tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-334531262024-03-12T20:26:57.449-07:00Caledonian HighlanderA discussion of theological, philosophical, and historical issues from a supralapsarian, Sovereign Grace Baptist Christian perspectiveScott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-34603075224437293662022-04-01T18:05:00.003-07:002022-04-01T18:08:26.708-07:00The Theology of Robert Sandeman Part 2<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOwuLIPV1Sb2VNSEHLXQjGLvrSAZ8GgmI1haKFZay_RD5MjkOHxJ4s8s0_G-WHN861ylDtjcjxqpsv361eO3a69mXcotEJ0n8R-1e5mDnnC_9G3OUre7TmlP38lmBDN5GP6IY_H-vZIDPhFqoTuVQOqAjnjDVZmxLVuvUeyuEi4IG7QbiDFpk=s300" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="227" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOwuLIPV1Sb2VNSEHLXQjGLvrSAZ8GgmI1haKFZay_RD5MjkOHxJ4s8s0_G-WHN861ylDtjcjxqpsv361eO3a69mXcotEJ0n8R-1e5mDnnC_9G3OUre7TmlP38lmBDN5GP6IY_H-vZIDPhFqoTuVQOqAjnjDVZmxLVuvUeyuEi4IG7QbiDFpk" width="227" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgWV4JGmum4dEk8BDgODkz0cMWnnnHU1sOMdbwDdbcY39445RR48fgyp9Keilz5vImNTQhZnvAzfjyDp5NNn41jjdkgD2waLRsq-BsIyVkm8DKG6psip1Mf_W9saq7aPZWdIWQABiTIdi72a98IkoGcBrBLhpMzrJVSGW0dz-Kcn_trg2rvDK0=s373" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgWV4JGmum4dEk8BDgODkz0cMWnnnHU1sOMdbwDdbcY39445RR48fgyp9Keilz5vImNTQhZnvAzfjyDp5NNn41jjdkgD2waLRsq-BsIyVkm8DKG6psip1Mf_W9saq7aPZWdIWQABiTIdi72a98IkoGcBrBLhpMzrJVSGW0dz-Kcn_trg2rvDK0=s320" width="214" /></a></div><br /> Robert Sandeman is one of the most neglected theologians in history. Although his work never fruited into a denomination, his influence was felt all over the world. In his day he started one of the most profound discussions on the Gospel resonating to this day. His work The Letters on Theron and Aspasio angered hyper Calvinist Baptists like John Brine, Revivalist Baptists like Isaac Backus, Arminians like John Wesley, Calvinistic Methodists like James Hervey, Presbyterians like David Wilson and was even “Refuted by an Old Woman” in Anne Dutton (a Particular Baptist) and yet he manages only a few lines of recognition in books on Scottish history such as The History of Scottish Theology Volume II by Ferguson & Elliot. Organizations like Banner of Truth publish a variety of books on and about a variety of theologians including Arminians like John Wesley and yet Robert Sandeman is ignored unless it is something critical. I hope these posts are in some small way able to rectify this loss.<p></p><div><br /></div><div>On The Divinity of Christ- Page 225 "I mean Dr. Isaac Watts and Dr. Philip Doddridge. The former not content with yielding up the apostolic account of Christ as a Divine person, has conspired with the latter to overthrow the gospel-doctrine of faith, and the imputed righteousness, in a treatise called The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul..."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Popular (Errant) Preachers view of Faith- Page 227 "Mr. Guthrie, in his Trial of a Saving Interest in Christ part 1, chap. 7. Of faith, after having told us in some respects what faith is not, proceeds thus: 'I say, true justifying faith is not any of the aforesaid things; NEITHER IS IT SIMPLY THE BELIEVING OF ANY SENTENCE THAT IS WRITTEN, OR THAT CAN BE THOUGHT UPON.' "</div><div><br /></div><div>Page 242 "Accordingly, we find they seldom or never incline to tell us what they mean by faith, but by some labored circumlocutions."</div><div><br /></div><div>Page 244 "If they venture to tell us, that we are justified by a righteousness imputed to us, they must add, upon the terms of the gospel."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Apostolic Faith- Page 257 "The apostles use the word faith or belief in the same sense we do to this day in common discourse. We are properly said to believe what any man says, when we are persuaded that what he says is true. There is no difference betwixt our believing any common testimony and our believing that of the gospel..."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Passions and Affections- Page 257 "The question about faith must be set aside, when the inquiry turns upon how a man is affected by a testimony which he believes? His passions and affections are set in motion, according to the nature of the thing testified, or according as the testimony brings him matter of joy or grief, hope or fear."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Insufficient Faith- Page 258 "Every one who believes the same truth which the apostles believed, has equally precious faith with them. He has unfeigned faith, and shall assuredly be saved. If any man's faith be found insufficient to save him, it is owing to this, that what he believed for truth, was not the very same thing that the apostles believed, but some lie connected with, or dressed up in the form of truth."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Paedobaptism- Page 265 "By the like reasonings do some of our devoutest dissenters forbid little children to be brought to Christ, to be blessed of him in partaking of the one baptism, which the Scripture plainly shows to be the common privilege of the one body of the one Lord, or of that heavenly kingdom to which the infants of believing parents are declared to belong."</div><div><br /></div><div>Popular Preachers on Love- Page 281 " They so confound the distinction betwixt faith and love, that it is difficult to say what fixed uniform notion they have of either. In words they agree with the apostles, in maintaining, that men are justified by faith, and not by love; but, then, when they come to explain themselves, they hold it necessary that love first perform its office before faith is at liberty to make its conclusion."</div><div><br /></div><div>Human Will Not Involved- Page 284 "... the Scripture plainly shows, that all who are relieved by the gospel, so are born of God, are born not of the will of man in any shape wherein that will can be considered."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Assent- Page 284 "The popular preachers do, indeed, admit something like the Scriptural notion of believing, into a corner of their account of faith, under the title of the assent of faith. But, then, it lies in so remote and so dark a corner, as scarcely to be seen."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Covenantal Distinctions- Page 303 " I have no concern with the distinction betwixt the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, on which our systems are formed; as it serves to set aside, obscure, and confound the capital distinction set before us in the apostolic writings, betwixt the old and new covenant, or betwixt the covenant ratified by the blood of bulls and goats, and the new covenant in Christ's blood... It may suffice at present to say, that in the New Testament, the obedience of Christ, with its effects is contrasted with the sin of Adam and its effects, and that the new covenant is contrasted only with the old one made with Israel.</div><div><br /></div><div>Two Covenants Not One With Different Dispensations- Page 303 "As a proof how much the Scriptural distinctions are set aside to give place to those framed by the wisdom of the scribe, it may be observed, that these covenants, which Paul expressly calls two, and in many respects opposes to each other, are boldly affirmed to be but two dispensations of one and the same covenant, by many Christian teachers who are very fond of the abovementioned systematical distinction."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Repentance- Page 349 " Repentance, then, is the change of a man's mind to love the truth, which always carries in it a sense of shame and regret at his former opposition to it."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Assurance- Page 356 " When Abraham believed God, and that which he believed was imputed to him for righteousness, he had the assurance of faith, before it was put to the great trial of offering up his son."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Perseverance- Page 359 " This fear dwelling in their hearts, checks and recalls them when ready to be utterly led away by their former evil inclinations. They are preserved from falling away, by the fear of falling away."</div><div><br /></div><div>On Obedience- Page 366 " The simple belief of the truth, is the only spring of all true holiness, of all love and obedience to God."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-38470685821831572102021-04-29T17:45:00.004-07:002021-04-30T14:42:52.573-07:00The Theology of Robert Sandeman Part 1<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkRtNM2cQN_06NSesklFVhD2H-FuUKDZTw3w3-1kp2riGNY8xzH0oOO4vW81AgKdiT-WAU7zIZmb-RyS_6Y7Vxww-1v8dvCHfDBr5MMQ1nUbzgr8CRYemVssDk4kr1nm2ULXxRrg/s1200/PKA_PKC_1994_96-001.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="976" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkRtNM2cQN_06NSesklFVhD2H-FuUKDZTw3w3-1kp2riGNY8xzH0oOO4vW81AgKdiT-WAU7zIZmb-RyS_6Y7Vxww-1v8dvCHfDBr5MMQ1nUbzgr8CRYemVssDk4kr1nm2ULXxRrg/s320/PKA_PKC_1994_96-001.jpg" /></a></div><br /> ROBERT SANDEMAN<p></p><p>In tribute of Robert Sandeman's birthday I thought it would be helpful to give a quick glance of his theology as stated in his book <u>Letters on Theron and Aspasio</u>. While he wrote a few other books, this is his magnum opus and the one that most clearly defines his thoughts on theological topics. Robert Sandeman (April 29, 1718-April 2, 1771) was a contemporary of such theologians as Jonathan Edwards, John Gill and John Wesley. Books giving a more thorough history of his biography are <u>The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion: A History of Sandemanianism in the Eighteenth Century</u> by John Howard Smith, <u>Michael Faraday: Sandemanian and Scientist</u> by Geoffrey Cantor and see <a href="https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/10142/0074170c.pdf?sequence=1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/10142/0074170c.pdf?sequence=1 </a> for a copy of the unpublished dissertation of J.T. Hornsby called <u>John Glas (1695-1773)</u>.</p><p><br /></p><p>My look at Sandeman will come from the 1803 Edinburgh publication of the fourth edition in two volumes. If you have or get a reprint today, it will probably be an reprint of the 1838 American publication of the fourth edition in one volume and so the paginations will be different. </p><p><br /></p><p>Limited Atonement- Page 14 "The gospel proposes nothing to be believed by us, but what is infallibly true, whether we believe it or not. For shall our own unbelief make the faith or veracity of God of none effect? Far be it! Heaven and earth shall pass away, but none of his words shall fall to the ground. The gospel, which fortells the final perdition of so many of its hearers, so many and zealously exercised about it, can never warrant us to persuade every one who hears it, to believe that Christ died for him; unless we shall say that Christ died for every individual of mankind, and consequently that none of mankind owe their salvation wholly to his death.</p><p>Offers of Christ- On page 22 states that we are witnesses for God to men and never bargain for God with men. They either believe the witness of do not.</p><p>Perverted Gospel- Page 85 Sandeman writes in reference to the current state of Protestant preaching that "We have got a perverted gospel. We have got some insipid sentiment about the cross of Christ, that, like the law of works, can do us no good, till it be reduced to practice. As for the bare work finished on the cross, or the bare report about it, however true we think it, so far have we mistaken it, that, setting aside our active operations about it, we do not see what comfort or benefit can be derived from it; ...".</p><p>Duty Faith?- Page 88 "Every one then, who is born of the Spirit, lives merely by what he hears, without his performing any duty at all; ..."</p><p>Sovereign Grace- Page 111 "... but according to that sovereign grace, which, acting, not contrary to law, but beyond the law of it, and high above it, placed him, who thought it no robbery to be equal with God, under the law, as the substitute of the guilty, to redeem them by being made a curse for them, he receives power over all flesh, to bestow eternal life on as many as were given him to be redeemed by him.".</p><p>Creation events in succession- Page 116 "... in order to our knowing his character, it is necessary that one part of his works appear before the other; even as it was necessary, that the earth should be first created a dark confused mass, that he might appear, by his working, the God not of darkness and confusion, but of light and order."</p><p>Premillennial- Page 129 "This church will receive no establishment on the earth, till the resurrection of the just, when the whole redeemed company shall reign with Christ a thousand years on the earth, after which they shall inherit the new heavens and the new earth for ever."</p><p>Against Alcoholic Beverages- Page 134 "How long shall we hold forth strong drink unto men, and still bemoan their intemperance? How long shall we pray that the cause may flourish, and the natural effects decrease?".</p><p>Chosen in Christ- Page 151 "When the whole company of them who were redeemed from among men, and chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, shall fully experience what meaneth grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.".</p><p>God Inspired Scripture- Page 154 "The apostle's argument, then must run thus: Whereas prophecy came not by the will of man, it is not to be understood according to the fancy or pleasure of men, but according to the interpretation given of it by God himself, from whom it came.".</p><p>Elect Angels- Page 216 "... but to their being chosen of sovereign grace to be servants in the kingdom of the Son of God, and therefore they are called the elect angels.".</p><p>Several Days to Create- Page 236 "Prov. 8:30 plainly referring to the several days wherein the world was made.".</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-89297510503772056752020-09-12T15:10:00.005-07:002020-09-14T10:10:40.137-07:00Remarks on Studies on Saving Faith by A.W. Pink<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5k_ITIxkMNHKxyp8LgPe3Vj4h1SD45igd-8hUF-SwO2i7Y1eIzAi_h_6efOSOWLaRV7W7tmKFdLiGcfPlGhtyrt67xpFCNdxdiYaUVu-uOJU1lcAymEPWNXIkkNOAi44ofBjRdg/s343/3DB27D82-84C5-40D1-8149-D6914C5A29BD.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="343" data-original-width="295" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5k_ITIxkMNHKxyp8LgPe3Vj4h1SD45igd-8hUF-SwO2i7Y1eIzAi_h_6efOSOWLaRV7W7tmKFdLiGcfPlGhtyrt67xpFCNdxdiYaUVu-uOJU1lcAymEPWNXIkkNOAi44ofBjRdg/s320/3DB27D82-84C5-40D1-8149-D6914C5A29BD.jpeg" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>In my ongoing analysis and discussion of obedience salvation I have come across a book by A.W. Pink called Studies on Saving Faith (a Biblical response to easy believism). I have never heard of this book until recently. I have been familiar with Pink ever since a teenager when I took up his classic work The Sovereignty of God (the unabridged version) and came to a clear understanding of “Calvinism”. I still count this as one of my all time favorite books. Studies on Saving Faith however is a different book and my opinion is different as well. I think there is a reason I have not heard of this book until now. Although Pink attempts his usual scripture saturation to prove his point, the scriptures he uses demand his presupposed definition of certain terms and are not proving the obedience salvation he is attempting to prove. In this post I want to make some remarks showing the fallacy of his position and how it is ultimately a form of Arminianism to be nice or Romanism to be harsh.</p><p>The edition I hold is edited by Don Kistler and has a foreword unsurprisingly by John MacArthur. Although a great debate on saving faith between calvinists Robert Sandeman and James Hervey as well as Baptists Archibald M’Lean and Andrew Fuller raged over a hundred years before his book, he nowhere mentions this. Pink starts off by attacking evangelists of his day for preaching Christ as a Savior from Hell and not sin (p.6). This is an ambiguous attack however as one goes to Hell because of sin and so if Christ saves us from Hell he has saved us from sin. Also, as Luther and the Reformers rightly noted we are simultaneously saved and sinners. While we are being sanctified and putting off sin and the old man every day we are not perfect until we are glorified. Perfectionism was a doctrine promulgated by Arminian John Wesley. Pink could be interpreted as being more akin to Wesley than Luther with this statement. On page 8, Pink make the ignorant and damnable statement that “Something more than ‘believing’ is necessary to salvation”. This is outright denial of sola fide. This statement puts the reliability of Christ into question who said “he that believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life”. </p><p>In chapter three, Pink states that a no matter how comprehensive a person’s faith is it may not be saving. As a matter of fact, according to Pink, reprobates may know the gospel better than real Christians. He goes even further than those who say there is such a thing as “historical faith” in the reprobate and says that the reprobate may possess a faith given by the Holy Spirit and it not be a saving one (p.16). Pink goes on to say “Thus there is a people who can even show you their faith by their works, and yet it is not a saving one! It is impossible to say how far a non-saving faith may go, and how very closely it may resemble that faith which is saving. Saving faith has Christ for its object; so has a non-saving Faith (John 2:23-24). Saving faith is wrought by the Holy Spirit; so is a non-saving Faith (Hebrews 6:4). Saving faith is produced by the Word of God; so also is a non-saving Faith (Matthew 13:20-21). Saving faith will make a man prepare for the coming of the Lord, so also will a non-saving. Of both the foolish and wise virgins it is written, ‘then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps’ (Matthew 25:7). Saving faith is accompanied with joy; so also is a non-saving Faith (Matt. 13:20).” From this extensive quote you can plainly see that there is no difference between an elect believer and a reprobate according to Pink, which means you cannot know if you are saved! The book of 1 John contrarily states you can know you are saved. Only the elect can truly believe the Gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:7,8,14) and if you believe you can know you are saved.</p><p>One final quote from Pink on page 32 of his book where he says “Thus an essential element or ingredient in saving faith is a yielding to the authority of God, a submitting of myself to His rule. It is very much more than my understanding assenting and my will consenting to the fact that Christ is a Savior for sinners, and that He stands ready to receive all who trust Him.” This clearly shows “faith” for Pink is really obedience to the law and has nothing to do with the Gospel of Christ. Even for those who hold to “faith” as will such as James Buchanan (see his response to the Sandemanian system in his The Doctrine of Justification pages 174-175) would be astonished and saddened by such a deviation from truth.</p><p>To sum up, this is an awful book! It goes even further in error than most inconsistent theologians who claim faith is an aspect of the will or believe the reprobate have “historical faith” in the gospel or believe in a “temporary faith” in the reprobate. Call it Arminianism or Romanism but it is bad theology!</p><p><br /></p>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-78369076092272109882020-06-07T18:40:00.000-07:002020-06-07T18:40:25.224-07:00Was Zane Hodges a Sandemanian? No!!!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4dGfCbUyJbkqOCVHd3FHJDxg9d2M9ax8xkZStiyuYzY-iaHeKgLcKBy51oddRjQtgJOiEA6l_OnVSpNVaw0kiG-Y_MrbMmHRCNy18SN-ZjN4DAc0iXbVh_F4mcr7yfFB41k_Q_w/s1600/CB7A3EB4-95D2-422A-896C-CE831224D501.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="291" data-original-width="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4dGfCbUyJbkqOCVHd3FHJDxg9d2M9ax8xkZStiyuYzY-iaHeKgLcKBy51oddRjQtgJOiEA6l_OnVSpNVaw0kiG-Y_MrbMmHRCNy18SN-ZjN4DAc0iXbVh_F4mcr7yfFB41k_Q_w/s1600/CB7A3EB4-95D2-422A-896C-CE831224D501.jpeg" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgobdLrSkokVF_0m97Yw0O5PZbGd9m4GaHZY1fH99hCOLMf_TVKmrVyevQwo0SmccZAzm6ssV5QXodsMgZluTnFKGbfQFDSYCrvfLmabk2hyphenhyphen7cKEHb2Qi8m88b8-WSv4A9w8vHJ2A/s1600/97D64585-4339-439D-BD60-CC305FAE8A7A.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="179" data-original-width="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgobdLrSkokVF_0m97Yw0O5PZbGd9m4GaHZY1fH99hCOLMf_TVKmrVyevQwo0SmccZAzm6ssV5QXodsMgZluTnFKGbfQFDSYCrvfLmabk2hyphenhyphen7cKEHb2Qi8m88b8-WSv4A9w8vHJ2A/s1600/97D64585-4339-439D-BD60-CC305FAE8A7A.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Quite often in my discussions on faith I am associated with the late Dallas Seminary professor Zane Hodges or his group at the Grace Evangelical Society see <a href="https://faithalone.org/tag/zane-hodges/">https://faithalone.org/tag/zane-hodges/</a> . In my study of the “Lordship Salvation” view Zane Hodges is often referred to as a Sandemanian. This post is to dispel this nonsense.<br />
<br />
Any cursory study of Robert Sandeman will find that Robert Sandeman believed that Faith was a gift of God and was a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Tim. 3:7) not involving the human will at all (John 1:12, Rom. 9:16). That same cursory study of Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society will show that they deny faith is a gift of God and that it is dependent on the human will. To put it succinctly, Sandeman was a Calvinist and Hodges was an Arminian. Fortunately, some critics have been scholarly enough to admit this. Lloyd-Jones in his work The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors is careful to admit this and even goes as far as to say that Sandeman was a high Calvinist. David Gay is another careful critic and in his book reviewed above called The Secret Stifler, he calls Sandemanianism a Reformed error. Compare this to the book The Faith That Saves by Arminians Fred Chay and John P. Correa <a href="https://wipfandstock.com/the-faith-that-saves.html">https://wipfandstock.com/the-faith-that-saves.html</a> and you can clearly see that no Arminian can be a Sandemanian. Faith for an Arminian will always necessitate free will as a part of faith which is antithetical to Sandemanianism.<br />
<br />
After saying this I do want to say that most Arminians are “Lordship Salvationists” and so the Arminians are divided over certain aspects admittedly. A lot of Arminians agree with the “Lordship Salvation” taught in Arminian Baptist Robert Shank’s book Life In the Son see <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/091162001X/ref=nodl_?tag=duckduckgo-ipad-20&linkCode=osi&th=1&psc=1">https://www.amazon.com/dp/091162001X/ref=nodl_?tag=duckduckgo-ipad-20&linkCode=osi&th=1&psc=1</a> . This book was listed as a source by John MacArthur in the first edition of his The Gospel According To Jesus by the way. But for Arminian dispensationalists, Zane Hodges seems to have more traction than Robert Shank.<br />
<br />
I understand that theologians will keep calling Hodges a Sandemanian despite the truth of the matter. I know they will use some guilt by association trick to discourage thoughtful research into Robert Sandeman. I know they probably think that Sandemanianism will lead to the errors of Zane Hodges.<br />
They just need to know that I will continue to say that their view will either lead to “Federal Vision”and Norman Shepherd theology of works justification or to the error of Robert Shank, that a Christian can lose his salvation if he does not obey enough.<br />
<br />Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-55628453573812791692020-03-18T09:49:00.000-07:002020-03-19T13:59:33.906-07:00Calvinist Baptist Groups<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s2" style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Calvinist Baptist Groups</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s2" style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
I have compiled a list of major Calvinist Baptist groups in America below. I have placed next to them organizations or authors that are either part of or influential to these groups. If I had a question about the group the author has influenced more I put a question mark. I hope this is a helpful guide for those seeking a fellowship.</div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Credobaptist</span><span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> Evangelicals</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- Believe, teach and practice credobaptism only but allow for members who have never been </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">scripturally </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">baptized</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> (</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Paedobaptized</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">)</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">. (John Bunyan, Robert and James Haldane, </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">A.W. Pink</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">?,</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">John MacArthur)</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> (</span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">?)</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Founders Ministries</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- Hold to the Second London Baptist Confession </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">as the Reformed Baptists </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">but also support and fellowship with </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">The Southern Baptist Convention</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, which includes Baptists </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">o</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">f different stripes such as Arminian, </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Amyraldian</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Molinists</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> and others. This group is staunchly Covenant in its theology and hold conferences promoting such</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">. </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">They are content in being a subgroup of the larger group. (Andrew Fuller, James Boyce, John </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Dagg</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, Ernest Reisinger, Al Martin, Tom </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Ascol</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, Fred Malone, Tom Nettles)</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Sovereign Grace Baptists</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- Align themselves according to the five </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Solas</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> of the Reformation and the five points of Calvinism. May use a Baptist confession (1</span><span class="s5" style="font-size: 7px; line-height: 8.399999618530273px; vertical-align: super;">st</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> London, 2</span><span class="s5" style="font-size: 7px; line-height: 8.399999618530273px; vertical-align: super;">nd</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> London, Philadelphia or New Hampshire) or a Statement of Faith as their creed. May be Covenant, Dispensational, Progressive Dispensational, New Covenant or Progressive Covenant. (</span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Sovereign Grace Baptist Association of Churches</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> and </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Sovereign Grace Baptist Fellowship</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">) (A.W. Pink</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">?,</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> Henry Mahan, John Reisinger and my personal favorite Archibald McLean)</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Regular Baptists- </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">This group lives in the GARBC. They are influential through their </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Regular Baptist Ministries</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> and </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Regular Baptist Press</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">.</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> (Kenneth Good)</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Reformed Baptists</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- Hold strictly to the Second London Baptist Confession and only fellowship with churches that do also. (</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Independent </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Reformed Baptists, ARBCA)</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">(</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Benjamin </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Keach</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Walt Chantry, </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Sam Waldron, James </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Renihan</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, Richard </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Barcellos</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">)</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Primitive/Strict/Hard</span><span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> </span><span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">shell</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- This group </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">is</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> considered to be </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">H</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">yper</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">-Calvinist. While maintaining the five points of Calvinism they usually include doctrines like eternal justification and/or deny any natural means of grace. (John Gill, John Brine, J.C. Philpot</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Lasserre</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> Bradley</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">)</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Landmark Baptists</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- The distinction in this group is ecclesiological. They hold similar to the Catholic Church an unbroken succession of Baptist churches since Jesus walked the earth. </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">They only have </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">fellowship</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> with other Baptists. </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">(J.R. Graves)</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Charismatic Calvinist Baptists</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">This is not a formal fellowship but </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">more of </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">a movement. </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">They are Baptists that teach both Calvinism and </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Continuationism</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">. They have been highly influential in books, conferences, blogs, Professorships and as Pastors. Wayne </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Grudem</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, Don Carson, John Piper and Sam Storms are popular for a bestselling </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Systematic Theology</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">(</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Grudem</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">), </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">The Gospel Coalition</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">ministry </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">(Carson), </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Desiring God Ministries</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> and book (Piper) and </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Enjoying God Ministries</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">(Storms).</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span class="s3" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Generic</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">- This group is hard to classify. They may be a mix of </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">some of the</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> above or stand alone. (Charles Spurgeon) </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">1. Al </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Mohler</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> (Southern Baptist) and Mark </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Dever</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> (whose church uses the New Hampshire Baptist Confession and is Southern Baptist) hold conferences called </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Together For The Gospel</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> with Presbyterian </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Ligon</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> Duncan and Charismatic Evangelical C.J. </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Mahaney</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">. They fellowship with the</span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;"> Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">as well. </span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">2. Steven Lawson, a Southern Baptist, has been on the Board of Directors of </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">dispensationalist </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">John MacArthur’s </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Master’s Seminary </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">and is a popular conference speaker but typically works alone with his </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">OnePassion</span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;"> Ministry</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">3. Tom Schreiner, Fred </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Zaspel</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, Michael </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Haykin</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> are </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">all highly </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">influen</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">tial</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> through both their many books and as Professors at </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Southern Baptist Theological Seminary</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">.</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">These men are highly respected in Sovereign Grace Baptist circles.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">4. James White is highly influential as an author</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, debater</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> and through his ministry </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Alpha and Omega Ministries</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">.</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> Although an Elder in a Reformed Baptist Church, he is not Sabbatarian.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">5. </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Jeffrey Johnson is a newer face on the scene, but as a Pastor, Author and now having started his own Seminary, has many outlets to influence Baptists.</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> Seems open to Sovereign Grace </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">circles</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> but toes the line for Reformed Baptist Theology.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">6. </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Timothy George is a Southern Bap</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">tist Author and Journalist. His </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">book </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Theology of the Reformers</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">, first published in 1988, </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">is a classic that </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">has influenced a number of Baptists.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">
<span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">7</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">. Roger Nicole and R.K. MacGregor Wright, though no longer with us both have been influential through, his books and many </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Seminary </span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">Professorships (Nicole) and his ministry </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">Aquila & Priscilla Study Center</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> and book </span><span class="s4" style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px; text-decoration: underline;">No Place for Sovereignty</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;">(Wright).</span><span style="line-height: 21.600000381469727px;"> Both are looked on as more liberal as they were both egalitarian.</span></div>
Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-43308060318934857292018-10-14T19:41:00.000-07:002018-10-14T19:51:05.995-07:00Christian Identity<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I do not spend a lot of time thinking of my identity. When I do, I simply look at my License and what that does not tell me my wife fills in the rest including some stuff I do not want to know. Identity seems to be an issue of discussion
today not only in scholarly Christian circles but also in the Political realm. In this post I am only concerned about the scholarly Christian discussions. A recent book called <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Being-Reformed-Theological-Christianities-Trans-Atlantic/dp/3319951912/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539569019&sr=8-1&keywords=On+Being+Reformed%3A+Debates+over+a+Theological+Identity">On Being Reformed: Debates over a Theological Identity</a> by Matthew Bingham, Chris
Caughey, Scott Clark, Crawford Gribben and D.G. Hart discusses just this. The main question of the book is can Baptists be rightfully called Reformed. As a member of a Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, I have no ecclesiastical agenda in considering this topic.
