Sinners & Saints

1 comment so far

1. Feb 15, 2007Thomas Twitchell   #

   Thankyou for your lessons on Tulip.

   Two things caught my attention.

   Your teaching on the scapegoat. The goat that was released into the wilderness was the “escape goat” was it not? The goat of atonement was the scapegoat. That is oftened turned around. The definition of a scapegoat though is the one upon who the punishment falls, not the one that gets set free. I think the lesson of Barabbas is the fulfillment of this prophetic law. There are several ways to look at the escape goat. It could be the sins that are separated as far as the east is from the west. But, as you alluded to in another part of these lessons, it could be the sins that return to the world that bring death in the wilderness of sin (the world). This would then speak of judgement of wrath against the rejectors, and the release of Barabbas, the escape goat being released to the people was then the return of the self imposed curse, “Let His blood be upon us and our children.”

   The other thing that concerned me was the way in which you characterized the unchurched as if they were treading the blood of Christ under their feet. I think this goes a little too far and is out of context with the verses you mentioned. First of all, there is the rejection of the blood that is included in Hebrews 10, and even though it is linked with those who abandoned fellowship the issues are not necessarily connected. I agree that fellowship with the saints is incumbent upon the believer. However, it is not the cause of the final apostacy of Hebrews 10, nor is it necessarily connected to it. I spent the first seven years of my Christian life out of fellowship and only began to doubt my assurance when I entered into fellowship. While obedience lends to assurance it is not the foundation of it, 1 John. External means only pertain to the visible church, not the invisible though those means are necessarily connected with the edification of the saints, it is ultimately a work of the Holy Spirit. I have never read the WCF or any other confession that makes attendance in a church the grounding of assurance, though all obedience lends to it and certainly anyone in disobedience cannot lean upon their disobedience as a sign of assurance. But, a sign is just a sign, it is not instrumental in the effacacy of the thing it signifies, is it? Or, do you believe in an instrumental sacrementalism?

   Again thankyou for you recordings. I am currently involved in trying to bring to our SBC church a change from Arminianism to the Doctrines of Grace and your work will help.

   Many blessings and thanksgivings for you,

   tt