you sin today?” Hence, to say Christians are righteous in sanctification because of anything they do is also legal fiction. It’s a concept. It’s like asking me, “Total Depravity,’ who has ever said that?” Trolls piss me off because they waste my time. Comment here in the future if you like, but you will never see it on the screen.
LikeLike