I couldn’t care less whether any Baptist group calls itself “Reformed” or not.</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For myself growing up in an independent fundamental dispensational Baptist church, I at some point in my teens got hold of the classic <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sovereignty-God-Arthur-W-Pink/dp/0882704249/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1539569197&sr=8-4">The Sovereignty of God</a> by A.W. Pink (unabridged version) and it changed the way I looked at scripture.
I then started reading a variety of different authors that were called “Calvinists” and even Calvin himself. At some point some (Baptist) friends of mine said we should not call ourselves Calvinists because that glorifies a man and instead call ourselves Reformed
because that just indicates the movement. So I said that sounds reasonable and started using the moniker informally. Then I came across some books by a Regular Baptist named Kenneth Good called <a href="http://www.backusbooks.com/are-baptists-calvinists.html">Are Baptists Calvinists? </a>(to which he answered Yes!) and <a href="http://www.backusbooks.com/are-baptists-reformed-.html">Are Baptists Reformed?</a> (to which he answered a resounding No!) who took the exact opposite opinion on the labels. Calvinist for him was essentially the doctrines of grace whereas Reformed was a whole system of doctrines that Baptist distinctives could not allow. I found
some of his arguments convincing but I found I disagreed with him so much that I did not give him much heed. Then I later started coming into contact with other “Reformed Baptists” as I considered myself at the time and found that we did not see eye to eye
on much. They were strict London Confessionalists who were Sabbatarian, loved Banner of Truth (Pietist Calvinist organization) and thought that Pink’s unabridged book was hyper-Calvinist as well as John Gill, whom I had grown a fondness for. I also came under the influence of the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Works-Memoir-Life-Ministry-Writings/dp/1340134446/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539570329&sr=1-2&keywords=Works+of+Archibald+M%27Lean+volume+1">Scotch Baptists</a> and so was labeled as a dreaded "Sandemanian". This led me away
from using the term Reformed to identify myself, but realize it was because I could not identify with the group of Baptists using the name and not out of pity for a victimized denomination called “Reformed”.
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Who Are Baptists?</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal" style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Baptists are so variegated that it is hard to have a specific identity. This is one of the criticisms of Baptists by other denominations and by the Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists often argue that in order to be a Baptist one must
submit to the 1689 London Confession. This they say defines “Baptist” and so I guess they would have the rest of us stop calling ourselves Baptist, which is a little ironic considering they are upset over being denied the “Reformed” label. But Baptists are
called General, Particular, Free Will, Regular, Missionary, Primitive, Landmark, Strict, English, Scotch, Swedish, Southern, Independent, American, Sovereign Grace, Reformed and probably more I am forgetting.
</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> On Being Reformed?</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now to the book mentioned above. The first chapter is written by Chris Caughey and Crawford Gribben. They take the position that the seventeenth century confessions are the roots of a Reformed theological family tree that has many branches. In this view Reformed can include "the more conservative 'new Calvinists' "(think John Piper). The second chapter is written by Matthew Bingham. He takes the position that "Reformed" should be restricted to covenant confessionalists only. He would include in this group Baptists who hold strictly to the London Baptist Confession. Chapter three is written by D.G. Hart. I am a little confused on this as Darryl is a Presbyterian and does not have a dog in this fight. After all there is no Association of Presbyterian Baptists that I am aware of. By his own standards he is not even Reformed as the Presbyterians wrote their own confession in Westminster and did not follow the Three Forms of Unity. They also were founded by John Knox and not Calvin and so may not be able to claim the term "Calvinist" for themselves. I doubt John Calvin would approve of the Westminster Confession in it's infralapsarian predestination and it's views of assurance and definition of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, in his chapter he argues that Baptists are different. He writes "Baptists did not simply revise the Westminster Standards but wrote a new confession of faith" (p. 57). One of his problems with the London Baptist Confession is that it does not have a chapter on marriage and divorce as Westminster does. He nowhere explains why he believes Westminster follows the "Reformed" tradition when it differs with the Three Forms of Unity on assurance being of the essence of faith and Sabbatarian definitions. The final chapter is written by R. Scott Clark. His main arguments are that historically Baptists never identified themselves with the Reformed and that paedo-baptism is essential to the definition of Reformed.</span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At this point I want to reiterate my lack of care if any Baptist fellowship calls itself Reformed or not. In a way Bingham is correct in that it is a signpost for those either looking for or to avoid strict confessionalism or Sabbatarianism. I do not think a Reformed Baptist church sign will cause any confusion for Three Forms of Unity advocates who may slip up and visit the wrong church. There are Methodist Episcopal, Reformed Episcopal, Reformed Presbyterian churches that are clearly understood as to their identity (there is a Primitive Baptist Church of Christ church near my house that confuses me, but since I am neither hyper-Calvinist nor Campbellite, I would not visit it anyway). One of the authors of this book is an Orthodox Presbyterian and to my knowledge they are not being picketed by a bunch of Greeks and Russians for stealing their name. I am sure no one expects a thurible to be used in the worship service of one of these churches either (although D.G. Hart is High Church!). In my opinion the chapter by Caughey and Griffen was the best argued but that does not make it the correct one. Bingham, Hart and Clark are right in that Reformed should not just mean the five points of Calvinism, as Jansenist Catholics would agree with them, and I do think Charismatics veer off the sola scriptura trail too far to be considered Reformed. So Reformed should at least include the five points of Calvinism and the five solas, but whether it necessitates strict adherence to a confession, Sabbatarianism, paedo-baptism, and a particular view of marriage and divorce I am not prepared to say. Maybe we all do need to ask ourselves whether we are Christians first, Baptists first, Calvinists first, Sandemanians first or what? </span></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv1748322139MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></div>
Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-32738451565056957872018-07-20T14:27:00.000-07:002018-08-07T14:55:50.144-07:00UNDERSTANDING FAITH OR FAITH AS UNDERSTANDING<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
The common definition of biblical faith involves a tripartism of notitia,
assensus, and fiducia. Ligonier Ministries describes the situation like this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Notitia.</span></strong><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> <em>Notitia</em> refers to the content of
faith, or those things that we believe. We place our faith in something, or
more appropriately, someone. In order to believe, we must know something about
that someone, who is the Lord Jesus Christ.</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Assensus.</span></strong><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> <em>Assensus</em> is our conviction that
the content of our faith is true. You can know about the Christian faith and
yet believe that it is not true. Genuine faith says that the content — the <em>notitia</em>
taught by Holy Scripture — is true.</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Fiducia.</span></strong><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> <em>Fiducia</em> refers to personal trust
and reliance. Knowing and believing the content of the Christian faith is not
enough, for even demons can do that (</span><span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%202.19" target="_blank"><span lang="EN" style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">James 2:19</span></a></span><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">). Faith is only effectual if, knowing
about and assenting to the claims of Jesus, one personally trusts in Him alone
for salvation.</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Based on this description Notitia
appears to be an intellectual element and can be said to be knowledge or
understanding (I could have named this post “Knowing Faith or Faith is
Knowing”). Assensus appears to be an element of the will in that one not only
knows something to be true but of a will assents to it. Fiducia from the
definition above wants to make the truth personal. This breakdown of faith has
become official orthodoxy in most conservative circles despite not being
scriptural or explicitly stated in any confession. In this post, I want to
examine scripture on this to see if it makes the same conclusions that most
theologians of our day do about “Faith”. I intend to show from scripture that
faith and believing are used interchangeably and that they both ultimately are
a faculty of intellect (knowing or understanding). I intend to show that faith
is a gift and cannot be achieved by human willpower and so unbelievers not only
do not believe the gospel but cannot believe without the regeneration of the
Holy Spirit. I intend to show that the gospel is good news and therefore is
something to be either believed or not. I intend to show that faith in the
gospel will result in evidence of good works. Finally, I intend to show that
despite faith being a gift, God normally uses the means of preaching to produce
it in the elect and does not directly produce it in a vacuum.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">
<b>KINDS OF FAITH?</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">The London Baptist Confession of
1689 states in chapter 14:3 <span style="color: #c00000; margin: 0px;">“</span></span><span style="color: #c00000; margin: 0px;">This faith, although it be in different stages, and may
be weak or strong,11 yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind
or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace
of temporary believers</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px;">”.
</span>This has led many theologians to break faith up in to different
kinds. Temporary, Historical, Speculative, Intellectual, Head and Demonic
are just some of the types of labels given to Faith to indicate a belief in the
gospel that is not saving and will lead eventually to Hell. The statement is
correct in that faith has degrees, as shown in <span style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">Mark
9:24</span>, where the man clearly is a believer but in need of spiritual
growth, however, errantly promotes the idea that unbelievers believe the gospel
temporarily and that their faith is of a different nature than that of the
elect. This a most Arminian statement and not in any way close to being
scriptural. <span style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">1 John 2:19 </span>tells us <span style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">“They went out from us, but they were not really of us;
for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went
out, so that it would be shown that they are not of us.” </span>clearly
indicating that apostates were not really of us or true believers. It mentions
nothing of them being “temporary believers”<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px;"> </span>because their faith was deficient in
kind or nature. <span lang="EN" style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">Romans
1:16 </span><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">states that Paul is <span style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">“not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God
for salvation to everyone who believes…” </span>showing that any one that
believes the gospel is saved! It nowhere states how they are to believe the
gospel just that they are to believe it. <span style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">Matthew
13:20, 21 </span>is often used to prove this idea of a “temporary faith’ but a
few verses down in <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">23</span> we read only the good
soil <span style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">“hears the word and <b>understands</b> it”</span>.
This so-called temporary faith is in appearance only and not a different kind
of faith. Judas never believed the gospel at all, he did not believe it with a
temporary kind of faith (<span style="color: #0070c0; margin: 0px;">John 6:64, 71 &
17:8-12</span>). </span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> </span><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Believing in Faith or Believing in Christ?</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Saving faith or belief is always
outward focused on Christ, what is often said to be “extra nos” by theologians.
The opposite of this is “intra nos” which is focused on ourselves. To
distinguish different kinds of faith makes it necessary to examine intra nos
our faith or ultimately have faith in our faith. The same also goes for those
that distinguish between “faith” and “believing”. These same groups try in vain
to divide faith from belief. Often we read of an “easy believism” which is to
be read as not saving but “faith alone” is read positively as saving. Scripture
in contrast has no such distinctions. <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">John 3:16 </span>clearly
says <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“… whoever believes in Him shall not perish,
but have eternal life” </span>and <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 John 5:4 </span>states
that we overcome the world by our faith. Paul advised the Philippian jailer to
believe for salvation in <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Acts 16:31 </span>but in <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Romans 3:28 </span>he says we are justified by faith
apart from works. Clearly there is no difference in faith and belief. We are justified
by belief alone just as much as we are justified by faith alone.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Knowledge of the Truth</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">The strange thing about the
common understanding of Faith is that despite theologians claim that it is made
up of understanding, will and trust, is how easily they are willing to claim
something as faith without the person having any understanding. The usual
exposition of <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Matthew 13:20, 21 </span>states that
these stony soil people had a temporary faith because they lacked in either
will and/or trust but they had a head faith (read understanding). Scripture
contradicts this interpretation in verse <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">23</span>
however where it says only the good soil understands. We often read in
scripture that faith is a “knowledge of the truth”. <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">2
Timothy 3:7 </span>describing apostates says that they are <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“always learning and never able to come to the <b>knowledge
of the truth</b>” </span>and <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 Timothy 2:4 </span>says
God <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“desires all men to be saved and to come to the
<b>knowledge of the truth</b>”. 2 Timothy 2:25, 26 </span>reiterates this by
saying <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“</span></span><span style="color: #4472c4; font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px;">with </span><span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if
perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the <b>knowledge of the truth</b>,
and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil,
having been held captive by him to do his will.” </span>Clearly, faith is
equivalent to understanding the gospel as true. Speculation is not faith! We
all think of possibilities before accepting the veracity of something but this
is not faith. King Agrippa in <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Acts 26:28 </span>was
never persuaded and so did not have a knowledge of the truth. <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Ephesians 4:13 </span>calls it a <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“knowledge
of the Son of God” </span>and goes on to say in verse <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">18</span>
that unbelievers are <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“darkened in their
understanding” </span>and <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“excluded from the life
of God because of the ignorance that is in them”.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Gift of Faith!</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Faith is a gift of God! <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Ephesians 2:8, 9 </span>say
that <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“For by grace you have been saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of
works, so that no one may boast.” Philippians 1:29 </span>states that it has
been granted to us to believe in him for Christ’s sake. Before God opened our
eyes we were dead in our trespasses and sins and were not able in the slightest
to come to the knowledge of the truth. In <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Mark 4:11
and 12 </span>we are told <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">“And <span style="margin: 0px;">He
was saying to them, </span><span style="margin: 0px;">“To you has been given the mystery
of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,</span>
<span style="margin: 0px;">so that </span><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-variant: small-caps; margin: 0px;">while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing,
they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven</span></span><span style="margin: 0px;">.” </span></span><span style="margin: 0px;">Only the elect see the gospel as
truth. No one can say, “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 Cor. 12:3</span>). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Believing Unbelievers?</b></span><br />
<span style="margin: 0px;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<span style="margin: 0px;">This leads us to the question of those that some theologians
say believe without the Holy Spirit, after all don’t demons believe and go to
hell. This reference is to <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">James 2:19 </span>where
we are told “demons also believe and shudder”. The proper understanding of this
is that demons faith (in their damnation) causes them to work (shudder). Our
faith (in the gospel) will lead us to do works fit for the Kingdom. This is not
saying demons believe the gospel as not even elect angels believe that (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 Peter 1:12</span>) but that their faith works. Simon
the sorcerer is another unbeliever said to believe (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Acts
8:13</span>) but once again whatever Simon believed it was not the gospel as he
thought he could obtain the gift of God with money (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Acts
8:20</span>). The natural man cannot believe the things of God for they are
foolishness to him (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 Corinthians 2:14</span>).
Notice that none of the rulers understood the wisdom of God, for if they had
they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1
Corinthians 2:8, Acts 3:17</span>), Jesus tells us that they do not know what
they are doing (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Luke 23:34</span>). Apostates may have a zeal for God but it is not according to Knowledge (<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Romans 10:2</span>). Unbelievers are
blind, deaf and unreasoning animals (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Isaiah 6:9-11</span>,
<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">2 Peter 2:12</span>). God has hardened and blinded
them from the truth (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Romans 9:18</span>, <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Romans 11:7</span>, <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">8</span>,
<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">2 Corinthians 3:14 </span>& <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">2 Corinthians 4:3-5</span>). While people believe in God
through natural theology (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Romans 1:20, 21 </span>&
<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Genesis 4:13</span>) no person believes in Christ
unless the Father draws them (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">John 6:44</span>) and
anyone that does believe in Christ will most certainly go to heaven (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">John 6:37</span>).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Gospel=Good News</b></span><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Many current theologians complain
that the gospel is just “facts” and this cannot save anyone. They are right the
gospel is facts but the alternative would be lies and of course that is what
you believe if you deny the gospel. Paul told the Corinthians that they stand
in the gospel unless they never really believed it in <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1
Corinthians 15:1-11</span>. In <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Galatians 1:6 </span>we
learn that to believe a different gospel is to desert Christ. <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Romans 1:16 </span>tells us the gospel is the power of
God for salvation to everyone who believes. Read all about it, Christ died for
the sin of man and conquered death in the resurrection and anyone that believes
in him alone for salvation will be saved.</span><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Means
of Grace</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Despite faith being a gift, God
has normally utilized the natural means of hearing or reading the gospel in the
scriptures and not through some direct means such as personal conversation in a
burning bush or white light. <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Romans 10:17 </span>tells
us that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 Corinthians 1:21 </span>tells us that God is pleased to
use preaching to save those who believe. We must be faithful witnesses always
ready to give an account of the hope that is in us (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1
Peter 3:15</span>).</span><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Cause & Effect</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Faith will produce works of
righteousness. Faith without works is dead (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">James
2:26</span>). <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Ephesians 2:10 </span>tells us that
we are God’s artwork created for good works, and we learn in <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Titus 2:14 </span>that believers are “<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">zealous for good works</span>”. We must be careful to
remember that faith is the root and works are the fruit and never try to get
the cart before the horse. Without faith we cannot please him, a person that
goes to God must first believe that he is and that he will reward him we learn
in <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Hebrews 11:6</span>. We are saved by grace not
by works (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Ephesians 2:8, 9 </span>and <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Titus 3:5</span>). </span><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">
<b> Conclusion</b></span><span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Christ while on earth talked about
his testimony and the testimony of scripture pointing to him (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">John 5:36, 39</span>). If we receive the testimony of men
the testimony of God is greater (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 John 5:9</span>).
Testimony is to be believed as truth or rejected as lies. God has given us, the
elect, understanding to know the truth and set us free (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">1 John 5:20</span>, <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Acts 13:48</span>). We
hear his voice and follow him (<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">John 10:27</span>).
