Sermon: The Olive Tree And Baptism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2022
- Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios.com :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free account to receive access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: apologiastu...
Check out our online store here:
shop.apologiastudios.com/ 
Развлечения
Support the mission of spreading the Gospel by subscribing to Apologia All Access, for behind-the-scenes content and theological training.
www.apologiastudios.com/subscriptions
Amen. Glory to God. Thank you Dr White for the sermon.
Just listened to Doug Wilson on baptism, perfect time to find this message.
Sidestep repent and be baptized and said Peter said repent and believe...they already believed now they asked what shall we do
I was thinking about Rom 11 recently and had a different understanding. Wanted to know if it makes sense... v25 "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" being the beginning of the Gentile period (not the end) marked with the destruction of the temple, linked with Luke 21:24 "and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." understanding "fulfilled" as in, "I have not come to destroy but to fulfil". "Fulfil" meaning "put into full force", "establish" (Boot). Understood like this the "partial hardening" was a 1st century judgment and has ended leaving Jew and Gentile on equal footing. v17-24 describes the process, v25-27 summarises with "in this way all Israel will be saved" stating that the process results in a Christian nation (as I think all will become before the consummation when Christ returns destroying death). I always took "all Israel" to be the Israel of God rather than physical Israel until recently listening to post-mil writers like Bahnsen saying it can't be "spiritual Israel". Bahnsen could be wrong on that I guess.
My main problem is that I cant find anyone else making these connections and so my internal alarm bells are ringing, if its a new interpretation its probably wrong. 😅
The fullness of the gentiles is Ephraim
Romans Chapter 11: In its New Covenant context... There is no Plan B of salvation outside of the New Covenant Church in this passage. Plan A is found in verses 23 and 24.
In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period can be found in Matt. 10:5-7, and Acts 10:36-38, and Gal. 1:14-18. Many try to claim God never gave the Jews a chance to accept Christ, so there must be some Plan B of salvation before or during the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 1:16 proves they are wrong, since Paul said the Gospel went "first" to the Jews. Many ignore the fact that Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", and as "men of Israel", and as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. The Gentiles were not grafted in until several years later. This passage proves Paul was right about the Gospel being taken "first" to the Jews.
Paul reveals two different groups of Israelites in Romans 9:6-8. There is an Israel of the promise, and an Israel of the flesh. This is part of the context of Romans 11.
Paul speaks about the "remnant" of Israel in Romans 9:27. This is also part of the context of Romans 11.
Paul starts Romans 11 with two different groups of Israelites. In verse one Paul reveals he is still an Israelite, even after his conversion. Then Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites during the time of Elijah. There were the Baal worshippers, and there was the faithful "remnant". In verse five Paul says there is also a faithful "remnant" of Israelites during his time. This must be the Israelites who have accepted Christ, as on the Day of Pentecost.
Paul uses the two olive trees as a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles grafted together into the same tree. The unbelieving Israelites have been broken off but can be grafted back in through faith in Christ in verses 23-24.
Verse 26 is the problem for many modern Christians. What does the verse actually say, and how is it changed by many in the modern Church.
I have heard two of our nations famous preachers say the following.
"And then all Israel will be saved..."
I have heard another say the following.
"And all Israel will be saved..."
What does God's Word, recorded by the Apostle Paul actually say?
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
The English word "so" is translated from the Greek word "houto", which is an adverb of manner, instead of an adverb of timing. Some have changed the word from "so" to "then", in order to change the meaning of the verse.
How will all of the "remnant" of Israel from Romans 9:27 be saved? The answer is found in the verses that precede verse 26 and are found below.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Paul quoted from the OT in referring to the Deliverer coming out of Sion to pay for sin. Did this happen at Calvary, or will Jesus die again for His people in the future?
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Verse 28 can only be understood by looking at how Paul started the passage. He started with two different groups of Israelites and he ends the passage in the same way. There are two different groups of "they" in verse 28. One group of "they" reject Christ and are the enemies of God, and another group of "they" are the election which accept Christ through hearing the Gospel and faith.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Based on Luke 21:24b-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to fullness at the Second Coming of Christ. This agrees with what Paul said in Romans 1:16 about the Gospel going “first” to the Jews.
.
As someone who has studied the Biblical covenants extensively, I agree with every point made in this message. I do, however, find that many brethren holding to the natural restoration of Israel use Zechariah 12-14 as a defense. Would you be able to point me to a sound exegesis on Zechariah 12-14? Possibly something free/online…thanks
I’m having dejavu with this comment.
51:30 so if the covenant sign (baptism) is only to be given to those who know God, have saving faith, and their sins are forgiven, how do you know that someone that you're baptizing in water has such true faith?
You ask them, interview them, hear their testimony.
It's not difficult. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than confusing the issue by baptizing those who lack the capacity for belief/faith.
St Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chap. 21, c. AD 180:
“And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.”
