Acts Lesson 44
Tuesday Night Bible Study
February 3, 2015
Study of the Book of Acts
Tonight’s Text – Acts 16:35 – 17:9
Brief review
I. Concluding thoughts on Philippi
– Commentary on Acts 16:35-40
II. Events in a Thessalonian synagogue
A. Paul’s manner
B. Paul’s appeal to reason
– Definition of “reason”
1. A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
2. The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
C. Necessary facts regarding Messiah
δει (die) – it is necessary or it was necessary
– To suffer
– To die
– To rise from the dead
D. The Biblical significance of suffering
– Psalm 22
III. People’s response to Paul
A. The positive
– Some Jews believed (most did not)
– Large number of devout Greeks
– “Chief women”
B. The negative
– “Moved with envy”
– Riot at the house of Jason
– False testimony to the city rulers
Notes:
Susan Dohse: Colonial Puritanism; TANC 2014 Sessions 1-3
SUSAN 2014 SESSION 1
Do any of you remember the popular show Myth Busters? Well, Myth Busters was a popular show at our house, and the goal of that team of men was to disprove popular myths by using a scientific, investigative approach. And often, they would take legend, superstition, or even a stunt that had been re-done on television to see if it could really happen without the effects of Hollywood. And they would break it up into a scientific investigative approach and then determine if the myth was definitely a myth, could probably happen or that it would occur all the time.
Now I would like to provoke you to take on the role of a myth buster and rather than accept what’s in our textbooks or what you read on your online blog spots and what you hear from the pulpit, rather than accept that as factual, biblical or true. And this is why we call TANC a discernment ministry. It’s a ministry that encourages believers to become Bereans, searching the Scripture daily to verify what is taught from the authority of God’s word.
Well, the topic that I have chosen to present to you is based on a historical research approach, and I have selected three myths that I would like to try to bust. And I assure you that I could have and should have delved deeper into my topic, but I allowed time restraints to hinder me–cooking, cleaning, playing with the grandbaby. But I did read eight books and twelve inches of material that I printed from online resources. But what I want to do really is just to plant a seed. I want to plant a seed and hopefully provoke you to germinate that seed. You take my point of view, you look at my references, and then you go and research for yourself and see if you come up with the same or similar conclusions that I have.
Well, there’s a plethora of myth surrounding the early history of America, some from secular humanist research, many from the Christian historians, but you have to be careful. You have to be careful when you elevate historical figures to the rank of hero and you begin hero-worshiping historical figures without knowledge. Or you hold a group of people in such high regard that we are encouraged or we are told to encourage our children to emulate them. So therefore, it was important for me to frame any research that I did with dependable historical records, direct quotes from personal writings, sermons and speeches. Now the word “dependable” is – I glean that from a colonial historian who wrote the book The Times of Their Lives: The Life, Love, and Death in Plymouth Colony by James Deetz – Now he said that if three or more historical documentations from firsthand accounts–court and church records, personal diaries, pamphlets and books–if three or more of those documentations agree fully or mostly, then the assumption can be made that that source is probably reliable, more reliable than not reliable. So I try to do the same as Mr. Deetz in preparation for this talk. I tried to look at historical documents, church and court records, personal diaries, pamphlets and books.
There is a resurgence of interest and emphasis on the Puritans today–their beliefs and their practices. In our Christian schools, heavy in the homeschool movement, and in our churches, there is a push to pattern how we study the Bible, their theology and how to contend for the truth from the Puritans in order to make significant changes that will reap eternal results. I quote from a professor at Southern Baptist Seminary, “No greater tribute to them could be made than to follow their example in this regard.” And “in this regard” is referring to how to study the Bible, their theology and how to contend for the truth. Well, that emphasis is causing me to have some grave concern, because there is a lack of foundation based on fact and true historical perspective. Myths are being presented as facts, and the same criticism that’s heaped upon those secular humanists who want to shape America’s history by eliminating and covering its Christian roots need to apply to those who try to shape America’s history by eliminating and covering its Calvinist roots.