This faith is a gift and is passive. Faith is an understanding or
knowledge that Christ is the sacrifice for my sins and rose to prepare a place
for me and is coming again. It excludes human will as <span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">Romans
9:16 </span>tells us “…<span style="color: #4472c4; margin: 0px;">it does not depend on the
man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy</span>”. How you
define faith is how you believe you are justified. If you define faith as “affections”
then you are justified by affections. John Calvin’s definition of faith is
helpful here when he says “Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if
we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded
upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our
minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit”. Soli Deo Gloria!</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">
<b>Further Reading</b> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Letters on Theron and Aspasio by
Robert Sandeman- The best work on faith. Congregational Theologian</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">Works of Archibald M’Lean in Six
Volumes- Especially volumes 1, 4, and 2- Scotch Baptist Minister</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">The Miscellaneous Writings of the
late William Braidwood- Scotch Baptist Minister</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">The Works of Mr. John Glas in
Five Volumes- Especially volume 2- Congregational Minister</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"><br /></span>
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;"> <b>Other Books on Faith</b></span><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<span lang="EN" style="margin: 0px;">What Is Saving Faith by Gordon
Clark- Presbyterian Minister who advocates for faith=understanding &
assent.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;">Faith,
Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures by Samuel Waldron-
Reformed Baptist Minister.</span><span style="margin: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;">Faith
and Its Evidences by John Owen- Puritan Theologian</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;"></span><span style="margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;">Free
Grace Theology: 5 Ways it Diminishes the Gospel by Wayne Grudem- Charismatic
Calvinist Baptist Theologian</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;">The
Secret Stifler: Incipient Sandemanianism and preaching the gospel to sinners by
David H.J. Gay- Particular Baptist Minister</span><span style="margin: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;">Calvin
and English Calvinism to 1649 by R.T. Kendall- Faith from an Amyraldian
perspective</span><span style="margin: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;">The
Gospel According to Jesus: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says "Follow Me" by John MacArthur- Evangelical Minister</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; margin: 0px;">What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin's Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context by Barbara Pitkin</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow- Arminian Dispensationalist Theologian</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
The Current Justification Controversy by O. Palmer Robertson- Presbyterian Theologian</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy by John Robbins- Presbyterian Theologian</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance by Robert Shank- Arminian Baptist minister<br />
<br />
A Faith That is Never Alone: A Response to Westminster Seminary California by P. Andrew Sandlin</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
Salvation By Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King by Matthew W. Bates<br />
<br />
Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification by Robert A. Sungenis- Catholic Theologian</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-49059410488926727702018-04-02T20:38:00.000-07:002018-04-08T17:40:02.662-07:00A Review of The Secret Stifler: Incipient Sandemanianism and preaching the gospel to sinners by David GayRecently I came across a curious little book called The Secret Stifler. Its stated purpose is to save the church from incipient Sandemanianism, which was a movement that emphasized that Saving Faith is like any other faith except in the object of the Christian Gospel. Sandemanianism denies to Saving Faith any emotions, obedience or will and says it is a spiritual understanding or belief of the gospel alone. If Saving Faith is not belief of the Gospel alone then what is it? <br />
<br />
The book is modest and unimpressive in its appearance and publication. The Preface is written by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Professor, Michael Haykin. Haykin has been lambasting Sandemanianism for years being a Padawan of the teaching of Andrew Fuller. He sets the pace of the book by saying if Sandemanianism is true then we cannot distinguish true believers from nominal believers as even nominal believers "mentally assent to the truths of Christianity"(p.9). So for Haykin unbelievers believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again for their salvation, but they still go to hell because they just believed it with their mind. This is far from scripture which teaches "the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..."(Rom.1:16).<br />
<br />
The author then goes on to give a little helpful background of his theology in his Preamble. He is a five-point Calvinist, Particular Baptist. He does not like the term "Reformed Baptist" as he thinks it is an oxymoron. He does not agree with the 1689 London Confession strictly as he is not a Covenant Theologian. He declares himself a decided New Covenant Theologian.(p. 17)<br />
<br />
Next the author goes on to announce that in this book he is just focusing on the understanding of "Faith" in Sandemanianism and not the system as a whole. He repeats the oft made proclamation that Andrew Fuller "effectively destroyed"(p. 24) Sandemanianism back in the 19th century. Sandemanians do not agree with this assessment but I guess we got to take the author's word for it. He then includes <a href="http://www.trinitylectures.org/what-is-saving-faith-p-60.html">Gordon Clark</a> as a modern day Sandemanian by quoting from his book <a href="http://www.trinitylectures.org/what-is-saving-faith-p-60.html">What is Saving Faith?</a> (p. 25) David Gay does not seem to understand Clark in the quote. Clark says <em>"Not all cases of assent, even assent to biblical propositions, are saving faith, but all saving faith is assent to one or more biblical propositions." </em>(p.26) Clark simply meant believing in angels and demons although biblical propositions, do not save. Only believing the propositions of the Gospel save! This unbelievably and sadly causes David Gay confusion. David then goes on to assume that because Sandemanians deny that faith is emotional that it necessarily leads to dry dead Christianity. It seems to be foreign to him that faith leads to a heart of worship as its effect. He cannot fathom this concept.<br />
<br />
David Gay declares that Sandemanianism produces passionless preaching. He is clear that preaching should not be cold hard facts but vibrant and dynamic and uses a case study of Christmas Evans to prove it. It is not surprising Gay feels this as scripture says "people will not endure sound teaching, but have itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions..." (2 Tim. 4:2-5). Finally, Gay does a comparative study of the exegesis of Sandemanian interpretations of Scripture with his own. This I found helpful in that he at least, unlike other critics, has grappled with the writings of Sandemanians directly. The main argument Gay uses is James 2:19 where demons are said to believe in one God. For him Demons believe Christ died for their sins and rose again for their salvation but they still go to hell (p. 60). Gay seems totally ignorant that Christ did not die for angels (Heb 2:16) and that the gospel is not even understood by elect angels much less demons (1 Pet. 1:12). Quite often John 2:23-25 is used to employ that something other than faith is necessary for salvation but Jesus in John 3:11,12 says these people (of which Nicodemus was one) did not receive his testimony by believing him. Simon the Sorceror (Acts 8:13) is another example often used to prove that believing the gospel is not enough but Simon believed he could "obtain the gift of God with money"(Acts 8:20) which is clearly not the gospel of Jesus Christ. These examples fall by the wayside as one examines them faithfully in scripture. Believers passively receive faith and are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man at all but by the will of God alone (John 1:12,13). <strong><em>Soli Deo Gloria</em></strong><br />
<br />
Although I disagree with the author on almost all of his scriptural interpretation, I do recommend this book for the very helpful history of Sandemanianism and the usually careful quotations of Sandemanian exegesis which hopefully will lead people to the truth. His history is generally good with minor exceptions like saying the Sandemanians leading scholar was a man named William Robinson. I am unaware of such a scholar but am aware of a William Jones who wrote many books and articles on Sandemanians and Sandemanianism. Gay also says Sandemanianism is a Reformed error in one of his appendices (p. 209), showing rightly that they are five-point calvinists. The main problem with the book is where David Gay defines saving faith. He declares "We must be clear. Relying, leaning, trusting, <span style="color: red;">obeying</span>, resting, embracing, <span style="color: red;">cleaving</span>, holding, fleeing to, and casting myself on Christ are not mere accompaniments of saving faith; nor can they be limited to the effects of saving faith. They lie at the very heart of saving faith itself. <b>They</b> <b>are</b> <b>saving</b> <b>faith</b>."(p. 90) We see here clearly that he includes obedience in saving faith and he makes no bones about it. David Gay and Michael Haykin sadly teach a works salvation.<br />
<br />
"I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have <strong><em>believed</em></strong>, and I am <strong><em>convinced</em></strong> that <strong><em>he</em></strong> is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me." (2 Tim. 1:12) Amen!<br />
Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-11166129494302103982010-06-15T17:32:00.000-07:002013-09-25T19:50:14.938-07:00Hyper-Calvinism?<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhlu-FCwqaBz84zgFyawevXkQwswwTW7LEr0kpd7RkTO6f95NtFbolC1P5aeeh9hLvX2wiDDQzvIyRtikTIEYczAKoJC0Z2dNTQvLv437P83EzEarIS4b6-PAVk7RWmQzLZQyokg/s1600/Calvin-Hyper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhlu-FCwqaBz84zgFyawevXkQwswwTW7LEr0kpd7RkTO6f95NtFbolC1P5aeeh9hLvX2wiDDQzvIyRtikTIEYczAKoJC0Z2dNTQvLv437P83EzEarIS4b6-PAVk7RWmQzLZQyokg/s1600/Calvin-Hyper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnJ5cZ6aac9w8Z-CoLWVJiLfb2jM-zZLD_C86nlouwAIdTdpzqwwOHwLgCYieDuykPBixhQ2TZzT2N53Nk5hjqhjdGsyVUQA9OsWzQTUkvYP_LInyddzAhAw-y_P2pFrJLMp4o8Q/s1600/Calvin-Hyper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_452495="null" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnJ5cZ6aac9w8Z-CoLWVJiLfb2jM-zZLD_C86nlouwAIdTdpzqwwOHwLgCYieDuykPBixhQ2TZzT2N53Nk5hjqhjdGsyVUQA9OsWzQTUkvYP_LInyddzAhAw-y_P2pFrJLMp4o8Q/s320/Calvin-Hyper.jpg" width="271" ysa="true" /></a>So often today you read about the dangers and horrors of Hyper-Calvinism but what is it exactly? To Arminians that believe a Christian cannot lose salvation (or so-called 1 point Calvinists e.g. <a href="http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20John%20Rice/hypercalvinism.htm">John Rice</a>) anyone holding to the other 4 points is a Hyper-Calvinist, to an Amyraldian (or so-called 4 point Calvinists denying Limited Atonement e.g.<a href="http://www.nrchurch.co.nr/"> Norwich Reformed Church</a>) those who hold to Limited Atonement are hyper, and Infralapsarians often refer to Supralapsarians as hyper( e.g. <a href="http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html">R.C. Sproul</a> ). Hyper-Calvinism is blamed on people picketing homosexual funerals (e.g.<a href="http://www.godhatesfags.com/"> Westboro Baptist Church</a>) and those who hold to "Doctrinal Perfectionism" ( groups that believe a Christian's doctrine will be perfect e.g. <a href="http://www.outsidethecamp.org/">Outside the Camp</a> ). I have even recently read someone referred to as a Hyper-Calvinist for denying the charismatic gifts. Usually you see hypers defined by a set of doctrines as in Iain Murray's book <span style="color: #0b5394;">Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism</span>, where he says hypers are those who deny gospel invitations are universal, the warrant of faith, human responsibility and the love of God for everyone. Someone once wrote that Hyper-Calvinism is anyone more calvinistic than me, and while I find that funny, I do believe there is an error that can be rightfully called "Hyper-Calvinism".<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The word "hyper" means "above or beyond" and so added to calvinism would mean anyone who takes the teachings of Calvin to an unprecedented extreme. Therefore to determine what "hyper-calvinism" is one must first know what Calvin held to. This automatically discounts anyone who claims as hyper people who hold to predestination as Calvin himself held to this doctrine. There are some doctrines in which there is some controversy on what exactly Calvin held, for instance both Amyraldians and Infralapsarians claim Calvin for there own and even quote him in there defence, muddying the waters. The key to discussing this properly however is to focus on doctrine and not on Calvin personally due to the confusion.</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hyper-Calvinism is in a nutshell a denial of a <em>natural means of grace</em>. These "calvinists" take the doctrines of grace to the unprecedented extreme of denying, contrary to the Bible, that preaching or any form of teaching is necessary in bringing someone to the faith. An example of this can be seen in the teaching of the <a href="http://www.pb.org/">Primitive Baptist Church</a>. Elder Kirby of this group says in a statement of their beliefs " <em>1. What is the basic difference between Primitive Baptists and other religious societies?</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>Answer: The basic difference is that Primitive Baptists believe in salvation by grace. There are really only two positions that a person can occupy on this matter. One is that salvation is by grace, and the other is that </em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>salvation is by works. It cannot be a combination of the two. A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man's will, <span style="color: black;">such as repentance, faith</span>, baptism, or <span style="color: red;">hearing the gospel</span>, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side. Primitive Baptists believe that salvation is of the Lord, that it is by His grace, and that nothing needs to be added to it." </em>he goes on to say again later " <em>10. Don't you believe that the preaching of the gospel is God's ordained means of bringing eternal salvation to the sinner? Answer: No, only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3 : 6-8) .The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (llTim.1: 10)."</em> This is in clear contrast to the scriptures which say that "it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 1:21</a>) and in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NKJV">Romans 10:17</a> we learn that "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Now this denial does lead to other doctrines such as anti-missionism and can lead to "eternal justification" but it is the denial of a natural means of grace that is the root of this teaching. Incidentally, it is often assumed that all supralapsarians are hypers and definately that all hypers are supralapsarian but this again is an error. Curt Daniel in his book <span style="color: #0b5394;">The History and Theology of Calvinism</span> states that "while all Hyper-Calvinists have been Supralapsarians, not all Supralapsarians have been Hyper-Calvinists" p.89. I would question the necessity of all hypers being supra. Elder Kirby states on predestination <em>" 4. What is their position on predestination? Answer: They believe that God has predestinated a great number to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom.8: 28-30) .While some object to this doctrine because they say it is unfajr, Primitive Baptists rejoice in it, for they see that had it not been for predestination, the whole human family would have been lost forever. <span style="color: red;">Predestination is not the thing that condemns a man, or puts him in a ruined condition, but the very thing that gets him out of such a state</span>. Predestination concerns not "what" but "whom." It is the great purpose of God to lift a people up from sin and corruption and make them like Jesus Christ. That's glorious !</em> " Notice here we see he denies the doctrine of reprobation which is essential to true double predestinationism and thereby supralapsarianism. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<strong>PRACTICALLY SPEAKING</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The ramifications to this way of thinking are widespread. As we have already discussed it denies the need for witnessing and missions. Parents in this group often will not even teach their children to pray or worship or anything scriptural as they expect the Lord to do it without them and thus raise up a generation of degenerates. This thinking also leads to a lack of emphasis on education or studying, as God will give as he sees fit and therefore a quietist anti-intellectualism is characteristic of this group. They will pick on or forbid college and reading of books. The pastors in these groups often do not study a sermon as they expect God to give them "direct revelation" in the pulpit and thus they are very similar to charismatic/pentecostal groups. I heard one Primitive Baptist preacher say that he does not work his sermons up but gets them worked down. Finally, this group will be presuppositional in its thinking. This group will not hear of anyone giving proof for God or the Bible as everyone is supposed to just know the truth of these things. Thus there sermons will be more moralistic and less Christocentric as they will preach to the "heart" and not the "head". After all to them salvation is about the will and not the intellect. People are damned not for what they do not know but what they willfully reject.</div>
<br />
<br />
<strong>CONCLUSION</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Anyone familiar with God's word will clearly see the faults to this mindset.<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+22&version=NKJV"> Proverbs 22:6</a> commands us to train our children. Timothy we learn was trained by his mother and grandmother and thus came to faith ( <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+1&version=NKJV">2 Tim. 1:5</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3&version=NKJV">3:14-15</a>. We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2&version=KJV">2 Tim. 2:15</a>. God gives the church teachers (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4&version=NKJV">Eph. 4:11</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+12&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 12:28</a>). Lastly, we are told in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14&version=NKJV">John 14:6</a> that people that do not know the good news of Jesus Christ will go to Hell. A.W. Pink has put it succinctly in saying concerning the "causes of salvation:</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: blue;">" The <strong>Original</strong> Cause is the sovereign will of God, for nothing can come into being save that which He decreed before the foundation of the world.</span><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">The <strong>Meritorious</strong> Cause is the mediatorial work of Christ, who "obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:22) for His people, purchasing for them all the blessings of it by His perfect obedience to the Law and His sacrificial death.</span></div>
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">The<strong> Efficient</strong> Cause is the varied operations of the Holy Spirit, who applies to the elect the benefits purchased by Christ, capacitating them to enjoy the same and making them meet for the inheritance of the saints in light.</span><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">The <strong>Ministerial</strong> Cause and means is the preaching of the Word (James 1:21), because it discovers to us where salvation is to be obtained.</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">The <strong>Instrumental</strong> Cause is faith, by which the soul receives or comes into possession of and obtains an interest in Christ and His redemption.</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">Such distinctions as these are not merely technicalities for theologians, but are part of the faith once delivered unto the saints, and unless they apprehend the same they are liable to be deceived by any Scripture-quoting false prophet who accosts them."</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Quoted in Curt Daniel's booklet Biblical Calvinism from A.W. Pinks book Sermon on the Mount.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<strong>FURTHER STUDY</strong></div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="color: blue;">Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill</span> by Curt Daniel - This and his above named resources are only available at Good Books 2456 Devonshire Rd. Springfield, IL 62703 USA</div>
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South</span> by John Crowley<br />
<br />
A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism by Phil Johnson at <a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm">http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm</a><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Hyper-Calvinism is the Truth: Darth Gill responds to Phil Johnson at <a href="http://www.predestinarian.net/content/21-Hyper-Calvinism-is-the-Truth">http://www.predestinarian.net/content/21-Hyper-Calvinism-is-the-Truth</a></div>
Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-76400461970202935052010-02-10T09:47:00.001-08:002010-03-15T20:13:21.222-07:00Double Honor<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwjvZRLw4LAx8ry6PvsHlgUcOk7TpluzfPtiPhQvmFdLLANBETlnEPcC2g-Q7B7Ew0Tl948PI4DSGSEOPw7wkjugCxjQLr4GTgbsB4cLAHOliaBQF57JzJ0r3FP1VcseqhEe6vUg/s1600-h/samaritan-paying-money.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 314px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5449029219269136386" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwjvZRLw4LAx8ry6PvsHlgUcOk7TpluzfPtiPhQvmFdLLANBETlnEPcC2g-Q7B7Ew0Tl948PI4DSGSEOPw7wkjugCxjQLr4GTgbsB4cLAHOliaBQF57JzJ0r3FP1VcseqhEe6vUg/s400/samaritan-paying-money.jpg" /></a><br /><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Once in a while the question of whether Elders should receive a salary is raised. Some denominations such as the <a href="http://www.pb.org/">Primitive Baptists </a>deny paying salaries. One Elder in this church writes: </div><div><br /></div><div><em>"18. Do Primitive Baptist ministers receive a salary?Answer: No, they devote their time and substance to the service of God out of love, and as the Lord blesses their labors among His people, those among whom the minister has labored contribute willingly to his needs (ICor. 9:9-14)." </em></div><div><br /></div><div>Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "salary" as fixed compensation paid regularly for services. Let us look to see if Scripture has anything to say on this subject or whether it is a human invention. At the outset let me say I only intend, in this discussion, to look at the question of paying Elders a salary in general and do not intend on taking up the discussion of whether or not there is a distinction in Elders commonly demarcated "Teaching" Elders and "Ruling" Elders, and whether both classes of Elders are to receive a salary. For a discussion of this debate, see chapter 10 of <span style="color:#3333ff;">A Scottish Christian Heritage</span> entitled "The Problem of the Elders" by Scottish Theologian Iain Murray. </div><div><br /></div><div>In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+5&version=NKJV">1 Timothy 5:17,18</a> we read <em>"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.' " </em>indicating that a man is to be paid for his services. While the term "double honor" is debated as to its precise meaning, the clear understanding of this passage that those occupying the office of Elder, who labor in word and doctrine are entitled to a wage. </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>Next let us take a look at the passage affixed to the quotation by Elder Kirby of the Primitive Baptists above, only let us start at <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+9&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 9:6</a> where Paul questions whether or not Barnabas and him have a right to refrain from working. In verse 7 he goes on to ask who goes to war at his own expense, who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit and who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock. Paul uses this rhetoric for the purpose of showing the need for churches to support their Elders with a fixed income or salary. Later in verse 11 we are asked if it is a great thing for Elders to reap material things in return for spiritual things they give, to which the clear answer for anyone who serves God and not mammon (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&version=NKJV">Matt. 6:24</a>) is a resounding "NO"! Verse 13 instructs us that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar. In verse 14 what has been implicit becomes explicit as Paul declares "<em>Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel</em>."<em> </em></div><div><em></em> </div><div><em><br /></em></div><div><em></em></div><div>In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11&version=NKJV">2 Corinthians 11:7,8 </a>we learn that Paul preached to the Corinthians free of charge, but that he was paid a wage from other churches to minister to them. Finally, in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+3&version=NKJV">2 Thessalonians 3:9</a> Paul indicates that he had authority to compel a wage or salary but he chose not to, to be an example and as verse 8 says, to not be a burden.<em> </em>While it is true that Elders, as every Christian<em>, </em>live by faith and not by sight and congregations incomes do vary according to a number of factors such as size and income capacity, it is the responsibility of the church to provide support in the form of a salary, however large or small, to its Elders. An Elder may have to, like Paul did as a tentmaker (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+18&version=NKJV">Acts 18:3</a>), work another job but he should be paid for his services. This does not mean that churches have to pay for airplanes, boats, new vehicles or even homes but they are obligated to pay them a wage. While the gospel is not for sale (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+8&version=NKJV">Acts 8:18-21</a>) we are to take care of our own.</div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-56578051504032378952010-01-18T07:28:00.000-08:002010-02-22T18:31:53.868-08:00Preaching the Word; Out of Season<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihnYdEBcVtVAabJMoxRGi0HTaw2UStN6cTB8mYBfwyBSxXN4ov97cRQmzLlsuHQv2olNCxBjdl2MqbPbm7NEOoZD22GEWvxYbeiVvJKRzaVzkXGLI-NXbBMFVFlOacZT9ZCFLW5A/s1600-h/Preaching+by+Pannini.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 304px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428102686465241778" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihnYdEBcVtVAabJMoxRGi0HTaw2UStN6cTB8mYBfwyBSxXN4ov97cRQmzLlsuHQv2olNCxBjdl2MqbPbm7NEOoZD22GEWvxYbeiVvJKRzaVzkXGLI-NXbBMFVFlOacZT9ZCFLW5A/s400/Preaching+by+Pannini.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><div></div><div><em>"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."</em> 2 Timothy 4:2-4 </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Preaching God's holy word is at an all time low today. Entertainment in the form of (christian?) rock/country/folk concerts, dramatic presentations, magic acts, powerlifting, shouting, dancing, running the aisles, screaming, barking, howling and even the so-claimed miraculous acts of healing and speaking in tongues fill many of churches on the typical Sunday morning. In some congregations politics is the raison d'etre and not the gospel of Christ. In this discussion, I want to look at the scriptures to see what preachers should be doing instead of using worldly substitutes. I am going to be using the text of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+4&version=NKJV">2 Timothy 4:2-4</a> as my base.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div>In the second verse of chapter 4 in Second Timothy we see Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, command Timothy to preach the word whether it is popular to do so or not. Timothy was to be ready or prepared regardless of how he was received, whether congratulatory or critique. He was to convince and exhort as well as rebuke. Many "conservative" preachers have the rebuking part down as they jump headlong into some diatribe about sin, but neglect the important truth of convincing and with that exhorting. Integral to "convincing" is the presenting of evidence and proof for why either not to do something or why to do something. Notice this is to be done with longsuffering or patiently, and with teaching. Preachers should be patient with a congregation realizing that just as you have to potty train a child so to there are babes in Christ needing time to mature.Paul had to do this with the Corinthian church as we read in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+3&version=NKJV">1Corinthians 3:1-3</a> <span style="color:#3333ff;">"And I, brethren could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?" . <span style="color:#000000;">This does not mean that a preacher should cater to babes, however, but he should inspire growth. This is only possible by "<span style="color:#3333ff;">leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ</span>" and moving on to "<span style="color:#3333ff;">perfection</span>"(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+6&version=NKJV">Heb. 6:1</a>).</span> </span> </div><div><br /></div><div>Teaching is the communication of the sound doctrine taught in scripture. Paul exhorted Timothy to <span style="color:#3333ff;">"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me"</span> in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+1&version=NKJV">2 Tim. 1:13 </a>and commanded him to <span style="color:#3333ff;">"commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also"</span> in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+2&version=NKJV">2Tim. 2:2</a>. The ability to teach is an imperative to being a preacher. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3&version=NKJV">1 Tim. 3:2</a> we learn that a bishop (pastor, preacher, elder) is to be able to teach and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+1&version=NKJV">Titus 1:9</a> expounds on this saying that he is to be <span style="color:#3333ff;">"holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."