I may have missed it, but did Dr. White explain how it's possible for Gentile branches to be broken off in the new covenant age (whether those branches are individuals or groups)? I believe he interpreted the Olive Tree to be the people of God, but his assertion is also that those who are in the new covenant cannot fall away because the new covenant community is comprised of the elect only. That assertion seems at variance with the possibility of Gentile branches being broken off. I believe the paedobaptist argument here is simply that the new covenant community Paul presents is a mixed community where apostasy is still possible, thereby refuting the idea that the new covenant community is limited to the regenerate elect (at least at this present time). I suppose that would make Hebrews 8 have an "already/not yet" fulfillment. Regardless, I must have missed his explanation of that. Otherwise, great exposition.
Sorry for the late response,
So he did reference the vine and branches and addressed those leaving. The passage breakdown from the best of my knowledge for a refresher, and to keep me on track, is;
Q; Has God rejected his people? (The group of circumcised people) A; No. See the remnant! Also salvation by grace alone, because if it was works then it wouldnt be grace.
Q; OK well, what is happening to Israel? (the circumcised people not the remnant) A; Well God has darkened their eyes and hardened their heart. Though there is still a remnant people
Q; So the jews are done for? A; No they are not, and you did benefit from their transgressions, but even though their failure benefits you, look for their rise, because that will benefit you more.
Paul is speaking to gentiles, but says he wishes for the Jews to hear this and be stirred with passion and jealousy for the lord. He then acknowledges again, as he has been doing in the previous chapter, their obstinance. Then he goes into Jews being taken out for their unbelief, and the gentiles who are just as prone to this.
White then points to the fact that unbelief was what cast them out. The new covenant is one that promises that they will have faith, so these gentiles being cut out, can not be a part of the new covenant, but something else. The alive branches, the remnant, has always been this way through time.
Then he shows that this is speaking to groups unlike the warnings in Hebrews, and that these gentile churches were cut off from God for their haughtiness against the Jews. He notes that you look through church history and that you can see this pattern over and over. The big part of this that he points to is not to take group speak and then apply it to the individual in this particular passage. He is talking about the larger church as he was talking about the larger jewish people, and how these churches are cut off, like the jewish group, not just simply individuals. If we wish to keep continuity we must keep both as groups instead of apply it, and change what the bible clearly expresses is the new covenant. This isn't
I hope this helps and I hope I presented the argument well, but if not I do hope you find the answer or already have in this time.
It is fascinating that he took a specific theological presupposition into the text and then interpreted the text in light of that presupposition even though the text actually disproves his theological presupposition. Reformed theology really is deductive hermeneutics.
I’m confused-how did the branches get there in the first place? Are all gentiles on the tree automatically and then God prunes the tree? And also I’m confused about interpretation of the branches as groups of people. How many gentiles have to be haughty in order for the gentiles to be cut off and the Jews grafted back in? I grew up dispensational and this interpretation seems similar to how they interpret it. Maybe I’m missing something.
The person going through water baptism must know and believe beyond all shadow of a doubt that their salvation is by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, or else the ordinance becomes a witness against them.
@@MsQ275 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled (Mt. 5:6). Baptism is a beautiful, symbolic ordinance to be once enjoyed by all whose hope is in the sufficiency of Jesus’ blood and righteousness alone.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Mt. 6:33).
I’ll😅😊 lol o😊 ok
Ok I
I’m
No I’m on
O😮 I’m l
Mml
@@MsQ275 l😅ki
I love the work you guys do, but why do you speak and act as if the Jews are the only Israelites left? Or as if they are all legitimate Judahites? Both YDNA haplogroups and scripture prove they’re mostly comprised of convert lineages. Many of the people in your congregation will be descendants of the Israelites/Judahites who were dispersed among the heathens, deported among the gentiles, and sent to every nation; as scripture tells they would. This is also proven by both YDNA and scripture. I have plenty of content on the topic! I am not sure why Christians get offended when I say these things and outright deny my claims without listening to what I have to say or diligently attempting to rebut it.
Anyway, love your work. Your ministry is what led me to an understanding of Preterism, Post-Millennialism and much more. I am very thankful for the work you guys do!
The NIV States hardening, not partial hardening.
In Greek, it is "πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους", which is literally "a hardness from a part", aka "partial hardening"
@@wishuhadmyname Thanks. The ESV states 'partial'.
Niv is paraphrase
James Mohammed white :(
That beard is just a bit weird.
Romans 11 has nothing to do with baptism at all he even says it. Then why title this a baptism sermon??? This was a Calvinist sermon trying to understand something he clearly wants to avoid that Romans 11 debunks Calvinism for the fact that you have to be part of something, in this case an Olive tree, before you can be removed. His theology teaches no one once part of Christ can be removed. Paul said to not boast, you can be graphed in and out, you can believe, then turn away not continuing that belief and be removed. Also disbelievers, the disbelieving Jews are hardened by Gods will, but can be graphed back in which means God will cease to harden their hearts and they may get another chance at believing. Plain and simple.