Here are the three myths that I would like to bust. And if I don’t bust them, at least poke a hole in the balloon. Myth number one: “The Puritans came to New England because of religious persecution and a desire for religious freedom.” Myth number two: “God could make any people his chosen.” And myth number three: “The Puritans have a biblical worldview.” These are three key foundational truths to what the Puritans believed. They believe they – why they came to New England, that God could make them his chosen, and what their worldview was.
Well, myth number one, the Puritans came to the New World because of religious persecution and a desire for religious freedom. The Puritans immigrated to establish God’s commonwealth on earth, a community of visible saints following the Bible and to found churches on a congregational model. The king gave permission for the migration in order for England to acquire new materials, to check the power of Spain, to find a new route to the Orient, and to convert the Indians. It’s very important to remember what was in their charter, the Massachusetts charter that was given to those colonial-minded people. Acquire new materials, particularly gold and silver, to check the power of Spain, to find a new route to the Orient, and to convert the Indians.
Now English history reports that the Puritans back in England wanted to purify the Church, the Church of England. And that’s how they got that nickname “Puritans.” The pilgrims, who were called separatists, chose to break away from the Church of England and many even left England for Holland. The pilgrims of Plymouth are not the same as the Puritans of Massachusetts. Both were Calvinists, but they were not the same. The pilgrims of Plymouth were Puritans, seeking to reform their church, and the Puritans of Massachusetts were innocent pilgrims who moved to this land because of religious conviction, not persecution. The name Puritan, it was initially an insulting moniker, very much like when the believers in the New Testament were first called Christians. It was really not a praiseworthy title. It was to make fun of them. Well, the same was the title Puritans. That title was to poke fun at them. (more…)
Basic Principles of Sanctification
1. Sin and weakness are not the emphasis, love is. 1Peter 3:8
2. No fear in regard to justification or condemnation; fear of consequences in sanctification. James 5:9, Philippians 2:12,13, 1John 4:16-19
3. We are truly righteous and good. 1John 3:9, Romans 15:14
4. Rewards for obedience in this present life. Philippians 4:9
5. Justification is a gift, we earn rewards in sanctification. Hebrews 6:10
6. Obedience is love. John 14:15
7. The Holy Spirit is our HELPER, not one who obeys for us. John 14:16
8. Sanctification is NOT a rest. Galatians 5:7, Hebrews 4:9-11
9. Our soul is saved, we await the redemption of the body. Romans 7:24 (“wretched” means: one who is persevering in affliction, NOT personal wickedness). Also Romans 8:23
10. Prayers can be hindered by disobedience. 1Peter 3:7
11. Strive for a clear conscience. Acts 24:16
12. You become enslaved to what you obey. Romans 6:16
13. Sanctification is wisdom for controlling your body. 1Thessalonians 4:3
14. We are resurrected to a reward, not a judgment. Luke 14:14
15. We use the body for Holy purposes: Romans 12:1
16. We desire what we invest in. Matthew 6:21
17. Scripture application to life leads to a life built upon a rock. Matthew 7:24-27
18. Those who do good love life. 1Peter 3:10-12, Psalms 34:12-16
19. The power is in the doing. James 1:25
20. Learning to hate evil and love good. Romans 12:9
21. Practice of truth leads to more understanding. John 17:17, Hebrews 5:14
22. Adding biblical truth to our lives bolsters a feeling of assurance. 2Peter 1:10
23. Our goal is a rich entry. 2Peter 1:11
24. Sin uses desire to tempt us. We must define sinful desires versus godly desires. James 1: 14
25. Teachers are a help, but not efficacious to individual learning. 1John 2:27
26. There is only one judge that we are individually accountable to. Romans 14:12
27. Put off the old habits of the dead you, learn the ways of the new man, and apply them to life. Ephesians 4: 20-24
28. Our practice is “true” righteousness—it is really us doing it. We are “truly” righteous beings. Ephesians 4:24
29. Faith works through love in sanctification. Our faith doesn’t work for salvation of the soul, it works for love. Galatians 5:6
30. Our ultimate goal is the new heavens and new earth. This is the full consummation of The Promise. 2Peter 3:13
31. All three Trinity members help us in our sanctification. Philippians 2:12,13, John 14:16
32. Our sanctification is powered by the same power of the Holy Spirit that raised Christ from the grave. Ephesians 1:18-20
33. Some things are a mystery, but we are individually responsible to learn and obey the majority of Scripture. Deuteronomy 29:29.