</span> As a matter of fact there is no distinction between a pastor and teacher as we learn in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4&version=NKJV">Ephesians 4:11</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div>In verse 3 of Second Timothy chapter 4 we are told the outcome of hearts being unreceptive to the truth. They not enduring sound doctrine, get in exchange teachers they do like, who entertain their itching ears according to their own desires and not that which God would have for them. Realize that a pastor can be faithful to the truth and a church still go bad as we learn in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4&version=NKJV">Hebrews 4:2</a> that faith is necessary for truth to profit. By looking at what these unbelievers reject we can also see the pattern of a good preacher. They reject sound doctrine, so he is teaching this and they get different teachers, again alluding to the fact that this pastor was a teacher. </div><div></div><div>Verse 4 carries on this line of thinking as they <span style="color:#3333ff;">"turn their ears away from the truth"</span> and are <span style="color:#3333ff;">"turned aside to fables".</span> There is no in-between; you either believe the truth or a lie. A preacher is either preaching the truth of God or he is cheating and lying to people, diverting their attention to unimportant distractions. </div><div></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong>EXPOSITORY PREACHING</strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong><br /></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div></div><div>One popular method of preaching today is called expository preaching. If understood properly and done right I do not have a problem with this method and even consider what has been done in the above discussion as expository. This is a conservative method and its goal is to teach the word of God verse by verse in its proper context. Unfortunately it has become linked with the Biblical Theology movement which dichotomizes biblical theology with systematic theology. Systematic theology is seen as human philosophy and untenable with scriptural truth. This, however, is ears, deaf to truth, turning to fables. As we see in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+1&version=NKJV">2 Tim. 1:13</a> the sound words of scripture form a pattern or system. Systematic theology takes all the scriptures dealing with a particular topic or doctrine and exposits them to teach and convince people of the truth of this teaching. Topical or, as I prefer, doctrinal preaching when done right utilizes expository preaching. Churches should be grounded in the doctrines of the faith and not left in ignorance. Another problem with the expository method is the tendency to get bogged down with peripheral issues involving textual criticism and historical analysis instead of teaching the truth. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6&version=NKJV">1 Tim. 6:4</a> warns of people "<span style="color:#3333ff;">obsessed with disputes and arguments over words</span>". Finally, expository preaching at least implicitly denies the perspicuity(clarity) of scripture. One leading proponent of the expository method and critic of the topical method has reputedly took a decade to teach through the book of Luke. I doubt it took Luke a decade to write it. I have heard some of them brag about how long they have been on a particular verse as if it is a badge of honor. If scripture is clear it should not take us ten years to teach through the <em>whole</em> bible much less a book of it. How grounded in the faith is a church that does not get the whole counsel of God in the other books of the Bible if they are on one book for 10 years?</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong>REVIVALISM</strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong><br /></strong></div><div></div><div></div><div>Another conservative movement that needs to be considered in this discussion is revivalism. This movement seeks the salvation of souls fervently and desires to inspire other christians in this endeavor. This is a noble aspiration and one I affirm, again when understood and done properly. I do not intend an in depth discussion of this movement here and may take this up at a later date more thoroughly but I do want to touch on how it affects preaching. Sometimes proponents of revivalism make the preaching of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ the only truth in scripture to be taught. They misunderstand <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 2:2</a> and errantly take it to mean this very thing. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+20&version=NKJV">Acts 20:27-30</a> informs us that we are to declare the whole counsel of God taking heed to ourselves and the flock. More often in revivalism you see the gnostic dichotomy of a head and heart and a word and power distinction. Revivalists often use <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 2:4</a> and<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+1&version=NKJV"> 1 Thess. 1:5</a> to distinguish between these things. I heard one speaker of this tradition say that in the classroom he teaches to the head but in the pulpit he preaches to the heart. Iain Murray, who is probably the most vocal advocate of this tradition, complains that he "once had the misfortune to hear addresses on 'the five points of calvinism' delivered as though we were attending a chemistry lecture" (<span style="color:#3333ff;">John Calvin: A Heart For Devotion, Doctrine & Doxology</span> edited by Burk Parsons p. xv). I am not completely sure I understand his criticism. If he is saying the presentation was boring, is it okay to give a boring delivery of chemistry? I personally try to put my "heart" into whatever I am teaching and would therefore hate to give a boring lecture on chemistry as much as I would on calvinism. Whatever truth you are teaching deserves the same exhortation, if for nothing else so you will not have a bunch of people fail the test. I also find this funny because I have personally sat under Iain at a conference and did not find it edifying and would even go as far as to say it was a boring presentation. Thankfully his books are of a better sort. As to whether there is a distinction between word and power, Paul in both the above listed scriptures is simply meaning that the Holy Spirit gave them an understanding of the truth and not the words only. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=NKJV">1 Cor. 1:18</a> tells us the message of the cross is foolish to the perishing but to the saved it is the power of God, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NKJV">Rom. 1:16 </a>tells us the gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4&version=NKJV">Heb. 4:12</a> tells us the word of God is living and powerful. Reject anyone who believes the bible to be a "dead word".</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong><br /></strong></div><div></div><div>Preaching is to pass on the pattern of sound doctrine left to us in the scriptures from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and written by the apostles through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the power of salvation to all who believe. It is clear and we should teach the whole counsel in orderly and timely fashion. It is alive and powerful not needing methods, emotion or a particular style to deliver it. Every member of the church ought to be able to give a defense of the hope that is in them <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3&version=NKJV">1 Peter 3:15</a>. Every member needs to know what they believe about the trinity, inerrancy and sole authority of scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and everything else. If they do not, you may lose them and even lose your job as they will look for a teacher to scratch their itching ears. </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color:#3333ff;"><em>"And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright- words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd."</em></span> <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+12&version=NKJV">Ecclesiastes 12:9-11</a></div><div><br /><br /></div><div><strong>Soli Deo Gloria</strong> </div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-67218280726926467292009-08-31T20:01:00.000-07:002010-01-24T17:30:35.060-08:00The Atonement in Amyraut and Calvin<p align="center"></p><br /><p align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9P9Be3PnUvj9zW3M3AR4god7XeOXwSDyC7r2Rn_pFCGQIVpmCclujTxLST6fHkBApd66VIOQEodRxJvuWJE4le-tCsPNZmsqElePtCJl9Ht_R5UJVTfZxuWcUetqxG8CWMa1xnw/s1600-h/John_Calvin_Titian_B.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 289px; HEIGHT: 400px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5414553515847914498" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9P9Be3PnUvj9zW3M3AR4god7XeOXwSDyC7r2Rn_pFCGQIVpmCclujTxLST6fHkBApd66VIOQEodRxJvuWJE4le-tCsPNZmsqElePtCJl9Ht_R5UJVTfZxuWcUetqxG8CWMa1xnw/s400/John_Calvin_Titian_B.jpg" /></a><br /></p><br /><br /><div align="center"><strong>JOHN CALVIN</strong><br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div>As discussed in the previous blog, there are those who claim to hold to the doctrines of grace and yet deny Christ's particular atonement. Some of these even claim John Calvin, pictured above, as there forebear in this system as they expound it. My primary goal in this blog is historical and will look at various works treating this discussion. This view is primarily known by its most vocal proponent Moise Amyraut and is called "Amyraldism". I do not intend in this discussion to give an in-depth treatment of Moise Amyraut's system and realize there are many so-called 4-point calvinists that would not agree with Amyraut's complete system but merely classify all 4-pointers as amyraldians for the purposes of this discussion. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /><br /></div><br /><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism">MOISE AMYRAUT</a></div><br /><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYNxvEw9XIWhl8c3fh7xxNmA49BWsNJFPlqWQITLjeXkemTFTJoKA3eyX-j9rZ7Aig6Yxk-4IEWcRVoON4-Lh0KZYKlA1O6mrI7XPSXcXRbwLTfCwu72Pq8Mxb2sDyak_Otkz_kw/s1600-h/Amyraut.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 167px; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5414552968235268146" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYNxvEw9XIWhl8c3fh7xxNmA49BWsNJFPlqWQITLjeXkemTFTJoKA3eyX-j9rZ7Aig6Yxk-4IEWcRVoON4-Lh0KZYKlA1O6mrI7XPSXcXRbwLTfCwu72Pq8Mxb2sDyak_Otkz_kw/s200/Amyraut.jpg" /></a><br /><br /></div><br /><div>Moise Amyraut was a professor of theology at the University of Saumer in France where he had been a student and learned under the Scottish theologian John Cameron whose system Amyraut advanced and extended at Saumer which was the largest Reformed Divinity School of the day(Armstrong p.xviii <span style="color:#cc0000;">Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy</span>). It is important to recognize that Cameron had himself developed the system as Brian Armstrong says that it was "Upon the foundation laid by Cameron, Moise Amyraut was to construct his theology"(Armstrong p70) and so it could just as well be called "Cameronism" but Cameron's influence was cut short (only 3 years)by an angry rioting mob that killed him. Amyraut's system is distinctive from Calvinism at the most basic level in that it holds to a "Hypothetical Universalism"(HU). This HU says that Christ's death, while definately saving the elect, also makes all men savable if they, hypothetically, were to believe. Christ died for the whole world, but the gift of faith, the effectual call and the irresistable grace are limited to the elect only. As Jonathan Rainbow notes in his book <span style="color:#3333ff;">The Will of God and the Cross</span> this makes it possible for Amyraut "to say both,</div><br />'God desires only the elect to be saved,' and, 'God desires every human being to be saved'" (p70) which is blatantly a contradiction.<br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><strong>CRITIQUE</strong></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>Unfortunately this is often an accepted teaching in calvinist circles. This is why, I believe, you do not hear more of amyraldism and people prefer to be called 4-point calvinists instead. A 4-point calvinist is seen as a subsection or alternate but equally calvinist perspective whereas Amyraldism would be seen as a competing system to calvinism. This is, in no uncertain terms a competing system whatever it is called and should be rejected vigorously. Amyraldism takes away the saving efficacy of the death of Christ. If Christ death is efficacious and He died for the reprobate then they would be saved. Amyraldism sees salvation as centered on faith and not Christ the true center. Faith only saves as it links us to Christ. For anyone to believe, their eyes must be opened first by baptism of the Holy Spirit into the death of Christ in regeneration giving new life to believe (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+4&version=NKJV">Mark 4:11,12</a>). Amyraldism denies Christ's active obedience in the fulfilling of the covenant of works. Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant of works for the elect allowing for the covenant of grace (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5&version=NKJV">Rom. 5:5-21</a>). Amyraldism denies the clear teaching of scripture as exegeted in my previous blog that shows Christ died for His Elect.<br /></div><br /><div><strong>HOW DID AMYRALDISM GET ACCEPTANCE?</strong></div><br /><div><br />Amyraut as Cameron before him claimed John Calvin as there forebear and thus tried to get respectability. They claimed that they are the ones that have kept the tradition of Calvin. Modern Amyraldists such as R.T. Kendall in the 1997 edition of his monograph <span style="color:#cc0000;">Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649</span> includes an appendix with multiple quotes from the Bible Commentaries of Calvin. From these multiple quotes Kendall concludes that "Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men" (p1). While it is true that some of the statements made by Calvin are unclear and equivocal such as "Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him" (Calvin on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5&version=NKJV">Rom. 5:18</a> quoted in Kendall p.222-223) and "For God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world" (Calvin on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5&version=NKJV">Gal. 5:12 </a>quoted in Kendall p.223) we must take into account Calvin's <em>basis</em> for this all, which he places in election, as he says in his commentary on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13&version=NKJV">John 13:18</a>, "every part of our salvation depends on this". We must also take into account clearer statements from Calvin such as "Christ brings none to the Father but those given to Him by the Father; and this donation, we know, depends on eternal election; for those whom the Father has destined to life, He delivers to the keeping of His Son, that He might defend them" (Calvin on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+2&version=NKJV">Heb. 2:13</a> quoted in Rainbow p.72-73).</div><div></div><div>Amyraldism gets some respect also in the fact that it has had representatives in both the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly. John Davenant was a representative of the Church of England at the Synod of Dort in 1618 and was an avowed Amyraldian. The Westminster Assembly had Edmund Calamy in its midst, who followed in the footsteps of Davenant. These instances, however, should be seen as scandalous rather than an opening of the doors.</div><div> </div><div> <br /></div><div></div><div><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></div><div><strong></strong> </div><div><strong><br /></strong></div><div></div><div>Christ's atonement is the basis for our faith and not the other way around. It is because of the healing we receive in the blood of Christ that we are regenerated, brought to life and are able to have faith. If faith earns our regeneration then we have something whereby to boast contra <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2&version=NKJV">Eph. 2:9</a>. Why and how does anyone come to believe who are dead in their trespasses and sins, whose foolish heart is darkened without the wonderful healing grace of God in the atonement of Christ. Make no mistake about it, the atonement of Christ is a doctrine worth dying for.</div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><strong>AMYRALDIAN WORKS</strong>:</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#cc0000;">Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France</span> by Brian G. Armstrong</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#cc0000;">Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649</span> by R. T. Kendall</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#cc0000;">The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus</span> by G. Michael Thomas</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#cc0000;">English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology</span> by Jonathan D. Moore</div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div></div><div><strong>CALVINIST WORKS</strong>:</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#3333ff;">The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin's Doctrine of Limited Redemption</span> by Jonathan H. Rainbow </div><div></div><div><span style="color:#3333ff;">By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life</span> by Thomas J. Nettles</div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-64084566926999873172009-04-30T18:02:00.000-07:002009-07-01T18:29:35.481-07:00Supralapsarianism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHMHiQj2yiHd2JMS7gfw54v8uk1kpW4bsLkzPtLc0ivcfMiGvExrVbl9EAOyOyzXJgRBdcm0zcGaa6VkO-UVg6nSVf-xIhSquzHT73les0WtxJj2pwfdqPZjPrvIh7y5aQa9Y9Fg/s1600-h/potters+hands.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5353339884011373666" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 155px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 109px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHMHiQj2yiHd2JMS7gfw54v8uk1kpW4bsLkzPtLc0ivcfMiGvExrVbl9EAOyOyzXJgRBdcm0zcGaa6VkO-UVg6nSVf-xIhSquzHT73les0WtxJj2pwfdqPZjPrvIh7y5aQa9Y9Fg/s400/potters+hands.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>It may come as a surprise to some that those who hold to the doctrines of grace often called "calvinism" are not monolithic in their thinking. The subject of this blog deals with one of those differences. Supralapsarian is one of the classifications of the distinctions and is opposed to Infra or Sublapsarian. Infra and sub mean the same thing and are interchangeable but most non-supras prefer the term infra and so I will use this for the purposes of this blog. I do want to make note that sublapsarian is sometimes distinguished from infralapsarian by amyraldians or 4-point calvinists who utilize the sub for themselves. I do not intend to focus much on the amyraldians however and will deal with them in a future blog, Lord willing, and so am talking <em>primarily</em> to those who hold to the scriptural teaching of Definite Redemption. </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>Historically the focus of the debate between the two parties is over the logical order of God's decrees. While I will mention these different orders, I again do not intend on focusing on them as they are all speculations and not specifically laid out in scripture. The focus of this discussion is going to be on the question of <em>equal ultimacy, the origin of the fall and sin and whether predestination is single or double</em>. These issues are the crux of the debate.</div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div><strong>THE LOGICAL DECREES?</strong></div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>Before charting out the views some definitions are in order. Both infra and sub mean below or after with supra meaning above and before. Lapsarian means fall. Supralapsarian therefore means above or before the fall and infra/sublapsarian means below or after the fall. Supras hold that God chose what would become of mankind before considering the fall whereas infras say God took into consideration the fall before deciding to either save or damn man. </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>I. The logical order often held by amyraldians such as Augustus Strong, Millard Erickson and Charles Ryrie amongst others is</div><br /><br /><div>1. the decree to create the world and (all) men</div><br /><br /><div>2. the decree that (all) men would fall</div><br /><br /><div>3. the decree to redeem (all) men by the cross work of Christ</div><br /><br /><div>4. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)</div><br /><br /><div>5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect. </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>II. The logical order often held by infras such as Charles Hodge, William G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Louis Berkhof, Benjamin Warfield, John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul and Bruce Ware amongst others is</div><br /><br /><div>1. the decree to create the world and (all) men</div><br /><br /><div>2. the decree that (all) men would fall</div><br /><br /><div>3. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others) </div><br /><br /><div>4. the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ</div><br /><br /><div>5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect. </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>III. A. The logical order held historically by supras such as Theodore Beza, William Whitaker, William Perkins, William Ames,William Twisse, Francis Gomarus, Gisbert Voetius, Thomas Goodwin, Samuel Rutherford and John Gill amongst others is </div><br /><br /><div>1. the election of some men to salvation in Christ and the reprobation of the others </div><br /><br /><div>2. the decree to create the world and both kinds of men</div><br /><br /><div>3. the decree that all men would fall</div><br /><br /><div>4. the decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ</div><br /><br /><div>5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to these elect sinners</div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>B. A different proposal by supras such as Robert Reymond, Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema and possibly Jerome Zanchius and Johannes Piscator, according to Robert Reymond, is </div><br /><br /><div>1. the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect)</div><br /><br /><div>2. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners</div><br /><br /><div>3. the decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ</div><br /><br /><div>4. the decree that men should fall</div><br /><br /><div>5. the decree to create the world and men </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>Of the positions listed above the supra positions are closer to the truth of scripture and so therefore are preferred but again the discussion is a little arcane as we are never given any particular order. I also want to say the proposal of Robert Reymond does leave itself open to the criticism that God in considering men as sinful must be after(infra) the fall and not truly before(supra) and so I lean to the historic supra view. </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div><strong>THE ORIGIN OF SIN/EVIL</strong></div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>Typically when reading a theological work ,even by a calvinist, discussing sin, evil and the fall of man and angels the first thing you are told in bold letters is that God is not the author of sin and that He has a permissive will through which He (passively) just allows sin. They usually go on to say that evil is the absence of good as darkness is an absence of light and space an absence of material. The use of the word "author" is a little confusing. If one means by it a performer of sin then every Bible believer would agree God is not the author of sin(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=1&version=50">James 1:13</a>). The ordinary use of the word however is a writer as of a book. In this case all Bible believers agree that God is the author of the Bible and yet it contains prophesies of all sorts of evils such as the betrayel and crucifixion of Christ(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=1&version=50">Acts 1:16-21</a>), false Christs and prophets(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&version=50">Matt. 24:24</a>) and the actions of the Beast in Revelation(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=11&version=50">Rev. 11:7</a>). <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=45&version=9">Isaiah 45:7</a> also explicitly informs us that God not only forms the light but he also creates darkness and then goes on to say that God not only makes peace but creates evil. Nothing happens by chance but by the predestined plan of God. Not even the wicked can look to God and boast of defying His predestined plan as "The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=16&version=9">Prov. 16:4</a>) God has even appointed our death(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=9&version=50">Heb. 9:27</a>) and so whether by cancer, murder, suicide or any other way we can be certain that this is one appointment we will not miss. God is the ultimate author of everything and as Gordon Clark aptly put in his excellent book <span style="color:#3333ff;">God and Evil</span> "In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=1&version=50">Ephesians 1:11 </a>Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of His own will"(p27).</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>DOUBLE HIS PLEASURE, DOUBLE HIS FUN WITH DOUBLE PREDESTINATION</strong> </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>In his book <span style="color:#cc0000;">Chosen By God</span> R.C. Sproul includes a chapter called Double, Double, Toil and Trouble: Is Predestination Double. In it Sproul makes the intriguing claim that he holds to double predestination all the while denying "equal ultimacy". He makes the claim using his wit and illogic that election is a positive(active) decree and reprobation is a negative(passive) decree. He bombasts equal ultimists as "hyper-calvinists" and other pejoratives. Let us look at scripture and see if he is correct. We have already seen from Proverbs 16:4 that God makes even the wicked for Himself. It would have been better for Judas and every other reprobate person if they had never been born as we learn in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=50">Matthew 26:24 </a>but God creates them for Himself and has reserved them for the day of wrath(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=22&chapter=21&version=9">Job 21:30</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=72&chapter=1&version=50">Jude 4</a>). God, we learn in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=50">Romans 9:22,23,</a> wants to show His wrath and make His power known and does so by <em>raising </em>up leaders like the Pharaoh and <em>hardening</em> their hearts, <em>blinding</em> their eyes and <em>deafening </em>their ears to the truth(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=50">Rom. 9:17,18</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=6&version=9">Isaiah 6:9,10</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=29&version=9">29:9,10</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=4&version=50">Mark 4:11,12</a>). Hardening, blinding and deafening are actions and not passively just allowed. Sproul puts himself in the position of judging God as evil in doing this by not accepting the clear teaching of God's Word. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=135&version=9">Psalm 135 </a>tells us "Whatever the Lord pleases He does" and goes on to say "He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt" and "slew mighty kings" and in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=28&version=9">Deuteronomy 28:63 </a>we learn that "the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing". God has equally, ultimately, actively and doubly predestined everything that has ever happened and that will happen. </div><div></div><div><strong>RESOURCES</strong></div><div></div><div><span style="color:#000099;">A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith</span> by Robert L. Reymond-A systematic theology by a Presbyterian Supracalvinist who holds to Equal Ultimacy.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#000099;">The History And Theology Of Calvinism</span> by Curt Daniel-Essentially a systematic theology by an Baptistic Infracalvinist. It is very informative from the other side and has an excellent chapter, albeit inconsistent with his infra position, on the hardening of the reprobate.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#000099;">God And Evil</span>: The Problem Solved by Gordon Clark-A wonderful treatise on evil from a Presbyterian Supracalvinist Equal Ultimist perspective.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#990000;">Chosen By God</span> by R. C. Sproul- From a Presbyterian Infracalvinist perspective.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#000099;">The Pleasures Of God</span> by John Piper- From a Calvinistic Baptist perspective.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#000099;">Perspectives On Election: 5 Views</span> by Chad Owen Brand- See the chapters by Robert Reymond and Bruce Ware(InfraCalvinist Baptist).</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#000099;">A Southern Baptist Dialogue: Calvinism</span> by Clendenen & Waggoner- See especially the chapter "A Molinist View of Election, or How to Be a Consistent Infralapsarian" by Molinist Ken Keathley which shows the fine line (if any) between Molinism and Infracalvinism.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#990000;">Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra-and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster</span> by J.V. Fesko- A historical study advocating a Supracalvinist view while <em>denying </em>Equal Ultimacy by an Orthodox Presbyterian.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#990000;">The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century Volume Two</span> by Ligon Duncan- J. V. Fesko makes another attempt at formulating a Supracalvinism while denying Equal Ultimacy in his chapter "The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism: Calvin and the Divines". </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Soli Deo Gloria </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div></div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-77773526501654227142009-02-28T15:47:00.000-08:002009-05-28T16:13:51.238-07:00Molinism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzpxVt44ejSJq83XG5yI0Y-30nxvEDgK8ITC813wwkSQWu7rSkswsnrn4mGUd6TbQxbDJpevwOcTWoRZw_-xrGcEsNbqglM7XSwejiLfZc4o7MXG5iTNuyiMymGS4ZMYPlXII4Eg/s1600-h/Luis+De+Molina.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5307999745533362434" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 165px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 224px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzpxVt44ejSJq83XG5yI0Y-30nxvEDgK8ITC813wwkSQWu7rSkswsnrn4mGUd6TbQxbDJpevwOcTWoRZw_-xrGcEsNbqglM7XSwejiLfZc4o7MXG5iTNuyiMymGS4ZMYPlXII4Eg/s400/Luis+De+Molina.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><div>Throughout the history of depraved man’s assault on God’s sovereignty, several names and movements have come to the forefront. Lost in the shuffle of the more popular Pelagianism and Arminianism is Molinism. Molinism is named after the Jesuit Priest and Theologian, Luis De Molina(1535-1600). Luis was a professor for many years at Evora, Portugal until taking the chair of moral theology in Madrid. In this capacity and in his work <span style="color:#cc0000;">Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiæ donis, divina præscientia, providentia, prædestinatione et reprobatione</span> (Lisbon, 1588) he set out to find and promote a moderate view on predestination and free will. His goal was to balance the extremes as he saw it of Augustine and Pelagius.<br /><br />In his quest Molina divided the knowledge of God into three categories. Sometimes the first two categories are called necessary truths and contingent truths and other times natural knowledge and free knowledge but the third category is always called “middle knowledge”. The necessary truth or natural knowledge of God is said to be God’s knowledge of the truths like the law of non-contradiction or cause and effect. God’s existence is a necessary truth and not a matter of His will. Contingent truths or free knowledge are truths that God creates as in “God said ‘let there be light’, and there was light”. Middle knowledge is according to Molina that knowledge“… by which, in virtue of the most profound and inscrutable comprehension of each free will, He(God) saw in his own essence what each such will would do with its innate freedom were it to be placed in this or that or, indeed, in infinitely many orders of things- even though it would really be able, if it so willed, to do the opposite…”. (Quoted by William Craig in <span style="color:#cc0000;">The Grace Of God, The Will Of Man</span> p 147). William Craig goes on to say, “Thus, whereas by His natural knowledge God knows that, say, Peter when placed under a certain set of circumstances could either deny Christ or not deny Christ, being free to do either under identical circumstances, by His middle knowledge God knows what Peter would do if placed under those circumstances.”(Citation above p147)<br /><br />The chief motivation for this line of thinking is sin. If God predestines everything that happens then He must therefore be the author of sin. Traditional orthodoxy understands God to have a <em>Preceptive Will</em> which is God’s revealed commands of us such as “thou shalt not kill”(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=49">Matt. 19:18</a>) and a <em>Decretive Will</em> which is God determining before creation how everything will happen such as in His decree of Christ’s death(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=1&version=49">Acts 1:16</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&version=49">2:23</a>). Molinism adds to this a Permissive Will in which God simply foresaw the sins of man and passively decreed to allow them. Molinist Ken Keathley in the book <span style="color:#3333ff;">A Southern Baptist Dialogue: Calvinism </span>claims “God controls all things He does not cause all things”(p196) and later states “God did not cause the fall; He allowed it”(p197). For Molinism man’s will is free to either accept Christ or reject Him. It would distinguish itself from Arminianism in that God sovereignly controls circumstances which lead up to either rejection or salvation, for instance God chooses where to send missionaries and who hears the Gospel.<br /><br /><strong>EVALUATION</strong><br /><br />Molinism fails as a scriptural system for the same reason as all man-centered systems do. It places salvation and history in the will of man instead of in the grace and purpose of God. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=49">John 1:12 and 13 </a>say “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Just as our physical birth was not our choosing but our parents, so to our spiritual birth is from God and not our “free will”. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=49">Romans 9:16 </a>again states that “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” It is the purpose of God that determines history and not the works of man (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=49">Rom. 9:11</a>). In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=21&version=9">Proverbs 21:1</a> we read that “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” Surely any “free will” decision made would come from the heart but God controls the heart and so determines our will. We do not even know how to pray properly according to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=8&version=49">Rom. 8:26 </a>and need the intercession of the Holy Spirit for that (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=8&version=49">Rom. 8:27</a>).<br /><br />As for the question of sin, God is not the immediate cause (author) of evil in that he does not perform any evil. God is however the ultimate cause of everything including evil as <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=45&version=9">Isaiah 45:7 </a>teaches us. Whereas God cannot lie (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=63&chapter=1&version=49">Titus 1:2</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=6&version=49">Heb. 6:18</a>), God used a fallen angel in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=14&chapter=18&version=9">2 Chronicles 18:19-22</a> to deceive Ahab, and will send a “strong delusion” in the end times so “that they (reprobates) shall believe a lie” (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=2&version=49">2 Thess. 2:11</a>). Notice that God assured the fallen angel in 2 Chronicles 18:21 that “You shall persuade him and also prevail”. God did not just passively know this but he hardened Ahab’s heart to ensure this would happen as he did to the Pharoah in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=4&version=9">Exodus 4:21</a>. We should honestly and earnestly pray as our Lord Jesus prayed for our Father to lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil so as not to sin against our God (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=6&version=49">Matt. 6:13</a>). For further on this see my <a href="http://caledonianhighlander.blogspot.com/search?q=Theodicy">Theodicy. </a></div><div> </div><div> </div><div></div><div>Molinism also fails logically to be a self consistent system. It is rediculous to say God controls all things but does not cause all things as God must therefore control the cause of all things. Also to claim that God knows possible futures that never will exist is rediculous as there is no future without God. God has designed and determined every second of eternal destiny and this destiny can only happen one way otherwise it is not destined. God does not permit anything but ordains everything. As to God's relation to evil, Molinism also falls short. How would a man be perceived that sat idly by all the while able to stop a massacre from occuring but "permitting" it to happen? Does a permissive will alleviate the problem? Just as human authors like Stephen King and George Lucas create in their novels evil situations and people but are not themselves guilty of the evil, much more so is God not to be judged by us His creation (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=49">Rom. 9:14,19-21</a>).</div><div> </div><div> </div><div></div><div><strong>Resources</strong> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div></div><div>William Craig's chapter "Middle Knowledge, A Calvinist-Arminian Rapprochement?" in</div><div><span style="color:#cc0000;">A Case For Arminianism: The Grace of God, The Will of Man</span> by Clark Pinnock </div><div></div><div>Ken Keathley's chapter "A Molinist View of Election, or How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian" in <span style="color:#3333ff;">A Southern Baptist Dialogue: Calvinism</span> by Ray Clendenen & Brad Waggoner</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#cc0000;">A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology</span> by Kirk R. MacGregor </div><div></div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-2129962589458732562008-12-28T17:25:00.001-08:002010-03-16T18:37:08.692-07:00Are Hats Necessary for Women in Church?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcTFBFXrQZTCCpGAH8Zy-UVLJmlT7rFSVoVnTwQTNL7HRQSZkOjwIyFm-7F7qhsKTSYzR3Qroby35GWBtz2oaupCRPQYwvkVXeZBWPdkaYZYvusJFa4xmbRMlz5YZPV1JB3qLj-A/s1600-h/Amish+Women.bmp"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 325px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 214px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5296548691300415122" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcTFBFXrQZTCCpGAH8Zy-UVLJmlT7rFSVoVnTwQTNL7HRQSZkOjwIyFm-7F7qhsKTSYzR3Qroby35GWBtz2oaupCRPQYwvkVXeZBWPdkaYZYvusJFa4xmbRMlz5YZPV1JB3qLj-A/s400/Amish+Women.bmp" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div>This may seem like an odd subject and out of the ordinary of my usual conversation but I believe it is a necessary discussion nonetheless. There are still "Christian" denominations and sects that practice and in some cases demand a woman wear a hat or bonnet in their religious observations. Anyone familiar with the Amish know this to be true. Some might be surprised to know, however, that this is even true in some reformed fellowships. The <a href="http://www.freepres.org/">Free Presbyterian Church </a>and the so-called reformed fellowships in the <span style="color:#cc0000;"><span style="color:#000000;"><a href="http://www.crechurches.org/">Confederation of Reformed Eva</a></span></span><span style="color:#000000;"><a href="http://www.crechurches.org/">ngelicals</a> and other "Federal Vision"(<span style="color:#009900;">see my blog <a href="http://caledonianhighlander.blogspot.com/2007/04/federal-visions-blindness.html">"Federal Vision's Blindness"</a>from April 2007 for more on this</span>) churches </span>are but a few examples of this understanding. These groups base this form of behavior on <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&version=15"><span style="color:#3333ff;">1 C</a><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&version=15">orinthians 11:2-15</span> </a>which does demand a "covering". Why then do so many other reformed denominations not make such a demand? Are men like myself sinning in not demanding our wives to do so? These are honest questions that must be answered and answer I will.</div><div><br /></div><div></div><br /><br /><div></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhZR1BKzh4t6V0z2xEs9qr4LzclWOVUCRzqVvtKjG6UsTndqa-YB5-1KMdSLYjzgOKzuNlICStAoo1rMLVCkCMExRG8a1Q15BGQXXRnazxT6YysRhOKoXkTEvAE8ItTU2uV3rimA/s1600-h/women+in+hats.bmp"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 180px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 120px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5299134294404864194" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhZR1BKzh4t6V0z2xEs9qr4LzclWOVUCRzqVvtKjG6UsTndqa-YB5-1KMdSLYjzgOKzuNlICStAoo1rMLVCkCMExRG8a1Q15BGQXXRnazxT6YysRhOKoXkTEvAE8ItTU2uV3rimA/s320/women+in+hats.bmp" /></a>Among the reformed churches that do not mandate hat wearing there are a few different reasons as to why we do not. The first view is what may be called "the cultural view". This view is exemplified by pastor/theologian John MacArthur in his commentary on First Corinthians where he states "It seems, therefore, that Paul is not stating a divine universal requirement but simply acknowledging a local custom". While I can respect John's having a reason for not demanding headwear, I do not agree with his reason. As Charles Ryrie states in the note in his study Bible, advocating women should wear hats,"Paul's reasons were based on theology(headship, v. 3), the order in creation (vv. 7-9), and the presence of angels in the meeting (v. 10)" and not in defence of a social custom. Paul elsewhere (eg. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&version=15">Rom. 14</a>)clearly allows for differences in the church over social customs and yet here he commands head covering for women and none for men. So the answer must be sought in a more appropriate understanding.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 265px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 260px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5307970310719916562" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfIetFqbx5TwquuKdZ869CKhJ1-yimIv47pG4f5RV-D4uKJ6sUzLE-MnTgK3r__GZrd52fYmEGBRLwK3wEj-bOOQ7lkKxsJjQoAIe6ZhZwg1FxOd46PjQEcY6WmFp-gSrZxIroFA/s320/veiled-muslim-women_7333.jpg" /><br /><br /><br />This appropriate understanding is the second view which may be called simply "the hair view". In this view the covering Paul was speaking of is "hair" and not a hat, veil, doily or any other man-made material. This view sees it unlikely that Paul would be making a new law for women never before established in scripture. We are not told God created a hat for Eve in the garden so as to worship him appropriately. The Old Testament laws were very thorough in their mandates for worship and again they are silent on this issue. The best evidence comes from the text itself when Paul states in verses 14 and 15 "<span style="color:#6600cc;">Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering</span>." Notice Paul appeals to common sense here. Although it is now codified in his writing it, Paul was asking what was evident in nature and not written in scripture until then. I make this point in passing to point out that while I hold tenaciously to the reformation principle of <em>sola scriptura(<span style="color:#009900;">see my blog <a href="http://caledonianhighlander.blogspot.com/2007/01/holy-bible.html">"Holy Bible"</a> January 2007</span>)</em>, we should not neglect what God has taught us in nature through common sense. So Paul has defined his meaning with these verses. Nature does not teach us anything about hats, veils or doilies or which is more appropriate. Paul's point to the church at Corinth is that it is wrong for men to have long hair and women to have short hair. God hates confusion and it is against the natural order for men to have long hair and women short. Even the angels get confused (v. 10)as they look on unlike the angels that fell in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&version=15">Genesis 6:1,2</a> who clearly knew who the daughters of men were. Reformed churches that teach "head coverings" that I am aware of typically use the doily which does not fully cover the head. If they want to meet this honestly they should be like the muslim women pictured above.<br /><br />In conclusion, it is important to say that I do not believe it is a sin for a woman to wear a hat to church but it is not mandated by scripture. It is also important to say at this juncture that nowhere in scripture does it define long hair or short hair and so I as Paul appeal to common sense in this matter. Some may <strong>not</strong> think my wife has long hair, and compared to say <a href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mkoc.com/STARS/Reviews/CrystalGayle/CrystalGayle.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.mkoc.com/STARS/Reviews/CrystalGayle.htm&usg=__aame9ldn82wZmOhn3VFNuz_Z9Ts=&h=380&w=279&sz=14&hl=en&start=9&um=1&tbnid=QgLR29gAexkxwM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCrystal%2BGayle%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN">Crystal Gayle </a>she does not, but if my hair were her length it would generally be considered long. There must be some christian liberty in our judgment of this.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Resources</strong><br /><br />First Corinthians: A Contemporary Commentary by Gordon H. Clark<br />Exposition of the Old and New Testaments Vol. 8 John To Galatians by John Gill<br />The MacArthur New Testament Commentary 1 Corinthians by John MacArthur<br />Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition (NAS) study notes by Charles RyrieScott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-34886176895977262692008-10-25T11:42:00.001-07:002009-02-04T18:44:03.524-08:00Afterword on Neo-Calvinism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMmCISeHJkUnQCOF8K1xBX2-evF3qSlvuoz2tFZQrZIvDxzesG5icucONhU_5B3AiUbTpUWVSd63FLZsa2iu7CejHdT5tfiNJwq2cMc3BM_9KZDNLPKR1iQTWYdDJKT-_RXgDw1A/s1600-h/kuyperplaque.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5272341706691646610" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 206px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 250px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMmCISeHJkUnQCOF8K1xBX2-evF3qSlvuoz2tFZQrZIvDxzesG5icucONhU_5B3AiUbTpUWVSd63FLZsa2iu7CejHdT5tfiNJwq2cMc3BM_9KZDNLPKR1iQTWYdDJKT-_RXgDw1A/s400/kuyperplaque.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVcYmFVM7y8hZBJOEG8SKDEE9beqsdsX_xh_etdcgizgvV5p_bHdEXju90eUnKuCiYVE6SxHJglMREacS3a7cnOEEgZ_UHfaDENhlpN7TmqOcoYP4YNsf-jc0UUYbzlNN7GavXlw/s1600-h/a+piercing+light.bmp"></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div></div></div><br /><br /><p>After reviewing my entries on Neo-calvinism, I felt it would be good, for clarity, to deal with a few issues not discussed in them. I wish to make clear at the outset, however, that these issues are not necessary for either the Dutch (Kuyperian, Neo-calvinist) School or for the Scottish(Warfieldian, Princeton) School of which I am and so are not <em>necessary</em> dividers between the two schools. </p><br /><p><strong>THEISTIC EVOLUTION OR 6 DAY CREATION?</strong></p><br /><p>While I appreciate the logic underpinning Benjamin Warfield's philosophy and consider him to be a better candidate for America's Greatest Philosopher over the much beloved Jonathan Edwards, (I would also give Gordon Clark the America's Greatest Theologian title over Jonathan) I do disdain his Theistic Evolution views and firmly adhere to a 6 Day Creationism. Both a normal (logical) reading of scripture and the clear evidence from creation itself prove the earth to be consistent with the Genesis account. </p><br /><p>While I am not a "Scientist" by profession the arguments made by ministries such as <a href="http://www.icr.org/">The Institute For Creation Research</a>, <a href="http://creationontheweb.com/">Creation Ministries International </a>and <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/">Answers In Genesis </a>,which are headed up by professional scientists, are very convincing. Questions like how our sun still burns?, how the earth's magnetic field still functions?, Why the moon is still a satellite when it is slowly moving away from the earth? and many more seem to be best answered from a young earth schemata than a 6 billion year old earth. The best evidence is that God was there to view the creation, as He created it, and to believe Him when he tells us how he did it. There is also no archaelogical or anthropological finds such as a "Missing Link" to contradict the Bible. </p><br /><p>While it is disheartening that a lot of the scientists at the ministries listed above, if calvinist at all are neo-calvinist and Hugh Ross's ministry at <a href="http://www.reasons.org/">Reasons</a> To Believe, which supports a Day-age Theory, gives homage to Ben Warfield, this does not mandate a necessary relationship. R. C. Sproul, like myself agrees with Warfield's logical (as opposed to Kuyper's mystical ) approach and is convinced by the evidence of a young earth. </p><br /><p><strong>SUPRALAPSARIANISM</strong></p><br /><p>Another issue is the question of Supra- versus Infralapsarianism. This discussion pertains to the order and extent of God's predestinating purpose in creation. This is a complicated discussion and I intend to do an in depth look at it in a future blog but I do want to say here that I believe that supralapsarianism is the most consistent and scriptural understanding of God's sovereignty. The supposed problem is Charles Hodge, Ben Warfield, A.A. Hodge, John Gerstner, R.C. Sproul and the others of the Princeton school are infralapsarian whereas Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Cornelius VanTil and others of the Neo-calvinist school are supralapsarian. I do not see a necessary connection, however, in the place of culture, philosophy and science in our lives and the lapsarian question. Many supralapsarians have not been Neo-calvinists. Theodore Beza, William Perkins, William Ames, Francis Gomarus, Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Goodwin, William Twisse, Gordon Clark, John Gill and I believe even John Calvin himself were all supralapsarians without the oddities of the Neo-calvinists. Supralapsarianism comes from an honest undertaking of passages like Isaiah 45:7, Proverbs 16:4, 2 Chronicles 18:19-22, Romans 9:6-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 4. While infras agree with election, faith as a gift and salvation by grace alone they neglect to realize that God's will is effective and seem to teach either man or the devil is the creator of evil and that God just leaves the non-elect in his sin to damn him instead of hardening his heart to sin for the purposes of damnation as the Bible teaches. These differences do not determine our views on art or cognitive attainment.</p><p><strong>RESOURCES</strong></p><p>For further reading of Neo-calvinism consult the works of <span style="color:#cc0000;">Abraham Kuyper</span>, <span style="color:#cc0000;">Herman Bavinck</span>, <span style="color:#cc0000;">Cornelius VanTil</span> and <span style="color:#cc0000;">Herman Dooyeweerd</span>. Also <span style="color:#cc0000;">Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism</span> by Peter S. Heslam, <span style="color:#cc0000;">Science and Grace: God's Reign in the Natural Sciences</span> by Morris and Petcher, <span style="color:#cc0000;">Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach</span> by Vern Poythress. For good books on science see <span style="color:#3333ff;">The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications</span> by Whitcomb and Morris, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Scientific Creationism</span> by Henry Morris, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils</span> by Marvin Lubenow which deals convincingly with the anthropological question, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Starlight and Time</span> by Russell Humphreys which deals convincingly with the physics questions and <span style="color:#3333ff;">Astronomy and the Bible</span> by Donald B. Deyoung. For studies on supralapsarianism see <span style="color:#3333ff;">Predestination</span> and <span style="color:#3333ff;">God and Evil</span> both by Gordon Clark. For other important studies consult <span style="color:#3333ff;">Reformed Theology In America: A History of Its Modern Development</span> by David Wells, The <span style="color:#3333ff;">Clark-VanTil Controversy</span> by Herman Hoeksema, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Corne</span><span style="color:#3333ff;">lius VanTil: The Man and Myth</span> by John Robbins, <span style="color:#006600;">The Basis For the Doctrine of the Incomprehensibility of God in Gordon Clark and Cornelius VanTil</span> by Bradley Swygard, <span style="color:#006600;">The History and Theology of Calvinism</span> by Curt Daniel and <span style="color:#3333ff;">Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defence of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics</span> by Sproul, Gerstner and Lindsley. For another example of Neo-calvinism look at the <a href="http://www.icscanada.edu/">Institute For Christian Studies</a>. </p><br /><p></p>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-31827027537695249812008-08-25T17:22:00.000-07:002008-10-25T11:36:12.247-07:00Neo-Calvinism Part 3: Science<div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5LV49JMeC-NIbWyfsmyRSbR4zUw8A74SEzrBZMUzpm3GddwYX3ZvWQQ7MXrBTTb4uhaPLGH8bnSHTq-pIADEX2BTzaBgMpjFxW-NIMFQCq6pJJDYIcYzl1BsBD_so8fBIpHEBUA/s1600-h/Abraham+Kuyper+3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5238615841043233938" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5LV49JMeC-NIbWyfsmyRSbR4zUw8A74SEzrBZMUzpm3GddwYX3ZvWQQ7MXrBTTb4uhaPLGH8bnSHTq-pIADEX2BTzaBgMpjFxW-NIMFQCq6pJJDYIcYzl1BsBD_so8fBIpHEBUA/s400/Abraham+Kuyper+3.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div>The last major flaw of Neo-calvinism is it's view of science. Although etymologically, the word science means "knowledge", it's practical meaning is usually narrowed to be that knowledge attained or attainable through the five senses in observation and/or experimentation. For Kuyper and Neo-calvinism there are two sciences, one for the elect and one for the reprobate. Kuyper said as there are "Two kinds of people" this mandates "two kinds of science" (quoted in <span style="color:#cc0000;">Creating A Christian Worldview</span> by Peter Heslam p. 183). Kuyper believed nothing is neutral, not even facts and therefore the science of a christian is different than the science of an unbeliever. According to this view, a proper sense of total depravity demands the understanding that our reason was also affected by the fall and so humanity is unreasonable and in need of God's irresistable grace to bring one to faith. At the outset, to the undiscerning reader, this appears to be something all "Calvinists" would agree with and not just "Neo-calvinists, and so I have my work cut out for me. </div><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div>While it is true that humans are totally depraved and in need of God's irresistable grace for salvation, this does not mean our senses are any less acute than before the fall or that humans are less able to articulate in speech or aesthetics. It does means that unaided by the Holy Spirit, mankind is blinded to the truth spiritually, exchanges the truth for a lie and worships the creature over the creator. Depravity is exhibited intra nos(inside ourselves) and does not affect the reality of truth itself, which is extra nos(outside ourselves). Due to this, there is only <em>one true</em> science and that is the science that leads to the knowledge of the truth. Christianity <em>alone</em> is a rationally demonstrable and coherent system. All other religions and philosophies are irrational. Kuyper in contrast, according to James Bratt, believed that "the world could contain any number of relatively coherent worldviews, none of which could finally convince another of its own superiority on strictly rational grounds."(<span style="color:#3333ff;">Reformed Theology in America</span> edited by David Wells, p.122). The result of Kuyper's thinking is an insipid anti-intellectualism that makes Christianity nonsense and surrenders the intellect to the world.<br /><br /></div><br /><div>Concerning neutrality, it depends on the context in which you are using it as to whether it is valid. Ultimately, 2+2=4 proves logic and order in the universe pointing to the creator God, but 2+2=4 is shared by both saved and unsaved individuals of all stripes, and so, is in a sense "neutral". Alot of science shares this affinity. Does it matter to the person dying from a particular disease whether the person who finds a cure is a Christian or not? Have only Christian scientists found cures for diseases? How about the other discoveries making life more comfortable and convenient? Should Christians abstain from the use of inventions of unbelievers? While ultimately everything a reprobate believes is against God and useless, this does not mean it manifests itself in everything he does. Jesus asks in Matthew 7:9, "Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" and in verse 11 He says that humans "being evil" still "know how to give good gifts".</div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>The Bible knows of only one kind of science. All else is "science, falsely so-called"(1 Tim. 6:20). The Bible teaches that there is "one body and one Spirit... one hope... one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:4-6), one wisdom (Jam. 3:13-17) and one Gospel (Gal. 1:6-8). Gnostic dualism has no place in the church.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>Warfield on Kuyper</strong></div><br /><div></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi93ShPiQeApXOxnIek37ZUKvNYzHWMHGRyds9cRQ2X1y_7KY7u6Kty2Zj4n6cNCgjH__hGqA91JwUSkEzm4zwhFZQJv_hAytWFeMBealP9sWYPPGfdbGwKYr54UPgE-BhSZ_s2AQ/s1600-h/bbwarfield.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5261145083278884706" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 161px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi93ShPiQeApXOxnIek37ZUKvNYzHWMHGRyds9cRQ2X1y_7KY7u6Kty2Zj4n6cNCgjH__hGqA91JwUSkEzm4zwhFZQJv_hAytWFeMBealP9sWYPPGfdbGwKYr54UPgE-BhSZ_s2AQ/s200/bbwarfield.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div>Kuyper's odd new movement did not go unnoticed in his own day. Ben Warfield was a professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology at Princeton University in that day and was a stalwart calvinist. He wrote an introduction to F.R. Beattie's book on apologetics, in which he articulated why he found Kuyper's view "a standing matter of surprise". This intro is so telling and profound I feel it should be read in it's entirety and so include it here in Warfield's own words. For more excellent articles click on the link at the lighthouse at the title of this blog.</div><div> </div><div>INTRODUCTION TO FRANCIS R. BEATTIE'S Apologetics *<br /><br /><em>By B. B. Warfield<br /><br />It gives me great pleasure to respond to Dr. Beattie's request that I shall say a few words by way of introduction to his comprehensive work on Apologetics. I am purposely laying stress on the comprehensiveness of the work. It is always a satisfaction to have placed in our hands a treatise on one of the theological disciplines, which develops with serenity and sanity its entire content. In the case of Apologetics, however, such an achievement is particularly to be welcomed. We have had many apologies; perhaps no branch of scientific theology has been more fruitful during the past two centuries. But we have had comparatively few surveys of the whole field of Apologetics. Perhaps Dr. Beattie's is the first to be produced by an American Presbyterian.<br /><br />The fact is, despite the richness of our apologetical literature, Apologetics has been treated very much like a stepchild in the theological household. The encyclopaedists have seemed scarcely to know what to do with it. They have with difficulty been persuaded to allow it a place among the theological disciplines at all. And, when forced to recognize it, they have been very prone to thrust it away into some odd corner, where it could hide its diminished head behind the skirts of some of its more esteemed sisters.<br /><br />This widespread misprision of Apologetics has been greatly fostered by the influence of two opposite (if they be indeed opposite) tendencies of thought, which have very deeply affected the thinking even of theologians who are in principle antagonistic to them. I mean Rationalism and Mysticism. To Rationalism, of course, Apologetics is an inanity; to Mysticism, an impertinence. Wherever, therefore, rationalistic presuppositions have intruded, there proportionately the validity of Apologetics has been questioned. Wherever mystical sentiment has seeped in, there the utility of Apologetics has been more or less distrusted. At the present moment, the rationalistic tendency is perhaps most active in the churches in the form given it by Albrecht Ritschl. In this form it strikes at the very roots of Apologetics by the distinction it erects between religious and theoretical knowledge. Where religion is supposed to seek and find expression only in value-judgments -- the subjective product of the human soul in its struggle after personal freedom -- and thus to stand out of all relation with theoretical knowledge, there, obviously there is no place for a vindication of Christian faith to reason and no possibility of Apologetics. In a somewhat odd parallelism to this (though, perhaps, it is not so odd after all) the mystical tendency is showing itself in our day most markedly in a widespread inclination to decline Apologetics in favor of the so-called testimonium Spiritus Sancti. The convictions of the Christian man, we are told, are not the product of reasons addressed to his intellect, but are the immediate creation of the Holy Spirit in his heart. Therefore, it is intimated, we can not only do very well without these reasons, but it is something very like sacrilege to attend to them. Apologetics, accordingly, is not merely useless, but may even become noxious, because tending to substitute a barren intellectualism for a vital faith.<br /><br />We need not much disturb ourselves over such utterances when they are the expression, as they often are in our modern Church, of the intellectual distress of those whose own apologetic has proved too weak to withstand the rationalistic assault, and who are fain, therefore, to take refuge from the oppressive rationalism of their understandings in an empty irrationalism of the heart. In these cases the extremes have met, and the would-be mystic preserves nothing but his dialect to distinguish him from the Ritschlite rationalist. What he needs for his cure is clearly not less Apologetics, but more Apologetics -- lacking which he must ever remain of a "double mind," clinging with the desperation of a drowning man to a faith on which his own intellect has passed the' sentence of irrationality. The case is very different, however, when we encounter very much the same forms of speech on the lips of heroes of the faith, who deprecate Apologetics because they feel no need of "reasons" to ground a faith which they are sure they have received immediately from God. Apologetics, they say, will never make a Christian. Christians are made by the creative Spirit alone. And when God Almighty has implanted faith in the heart, we shall not require to seek for "reasons" to ground our conviction of the truth of the Christian religion. We have tasted and seen, and we know of ourselves that it is from God. Thus, the sturdiest belief joins hands with unbelief to disparage the defenses of the Christian religion.