An Edited Point-Counterpoint Gospel Debate
Point: …you imply (to me anyway), that we work to make ourselves perfect and that’s our goal in salvation. Salvation is about reconciliation. It’s when we rest in the finished work of the Cross…through the in working of the Holy Spirit we change, but it’s all His work … The more we look at the flesh to control our fallen state under the law the more we fail. The law was given to increase sin…so we saw our need for a Savior. You seemed to me to be mixing the two covenants together, I know that will only cause bondage. The new covenant is about a relationship with our God. God bless.
CounterPoint: What you state above is the progressive justification that IS Calvinism. You have the traditional view of law/gospel that is just plain false.
P: No!!! We are already justified. The law has nothing to do with grace….Show me why you think I believe in progressive justification?
CP: You mean Protestantism’s “already not yet” justification? Ok, let me be specific: First, You make rest in justification the same thing as rest in sanctification. That’s Calvin’s Sabbath sanctification—if you do any works in sanctification it’s works salvation because justification and sanctification are fused together. Sanctification is NOT a rest.
Also, note that you make sanctification part of “reconciliation.” I thought you said the reconciliation was finished? Secondly, you state clearly that Christians are still under the law, and therefore, the Holy Spirit must do ALL the work. Thirdly, note that you plainly state that the law has the SAME relationship to us now as “Christians” as it did before we were saved: to increase sin.
Protestants don’t understand the difference between being under law and being under grace, and Calvinists and Arminians are both guilty of the same linear salvation. The “way of the Spirit” is a different relationship to the law—you are making it the same whether saved or unsaved. That’s the smoking gun. The law still serves to show us sin, and not love.
P: “You mean Protestantism’s “already not yet” justification?” Not sure of what part of IT IS FINISHED you failed to understand here. Then you say “Ok, let me be specific: “Christians are still under the law, and therefore, the Holy Spirit must do ALL the work”??? I never said anything of the sort …”The more we look at the flesh to control our fallen state under the law the more we fail”. Meaning the law has passed away…not for us now! It was never brought about justification or sanctification, salvation has always been by grace, the law was given to bring death.
I had this problem before with you; you fail to see the difference between sanctification and propitiation. Both justification and sanctification both parts are needed for Salvation. Christ justified the Fathers wrath on our behalf, (He paid the price), and we are sanctified through His BLOOD…wash as white a snow The moment we first believe. Without sanctification there can be no “reconciliation.”(new birth), you would still be in your filthy rags.
CP: The fact that you don’t understand the law’s relationship to sanctification speaks for itself. Here is what you say: “Both justification and sanctification both parts are needed for Salvation.” Bingo, you say, like Calvin and Luther, that progressive sanctification is part of the salvation process. How is this not “progressive salvation”? Sanctification is part and parcel with the Christian life, so you are saying the Christian life is part of the salvation process. You also say sanctification is the washing, it is not.
The new birth is regeneration, or the quickening, not the washing. You make justification, definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification, salvation (justification), and redemption all the same thing. Why? Because your gospel defines Christians as still under law. At any rate, to clarify, you clearly say that sanctification is part of the salvation process and is a progressive washing accomplished by the Holy Spirit. How is that not progressive salvation?