<br /><br />Dr. Abraham Kuyper, one of the really great theologians of our time, is a very striking instance of thinkers of this tendency. It is not to be supposed that Dr. Kuyper would abolish Apologetics altogether. He has written an Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, and in it he gives a place to Apologetics among the other disciplines. But how subordinate a place! And in what a curtailed form! Hidden away as a subdivision of a subdivision of what Dr. Kuyper calls the "Dogmatological Group" of disciplines (which corresponds roughly to what most encyclopaedists call "Systematic Theology"), one has to search for it before he finds it, and when he finds it, he discovers that its function is confined closely, we might almost say jealously, to the narrow task of defending developed Christianity against philosophy, falsely so called. After the contents of Christianity have been set forth thetically in Dogmatics and Ethics, it finds itself, it seems, in a threefold conflict. This is waged with a pseudo-Christianity, a pseudo-religion, and a pseudo-philosophy. Three antithetic dogmatological disciplines are therefore requisite -- Polemics, Elenchtics, and Apologetics, corresponding, respectively, to heterodoxy, paganism, philosophy. The least of these is Apologetics, which concerns itself only with the distinctively philosophical assault on Christianity. Meanwhile, as for Christianity itself, it has remained up to this point -- let us say it frankly -- the great assumption. The work of the exegete, the historian, the systematist, has all hung, so to speak, in the air; not until all their labor is accomplished do they pause to wipe their streaming brows and ask whether they have been dealing with realities, or perchance with fancies only.<br /><br />Naturally it is not thus that Dr. Kuyper represents it to himself. He supposes that all these workers have throughout wrought in faith. But he seems not quite able to conceal from himself that they have not justified that faith, and that some may think their procedure itself, therefore, unjustified, if not unjustifiable. He distributes the departments of theological science into four groups, corresponding roughly with the Exegetical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical disciplines which the majority of encyclopaedists erect, although for reasons of his own, very interestingly set forth, he prefers to call them, respectively, the Bibliological, Ecclesiological, Dogmatological, and Diaconological groups of disciplines. Now, when he comes to discuss the contents of these groups in detail, he betrays a feeling that something is lacking at the beginning. "Before dealing separately with the four groups of departments of study into which theology is divided," he says, "we must give a brief resume from the second part of this Encyclopaedia, of how the subject arrives at the first group. Logical order demands that the first group bring you to the point where the second begins, that the second open the way for the third, and that the third introduce you to the fourth. But no other pre- cedes the first group, and it is accordingly in place here to indicate how we arrive at the first group." [1] Just so, surely!<br /><br />Dr. Kuyper proceeds to point out that the subject of theology is the human consciousness; that in this consciousness there is implanted a sensus divinitatis, a semen religionis, which impels it to seek after the knowledge of God; that in the sinner this action is renewed and quickened by the palingenesis, through which the subject is opened for the reception of the special revelation of God made first by deed, culminating in the Incarnation, and then by word, centering in the Scriptures. Thus, by the testimonium Spiritus Sancti, the subject is put in possession of the revelation of God embodied in the Scriptures, and is able to proceed to explicate its contents through the several disciplines of theological science. Now, what is it that Dr. Kuyper has done here except outline a very considerable -- though certainly not a complete -- Apologetics, which must precede and prepare the way for the "Bibliological Group" of theological departments? We must, it seems, vindicate the existence of a sensus divinitatis in man capable of producing a natural theology independently of special revelation; and then the reality of a special revelation in deed and word; and as well, the reality of a supernatural preparation of the heart of man to receive it; before we can proceed to the study of theology at all, as Dr. Kuyper has outlined it. With these things at least we must, then, confessedly, reckon at the outset; and to reckon with these things is to enter deeply into Apologetics.<br /><br />As the case really stands, we must say even more. Despite the attractiveness of Dr. Kuyper's distribution of the departments of theological science, we cannot think it an improvement upon the ordinary schema. It appears to us a mistake to derive, as he does, the principium divisionis from the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures, after all, are not the object of theology, but only its source; and the principium divisionis in this science, too, must be taken, as Dr. Kuyper himself argues, [2] from the object. Now, the object of theology, as Dr. Kuyper has often justly insisted, is the ectypal knowledge of God. This knowledge of God is deposited for us in the Scriptures, and must needs be drawn out of them -- hence "Exegetical Theology." It has been derived from the Scriptures by divers portions and in divers manners, for the life of the Church through the ages, and its gradual assimilation must needs be traced in its effects on the life of the Christian world -- hence "Historical Theology." It is capable of statement in a systematized thetical form -- hence "Systematic Theology." And, so drawn out from Scripture, so assimilated in the Church's growth, so organized into a system, it is to be made available for life -- hence "Practical Theology." But certainly, before we draw it from the Scriptures, we must assure ourselves that there is a knowledge of God in the Scriptures. And, before we do that, we must assure ourselves that there is a knowledge of God in the world. And, before we do that, we must assure ourselves that a knowledge of God is possible for man. And, before we do that, we must assure ourselves that there is a God to know. Thus, we inevitably work back to first principles. And in working thus back to first principles, we exhibit the indispensability of an "Apologetical Theology," which of necessity holds the place of the first among the five essential theological disciplines.<br /><br />It is easy, of course, to say that a Christian man must take his standpoint not above the Scriptures, but in the Scriptures. He very certainly must. But surely he must first have Scriptures, authenticated to him as such, before he can take his standpoint in them. It is equally easy to say that Christianity is attained, not by demonstrations, but by a new birth. Nothing could be more true. But neither could anything be more unjustified than the inferences that are drawn from this truth for the discrediting of Apologetics. It certainly is not in the power of all the demonstrations in the world to make a Christian. Paul may plant and Apollos water; it is God alone who gives the increase. But it does not seem to follow that Paul would as well, therefore, not plant, and Apollos as well not water. Faith is the gift of God; but it does not in the least follow that the faith that God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds in right reason. It is beyond all question only the prepared heart that can fitly respond to the "reasons"; but how can even a prepared heart respond, when there are no "reasons" to draw out its action? One might as well say that photography is independent of light, because no light can make an impression unless the plate is prepared to receive it. The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the heart. What is supplied by his creative energy in working faith is not a ready-made faith, rooted in nothing and clinging without reason to its object; nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, al- ready present to the understanding. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in him, not though it be irrational. Accordingly, our Reformed fathers always posited in the production of faith the presence of the "argumentum propter quod credo," as well as the "principium seu causa effficiens a quo ad credendum adducor." That is to say, for the birth of faith in the soul, it is just as essential that grounds of faith should be present to the mind as that the Giver of faith should act creatively upon the heart.<br /><br />We are not absurdly arguing that Apologetics has in itself the power to make a man a Christian or to conquer the world to Christ. Only the Spirit of Life can communicate life to a dead soul, or can convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. But we are arguing that faith is, in all its exercises alike, a form of conviction, and is, therefore, necessarily grounded in evidence. And we are arguing that evidence accordingly has its part to play in the conversion of the soul; and that the systematically organized evidence which we call Apologetics similarly has its part to play in the Christianizing of the world. And we are arguing that this part is not a small part; nor is it a merely subsidiary part; nor yet a merely defensive part -- as if the one end of Apologetics were to protect an isolated body of Christians from annoyance from the surrounding world, or to aid the distracted Christian to bring his head into harmony with his heart. The part that Apologetics has to play in the Christianizing of the world is rather a primary part, and it is a conquering part. It is the distinction of Christianity that it has come into the world clothed with the mission to reason its way to its dominion. Other religions may appeal to the sword, or seek some other way to propagate themselves. Christianity makes its appeal to right reason, and stands out among all religions, therefore, as distinctively "the Apologetic religion." It is solely by reasoning that it has come thus far on its way to its kingship. And it is solely by reasoning that it will put all its enemies under its feet. Face to face with the tremendous energy of thought and the incredible fertility in assault which characterizes the world in its anti-Christian manifestation, Christianity finds its task in thinking itself thoroughly through, and in organizing, not its defense only, but also its attack. It stands calmly over against the world with its credentials in its hands, and fears no contention of men.<br /><br />It is a standing matter of surprise to us that the brilliant school of Christian thinkers, on whose attitude toward Apologetics we have been animadverting, should be tempted to make little of Apologetics. When we read, for instance, the beautiful exposition of sin and regeneration to science which Dr. Kuyper has given us in his Encyclopaedie, we cannot understand why he does not magnify, instead of minifying, the value of Apologetics. Perhaps the explanation is to be found in a tendency to make too absolute the contrast between the "two kinds of science" -- that which is the product of the thought of sinful man in his state of nature, and that which is the product of man under the influence of the regenerating grace of God. There certainly do exist these "two kinds of men" in the world -- men under the unbroken sway of sin, and men who have been brought under the power of the palingenesis. And the product of the intellection of these "two kinds of men" will certainly give us "two kinds of science." But the difference between the two is, after all, not accurately described as a difference in kind -- gradus non mutant speciem. Sin has not destroyed or altered in its essential nature anyone of man's faculties, although-since it corrupts homo totus -- it has affected the operation of them all. The depraved man neither thinks, nor feels, nor wills as he ought; and the products of his action as a scientific thinker cannot possibly escape the influence of this everywhere operative destructive power; although, as Dr. Kuyper lucidly points out, they are affected in different degrees in the several "sciences," in accordance with the nature of their objects and the rank of the human faculties engaged in their structure. Nevertheless, there is question here of perfection of performance, rather than of kind. It is "science" that is produced by the subject held under sin, even though imperfect science-falling away from the ideal here, there, and elsewhere, on account of all sorts of deflecting influences entering in at all points of the process. The science of sinful man is thus a substantive part of the abstract science produced by the ideal subject, the general human consciousness, though a less valuable part than it would be without sin.<br /><br />It is well that it is so; for otherwise there would be no "science" attainable by man at all. For regeneration is not, in the first instance, the removal of sin: the regenerated man remains a sinner. Only after his sanctification has become complete can the contrast between him and the unregenerate sinner become absolute; not until then, in any case, could there be thought to exist an absolute contrast between his intellection and that of the sinner. In the meantime, the regenerated man remains a sinner; no new faculties have been inserted into him by regeneration; and the old faculties, common to man in all his states, have been only in some measure restored to their proper functioning. He is in no condition, therefore, to produce a "science" differing in kind from that produced by sinful man; the science of palingenesis is only a part of the science of sinful humanity, though no doubt its best part; and only along with it can it enter as a constituent part into that ideal science which the composite human subject is producing in its endless effort to embrace in mental grasp the ideal object, that is to say, all that is. Even if the palingenesis had completed its work, indeed, and those under its sway had become "perfect," it may be doubted whether the contrast between the science produced by the two classes of men could be treated as absolute. Sinful and sinless men are, after all, both men; and being both men, are fundamentally alike and know fundamentally alike. Ideally there is but one "science," the subject of which is the human spirit, and the object all that is. Meanwhile, as things are, the human spirit attains to this science only in part and by slow accretions, won through many partial and erroneous constructions. Men of all sorts and of all grades work side by side at the common task, and the common edifice grows under their hands into ever fuller and truer outlines. As Dr. Kuyper finely says himself, [3] in the conflict of perceptions and opinions, those of the strongest energy and clearest thought finally prevail. Why is not the palingenesis to be conceived simply as preparing the stronger and clearer spirits whose thought always finally prevails? It is not a different kind of science that they are producing. It is not even the same kind of science, but as part of a different edifice of truth. Through them merely the better scientific outlook, the better scientific product, are striving in conflict with the outlook and product of fellow workers, to get built into the one great edifice of truth ascertained, which is rising slowly because of sin, but surely because of palingenesis.<br /><br />Only in the divine mind, of course, does science lie perfect -- the perfect comprehension of all that is in its organic completeness. In the mind of perfected humanity, the perfected ectypal science shall at length lie. In the mind of sinful humanity, struggling here below, there can lie only a partial and broken reflection of the object, a reflection which is rather a deflection. The task of science is, therefore, not merely quantitative, but qualitative; the edifice must be built up to its completion, and the deflection induced by sin must be corrected. This cannot be accomplished by sinful man. But he makes the effort continuously, and is continuously attaining his measure of success -- a success that varies inversely with the rank of the sciences. The entrance of regeneration prepares men to build better and ever more truly as the effects of' regeneration increase intensively and extensively. The end will come only when the regenerated universe becomes the well-comprehended object of the science of the regenerated race. It would seem, then, a grave mistake to separate the men of the palingenesis from the race, a part of which they are, and which is itself the object of the palingenesis. And no mistake could be greater than to lead them to decline to bring their principles into conflict with those of the unregenerate in the prosecution of the common task of man. It is the better science that ever in the end wins the victory; and palingenetic science is the better science, and to it belongs the victory. How shall it win its victory, however, if it declines the conflict? In the ordinance of God, it is only in and through this conflict that the edifice of truth is to rise steadily onwards to its perfecting.<br /><br />In the fact thus brought out, the ultimate vindication of the supreme importance of Apologetics lies, and as well the vindication of its supreme utility. In the prosecution of the tasks of Apologetics, we see the palingenesis at work on the science of man at its highest point. And here, too, the "man of stronger and purer thought" -- even though that he has it is of God alone -- "will prevail in the end." The task of the Christian is surely to urge "his stronger and purer thought" continuously, and in all its details, upon the attention of men. It is not true that he cannot soundly prove his position. It is not true that the Christian view of the world is subjective merely, and is incapable of validation in the forum of pure reason. It is not true that the arguments adduced for the support of the foundations of the Christian religion lack objective validity. It is not even true that the minds of sinful men are inaccessible to the "evidences," though, in the sense of the proverb, "convinced against their will," they may "remain of the same opinion still." All minds are of the same essential structure; and the less illuminated will not be able permanently to resist or gain- say the determinations of the more illuminated. The Christian, by virtue of the palingenesis working in him, stands undoubtedly on an indefinitely higher plane of thought than that occupied by sinful man as such. And he must not decline, but use and press the advantage which God has thus given him. He must insist, and insist again, that his determinations, and not those of the unilluminated, must be built into the slowly rising fabric of human science. Thus will he serve, if not obviously his own generation, yet truly all the generations of men. We may assure ourselves from the outset that the palingenesis shall ultimately conquer to itself the whole race and all its products; and we may equally assure ourselves that its gradually increasing power will show itself only as the result of conflict in the free intercourse of men.<br /><br />Thinking thus of Apologetics and of its task, it is natural that we should feel little sympathy with the representation sometimes heard, to the effect that Apologetics concerns itself only with "the minimum of Christianity." What is "the minimum of Christianity"? And what business has Apologetics with "the minimum of Christianity"? What Apologetics has to do with is certainly not any "minimum," but just Christianity itself, whatever that may prove to be. Its function is not to vindicate for us the least that we can get along with, and yet manage to call ourselves Christians; but to validate the Christian "view of the world," with all that is contained in the Christian "view of the world," for the science of men. It must not be permitted to sink into an "apology" for the Christian religion, in the vulgar sense of that word, which makes it much the synonym of an "excuse"; and much less into an "apology" for what is at best an "apology for the Christian religion" -- possibly nothing more than "a couple of starved and hunger-bitten dogmas," which for the purposes of the moment we may choose to identify with "the essence of Christianity." The function of Apologetics is not performed until it has placed in our hands God, religion, Christianity, and the Bible, and said to us, Now go on and explicate these fundamental facts in all their contents. When men speak of "the Apologetical minimum," we cannot help suspecting that they have for the moment lost sight of Apologetics itself altogether, and are thinking rather of some specific "Apology" which they judge might usefully be launched in behalf of Christianity, in the conditions of thought for the moment obtaining. If such an "Apology" were identifiable with "Apologetics," we might well sympathize with those who consider Apologetics a department of "Practical Theology," and it is doubtless because they do not rise above such a conception of it that many encyclopaedists have so classified it. But the Apologetics with which we are concerned is a much more fundamental, a much more comprehensive, and a much more objective thing. It does not concern itself with how this man or that may best be approached to induce him to make a beginning of Christian living, or how this age or that may most easily be brought to give a hearing to the Christian conception of the world. It concerns itself with the solid objective establishment, after a fashion valid for all normally working minds and for all ages of the world in its developing thought, of those great basal facts which constitute the Christian religion; or, better, which embody in the concrete the entire knowledge of God accessible to men, and which, therefore, need only explication by means of the further theological disciplines in order to lay openly before the eyes of men the entirety of the knowledge of 'God within their reach.<br /><br />It is because Dr. Beattie's treatise conceives Apologetics after this fundamental, comprehensive, and objective fashion, and develops its contents from that point of view, that we accord it our heartiest welcome.<br /><br />Endnotes<br /><br />*Introduction to Francis R. Beattie's Apologetics: or the Rational Vindication of Christianity, Richmond, Va., 1903, pp. 19-32.<br /><br />1 Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, Deel III, pp. 4 ff.<br /><br />2 Encyclopaedia, E. T., p. 629.<br /><br />3 Encyclopaedia, E. T., p. 151.</em></div><div> </div><div> </div><div><strong>Resources</strong></div><div> </div><div> </div><div>For further reading on these topics consult <span style="color:#cc0000;">Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach</span> by Vern Poythress, <span style="color:#cc0000;">Science & Grace: God's Reign in the Natural Sciences</span> by Tim Morris and Don Petcher, <span style="color:#cc0000;">Creating A Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvin</span><span style="color:#cc0000;">ism</span> by Peter Heslam which are written from neo-calvinist persuasion. Also <span style="color:#3333ff;">Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development</span> edited by David Wells which is an excellent overview of Reformed theologies.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div></div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-27778866940144863332008-06-24T07:26:00.000-07:002008-12-10T14:09:49.781-08:00Neo-Calvinism Part 2: Philosophy<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI6XZ-n5EIv87GFBJt19jBQhr-ZWoeWthAFJMYZ5QUdP1jF35p71tP9aSEx7EMLK3NOAvYMWdwHS4xkBMU7HQd3o3DsOddyvUqZWjKwOVPQGblXM3TrYqJ8SXEd_GC7sswOxmhDw/s1600-h/Abraham+Kuyper+2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5215454985517404098" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI6XZ-n5EIv87GFBJt19jBQhr-ZWoeWthAFJMYZ5QUdP1jF35p71tP9aSEx7EMLK3NOAvYMWdwHS4xkBMU7HQd3o3DsOddyvUqZWjKwOVPQGblXM3TrYqJ8SXEd_GC7sswOxmhDw/s400/Abraham+Kuyper+2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><p></p><p></p><p>Another aspect to Neo-calvinism that is detrimental to truth is it's view of philosophy. Kuyper is a leader in the line of thought referred to as presuppositionalism. Through his influence, men like Herman Dooyeweerd, Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen have built a system of confusion that has leavened so much of the lump that today it seems to be the majority report amongst sovereign grace advocates. Even in circles where his other views are questioned or denied, his philosophy is accepted carte blanche. This is evident in that the major Reformed Seminaries staunchly proclaim it and it is not unusual to see Reformed churches holding study groups on the issue. Presuppositionalism says that all truth must be presupposed and cannot be proven, as all evidence used to prove a truth must be interpreted by one's "worldview" and due to the fall we cannot interpret properly. They claim those who hold to the traditional Reformed position are using human "vain philosophy". This view, however, is the one holding to vain philosophy as it seeks to accomplish what no man can do and denies the divinely ordained order or means of grace.</p><br /><br /><p></p><br /><br /><p><strong>TRANSCENDENTALISM OR GNOSTICISM?</strong><br /><br />Cornelius VanTil preferred the label of Transcendentalism to Presuppositionalism. This according to him encapsulated the view better. You may also see it referred to as TAG or the Transcendental Argument for God. At the root one must transcend the material world in order to understand it. The more proof you have for God, the more you disprove the God of the Bible. This is a system of confusion and as 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us God is not a God of confusion. It is ultimately a resurrection of gnosticism. Gnosticism is a heresy that has two main emphases. First, it says that the physical realm is evil and to be holy one must deny it for the spiritual realm. Second, because of the first, one cannot learn by physical means but must transcend to the spiritual realm for truth. Knowledge in gnosticism is <em>intuitive </em>and not <em>learned</em>! Thus, although gnosticism by definition means knowledge, it's knowledge is a <em>secret </em>knowledge known only to the initiated few, a <em>mysticism</em> that claims to be on a higher plane of existence than the rest of us. Examples of this include the meditationist whose "ohms" take him to the higher plane, the monk living in the monastery to keep himself from the the stain of the world and the charismatic churches that seek truth in visions and dreams despite the Bible's command to "Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on <em>visions</em> he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God"(Col. 2:18,19). God, in contrast, declares in his Word that "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge"(Psalms19:1,2) and in Romans 1:20 we read "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". God demands two witnesses(Deut. 19:15) and has provided us with two witnesses to His glory in the general revelation of creation and the special revelation of Scripture(Deut. 4:26).</p><br /><p></p><br /><p><strong>AXIOMS</strong></p><p></p><p>Neo-calvinism also subjectifies truth. Instead of being an objective goal, truth becomes dependent on your "worldview" which will be different for everyone. You even choose your own axioms according to this view. In contrast to this, however, nature teaches us the test for truth is the law of non-contradiction, the law of causality and the general reliability of the senses. Non-contradiction is a self-evident truth in that we know that God(or anything) cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The law of causality teaches us that every effect must have a cause. The general reliability of senses teaches us that although there are occasionally illusions and mirages, we can generally trust our 5 senses. We should start with these axioms and build the foundation for a proper worldview. We must in fact start with these because we cannot transcend to a higher plane barring divine intervention (2 Cor. 12:1-3, Rev. 1:10).</p><p></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>THE FAITH</strong></p><p></p><p>The most damaging effect of this line of thinking is that it dichotomizes faith and understanding and infers an implicit faith. Implicit faith is the teaching that you can simply state an agreement with something or someone although you do not understand it. An example would be taking your car to the mechanic and telling him to fix whatever is wrong with it. While this may be okay for your car, the Bible teaches an explicit faith or a knowledgable faith as is seen in it's equating faith with the knowledge of the truth (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Tim. 3:7, and Heb. 10:26). Neo-calvinism is quick to quote Augustine's famous dictum "I believe in order to understand". Faith becomes void of understanding as one must believe in order to understand. What then do you believe? Is this necessary? Do I have to believe in the Muslim Faith in order to understand what it says or can I reject it because I understand it? The gospel is the good <em>news</em> unto salvation and is not presupposed. God uses the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1:21)to open blind eyes as faith comes by <em>hearing</em> and is not a intuitive leap in the dark. </p><p></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p><p></p><p>We do not worship an "unknown God" like the pagan religions (Acts 17:23). God is clear to us through both His creation and revelation. We must start where we are at and grow from there. Even our Lord God and Creator, Jesus as a man had to grow in wisdom(Luke 2:52). Neo-calvinism is fideistic and circular in its reasoning. It's anti-intellectualism left unchecked will cause the downfall of many Sovereign Grace Seminaries and Churches. For further reading on this subject, I heartily recommend <span style="color:#6600cc;">Classical Apologetics</span> by R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Reason For Faith</span> by John Gerstner, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Defending Your Faith</span> by R.C. Sproul and from a different perspective, <span style="color:#009900;">Where In The World Is The Church</span> by Michael Horton. </p>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-20521417490443904042008-04-18T05:44:00.000-07:002008-12-10T14:09:49.986-08:00Neo-Calvinism Part 1: Culture<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg948aZ6OeDB1aD47NIu1B4I33Qjv631WvbZV78UPp4oQ1NwdrM1Dcqnila5TrFzfTjoVIRh9gRUFRvoyB52Q59kPcTCNvUxq-f8eu5mKZ_V34OMcJj8cYRTOTlxtdL5IzGoB2Kvw/s1600-h/Abraham+Kuyper+1.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5215453993962734306" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg948aZ6OeDB1aD47NIu1B4I33Qjv631WvbZV78UPp4oQ1NwdrM1Dcqnila5TrFzfTjoVIRh9gRUFRvoyB52Q59kPcTCNvUxq-f8eu5mKZ_V34OMcJj8cYRTOTlxtdL5IzGoB2Kvw/s400/Abraham+Kuyper+1.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyABexCK00QRUzuf5ig_Q0zNqLgPb3fMOSWsAoNVxMuXCwX6rnl_ASxU-Ygwto-vCplRBGgYtkzDLIA7oKqRdWretNp5bDN4nVI85FqqQG2QprZD4_ZnOJ_Cpp9x0Sx4NH5iflxA/s1600-h/Abraham+Kuyper.jpg"></a>ABRAHAM KUYPER</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Neo-Calvinism is a movement founded by the Dutch Reformed minister Abraham Kuyper. Although he called it Neo-calvinism, it was to him simply Calvinism rejuvenated. As an editor-journalist, pastor, University professor, political party leader and Prime Minister Abraham had many channels in which to disseminate his views but the clearest expression of them is in the Stone Lectures he gave for Princeton University in 1898 titled <span style="color:#cc0000;">Lectures On Calvinism</span>. To Abraham, Calvinism represents Christianity in its purist and most consistent sense, and so as goes Calvinism so goes Christianity. His purpose in formulating Neo-Calvinism was to make Calvinism an all encompassing worldview that touches every area of a person's life because there is no area that Christ does not declare "Mine". Abraham believed Calvinism needed it's own <span style="color:#3333ff;">culture, philosophy and science</span> instead of borrowing from the worldly presuppositions of unbelievers. I will examine this movement in three parts and discuss why this movement is a departure from the Bible and therefore fraught with danger. This first part looks at culture. For another excellent discussion click on the link at the title with the lighthouse.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />A CHRISTIAN CULTURE<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />While it is a truth that a Christian is to recognize Christ as Lord of every area of his life, and walk consistently therein as we are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" and "a people for God's own possession" (1 Peter 2:9) Christ prayed in John 17:15 "I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one". We are to be the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:13-16). If we withdraw into our own communities and isolate ourselves from the surrounding culture we become useless to God as "salt that has lost its savor". On a trip to Pennsylvania , my wife and I went to see the Amish communities there. We took a buggy ride and the Amish driver candidly admitted that they do not get any converts from outside their community, but only the children they raise. The Amish are just a tourist attraction with nothing to really offer the world but a nostalgic look at the past.<br /><br /><br /><br />Another problem with this mentality is that it can kill creativity and individualism among Christians with its focus on uniformity and bring with it a judgmentalism. The Amish believe a Christian can only adorn ones walls with things which have a practical use such as a calender. Abraham similarly believed art was to be for religious or edifying purposes and denied "art for art's sake". We see in Scripture however that God loves beauty and much of the decorations on the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon's Temple, for instance, had no practical use but aesthetics only. We read in Genesis 1:31 that "God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good" and in 2:9 "God made every tree grow that is <em>pleasant to the sight</em>" as well as "good for food". Ezra 7:27 tells us that God put it in the king's heart to "beautify the house of the Lord". In Exodus 28:2,40 we see garments described for the priesthood which were for the purpose of "glory and beauty" and notice God says in verse 3 that they were to use "gifted artisans, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom" to make the garments. Scripture is replete with examples of artistic talent and beauty. Leland Ryken has well said "(God) did not create a purely functional world. From a utilitarian point of view, God did not have to create a world filled with colors and symmetrical forms. He could have made everything a drab gray color, or he could have created people color-blind. Surely God could have made trees whose leaves do not turn to beautiful colors in the fall of the year, or a world in which all flowers are brown in color or grass that is gray instead of green" and he goes on to say "artistic beauty needs no justification for its existence, any more than a happy marriage does, or a bird, or a flower, or a mountain, or a sunset."(p72-73, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Culture in Christian Perspective</span>) Although art is ultimately reflective of God and is therefore ultimately for the sake of God, as is everything we do from eating, to using the bathroom to brushing our teeth, in the regularly understood sense, art is for aesthetic purposes and needs no practical necessity.<br /><br /><br /><br />Finally this view fails to take into account the different cultures among christians themselves that are all equally following the Lordship of Christ in all areas of their life. Romans 14 clearly articulates this very thing as the church at Rome was struggling over foods and holidays. Paul says it is okay to be a vegetarian or a meat eater, to recognize holidays or have none but "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind"(verse 5). Some may argue that it is the weak brother that is the vegetarian(14:2) and so he needs to grow but this does not prove he is not following the Lord in all areas of his life. Also it is not always easy to determine who the weak christian is in some cultural distinctions. Are only weak christians the ones who celebrate Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving? Are only strong christians allowed to go see movies and listen to rock and roll music? Many other issues come to mind such as alcoholic beverage consumption and education whether it be public, private or home schooling. There is no one christian culture and to try and make one is tyrannical. It was reported to me that at a recent <span style="color:#cc0000;">Vision Forum</span> conference for fathers and daughters, a speaker at the conference said that all daughters are to be groomed for marriage. This is blatantly unscriptural as 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 clearly teaches that marriage is an option and Paul says it is ultimately better for her not to marry in verse 38. Like-minded people argue that women, as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), are not able to go to college or hold a job outside the home. This is an unchristian philosophy often called "chauvinism" and subjugates women to secondary status teaching them to be ignorant and lazy and deny their divine purpose of being a "helpmeet" or "helper comparable"(Gen. 2:18). 1 Peter 3:7 could be saying that a man is to deal with his wife's weaknesses as Paul tells the strong christians at Rome to deal with the weak christians in Romans 14 or could be a referrence to her physical weakness as it is a biological fact that men have more muscle mass than a woman. Either way, it in no way encourages a woman to sin or allows her to stay in sin. Proverbs 31:10-31 and Romans 16:1-16 (many of whom are women)show women leaving their homes to labor. While many of these issues are not issues in and of themselves, it <em>is</em> an issue to make them issues. Galatians 5:1 says to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." We must take extra care not to force our "culture" on others in a mandate or forbid theirs as "the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."(1 Tim. 4:1-3)<br /><br />For further reading on this subject, I recommend <span style="color:#6600cc;">Culture In Christian Perspective: A Door to Understanding & Enjoying the Arts</span>, and <span style="color:#6600cc;">Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were</span> by Leland Ryken, <span style="color:#3333ff;">Where in the World is the Church: A Christian View of Culture and Your Role in It</span>, and <span style="color:#3333ff;">Beyond Culture Wars: Is America A Mission Field Or Battlefield?</span> by Michael Horton also by Michael is a debate with Doug Wilson at <a href="http://www.credenda.org/issues/8-2disputatio.php?type=print">http://www.credenda.org/issues/8-2disputatio.php?type=print</a> on these issues. </div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-89388622928140290572008-04-10T08:08:00.000-07:002008-12-10T14:09:50.146-08:00Retraction<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi67fGuXsFff5qH0dqNshPZuCVdOfXjX2e_bNZ3DckPr5l9n0p0PklAebIJBkMfDu4IhFvX74YTjgIBkrYeBloZI1DqIZt6WKjkZBEp-qB7uVWP2xugay_TOPzRi8c_se1PCDDOyw/s1600-h/McLean+2.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5187804322893667042" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi67fGuXsFff5qH0dqNshPZuCVdOfXjX2e_bNZ3DckPr5l9n0p0PklAebIJBkMfDu4IhFvX74YTjgIBkrYeBloZI1DqIZt6WKjkZBEp-qB7uVWP2xugay_TOPzRi8c_se1PCDDOyw/s400/McLean+2.JPG" border="0" /></a> ARCHIBALD McLEAN (1733-1812)<br /><br /><br /><div>I joyfully retract what I wrote about Archibald McLean in my blog bio of him at The Scottish Legacy part 2 on 11-9-06. Due to the inaccessiblity of his out of print works, I had to rely on secondary resources for my information of him and his writings. These resources stated he held to a doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" and I repeated this in my blog. Fortunately, the Lord has recently allowed me access to some of the works of this Scottish Baptist theologian. I have recently read his <span style="color:#330099;">The Nature and Import of Baptism</span> and found he clearly delineated between the sign and the salvation. If he wrote something else in which he changed his mind and articulated baptism as necessary for salvation I am not aware and would appreciate the knowledge. I have no knowledge of where the resources I used got their information and have no judgment as to their motives. They too may not have had access to McLean's works and relied on false reports or they may have honestly misunderstood something he wrote. There is also the possibility of nefariousness as McLean was considered a maverick theologian even amongst his fellow baptists. I have changed my bio of him and encourage readers to read the new bio and am sorry for the bearing of false witness. I also encourage his works on faith and the doctrines of grace as well as his work on baptism previously cited.</div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-68609582631744471632008-02-27T10:16:00.000-08:002008-12-10T14:09:50.426-08:00The Lord's Supper<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmMsqQaSSNHH83d9tIJ2JtaXENtkoVS_5exYBaPs5eQRVOb_U-I3dA-Q-NXyOSOqqhesGGkSfFvjFtHQUF6QE1_-wRItaXPiJX0ehTgCwXNpViFKK11NuBI2npYY7_PCjUCj0u6A/s1600-h/LordsSupper.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5178515208022581778" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmMsqQaSSNHH83d9tIJ2JtaXENtkoVS_5exYBaPs5eQRVOb_U-I3dA-Q-NXyOSOqqhesGGkSfFvjFtHQUF6QE1_-wRItaXPiJX0ehTgCwXNpViFKK11NuBI2npYY7_PCjUCj0u6A/s400/LordsSupper.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2MYXaEY5Rls2um1CdLeevK9cgc6_cJVuWgu-qZz0LF9IRgXv2dZV1eLRawVEXy_kuiVlN6C0pSXlHnKJMEG71xtn0LFRA4khVibeNkr-xgNDYimu8FsgBy3b6Lp_MiAirUQT_eg/s1600-h/LordsSupper.jpg"></a><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><div>Our Lord gave us two ordinances to remind us of Him. The first is baptism, and the second is the focus of our current discussion which goes by the various names of communion, the Eucharist and the Lord's Supper. The institution is recorded in all of the Gospels, Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-23 and John 13:18-30 and was followed by the church as we see in Acts 2:42,46, 20:7, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 11:23-34. The focus of the ordinance is Christ and His sacrifice for our sins. When I say "our" I want to be explicit that I am referring to the elect. Jesus said in Mark 14:24 that His blood is shed for the "many" and not every human being to walk planet earth and again in Luke 22:20, Christ specifies "shed for you" speaking of His followers, which if you believe you too are a follower. The objects used to sybolize Christ are bread and "the fruit of the vine". The bread represents His body which was given for us. The fruit of the vine represents the blood of Christ which was shed for "many". Again I want to be clear The bread and fruit "represent" Christ and are not literally Christ. Catholics hold to a doctrine called "transubstantiation" which claims that the bread and fruit transform into Christ's body and blood when you eat them. Similarly, Lutherans hold to a doctrine called "consubstantiation" which claims that Christ's body and blood permeate the bread and fruit. Both of these doctrines are in error. First, Jesus instituted these while He was still alive and used bread and the fruit of the vine specifically for the purpose of representing His body and blood. Second, the book of Hebrews tells us repeatedly that Christ was offered once (Heb. 9:12,26,and 28, 10:10) and so this would preclude a repeated sacrifice everytime we observe the Lord's Supper. Third, Colossians 3:1 tells us where the body of Christ is presently, it is at the right hand of God. Lastly, common sense tells us that it is not flesh we are eating and blood we are drinking when we participate in the supper. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>What Is The Fruit Of The Vine?</strong></div><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div>This question is often a divider amongst churches that would hold to other doctrines unanimously. Was Jesus referring to alcoholic wine or grape juice? Jesus specifically used the term "fruit of the vine" so that we could decide for ourselves what to use. Presbyterians, Methodists,Episcopalians, Lutherans and Primitive Baptists typically use alcoholic wine or offer both, whereas most Baptists and Pentecostal groups (Assembly of God and Church of God) use grape juice solely. Surely we are all in agreement that it is wrong to be drunk ( Eph. 5:18) but the small amount in the communion cups would not make anyone drunk. Some ardent Presbyterians argue that it must have been wine as they had no refrigeration in Jesus's day to keep grape juice and 1 Corinthians 11:21 says some were "drunk". This proves nothing ,however, as Jesus may have used fresh grape juice and the Corinthians were abusing the Lord's Supper. 1 Corinthians 11:21 clearly seems to be contrasting lack with indulgence. Paul using the word drunk in this context is not necessarily referring to inebriation but instead whereas some are hungry others are full. This seems to make more sense as Paul says not to fellowship with drunkards earlier in 1 Corinthians 5:11 and he does not say to cut the drunk ones off from fellowship. Primitive Baptists take a different twist and argue it must be wine because the bread used was unleavened and the fermentation process kills the leaven in grape juice and so to be consistent one should use wine. This is an interesting perspective but does not seem to coincide with the fermentation process as I understand it. In making wine from juice, cultured yeast is added to the juice similarly as it is in dough to make bread. While it is true there is an "ambient yeast" present in grape juice that will ferment on its on in time, processed wine usually uses a cultured yeast to both speed the process and control it. Also It does not seem that the process necessarily kills the ambient yeasts hence why wines get "better" with time. Therefore, unfermented juice seems to be more consistent with unleavened bread than fermented wine. Temperance goups argue that unleavened bread and unfermented wine (grape juice) should be used to be consistent and that we should not even have a taste for alcohol barring medicinal purposes (1 Tim. 5:23) and I am personally inclined to this argument but we must not be legalistic about this as it is a conscience matter. One last thing must be said before leaving this section. Some churches are using milk and cookies or even cola and pizza for the service. We must not treat this as any ordinary meal and cheapen it with silliness. Whether you use unleavened or leavened bread or crackers, fermented or unfermented wine(grape juice) or vinegar it is important that this be a proper representative of Christ. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>How Often Are We to Partake?</strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>1 Corinthians 11:25 simply states "as often as you drink it" again leaving it to the individual fellowship to make this decision. Some groups argue to follow scripture we must do it every week (Acts 20:7). This assumes Acts 20:7 is indicating the disciples did it only on the first day of every week and every first day of the week. These same groups ,however, probably do not continue there messages until midnight as Paul did. Some groups do it quarterly (3 or 4 times a year) or once a month so that it does not come to be treated as a common thing. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>Who Can Partake?</strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>As an ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ only believers are to partake of the supper. To this I might add baptized believers as this ordinance should follow the first which is baptism. Some churches hold to a "closed communion" and only allow the particular members of that church to partake others allow for any visiting believer who has been baptized to participate or "open communion". Closed churches do so to prevent anyone from eating damnation on themselves ( 1 Cor. 11:27) but the key thing to remember is the man is to "examine himself" (1 Cor. 11:28). As long as the church is coming together in a "worthy manner" they are not to blame for any individuals eating unworthily. The "worthy manner" referred to is they meet for the purpose of <em>unity </em>in the body of Christ remembering His sacrifice for their sin. The Corinthians were treating it as a common meal and were not sharing appropriately so many of them were killed by the Lord or made sick (1 Cor. 11:30). Unfortunately, these passages have been so misconstrued that "for generations many in the Scottish Highlands have refused to receive the communion elements because of the want of personal assurance of their salvation. Although believing that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and the Son of God, self-examination fails to yield sufficient evidence of their election to salvation. Fearing that apart from such assurance they may eat and drink in an unworthy manner, and thereby incur the judgment of God, they abstain from receiving the Lord's Supper."( Charles Bell, <span style="color:#3366ff;">Calvin and Scottish Theology</span> p.7) Charles goes on to say that he had the same problem growing up in a Presbyterian church in southern California. Michael Horton has rightly said, "Some have carried this threat too far, however, using it as a source of terror for those who come to the Lord's Table as sinners. But eating and drinking 'worthily' does not mean that we are required to have pure hearts and lives in order to take communion. Not only is communion available to sinners; it is available only to sinners. Eating and drinking worthily means, at least in part, that we come dressed only in the righteousness of Christ."(Michael Horton, <span style="color:#3366ff;">In The Face Of God</span> p.20) Unfortunately, the other extreme is also happening as many churches are calling the Lord's Supper a "converting ordinance". They mean by this it is for unsaved people to either get saved or to lead them to the Lord to be saved. This is not scriptural! This argument is usually seen in paedobaptist communities that allow for paedocommunion. The scripture is clear that we partake of the Lord's Supper in <em>remembrance </em>of Him indicating a <strong>first belief</strong> and the partaker should be able to <em>examine himself</em>. Babies and very young children do not meet this qualification and therefore should not participate. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>The Spiritual Presence View</strong></div><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div>In some circles you may here discussed the Spiritual Presence view. A big debate ensued between the Reformers Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. Luther's view of consubstatiation was covered earlier, but Zwingli's view is usually held to have been the commemoration view. Luther accused Zwingli of holding to a <em>bare</em> memorial rationalism and Zwingli in turn denounced Luther's view as mystical nonsense. Along came Calvin who tried to moderate between the extremes and came up with a Spiritual Presence view, which says Christ is spiritually present in the bread and fruit. Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney called Calvin's view "not only incomprehensible, but impossible"(quoted in Ligon Duncan, <span style="color:#3366ff;">The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century</span> <span style="color:#3366ff;">volume 2</span> p. 447) and Scottish Free Church theologian William Cunningham said that Calvin's view was "altogether unsuccessful, and resulted only in what was about as unintelligible as Luther's consubstantiation. This is, perhaps, the greatest blot in the history of Calvin's labours as a public instructor" (William Cunningham, <span style="color:#3366ff;">The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation</span> p. 240). As can be seen Reformed theologians are not in agreement on this issue with some as R.L. Dabney, William Cunningham, B.B. Warfield, J. Oliver Buswell, Donald MacLeod and Robert Reymond tending toward the Zwingli side of the spectrum and R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Douglas Kelly, R. Scott Clark, Keith Mathison and Sinclair Ferguson tending more toward the Calvin side. There are, however, a whole new breed claiming Calvin's side but who in reality have gone far beyond Calvin in making the Lord's Supper efficacious for salvation. These theologians include Ronald Wallace, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, Mark Horne and others associated with the Federal Vision movement. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>Conclusion</strong></div><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div>Regardless of where your favorite theologian stands, at the end of the day all that matters is what sayeth scripture. The Bible, as already shown, clearly says it is in remembrance of Jesus. The greek word translated remembrance is Anamnesis, and means simply that to remember. It is the opposite of a similar word we have in english, amnesia, which means to forget or more properly, not to remember. Theologians in their doubt of God's word often degradate it by adding words like "bare" or "mere". Faith, they say, is not mere belief it has to be something more, although they cannot say what, and still claim to hold to <em>sola fide</em>. This same thing is done to the Lord's Supper. It cannot be a bare memorial but must be something else to them. I believe the <em>bare </em>words of the Bible are the words of <em>mere </em>God and Christ is His <em>bare</em> Son and <em>merely</em> believing in Him is the <em>bare </em>good news to the dying sinner and the Lord's Supper is a<em> mere</em> memorial to Him and this truth. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div></div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-41345869092949371962007-10-07T14:37:00.000-07:002008-12-10T14:09:50.748-08:005 Point Intersection?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSgYRRO6KFn6gEWeyCeuk_m0J-SY0boDeZ5fogrXvAzYva2vhsqDbQ7xcJu0aM2v5npgRnhc3PIfbofyndPkHDQDWLhzW9bRykdjzQ2GtnxB2b-POxIjuIs2hWCeYbhuGJZc96CA/s1600-h/5+point+intersection.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156663493528732882" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSgYRRO6KFn6gEWeyCeuk_m0J-SY0boDeZ5fogrXvAzYva2vhsqDbQ7xcJu0aM2v5npgRnhc3PIfbofyndPkHDQDWLhzW9bRykdjzQ2GtnxB2b-POxIjuIs2hWCeYbhuGJZc96CA/s400/5+point+intersection.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Every once in a while, Calvinist theologians get a wild hair and decide that 5 points are not enough to be inclusive for fellowship with other denominations or groups and decide to add some point or another which is usually their pet doctrine. Such is the case with Richard Muller<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj65yjYHOBlzbiRwOHxYwHDzURhTiBi0eF3mOT0IRYIuRin3Ltr1ZovWsqW7MmHVukb5U2jxd35wFOSR8if_KbUgJLQFSRckUpvrm2smB47cvSH_2eafXgepElVRghKoU-06ZAWxg/s1600-h/Muller.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5118714325278322418" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 93px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 135px" height="150" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj65yjYHOBlzbiRwOHxYwHDzURhTiBi0eF3mOT0IRYIuRin3Ltr1ZovWsqW7MmHVukb5U2jxd35wFOSR8if_KbUgJLQFSRckUpvrm2smB47cvSH_2eafXgepElVRghKoU-06ZAWxg/s200/Muller.jpg" width="93" border="0" /></a>, the Historical Theology professor at Calvin Theological Seminary an institute of the Reformed Denomination, in an article <span style="color:#cc0000;">How Many Points</span><span style="color:#cc0000;">? </span>from the Calvin Seminary Journal he wrote in 1993. Usually they are just an easy couple of extra points but in Richards case it appears he will have nothing else but full obeisance to the Three Forms of Unity which comprise the confession for the Reformed Denomination. He starts off by saying, "<span style="color:#cc0000;">I once</span><span style="color:#cc0000;"> met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the "five points" in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in "accepting" Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus." <span style="color:#000000;">Richard never identifies this</span> <span style="color:#000000;">implied</span> </span><span style="color:#000000;">boogeyman but it seems to me he may be referring to John MacArthur, pastor of the Grace Community Church in California and president of the Master's Seminary. Regardless, let us examine what faults this man has.</span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;"></span> </div><div><span style="color:#000000;"> First of all he believes in baptizing only professing believers. Mark 16:16 says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...", Acts 2:38 commands to repent and then be baptized and later in verse 41 it tells us that only those "who gladly received his word were baptized." No place in Scripture ever tells us a baby was baptized or commands to baptize any babies but only believers. Any true Reformed theology will stand firmly by the principle of <em>Sola Scriptura </em>or Bible alone and so the boogeyman represents the reformed position more than either Richard or his precious Three Forms of Unity does. </span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;"></span> </div><div><span style="color:#000000;">Next we see this man believes the church is an association of "adult believers" voluntarily. Again I bring our attention to Acts 2:41 where it says "those who gladly received his word... were added to them(that is the church) and again we see in 2 Peter 1:1 he in talking to the church refers to them as "those who have obtained a like precious faith. Maybe Richard's problem is that he feels it should not be "voluntary" but forced worship, which is what baptizing babies does. This would be in line with the Catholic Church but again falls far short of the Holy Scriptures and so round two to the boogeyman. </span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;"></span> </div><div><span style="color:#000000;">Now this man does not hold to sacraments as a means of grace but ordinances. This is a more convoluted issue as the terms "sacrament" and "ordinance" mean the same thing and so it is a preference of terms. Since Rome uses the term sacrament some Reformed prefer to use ordinance. The second part to this question is are they a means of grace. I again turn to Scripture, as in Romans 10:17 where it states "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". In Eph. 2:8,9 we learn that it is by grace through faith and not of works that we are saved and so scripture clearly articulates the only means of grace as the Holy Bible. Baptism and Communion are for believers and reflect what has happened internally through Jesus Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit. Again Richard's weak doctrine of <em>Sola Scriptura</em> is evident.</span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;"></span> </div><div><span style="color:#000000;">As to the covenants, I would agree with Richard that there is one covenant offering salvation, but think he is weaker on this than he knows as I will show on a later point he makes. We next read that Richard believes in amillenialism and our boogeyman is a premillenialist. Revelation 20 seems to indicate such a teaching and once again the weight of evidence lies with Richard to prove the man wrong. Even paedobaptists like Horatius Bonar, Gordon Clark and James Montgomery Boice have been premillenial and so Richard may want to convince people in their camps that the "Reformed Creeds" teach amillenialism. As for whether or not "the creeds or confessions of the church are binding" one must ask which creeds or confessions and which church. First some churches prefer to use the Bible alone as a statement of faith, but of the ones that use confessions, there are the First London Baptist, the Second London Baptist, the Philadelphia Baptist and the New Hampshire Baptist Confessions and the Lutherans use the Augsburg Confession. Richard I do not believe would be happy with any of these. There is also statements like the Tridentine Decree of the Roman Catholic's Council of Trent which I hope Richard would not want to associate with. Where does the Bible make any of the above listed confessions binding or any Richard claims to like as the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster. Lastly, Richard takes issue with our boogeyman on his abuse of the 5 points to instill doubt and fear in his congregation about their salvation. He goes on to say that our boogeyman's "</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism"</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions426of the Reformed churches—whether the</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">Second Helvetic Confession</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">of the Swiss Reformed</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">church or the</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">of the Dutch Reformed</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">churches or the</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches</span>." Richard continues"<span style="color:#cc0000;">It is also the case that the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are substantially in agreement with the confessional standards of other branches of the Reformed church, whether the Geneva Catechism or the First and Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformation or the Scot’s Confession and the Westminster standards of the British and American Presbyterian and Reformed churches." </span></div><div> </div><div> </div><div>While I agree with Richard that our boogeyman's beliefs would have gotten him kicked out of Geneva as Calvin was not a fan of either credobaptists nor chiliests, Richard errs in his belief that Calvin would have accepted the Westminster Confession with open arms. The Westminster Confession in fact like our boogeyman and contrary to The Three Forms of Unity divests faith from assurance. Our boogeyman is clearly in the spirit of the Puritan and therefore Westminster view of assurance. This would be seen by Calvin as a return to Rome. Calvin also held to a stronger view of predestination than the Westminster as he was supralapsarian. While I would agree with Richard over our boogeyman on this issue, I do not consider Westminster friendly to our view. Richard needs to read the Westminster as he says " <span style="color:#ff0000;">They also — all of them — agree on the assumption that our assurance of the salvation, wrought by grace alone through the work of Christ and God's Spirit in us, rests not on our outward deeds or personal claims but on our apprehension of Christ in faith and on our recognition of the inward work of the Spirit in us. " </span><span style="color:#000000;">This leads Richard to conclude that "</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">There are, therefore, more than five points" </span>and " <span style="color:#ff0000;">there cannot be such a thing as a "five-point Calvinist" or "five-point Reformed Christian" who owns just those five articles taken from the Canons of Dort and who refuses to accept the other "points" made by genuinely Reformed theology."