P: Sanctification means to set apart to make holy, to purify…without sanctification there is no regeneration (indwell of the Holy Spirit) the Holy Spirit cannot indwell otherwise; we need to be washed clean by Christ saving Blood. Justification is a legal declaration of being declared not guilty. The work of Holy Spirit is NOT progressive washing!!! That a Catholic works based salvation, and most of Christendom outside the Catholic Church teaches. It’s called religion. I am talking about the fruit of the HOLY SPIRIT, not man’s flesh and the works there of. We are saved to the uttermost the moment we first believe. I have never read Calvin or Luther, I far as I can understand Luther taught a milder form of Calvinism.
CP: So you’re saying the Holy Spirit’s salvific work is finished, right? And you are also saying sanctification is complete, right?
P: Yes. But you seem to use Sanctification in a completely different context. So you beleive we are in a ongoing process of sanctification, right ?
CP: You are correct about my position, sanctification is progressive. BUT, you make that one side of the salvation coin… Therefore, obviously, we don’t do sanctification because that would be works salvation. As you said, the Holy Spirit has to do sanctification for us because it is a part of salvation. SO, what you really mean when you say sanctification is finished is that it is finished FOR US, but NOT the Spirit. At any rate, here is your problem, the Bible specifically states that sanctification is an ongoing work done by the believer: 1Thessolonians 4:3,4.
P: I was not saying “sanctification is finished FOR US, but NOT the Spirit.” I fear you have to much invested to change your mind, but I will leave links dealing with this .Aaron Budjen is Jewish , he was saved while training to become a rabbi, so understands what living under the law is like more than most.
CP: Simply answer the question. Is sanctification finished or not? And if it is, for who? Is sanctification part of salvation, yes or no? You have already said it is, so is it finished or not? You have already said it is. So how do you reconcile that with 1Thess. 4:3,4?
P: O.K but it will take more than a simple answer …The words “sanctify” and “sanctification”, as they are used in the Scriptures, basically mean: (1) to set apart or separate for God, (2) to regard, treat, and declare something or someone as holy, and (3) to purify and make holy. 90 references to that doctrine in Scripture. Here is a list of some of them:
2 Tim 2:21; John 17:17; 1 Thess 5:23; Gal 2:20; 2 Thess 2:13; Ex 31:13; 1 Thess 4:3; 1 Cor 1:2; Rom 6:6; 2 Pet 1:2-4; Heb 13:12; Rom 6:1-23; 2 Pet 3:18; Heb 12:10; 2 Cor 1:22; 1 John 1:9; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Thess 4:3-5; Col 3:5; John 17:19; Rev 7:14; Heb 10:14; Eph 4:13; Gal 5:19-21; Lev 21:8; Ex 13:2; Jude 1:24; 2 Pet 3:1-11; 1 Pet 2:24; Heb 13:21; Heb 9:14; Heb 3:12; Col 3:1; Col 2:11; Phil 2:13; Eph 5:25-27; Eph 5:3; Eph 4:16; Eph 4:12; Eph 3:19; Gal 6:14; Rom 15:16; Acts 26:18; 1 John 3:3; Heb 12:1; Rom 12:1; Acts 26:17; Acts 20:32; Luk 5:32; Jer 1:5; Ps 91:1-16; Lev 22:9; Lev 21:1-23; Lev 20:8; Ex 40:9-11; Ex 30:29; Ex 19:14; Rev 22:15; 1 John 3:2; 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:3; Heb 13:4; Heb 12:14; Heb 10:10; Heb 2:11; Titus 1:1; 2 Tim 2:11; 1 Thess 4:4; Eph 5:26; Eph 4:24; Eph 2:10; Eph 1:13; Eph 1:3; 2 Cor 12:21; 2 Cor 7:1; 2 Cor 1:21; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Cor 7:2; 1 Cor 6:18; 1 Cor 6:13; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 13:12; Rom 8:7; Rom 8:1; Rom 7:20; Rom 6:11; Rom 6:2; John 3:6; Luk 16:13; Eze 37:28; Lev 11:44
Without complete sanctification, without being made holy, there is no salvation. Sanctification is accomplished on our behalf and in us when we are regenerated (born again), when we are made to be new creatures in Jesus Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 6:11 , Paul is writing to people who were certainly not the perfect pictures of what “good” Christians would look like. The church at Corinth was not regarded by Paul as a perfect example of what a church should be, yet he said to those people that they had clearly been sanctified, based on their faith in Christ. “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. ”If sanctification is two-fold, in other words partially achieved by the work of Jesus Christ and partially by man himself, then the words of Paul must be disregarded.