</span> Richard furthers his point now by introducing a critique of the eminent Baptist theologian Dr. John Gill. He states " <span style="color:#cc0000;">An example of this problem — I hesitate to say "a case in point" — is the theological system propounded by the English high (some would say "hyper") Calvinistic Baptist, John Gill, and the way that his system has been read out into the life of some of the so-called Particular Baptist denominations. Gill most certainly affirmed the five points. In fact, he held an intensified version of the third point by arguing that Christ's work was limited in its sufficiency as well as in its efficacy: Christ's satisfaction was not merely, according to Gill, efficient for the elect only, it was also sufficient for the sins of the elect only. With this radical sense of election, Gill could view the entire order of salvation as taking place in eternity — justification and adoption were now eternal acts of God. Since nothing took place in time except for the enactment of the decree, there was no need in Gill's system for a temporal order of grace. Sacraments could be considered simply as ordinances, and baptism could be viewed as a sign administered to adults only, after the eternal decree had been executed in an individual. Those who have followed Gill's theology allow no offers of grace but only a preaching about grace. They have tended to offer no instruction in Christianity for children and they have typically opposed Christian missions — because no human agency is needed in God's elective work. They have also followed Gill and numerous others after him into speculation about the coming millennium when, finally, the career of Satan will be ended and he will no longer be able to roam the world "seeking whom he may devour.</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">"The logic of such a theology is to view God's electing grace as an unmediated bolt from the blue. No one knows where it may strike and no one can find any assurance either through participation in the life of God's covenanting people or on grounds of belief or conduct that he or she will be or, indeed, is now numbered among the elect. Gill held forth an antinomian gospel that could declare in its preaching of grace that no obedience to divine commands was required for salvation 429and no offers of grace ought to be made in the church. On Gill's own terms, membership in his Particular Baptist community could be no sign of salvation and no assurance of its possibility. Grace and salvation could just as easily occur on a desert island." </span></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span> </div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000000;">While I hold Dr. Gill in high esteem and prefer his commentaries to many "reformed" commentaries I do admit some extremes in him and deviate from him in some areas. His view of the atonement is however not one of them. While I agree the doctrine of "eternal justification" denies a means of grace and is inconsistent with scripture at Eph.2:3 and 2 Peter 3:9, this does not deny Christ's death for His elect alone. If the covenant of grace was made to the elect alone then for what purpose would Christ die for everyone. Richard's view of the covenant is therefore flawed in its inclusiveness. Gill's point in limiting it's sufficiency as well as its efficacy is to show that Christ accomplished His purpose. In what way is Christ's death sufficient for all except hypothetically. Holding to this view, one must take care to distinguish his view from the "hypothetical universalism" of Amyraldism. </span></span></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></span> </div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#000000;">While I have been critical of Richard in this article and have used his article as an example of reformed extremism I do appreciate his cogent presentation of the clear line in the sand that still divides those of us that are reformed credobaptists and reformed paedobaptists and have put his whole article as a link from my own. Despite the disagreements, Richard does have some very insightful things to say such as "</span></span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">Salvation does not arise out of human merit but by grace 430alone through the acceptance, by graciously engendered faith, of the sufficient sacrifice of Christ for our sins."</span> and he goes on with an excellent description of reformed of either stripe who use unbiblical jargon in there invitations to faith when he says " <span style="color:#cc0000;">I have often commented to evangelical friends that, for me, having a personal relationship or knowing someone personally means that I can sit down at a table with him and have a cup of coffee, that I can speak to him and he can respond in an audible fashion. But I can't sit at a table and have a cup of coffee with Jesus. And if I speak to him, he does not answer audibly As an angel once rightly noted, "He is not here: for he is risen," and, indeed, ascended into heaven." <span style="color:#000000;">showing how rediculous it is to call unsaved to a "personal relationship" with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ instead of faith in His gospel. </span></span><span style="color:#000000;">It is my hope that Richard is being dogmatic for the purposes of teaching what he believes to be truth only and not trying to divide over every disagreement. I accept the term reformed as it denotes a belief in the doctrines of grace but if I must hold to an imperfect Confession of Faith in order to retain the denomination, I will defer and stand alone with the Bible. I do not think Richard or anybody else owns it, however, and so I will keep it.</span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;"></span> </div><div><span style="color:#000000;"> For further study on some of the issues dicussed here I recommend <span style="color:#3333ff;">Are Baptists Reformed?</span> by Kenneth Good who is a calvinistic Baptist that would agree with Richard's distinctions, <span style="color:#6600cc;">By His Grace and for His Glory</span> by Tom Nettles who is a Baptist theologian holding to Gill's view of Definite Atonement, <span style="color:#6600cc;">Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition</span> by J.V. Fesko who is a Prebyterian pastor in the OPC and who proves Calvin held to a supralapsarian position, <span style="color:#6600cc;">Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace</span> by Paul Jewett who is a Baptist theologian, and <span style="color:#3333ff;">Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649</span> by R.T. Kendall who has an interesting discussion of Westminster's deviation from Calvin, Luther and the other reformers on assurance being the essence of faith. </span></div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-53975575574310605882007-09-27T05:43:00.000-07:002008-12-10T14:09:51.107-08:00Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSw-LxQx3-mH2dCOtM4Ofb-aikJegP8O48qGkfowgXzS_qSWAa3tr368UaEz_jrkcvAjVKR2ripDqd-kdErED-fvg2afTB4uKQWv1CCeZpuqPCtgJ5x_aDZZj1xLBPX1tJqp6WGA/s1600-h/hodges_zane.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5114868378761345570" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSw-LxQx3-mH2dCOtM4Ofb-aikJegP8O48qGkfowgXzS_qSWAa3tr368UaEz_jrkcvAjVKR2ripDqd-kdErED-fvg2afTB4uKQWv1CCeZpuqPCtgJ5x_aDZZj1xLBPX1tJqp6WGA/s400/hodges_zane.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><p>With movements like the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul(NPP) redefining justification to be by the christian's faithfulness as opposed to faith in Christ, it is important to consider the position of another group damaging the cause of Christ. Zane Clark Hodges is a Pastor of Victor Street Bible Church in Dallas, Texas and a graduate of and former professor at the dispensational Dallas Theological Seminary. In lieu of his former influence at Dallas, Zane is a founder and leader in a movement that has caused much confusion in its perversions of God's word. As a dispensationalist, Zane makes no bones about his disagreements with Reformed theology. In spite of this ,however, he and his comrades at the Grace Evangelical Society(GES), a ministry organized to propagate the theology of Zane, claim to hold to the reformation tenet of <em>sola fide</em> and claim the support of the reformers themselves. Because of this, their teaching must be examined to see if their claims are true. This study will focus on Zane's doctrine of salvation(soteriology) as this is his major error. At the outset I want to say that Zane holds to many scriptural truths such as the Trinity, deity of Christ and the inerrancy of scripture among many others and so to agree with him in some areas does not indicate either a necessary influence or association with him or his ilk. This is important to note as many groups attempt to dissuade people from the truth by using the "fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine" knowing that most people will not be discerning enough to search for the truth. </p><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><strong>Zane on Faith as a Gift </strong></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><p>Zane claims to hold to a salvation that is absolutely free, and yet he denies faith is a gift from God in his book <span style="color:#cc0000;">Absolutely Free!</span> (AF) on page 219 where he states "The Bible never affirms that saving faith per se is a gift". If salvation is absolutely free it must be a gift and if faith is essential to salvation as the scriptures indicate in Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:28 and John 3:16 then faith itself must be a gift or salvation is not absolutely free as I must do<em> something</em> to get it. His claim that the Bible never affirms saving faith as a gift shows his lack of knowledge of scripture as Philippians 1:29 clearly states it is given to us to believe in Christ. In his book <span style="color:#cc0000;">The Gospel Under Siege</span> on page167 Zane elaborates this thought by saying "It is often claimed by theologians that man has no capacity to believe and that faith, like salvation, must be given to him as a gift. But this view is contradicted by 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 where Paul writes: 'But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.'" and later states "God's role in bringing men to faith is therefore revelatory" revealing his blindness of scripture which states in Mark 4:11,12 "And He said to them. 'To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'" What is given to us is the ability to <em>know</em> the truth of revelation, which is faith. We can now see that Zane holds to the Arminian view of "free will" and that believing <em>earns</em> justification and salvation. This is called neonomianism in theology circles. Neonomianism believes the ten commandments saved in the Old Testament but in the New Testament it is, in this case, the law of faith or in other cases the law of love. In contrast, scripture teaches the elect "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13) and again it says "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16). Zane and other Arminians may say yeah but in John 1:12 it is to those that <em>receive</em> Christ that are saved to which I say a hearty amen. But what they fail to understand is that receiving Christ equals believing in him. As the Holy Spirit baptizes the person in Christ, regenerating him, that person has received Christ and believes. I receive phone calls and mail all the time without any action of my own. When I was born in the flesh, my parents did not ask my opinion on the matter, nor does God on the new birth.</p><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><strong>Zane on the Atonement</strong></p><br /><br /><br /><p>For all his talk of the gospel of grace being under seige, eclipsed and absolutely free, it is surprising that Zane makes only passing reference to the doctrine of the atonement in his books. In his book <span style="color:#cc0000;">Absolutely Free!</span> on page 85 Zane says " Frequently (though not always) lordship salvation is combined with a harsh system of thought that denies the reality of God's love for every single human being. According to this kind of theology, God dooms most men to eternal damnation long before they are born and really gives His Son to die only for the elect." He later states "It does not lie within the scope of this book to deal with this tragic error." The atonement is essential to the gospel. Any book trying to prove an "absolutely free" gospel must deal with the death of Christ and who He died for. It is clear,however, from his quote and reference to the book <span style="color:#cc0000;">Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649</span> by R.T. Kendall, that Zane holds that Christ died for every human being. For this to be true,however, everyone must therefore go to heaven as Christ's death is the basis for our salvation to be absolutely free. On the cross Christ cried out "It is finished" (John 19:30) completing his task of earning our salvation. If Christ died for all humans and not just for "His people" as the Bible says in Matthew 1:21, and not all go to heaven, then salvation is not "absolutely free" and we must do something to earn it. The reformer, John Calvin , contra Kendall, believed Christ died for the elect and referred to universal redemptionists as "buffoons" in one place. Calvin states, "Besides, we note that St. Paul does not speak here of anyone but the faithful (fidelis). For there are certain buffoons who, to blind the eyes of the ignorant and others like themselves, want to cavil here that the grace of salvation is given to us because God ordained that his Son should be the Redeemer of the human race, but that this is common to all, and indiscriminate." (quoted from <span style="color:#3366ff;">The Will of God and the Cross</span> by Jonathan Rainbow p. 123) . The Bible is clear that Christ came only to serve and give His life "a ransom for many (the elect)" (Matt. 20:28).</p><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><strong>Zane on Perseverance</strong></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><p>Zane states in his book <span style="color:#ff0000;">Absolutely Free!</span> on page 80 " The simple fact is that the New Testament never takes for granted that believers will see discipleship through to the end. And it never makes this kind of perseverance either a condition or a proof of final salvation from hell". He later states on page 138 that Christians can reject a good conscience and suffer shipwreck of the faith as Hymenaeus and Alexander did in 1 Tim. 1:19-20. Zane has even been quoted as stating in a sermon that Christians can become atheists but should not be thought to be going to hell, as they once professed belief. Scripture is clear, however, in 1 John 2:19 that " They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us". True faith perseveres. As faith is a gift from God, we can be confident that "He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6) . Zane's reference to Hymenaeus as being a Christian reveals again his lack of insight in the Word of God. 2 Timothy 2:17-21 clearly indicates that Hymenaeus is not in the faith. Verse 19 states "the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: The Lord knows those who are His" and in verse 20 we learn that " in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor". Finally, Hebrews 10:39 tells us " But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul". Perseverence is clearly a gift included in our salvation. </p><br /><br /><p></p><br /><br /><p><strong>Zane On Faith</strong></p><br /><br /><p></p><br /><br /><p>One area I find <em>some</em> agreement between Zane and myself is on his definition of faith in chapter 2 of AF. Zane holds to a literal understanding of faith as opposed to the figurative or metaphorical view of the pietists and revivalists. Theologians of today often trichotomize faith into three psychological categories <em>notitia, assensus and fiducia</em>. This usually leads to an unscriptural distinction between "head faith" and "heart faith". This teaching says that there are real gospel believers going to hell because they believed only intellectually and lacked "holy affections". They often quote from James 2:19 that the demons believe but are going to hell. While it is a truth that the elect love Christ because he first loved us (1 John 4:19), we must first believe in Christ in order to love Him. Hebrews 11:6 says "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". Belief precedes any and all "holy affections" and is the basis for those affections. 1 John 3:6 teaches that "whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him" and in 4:8 says "he who does not love does not know God, for God is love". Clearly the reprobate do not believe God. As for the demons faith, it clearly makes them tremble and so is real but faith is not what saves, Christ as the object does and we know from Hebrews 2:16 that "He does not give aid to the angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham". It is only through the definite atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ that we are saved through faith. I say only some agreement, however, because for Zane, faith is the one thing our "free will" can do to earn salvation. For Zane, faith is a magic formula akin to an "abracadabra" or an "open sesame" earning our way to heaven. Scripture teaches that it is the definite atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ that saves man. They grant new life to a person, opening blind eyes to see, and deaf ears to hear the truth of the Gospel, which is faith. It is the object of faith that saves and not the faith itself.</p><br /><br /><p></p><br /><br /><p><strong>Zane On Sanctification</strong></p><br /><br /><p></p><br /><br /><p>Zane sees a difference between "salvation" and "discipleship". On page 68 of AF he states that "discipleship is obviously hard, while eternal life is free", on page 74 he states that discipleship "has to a willingness to work, and to work hard" and finally on page 88 "Salvation is absolutely free; discipleship most certainly is not". This again is not in line with scripture. While it is true that not every disciple was a believer, every believer is a disciple of Christ. Every Christian answers as Peter did in John 6:68 "Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life". The word disciple means follower. Why would a Christian believer follow Buddha? Why would a person who followed Mohammed be called a Christian? In John 10:27 Jesus tells us "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me". Also, discipleship like "salvation" is by faith and not hard. Paul asks us in Galations 3:3, " having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh" and verse 5 asks "He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law , or by the hearing of faith". Jesus contrary to Zane says in Matthew 11:28-30 "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light". Discipleship is the aspect of salvation called sanctification, where God sets His people apart from the world and sin. It is by faith(John 17:17) and it is not hard but sets us free(John 8:32).</p><p></p><p><strong>Is Zane A Sandemanian?</strong></p><p></p><p align="left">Two men who are often slighted as being predecessors of Zane, and accused of holding to his errors are Robert Sandeman and Gordon Clark. J.I. Packer accuses Sandeman of this in the foreword to John MacArthur's book <span style="color:#009900;">The Gospel According to Jesus</span>. Also Michael Makidon of the GES wrote an article at <a href="http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2002i/makidon.pdf">http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2002i/makidon.pdf</a> on Robert and his ministry. In a guilt by association way Gordon Clark is accused by Banner Of Truth as being a Sandemanian at <a href="http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?719">http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?719</a> . This is not so for either men. Both Robert Sandeman and Gordon Clark held firmly to Christ's definite atonement and imputed righteousness. To these men salvation is a gift of God from start to finish. I encourage readers to read these men for themselves, as much that is written about them is false witness. Robert Sandeman's theology is clearly presented in his magnum opus <span style="color:#6600cc;">Letters On Theron and Aspasio</span>, which is no longer in print but available on Thomson-Gale. I owe a debt of gratitude to Sandeman for my ordering of thoughts in this critique of Zane and the GES. Gordon Clark's works include <span style="color:#3333ff;">Predestination, God and Evil</span> and <span style="color:#3366ff;">What is Saving Faith?</span> and are available at <a href="http://www.trinityfoundation.org/">http://www.trinityfoundation.org/</a> . Lord willing, I intend to do thorough treatments of these much maligned men in the future as they are two of my heroes in the faith. I have done a short bio of Robert at <span style="color:#3333ff;">The Scottish Legacy part 2 </span><span style="color:#000000;">at this site.</span></p><p align="left"></p><p align="left"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p align="left"></p><p align="left">Zane and the GES are not in the tradition of either the Reformers, Robert Sandeman, Gordon Clark or most importantly of Scripture. I put the link to the GES so the reader can read for himself what they are saying or order his books if you so wish. His main books are <span style="color:#cc0000;">Absolutely </span><span style="color:#cc0000;">Free!</span> , <span style="color:#cc0000;">The Gospel Under Seige</span> and <span style="color:#cc0000;">Grace In Eclipse</span>. Two other major works disseminating his theology are <span style="color:#cc0000;">The Reign of The Servant Kings</span> by Joseph Dillow and <span style="color:#cc0000;">The Other Side Of</span> <span style="color:#cc0000;">Calvinism</span> by Laurence Vance. For another critique of Zane from an Arminian and dispensational group go to the Middletown Bible Church in Connecticutt site at <a href="http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesho.htm">http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesho.htm</a> . This site includes many quotes from Zane's sermons I do not have access to and is important in noting the differences in arminianisms. For a critique advocating the "traditional" trichotomizing of faith see <span style="color:#009900;">The Gospel According to Jesus</span> by John MacArthur and <span style="color:#009900;">Faith Alone</span> and other works by RC Sproul. </p><p><span style="color:#3333ff;"></span></p><p></p><br /><br /><p></p>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-64422678601138545822007-07-04T06:48:00.000-07:002008-12-10T14:09:51.282-08:00What Does Reformed Mean?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5U51aUQEhUz6rhJ8BbnoYBN2G9hw07iuyWEUm_cjofRdadYKCUHxoR9v1lwPPMGTEsC_rpa0LSQw5tkNqCQklgAW3iSj3MpKLXYOfwwKkv46FnOmiTXLwxBpQA6bsNBsYifAjfQ/s1600-h/Wall+of+Reformers.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5083340895266756962" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5U51aUQEhUz6rhJ8BbnoYBN2G9hw07iuyWEUm_cjofRdadYKCUHxoR9v1lwPPMGTEsC_rpa0LSQw5tkNqCQklgAW3iSj3MpKLXYOfwwKkv46FnOmiTXLwxBpQA6bsNBsYifAjfQ/s400/Wall+of+Reformers.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />As I use the term Reformed to descibe both my theology and the theology taught in the Bible, I feel it important for readers who may not be familiar with the term to understand what it means and in what context I use it. "Reformed" is dependent upon its context. In its first context it can describe and include the christian movement in the 16th century, headed by such lights as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, John Knox and Menno Simons, which broke away from the Catholic church in protest of its apostasy. These men by the grace of God and through the leading of the Holy Spirit came to see the Bible as teaching <span style="color:#6600cc;">Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. </span><span style="color:#000000;">Sola Scriptura</span> is latin for the Bible (Scriptures) alone. This means that true christians go by the authority of the Bible alone to the exclusion of church tradition, Papal decrees, uninspired writings or even human laws when these thing contradict the Bible. The Bible claims for itself this authority in 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20,21 and many other places. The Bible has been completed and is not being written today as there are no apostles alive today( for more on this I direct the reader to my blog on The Holy Bible). Sola Gratia is latin for Grace alone. Reformed theology believes salvation is by grace alone (Eph. 2:8,9). Man can only make it to heaven by God's love, mercy, forgiveness and unmerited favor as "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"(Rom. 3:23). Sola Fide is latin for Faith alone. Faith is the only instrument involved in man's justification and salvation. It follows regeneration and is itself a gift of God (Rom. 3:20,28 and Eph. 2:8-10). Menno Simons differed from the others in his definition of faith but he too claimed faith alone. Menno defined faith as being active and a lifestyle, as opposed to the others, for whom faith is passive, intellectual and focused on Christ, who is the next Sola in Solus Christus. This is latin for Christ alone, whose deity, virgin birth, perfect life, death on the cross, burial and bodily resurrection is the object of our saving faith (1 Cor. 15, Heb. 12:20). Menno, again looked at Christ more as an example in contrast to the others who looked on him as a substitute, earning our righteousness to be imputed to us through faith, paying the debt of our sin. Both, however, looked on Christ as Lord. Soli Deo Gloria is latin for "to God alone the Glory". This means that our salvation and all creation are intended for the glory of God (Prov. 16:4). All creation exists to glorify God.<br /><br /><br />The second use of the term Reformed is as a denomination. Of the above listed Reformers, the congregations started by Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin combined to form the Reformed denomination. Martin Luther's congregation came to be known as Lutheran, Knox's became Presbyterian and Menno Simons followers are currently called Mennonites and Amish. The Reformed denomination is exclusive and is indicative of the churches of Switzerland, and the Netherlands and in America is sometimes referred to as "Dutch" Reformed for clarification purposes.<br /><br /><br />The third and final use is the system deduced from the Bible taught in the Reformed denomination. This use is an umbrella that can cover a number of different denominations that are in agreement with the fundamental principles of the Reformed denomination. Some denominations like the Presbyterians are closer in agreement than others such as Baptists or Episcopalians but nonetheless some Baptist and Episcopal churches are considered Reformed. The main parts of the system have come to be known by the acronym <span style="color:#6600cc;">T.U.L.I.P</span>. This stands for <span style="color:#6633ff;">Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints</span>.<br /><br />We hold these as Scripture tells us in Romans 3:23 "that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and in Isaiah 64:5,6 we learn we need to be saved because all our righteousness is like filthy rags. Mankind has not kept God's law and indeed cannot perfectly and therefore needs to be saved. 1 Peter 1:2 tells us we were elect for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ and not because of them. 2 Timothy 1:9 tells us we were saved and called "not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began" and Eph. 2:8,9 says we are saved "not of works, lest anyone should boast". Ephesians 5:25 says Christ loved the church and died for her and this was according to the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:11). Also Christ's intercessory prayer in John 17 is not for the world verse 9 but for the present and future elect verse 20. The elect we learn are called by Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:6) and are called to be saints (Rom. 1:7) according to the divine purpose (Rom. 8:28) and that this calling is destined from and for an eternity (Rom. 8:30). Finally, we elect are confident that He who has begun a good work in us will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6) for we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:39) because God is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us faultless before the presence of His glory (Jude 24).<br /><br />This third use is the use I refer to when describing myself and is the use I mean most in using the term. As indicated by the different denominations, there are differences amongst reformed scholars. Differences involving church practices(believer baptism or paedobaptism), understanding of future events(a, pre or post millenial) and Bible interpretation(grammatico-historical, redemptive-historical or other) amongst others still persist. The biblical and soteriological emphasis involving the <span style="color:#3333ff;">5 sola's</span> and <span style="color:#3333ff;">T.U.L.I.P</span>. listed above however define and unite us.<br /><br />For more information consult <span style="color:#3333ff;">What is Reformed Theology</span> by R.C. Sproul, <span style="color:#000000;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">After Darkness,Light</span> </span>by R.C. Sproul Jr. and <span style="color:#6633ff;">By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life</span> by Thomas J. Nettles.Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33453126.post-32337248718512253612007-04-22T18:18:00.000-07:002008-12-10T14:09:51.416-08:00Lamentations #4<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvGF-NRRu8GzTqXz5YfEcKZzvUbOKjGUXW6Hxj1md6I5wHDI7PizVjw_QbhTnNZgJhSgZ8YOlwgk4yZfog0ozgz8-w3K4qZ3SvUVCuXaNNyuw-jESEZfwlBbbaIJOpUdJtxpL9ag/s1600-h/eclipse.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5056428491031260546" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvGF-NRRu8GzTqXz5YfEcKZzvUbOKjGUXW6Hxj1md6I5wHDI7PizVjw_QbhTnNZgJhSgZ8YOlwgk4yZfog0ozgz8-w3K4qZ3SvUVCuXaNNyuw-jESEZfwlBbbaIJOpUdJtxpL9ag/s200/eclipse.jpg" border="0" /></a> A.W. Pink was a Reformed author in the early to mid 1900's. His works are of invaluable worth. I was inspired and instructed in the days of my youth by the unabridged version of his book <span style="color:#330099;">The Sovereignty of God</span> and recommend it to this day. In his book <span style="color:#3366ff;">The Attributes of God</span>, which is itself otherwise very good, he states "The Holy Spirit has to shine in our hearts (not intellects) in order to give us 'the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' (2 Cor. 4:6)". And earlier in the same chapter he reiterates this thought by saying "Nor is God known by the intellect". Jesus in contrast to this states in Luke 10:27 that we are to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your <em>mind</em> " (italics mine). The Lord warns of those who darken counsel by words without <em>knowledge</em> in Job 38:1,2. In Jeremiah we learn that if Israel will repent God will send them shepherds "who will feed them with <em>knowledge and understanding</em> "(Jer. 3:15) but he later proclaims that they are foolish, as silly children, having no <em>understanding</em> (Jer. 4:22). Paul in Romans 10:2 tells us that Israel has a zeal for God but not according to <em>knowledge</em> and he warns us of end times in which people will be always learning and never able to come to the <em>knowledge of the truth</em> in 2 Timothy 3:7. There are those who say "no creed but Christ " but scripture says no creed, no Christ. Salvation demands we both understand and assent to the Gospel (good <em>news</em>) of Jesus Christ. It is just as illegitimate to dichotomise a head faith and a heart faith as it is Christ's being Savior from Christ being Lord. Lack of knowledge leads to false worship.<br /><div></div>Scott Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05458585010465581668noreply@blogger.com1