Additionally it would indicate that the sanctification brought about by the sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross, was incomplete and only partially effective. If sanctification is, even in part, understood to be progressive, then we are confronted by an insurmountable problem, and you said I believed in works salvation! We would never be able to determine at which point sanctification would sufficiently have been achieved by the sinner. The determination of that point would be left at the discretion of men, or that of a religious system and blabbering men like yourself, both of which are hopelessly fallible.
Where in Scripture are those parameters defined? They are not, because sanctification is not partially achieved by Christ, nor is it progressive. The work of Jesus Christ has been done, not only in part, but in perfect completion, and the imputed righteousness to the sinner (sanctification), is as a result, perfect.,, IT IS FINISHED…. The seventh day was set apart (sanctified) for God (Gen. 2:3). This was done by God Himself. This is the first time the word “sanctify” is used in the Bible. That seventh day was not altered at all from the other days, it was simply set apart, separated from the other days of the week a day of rest. Biblical sanctification is not a process by which saved believers become more holy over time. ……..If we are not sanctified, we are not saved. We cannot sanctify ourselves before God. The mere suggestion that we can do so is an absurdity.
CP: Uh, where is your answer in regard to 1Thess. 4:3,4? Clearly, the verse defines sanctification and states that we take part in it, and how we participate.
P: Don’t make me laugh, one scripture which I will look into, but I need to read the entire context … you cannot take a isolate verse and build a doctrine around it. Certainty when you have multitudes of scriptures stating the opposite. If we take part in sanctification, then it would make null and void the Cross, plus we would have something to boast in…. The gift becomes a reward that is earned … I don’t believe sanctification is separate work, if we was not sanctified then we were not washed completely clean by the blood Of The Lamb.
If sanctification is an ongoing process, to me you’re just added works to the mix. Now I do believe we bear fruit and we can certainly hinder that process, no problem with that at all. But the fruit is not us producing the fruit; it’s us yielding to the prompting of The Holy Spirit its allowing the Holy Spirit to use and work through us.
CP: You just lost the argument. Not only does the “One Verse” argument not cut it, you state the following: “If we take part in sanctification, then it would make null and void the Cross, plus we would have something to boast in…. The gift becomes a reward that is earned .” That’s pretty much the smoking gun on many points… You believe the same old Protestant gospel that keeps Christians under the law as a standard for justification. Hence, we must live our Christian lives by faith alone in order to remain saved. If we live by the Protestant formula of faith alone, the Holy Spirit, as you have stated clearly, OBEYS FOR US.
P: If we live by the Protestant formula of faith alone ” …you foolish man…” one verse you build your legalistic doctrine on and bring others back under bondage. “Hence, we must live our Christian lives by faith alone in order to remain saved”. Foolish again, we are kept …we do not keep ourselves in “faith”, YOU HAVE A CALVINIST VIEW OF SCRIPTURES. I would not be surprised in the least to found you were once a Calvinist. Sanctification is salvation along with justification.
CP: Very well, each man must be convinced in his own mind and God will judge all in the end. We all have one judge–and I am not your judge. With that, I can sincerely say farewell and blessings to you. The last word is yours if you want it.
P: Amen to that…..For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. Farewell and blessings to you also.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment