Out of all the controversies and debates that can arise in Christiandom, there is none that aggravates me more than KJV-onlyism. I will debate with Arminians, paedobaptists, Catholics, cults, or what have you, but I have no patience for KJV-onlyists. I would get more benefit from arguing with a brick wall. There is a slight chance that a brick wall could be reasonable. These people are so legalistic and smug and prideful. They have the special gnosis that lets them know that the KJV is the only completely inerrant translations of the Scriptures. Full of hateful pride, they will accuse all others of heresy, or at least being close to it. And they have absolutely nothing to prove their point. There is nothing in the Scripture that allows for only one inerrant translation, and even if there was, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that this one translation is the KJV. And of course the big problem for KJV-onlyists that they can never fully address is which KJV? There have been many different versions with different changes throughout the years. If given an original, first printing of the KJV, most KJV-onlyists wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of it. It's be all Greek to them, as they saying goes. They try to make some sort of Scriptural argument by bringing up a verse that says something about God presevering His word for all time. Case closed, they say. Point proven, they say. I agree fully that God's Word will be preserved for all generations. BUT HOW DOES THIS PROVE THAT THE ONLY PERFECT TRANSLATION IS THE KJV?!!! It doesn't! But to point out the obvious is to use reason, and KJV-onlyists will have nothing to do with reason. They argue in circles and have absolutely no proof for their claims. They start with the assumption that the KJV is the only perfect version. Then they show where another translation differs from the KJV. Thus proving, they say, that this new translation is aberrant. NO IT DOESN'T. It only proves that it says something different than the KJV. It doesn't prove which one is correct. By examining the oldest original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts is the best way to determine which is correct. Often times, the KJV fails pitifully compared to such translations as the NASB or the ESV. Again, this is a use of God-given reason and logic. Reason and logic are anathema to a KJV-onlyist, so again, I might as well go talk with my friend the brick wall. After all, they say, those old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have been corrupted. Only the KJV is pure. How do we know this? Just because. Special gnosis. Because if this wasn't the case, I'd have to find something else to be legalistic about.
And then they say that we reasonable people don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as we claim, because we cannot claim any one translation as being inerrant. This is ridiculous. We believe that the words spoken of God and written by his apostles, prophets, etc. are inerrant. That which the translations translate are inerrant. The word of God is presevered inerrantly for us. perhaps not in any one translation, but by His Spirit guiding our reading through these manmade translations. I can read the KJV and the NASB and get the exact same truths from both. They are worded differently, but the same inerrant truth is in both. Perhaps I will admit that there is no one single compilation of Scriptural texts that is completely word-for-word exactly as that penned by the original authors. But I do believe that in all the disparate elements that exist, we have access to the inerrant word of God. Maybe we need to read more than one translation. Maybe we need to take advantage of the benefits of manuscript research. But in the end, the entire inerrant truth is there for us. But there is no proof that all this inerrancy is solely contained in the KJV. There is nothing in the Scripture to indicate this, and there is nothing in logic or reason to indicate this, and there is nothing in history to indicate this. The spirit behind KJV-onlyism is itself a heresy. it is a legalistic and devisive spirit. It is a form of gnosticism, one of the oldest of the Christian heresies.
Final note: I have no problem with people who use only the KJV, as such. It is the person who says that all others MUST also use only this translation that I am in sharp disagreement with. It is the person who idolizes a translation that I disagree with. It is a person who regards a certain translation of Scripture as being more important than Scripture itself that I regard as a heretic. There will be many people who will be surprised when they come before the throne of God and He doesn't speak ye olde English.
Praise the Lord for giving us His inerrant Word without that inerrant Word being confined to a single bulky translation that most of the world can't even read.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Monday, February 21, 2005
Hunter S. Thompson Dead
Well, I guess you've all heard the big news. The famed gonzo journalist who authored the classic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, has committed suicide. Though I think it is impossible that any one person could have agreed with everything Thompson said, it should be agreed that he was a very interesting character who wrote like nobody else. He was truly one of the great innovators in 20th century literature.
"There he goes...one of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."
"There he goes...one of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."
Thursday, February 17, 2005
More on Calvin and Servetus
Check out this webpage: http://www.doctrine.org/history/HPv2b14.htm#2-14-19-15
This is a history written in the late 19th century that describes the Servetus issue in great detail in chapters 19-22. It would probably be best to read some of the chapters preceding those to get an idea of what Calvin's Geneva was like. It is shown that Calvin's influence was very much on the wane during the time of the Servetus episode. In fact, Calvin was on the verge of being kicked out of the city. Calvin let the council know that Servetus had entered the city, in accordance with Genevan law. He wrote up the articles against Servetus. After that, Calvin had very little involvement.
"Therefore, without consulting Calvin, without even thinking of him, and viewing the question as a social rather than a theological one, and dealing with it as sedition rather than heresy...the magistrates of Geneva closed their Diet of the 26th of October with a decree condemning Servetus to death."
This is a history written in the late 19th century that describes the Servetus issue in great detail in chapters 19-22. It would probably be best to read some of the chapters preceding those to get an idea of what Calvin's Geneva was like. It is shown that Calvin's influence was very much on the wane during the time of the Servetus episode. In fact, Calvin was on the verge of being kicked out of the city. Calvin let the council know that Servetus had entered the city, in accordance with Genevan law. He wrote up the articles against Servetus. After that, Calvin had very little involvement.
"Therefore, without consulting Calvin, without even thinking of him, and viewing the question as a social rather than a theological one, and dealing with it as sedition rather than heresy...the magistrates of Geneva closed their Diet of the 26th of October with a decree condemning Servetus to death."
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Straw Man Brutally Murdered
I don't remember how, but I managed to come across one of the worse webpages I've ever seen. http://www.ritualabusefree.org/Calvinism.htm I couldn't even read the whole thing, it was just so ridiculous. The misrepresentations on this page are of such magnitude that I can't help but think that they must be purposely false and malicious. The reason I believes this is, although I believe in the total depravity of all men, I still hold out some hope that nobody is actually so stupid as to believe what is presented on this webpage.
The page starts out by using the good old tactic of attacking Calvinism by attacking the character of John Calvin. And what do all of us Calvinists say in response? "WHO CARES?!" I could care less about Calvin when it comes down to it. I believe in the doctrines known as Calvinism, not because of the the name attatched to it, but because they are found in the Bible. Perhaps a more accurate name would be Paulism, or, as CH Spurgeon says, Christianity. However, I will provide a brief defense of Calvin because a man of such sterling Christian character ought not be maligned in this fashion.
First of all, I must dispel the myth that the Genevan government was a dictatorship run wholly by one man--Calvin. There was a council of rulers. They were the ones who asked (demanded, actually) that Calvin come there to be their church leader. Calvin was not some lone judge before whom every case was presented and he was not the lone executioner. He probably wasn't even involved at all with most cases. The most famous case involves Michael Servetus. He was a heretic who was executed in Calvin's Geneva. Poor Servetus. Big, bad Calvin. Actually, Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva. He warned him that if he came and still held to his heretical beliefs, he would be put to death. This was not a threat. It was a warning. This what the whole government of Geneva dictated. Calvin could not change their rules whenever he wanted to.
Secondly, does not the civil government have the right to administer its laws? Yes, you may say, unless those laws go against the laws of God. Well then, where did the Genevan government err? Their law codes were the most Biblical out of any nation since Old Testament Israel. Do I agree that it was the best thing that they made heresy a capital offense? I do not. Do I agree that they were within the bounds set for government in the Bible? I do.
And remember, Servetus was not coerced into this government. He freely chose to come, even after Calvin warned him that Geneva's laws would effect him if he lived within it. Servetus, knowingly and willingly came to a city that made it clear that heresy was a capital crime and that violators would be prosecuted. This is clearly a case of divisive rabble-rousing on his part. Consider it a 21st century-style crusade against another government's laws that he didn't like. So in that respect he was not innocent. Furthermore, Servetus was not innocent of the crime of heresy. He was what we would call a unitarian universalist. He denied the Trinity. He denied the gospel in all of its essences. And he sought to propogate this false teaching among a people that chose to live in a city that would protect them from such falsehood. Do I agree that he should have been put to death? No. Do I agree that he deserved to die? Absolutely. By entering into the outward covenant of the church, he was under the duty to preach the truth. As a human being, it was his duty to reject all falsehood. Had he lived in Old Testament Israel, he would have been put to death. But in that case you wouldn't be able to blame big bad John Calvin. You would have to blame big bad God. So before you start offering honor and praise to Servetus and before you start burning Calvin in effigy, you must ask yourself: Am I mad at teachings of Calvin that are not found in the Bible, or am I mad at God and His holy and righteous justice that says that the wages of sin is death? I am convinced that the only honest answer is the latter one. I will stay convinced of this until someone presents me solid biblical arguments against the actions of the Genevan government. And "do not kill" is not sufficient because this is a case of civil government and government is given the right to enforce capital punishment by the Bible. Calvin is no more a murderer than the executioners at our prisons.
I must again say, that as for as the doctrines of Calvinism go, this is all besides the point. If Calvin was some sort of sodomizing vampire abortionist with horns growing out of his head, it wouldn't change the fact that the doctrines popularly known as Calvinism are found in the Bible. It doesn't change the fact that the doctrines known as Calvinism were taught before Calvin ever taught them by such men as Martin Luther, Gottschalk, and Augustine. The doctrines as presented in the acrostic known as TULIP were not systematized until after Calvin. But none of this matters. The doctrines are found in the Bible, and that is all that true Calvinists care about.
Here's a stupid quote from this site:
"Christians should be outraged that Calvin persecuted and killed so many people because of his religious goals and beliefs. However the Calvinists we have met will defend these murderous practices saying that we need to understand the times Calvin was living in. There is no time in our history that this type of behavior was right.
"We must remember this when we are dealing with Calvinists and other cults. However, the time is now upon us to be concerned about what people believe as it could cost you your life! There are many people today who still uphold the doctrines of Calvinism and as we show below, those doctrines do not line up with the word of God.
"Here is the Mission statement from one group:
""The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics (CRTA) is dedicated to providing biblically sound online resources for the edification of God's people. The Center is committed to the system of doctrine known as Calvinism, which we see to be the most biblically faithful systematization of the Bible's teachings. The Owner is a Reformed Christian committed to a strict subscriptionist view of the Westminster Standards, yet many of the articles on this site represent a wider view of the Faith. Please use discretion in all that you read here -- and everywhere else too." (http://www.reformed.org/index.html)
"Many of these people are just as zealous as Calvin and would consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines thinking they are doing the right thing and doing it on behalf of Christianity."
Now, I don't know anything about the CRTA, but I feel pretty confident that they would NEVER consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines. I guess this website cannot be considered to be slandering the CRTA because they don't directly say that the CRTA contains the people mentioned in the paragraph following the CRTA quote. However, anybody can see the sort of manipulation that is going on here. This website author takes some Calvinist ministry that has probably never even heard of the author and gives a quote that has nothing at all to do with the discussion (Calvinists being murderous) and then intimating that such people are murderers. You know, if Calvinists really believed in killing non-Calvinists, then there would be a lot of dead people right now. Reformed, Calvinist churches aren't exactly bursting full of people. Calvinism is a minority within evangelicalism. "Many of these people are just as zealous as Calvin and would consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines..." THEN WHERE ARE ALL THE MURDERS?! Does this author actually believe that people are stupid enough to think that "many" Calvinists would consider killing non-Calvinists when in fact they never, ever, ever hear of such a killing taking place? One last thing..."However the Calvinists we have met will defend these murderous practices saying that we need to understand the times Calvin was living in. There is no time in our history that this type of behavior was right..." Somebody tell Moses! That was a time in our history, right? And that behavior was commanded and enforced by GOD. Therefore, the God of the Bible must not be right. That is the only logical conclusion that this website's author can come to.
Now this post of mine is getting way to big for my average reader, so I will not refute all the arguments for the five points of Calvinism that this website offers. Another reason I will not refute them all is because I couldn't read past the first couple of sentences talking about the first point--total depravity. I was laughing too hard to read. Now, either this author is purposely deceptive, or he has really never ever read anything by a Calvinist (except for the quotes from Schaff's History). What am I talking about? Here's the quote: "In this passage we see how one person can be more depraved than others. If depravity is "total" than how could one person be more depraved than the others? "More" speaks of quantity. If one can have "more" than someone else, then the others cannot have "total". Yet, Calvin believed that all of humanity was "totally depraved." What this author doesn't seem to understand (again, because it appears he has never read anything by a Calvinist), is that the phrases given in tulip are imperfect phrases that were devised to make an easy acrostic. Most Calvinists would put the five points in a manner like this: Radical depravity, Sovereign election, Definite atonement, Effecual grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (see R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God). This makes the acrostic say RSDEP. Well who can remember that? So, some less accurate phrases were thought up to make an acrostic that everybody could remember. I should also point something else out: Calvin did not devise these phrases. I have read very little of Calvin's writings (because my Calvinism doesn't depend on him), but I feel confident that he probably never used the phrase "total depravity." Now, what made me decide that I could read no more of this garbage was the statement that it is obvious that no man is as depraved as he could be. Some men are more depraved than others, therefore nobody can be totally depraved! Well, if that is what total depravity meant, then you would have a point. But since it doesn't, we will have to discard this straw man. To quote an expert on Calvinism, R.C. Sproul: "Total depravity is not utter depravity. Utter depravity would mean that we are all as sinful as we possibly could be" (Chosen By God, p. 104.) If the author of this website had bothered to flip through this basic primer on Calvinism, then he would know that his argument is against a non-existent opponent.
I've glanced over some of the other arguments, and they are just about the dumbest ones I've ever seen. Any self-respecting Arminian who reads this article against Calvinism must groan and slap his forehead. "I'm opposed to Calvinism," he would say, "but even I can disprove these weak arguments!" I recommend to anybody that should read this silly page and would like to know what Calvinism actually teaches, and how the verses offered either (1) have nothing to do with, (2) do not disprove, (3) or actually support the doctrines of Calvinism, I suggest that you read any book on Calvinism by a Calvinist. Anything. That is how basic the errors on this webpage are--You don't need to read something that deals with the hard questions of Calvinism; anything basic will do it! The reason is because this webpage doesn't address the hard questions of Calvinism--it doesn't address Calvinism at all! It address a fabricated system that was born in the imagination of the author and who decided to call it Calvinism.
Some reading suggestions (and the author of the webpage should read these, too, so he can see what ridiculous article he has written):
R. C. Sproul, Chosen By God
R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown
James White, The Potter's Freedom
Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented
Now here's the funny part...I just now checked out that CRTA website...The one cited in the the webpage and right before the paragraph about Calvinists wanting to kill people... It's a great site! Go there! It will teach you about Calvinism! If the author of this unChristian article had actually looked at the CRTA's definition of the points of Calvinism, then he would have seen that he was arguing against a fantasy--That his own definitions of the points of Calvinism were completely different from the definitions given by Calvinists that he cited! Good grief! I hate to keep on throwing less-than-Christian words around like "stupid", but I can't help it! But while I'm at it, I can call this article and its reasonings more words than stupid. I can also call it blasphemous, lying, heretical, malicious, slanderous, lying, ill-researched, divisive, and lying. No, I didn't must make a typo. I stress the lying aspect because I really don't believe the author is that stupid. I think he has an agenda to purposefully deceive other Christians about the the truth of God's sovereignty and God's godness, and to purposefully malign the characters of anyone who is labeled a Calvinist.
No, sir, I am not one of those imaginary Calvinists that you say exists, I do not think you should be put to death. But I do think that if you persist twisting the Scriptures to support your man-centered theology, and to blatantly misrepresent the Biblical doctrines of Calvinism, then you should have whatever ordination you have revoked. No pulpit should ever have the dishonor of being filled by a person who so flagrantly lies and misrepresents others.
The page starts out by using the good old tactic of attacking Calvinism by attacking the character of John Calvin. And what do all of us Calvinists say in response? "WHO CARES?!" I could care less about Calvin when it comes down to it. I believe in the doctrines known as Calvinism, not because of the the name attatched to it, but because they are found in the Bible. Perhaps a more accurate name would be Paulism, or, as CH Spurgeon says, Christianity. However, I will provide a brief defense of Calvin because a man of such sterling Christian character ought not be maligned in this fashion.
First of all, I must dispel the myth that the Genevan government was a dictatorship run wholly by one man--Calvin. There was a council of rulers. They were the ones who asked (demanded, actually) that Calvin come there to be their church leader. Calvin was not some lone judge before whom every case was presented and he was not the lone executioner. He probably wasn't even involved at all with most cases. The most famous case involves Michael Servetus. He was a heretic who was executed in Calvin's Geneva. Poor Servetus. Big, bad Calvin. Actually, Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva. He warned him that if he came and still held to his heretical beliefs, he would be put to death. This was not a threat. It was a warning. This what the whole government of Geneva dictated. Calvin could not change their rules whenever he wanted to.
Secondly, does not the civil government have the right to administer its laws? Yes, you may say, unless those laws go against the laws of God. Well then, where did the Genevan government err? Their law codes were the most Biblical out of any nation since Old Testament Israel. Do I agree that it was the best thing that they made heresy a capital offense? I do not. Do I agree that they were within the bounds set for government in the Bible? I do.
And remember, Servetus was not coerced into this government. He freely chose to come, even after Calvin warned him that Geneva's laws would effect him if he lived within it. Servetus, knowingly and willingly came to a city that made it clear that heresy was a capital crime and that violators would be prosecuted. This is clearly a case of divisive rabble-rousing on his part. Consider it a 21st century-style crusade against another government's laws that he didn't like. So in that respect he was not innocent. Furthermore, Servetus was not innocent of the crime of heresy. He was what we would call a unitarian universalist. He denied the Trinity. He denied the gospel in all of its essences. And he sought to propogate this false teaching among a people that chose to live in a city that would protect them from such falsehood. Do I agree that he should have been put to death? No. Do I agree that he deserved to die? Absolutely. By entering into the outward covenant of the church, he was under the duty to preach the truth. As a human being, it was his duty to reject all falsehood. Had he lived in Old Testament Israel, he would have been put to death. But in that case you wouldn't be able to blame big bad John Calvin. You would have to blame big bad God. So before you start offering honor and praise to Servetus and before you start burning Calvin in effigy, you must ask yourself: Am I mad at teachings of Calvin that are not found in the Bible, or am I mad at God and His holy and righteous justice that says that the wages of sin is death? I am convinced that the only honest answer is the latter one. I will stay convinced of this until someone presents me solid biblical arguments against the actions of the Genevan government. And "do not kill" is not sufficient because this is a case of civil government and government is given the right to enforce capital punishment by the Bible. Calvin is no more a murderer than the executioners at our prisons.
I must again say, that as for as the doctrines of Calvinism go, this is all besides the point. If Calvin was some sort of sodomizing vampire abortionist with horns growing out of his head, it wouldn't change the fact that the doctrines popularly known as Calvinism are found in the Bible. It doesn't change the fact that the doctrines known as Calvinism were taught before Calvin ever taught them by such men as Martin Luther, Gottschalk, and Augustine. The doctrines as presented in the acrostic known as TULIP were not systematized until after Calvin. But none of this matters. The doctrines are found in the Bible, and that is all that true Calvinists care about.
Here's a stupid quote from this site:
"Christians should be outraged that Calvin persecuted and killed so many people because of his religious goals and beliefs. However the Calvinists we have met will defend these murderous practices saying that we need to understand the times Calvin was living in. There is no time in our history that this type of behavior was right.
"We must remember this when we are dealing with Calvinists and other cults. However, the time is now upon us to be concerned about what people believe as it could cost you your life! There are many people today who still uphold the doctrines of Calvinism and as we show below, those doctrines do not line up with the word of God.
"Here is the Mission statement from one group:
""The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics (CRTA) is dedicated to providing biblically sound online resources for the edification of God's people. The Center is committed to the system of doctrine known as Calvinism, which we see to be the most biblically faithful systematization of the Bible's teachings. The Owner is a Reformed Christian committed to a strict subscriptionist view of the Westminster Standards, yet many of the articles on this site represent a wider view of the Faith. Please use discretion in all that you read here -- and everywhere else too." (http://www.reformed.org/index.html)
"Many of these people are just as zealous as Calvin and would consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines thinking they are doing the right thing and doing it on behalf of Christianity."
Now, I don't know anything about the CRTA, but I feel pretty confident that they would NEVER consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines. I guess this website cannot be considered to be slandering the CRTA because they don't directly say that the CRTA contains the people mentioned in the paragraph following the CRTA quote. However, anybody can see the sort of manipulation that is going on here. This website author takes some Calvinist ministry that has probably never even heard of the author and gives a quote that has nothing at all to do with the discussion (Calvinists being murderous) and then intimating that such people are murderers. You know, if Calvinists really believed in killing non-Calvinists, then there would be a lot of dead people right now. Reformed, Calvinist churches aren't exactly bursting full of people. Calvinism is a minority within evangelicalism. "Many of these people are just as zealous as Calvin and would consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines..." THEN WHERE ARE ALL THE MURDERS?! Does this author actually believe that people are stupid enough to think that "many" Calvinists would consider killing non-Calvinists when in fact they never, ever, ever hear of such a killing taking place? One last thing..."However the Calvinists we have met will defend these murderous practices saying that we need to understand the times Calvin was living in. There is no time in our history that this type of behavior was right..." Somebody tell Moses! That was a time in our history, right? And that behavior was commanded and enforced by GOD. Therefore, the God of the Bible must not be right. That is the only logical conclusion that this website's author can come to.
Now this post of mine is getting way to big for my average reader, so I will not refute all the arguments for the five points of Calvinism that this website offers. Another reason I will not refute them all is because I couldn't read past the first couple of sentences talking about the first point--total depravity. I was laughing too hard to read. Now, either this author is purposely deceptive, or he has really never ever read anything by a Calvinist (except for the quotes from Schaff's History). What am I talking about? Here's the quote: "In this passage we see how one person can be more depraved than others. If depravity is "total" than how could one person be more depraved than the others? "More" speaks of quantity. If one can have "more" than someone else, then the others cannot have "total". Yet, Calvin believed that all of humanity was "totally depraved." What this author doesn't seem to understand (again, because it appears he has never read anything by a Calvinist), is that the phrases given in tulip are imperfect phrases that were devised to make an easy acrostic. Most Calvinists would put the five points in a manner like this: Radical depravity, Sovereign election, Definite atonement, Effecual grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (see R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God). This makes the acrostic say RSDEP. Well who can remember that? So, some less accurate phrases were thought up to make an acrostic that everybody could remember. I should also point something else out: Calvin did not devise these phrases. I have read very little of Calvin's writings (because my Calvinism doesn't depend on him), but I feel confident that he probably never used the phrase "total depravity." Now, what made me decide that I could read no more of this garbage was the statement that it is obvious that no man is as depraved as he could be. Some men are more depraved than others, therefore nobody can be totally depraved! Well, if that is what total depravity meant, then you would have a point. But since it doesn't, we will have to discard this straw man. To quote an expert on Calvinism, R.C. Sproul: "Total depravity is not utter depravity. Utter depravity would mean that we are all as sinful as we possibly could be" (Chosen By God, p. 104.) If the author of this website had bothered to flip through this basic primer on Calvinism, then he would know that his argument is against a non-existent opponent.
I've glanced over some of the other arguments, and they are just about the dumbest ones I've ever seen. Any self-respecting Arminian who reads this article against Calvinism must groan and slap his forehead. "I'm opposed to Calvinism," he would say, "but even I can disprove these weak arguments!" I recommend to anybody that should read this silly page and would like to know what Calvinism actually teaches, and how the verses offered either (1) have nothing to do with, (2) do not disprove, (3) or actually support the doctrines of Calvinism, I suggest that you read any book on Calvinism by a Calvinist. Anything. That is how basic the errors on this webpage are--You don't need to read something that deals with the hard questions of Calvinism; anything basic will do it! The reason is because this webpage doesn't address the hard questions of Calvinism--it doesn't address Calvinism at all! It address a fabricated system that was born in the imagination of the author and who decided to call it Calvinism.
Some reading suggestions (and the author of the webpage should read these, too, so he can see what ridiculous article he has written):
R. C. Sproul, Chosen By God
R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown
James White, The Potter's Freedom
Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented
Now here's the funny part...I just now checked out that CRTA website...The one cited in the the webpage and right before the paragraph about Calvinists wanting to kill people... It's a great site! Go there! It will teach you about Calvinism! If the author of this unChristian article had actually looked at the CRTA's definition of the points of Calvinism, then he would have seen that he was arguing against a fantasy--That his own definitions of the points of Calvinism were completely different from the definitions given by Calvinists that he cited! Good grief! I hate to keep on throwing less-than-Christian words around like "stupid", but I can't help it! But while I'm at it, I can call this article and its reasonings more words than stupid. I can also call it blasphemous, lying, heretical, malicious, slanderous, lying, ill-researched, divisive, and lying. No, I didn't must make a typo. I stress the lying aspect because I really don't believe the author is that stupid. I think he has an agenda to purposefully deceive other Christians about the the truth of God's sovereignty and God's godness, and to purposefully malign the characters of anyone who is labeled a Calvinist.
No, sir, I am not one of those imaginary Calvinists that you say exists, I do not think you should be put to death. But I do think that if you persist twisting the Scriptures to support your man-centered theology, and to blatantly misrepresent the Biblical doctrines of Calvinism, then you should have whatever ordination you have revoked. No pulpit should ever have the dishonor of being filled by a person who so flagrantly lies and misrepresents others.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Enter Now to Win Total Awesomeness!
Some great website is having a drawing for an opportunity to win an autographed copy of the Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul and the Reformation Study Bible, English Standard Version. Now the former is one of the greatest books every written outside of the inspired canon, and the former is some inspired canon that is on my birthday list! So enter in the link posted below so you can win! And so I can win, too! Yay!
link text
link text
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Support Your Local Blogger
Just in case one of you hundreds of my faithful blog readers suddenly come into a great deal of money and just don't know what to do with it, I have a suggestion for you. Buy me an expensive present! I am currently reading The Mystery of Providence by 17th century Puritan John Flavel, and I love it so much that I want the 6 volume set of his works put out by Banner of Truth Trust! I think the cheapest price is to be found at http://www.trinitybookservice.org/10604.html If I had that and read it all, then I could condense it for you into little blog postings! So it would be the gift that keeps on giving.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Decisions Decide Destiny
That was the title of a sermon I heard on the radio today by Adrian Rogers. Our decisions decide our destinies. He said that in one sentence, and then in the next says that we are saved by grace. Well, which is it? There seems to be some confusion here. Certainly my destiny was determined by a decision. Thankfully, it wasn't mine. It was God's decision. God decided my destiny. His grace is all that saved me. I would have only decided against myself had He not already decided in my favor. This is not to say that our decision for Christ is unimportant. Indeed, it is the means that God uses for our salvation. But even our deciding to accept Jesus is a gift of God, for He gives the faith that empowers that decision (Eph. 2:8). But the decision is still ours, and the responsibility still lays with the sinner (see my last post). But though my decision was instrumental in my salvation, it wasn't what decided my destiny. God and his electing love and grace did that. Once again, I am merely trying to teach you, my beloved blog readers, that our confession that salvation is by grace alone is to have actual meaning, and not be just a fancy statement to make ourselves feel better after having given ourselves the glory for our own salvation.
Soli Deo gloria.
Soli Deo gloria.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Human Responsibility and Ability
One of the most common errors of Arminianism is that it assumes that since humans are responsible for their souls, then they have the ability to choose salvation or damnation. Tied in with this assumption is the assumption that Calvinists deny human responsibility. They do not. They recognize that human beings are completely responsible for their sinful states. Calvinists affirm that men have wills and have a responsibility to choose Christ. However, Calvinists take seriously the numerous Biblical passages that speak of man's enslavement to sin. The notion of a libertarian free will is nowhere found in the Bible. The Bible repeatedly speaks of the will being enslaved to sin. There was freedom. Man was free in his original state. But he freely chose to become enslaved to sin. But Arminians think that humans have a libertarian free will simply because the Bible commands men to choose Christ. They argue thus: "God wouldn't command men to do something that they can't do, would He? That wouldn't be fair." It is completely fair because it is man's own fault that he is unable! The relationship between human responsibility and human ability is this: humans are responsible for not being able! But if you were to say that this matter of ability is not clear enough (because words like dead and enlsaved are just too ambiguous for you), then I would ask you this question from a matter that is more clear to us. The Isrealites were commanded to obey every single law given by God (Deuteronomy 28:15). Now the question must be raised: Were the Israelites able to do so? We must say no, unless we decide to abandon even what orthodoxy remains in Arminianism and become full-out Pelagians. If man is able to keep all the commands of God, then why do we need a Savior?
Now this is where grace comes in. If man were able to achieve his salvation, even just a tiny part of it, then he could boast. Salvation is wholly of grace.
Now this is where grace comes in. If man were able to achieve his salvation, even just a tiny part of it, then he could boast. Salvation is wholly of grace.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
The First Sin
So I was at my place of work the other day, and this fellow came in who comes in now and again. He's a complete freak of the vegan type. Shaved bald, including his brow. No eyebrows. That's new, actually. He used to have eyebrows. But he has those big huge ear hole things, you know, those piercings that they make big like them people in Africa. And he has whole sentences tattooed on his body, sentences that spew forth liberal tree-hugger crap. So, you know, a freak. Anyway, he had a shirt on this last time that had a liberal message on it. It said, "Living your life for God? Live your life for yourself." Which immediately brought to my mind the very first temptation given by Satan to our parents in the Garden of Eden: "You will be like God" Genesis 3:5. The living of life for self is the most basic form of idolatry and is the root for all sins. It is precisely this that Jesus commanded people to reject if they wanted to follow Him (Luke 14:26-27).
As a side note, I should mention one other thing. There are many people who have dedicated their lives to follow Christ and are true believers, and may even with their mouths claim that all of salvation is of the grace of God alone, yet in their theology that manage to retain some of the glory for themselves. They see that to be a Christian you must reject your self, and so they believe that their work (rejection of self to follow Christ) is what allows them to be Christians. Oh, they'll say that salvation is not of works, yet a simple examination of how their beliefs work out in practice will show that they manage to claim some glory for themselves by claiming the work of self-denial. But even this work is of God. No work of man can get him into heaven because then he would have room to boast, and this is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus told the rich young man to reject himself by giving up all that was precious to him, but this was too hard for the man. Then Jesus tells the disciples that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved. The disciples, exhibiting a rare astuteness, realized that it would be hard for anybody, rich or poor, to be saved, so they asked Jesus, "'Who then can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:21-26) This is a familiar verse to us. Whenever something looks impossible, such as paying the bills, we say, "With God all things are possible!" Or maybe we think we'll never get to work on time today, but "with God all things are possible!" Now this is all very fine and good and is true, but the exact context in which Jesus speaks these words is the matter of salvation. With man, salvation is impossible. With man, self-denial is impossible. With man, following Christ is impossible. But with God, this is possible. So next time you judge the man who is honest enough to speak of his rejection of God and love of self plainly, and you begin to pat yourself on the back for not being like him and choosing to follow Christ, stop yourself. The pat doesn't belong on your back. God did it all. Glory to God in the highest, who chose to save a wretched sinner like myself whose only desire was to sin continually (Genesis 6:5).
As a side note, I should mention one other thing. There are many people who have dedicated their lives to follow Christ and are true believers, and may even with their mouths claim that all of salvation is of the grace of God alone, yet in their theology that manage to retain some of the glory for themselves. They see that to be a Christian you must reject your self, and so they believe that their work (rejection of self to follow Christ) is what allows them to be Christians. Oh, they'll say that salvation is not of works, yet a simple examination of how their beliefs work out in practice will show that they manage to claim some glory for themselves by claiming the work of self-denial. But even this work is of God. No work of man can get him into heaven because then he would have room to boast, and this is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus told the rich young man to reject himself by giving up all that was precious to him, but this was too hard for the man. Then Jesus tells the disciples that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved. The disciples, exhibiting a rare astuteness, realized that it would be hard for anybody, rich or poor, to be saved, so they asked Jesus, "'Who then can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:21-26) This is a familiar verse to us. Whenever something looks impossible, such as paying the bills, we say, "With God all things are possible!" Or maybe we think we'll never get to work on time today, but "with God all things are possible!" Now this is all very fine and good and is true, but the exact context in which Jesus speaks these words is the matter of salvation. With man, salvation is impossible. With man, self-denial is impossible. With man, following Christ is impossible. But with God, this is possible. So next time you judge the man who is honest enough to speak of his rejection of God and love of self plainly, and you begin to pat yourself on the back for not being like him and choosing to follow Christ, stop yourself. The pat doesn't belong on your back. God did it all. Glory to God in the highest, who chose to save a wretched sinner like myself whose only desire was to sin continually (Genesis 6:5).
Friday, December 17, 2004
Paige Patterson
I've been listening to James White review a lecture given by Paige Patterson on Calvinism. Well, it is sad that someone who has such a complete disregard for serious exegesis of Scripture, and a complete disregard for the hermeneutic of allowing Scripture to interpret itself, and who completely ignores all the Scriptural arguments that have been made against his position and never responds to them with any meaningful exegesis--it is sad that such a person is teaching future pastors and is even the president of a seminary.
First, Dr. Patterson gives a list of Scripture that seems to support Calvinism. Then he gives a list of Scripture that he says seems to support Arminianism. How does one overcome such a contradiction? By sacrificing the sovereignty of God in favor or the sovereignty of man. Oh, he wouldn't call it that. He would never say that man's supposed free will is sovereign. But then, Catholics say that they don't worship Mary and the saints, the only venerate them. They give dulia to saints and latria to God. But as Calvin said, that is a distinction without a difference.
Anyway, Dr. White gives quick and basic responses to most of what Paige Patterson had to say. Patterson did a lot of spoof-texting, that technique common to dispensationalists in particular, where they just throw out a bunch of verses without ever examining the context or the original languages. For instance, he gave a lot of "whosoever believes" verses. For one thing, Dr. White points out that this is the KJV that Patterson was using. If you look at different translations, the phrase is often rendered as "he that believes" or something like that. But the main point is that these verses, without their context, does not say who "whosoever" is. All Calvinists agree that all who believe will be saved. But Calvinists argue that man is incapable of himself to believe. Only God can grant it to a man to believe, and therefore there is absolutely no contradiction between verses such as "No man can come unto me unless the Father draw him" and "anyone who comes unto Me will not be cast out." But Paige Patterson just works on his man-made tradition that says that "whosoever" must mean anybody in the whole world. Dr. White points out that many of the arguments that Patterson makes can just as easily be made by universalists. For instance, one verse says that Jesus paid for the sins of all men. Well, without looking at the context or giving any exegesis whatsoever, Patterson tells us that this must mean that every person in all of time and space had his sins paid for by Jesus Christ. WELL THEN WHY IS THERE ANYBODY IN HELL?!!! If we're going to use Patterson's hermeneutic, then the only logical conclusion is that everybody will be saved. Patterson would of course deny that everybody will be saved, but that is just because he is being happily inconsistent. If everybody isn't going to be saved, then there is only one other logical conclusion. That would be that Jesus was a failure. Metallica can now be justified in writing a song called "The God Who Failed." Of course, I'm not saying anything new. I am just pretty much rehashing the arguments made by John Owen in his irrefutable work entitled The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It would be nice if persons such as Dr. Patterson would respond to the Scripturally-based arguments of people like Owen before teaching students their hogwash. Of course, they can't respond to Owen. If Dr. Patterson read quotes from John Owen, including Owen's Scripture references, the students would immediately see how flatly Patterson's arguments fall. So he ignores such Scripturally-based arguments and hopes his listeners will ignore them, too, and just accept his word for it. So what do those verses mean, if it would be unacceptable to say that they support universalism or a failure redeemer? Well, a look at context would help. I am not responding to any verse in particular, so I am not being specific. Many verses don't have the words "died for all men". Instead, they say "died for all." At this point, the Arminian like Dr. Patterson eisegetes the word "men" in there to fit his tradition. But a serious student of Scripture should be more hesitant to throw in a word and instead stop and say, "All what?" That is where context comes in. More often than not, the discussion has to do with God no longer dealing exclusively with the Jews but now including the Gentiles. In such a case, it is very reasonable to assume that "died for all" means "died for all nations". This doesn't have to mean every individual ever. It just means that the work of God has spread geographically. Sometimes the verse will say something like "died for you". Here the Arminians say that "you" equals "everybody". James White says that so far nobody has been able to answer his question as to why the particular epistle this verse is found in was written to everybody and not just the church. You get the point. When Peter starts out a letter (1 Peter) with the greeting to those who "are chosen" (1:1), and refers to his readers as being "born again" (1:3, 23), as those who "love Him" (1:8), as those who are "believers in God" (1:21), "a chosen race" (2:9), "the people of God" (2:10) -- why should we assume that when Peter says "He Himself bore our sins" (2:24) that Peter is suddenly, without warning, talking about everybody? Why should not "our" refer to the same people that Peter has been talking about this whole time? Why the sudden switch? Perhaps because we're imposing our traditions on the text and making Peter switch topics when we need him to in order to fuel our tradition?
Which leads to the last thing. Patterson ends his lecture by saying that many people force their grid onto Scripture. The Calvinist sees verses that don't fit his grid, so he just cuts them out. Well. James White commends him for warning against forcing a grid on Scripture, but then points out that such a grid-forcing is what we've been listening to throughout the entire lecture. I should mention that Patterson also accuses Arminians of doing the same thing, speaking as if he wasn't an Arminian himself. He must be like Norm Geisler in that respect--he accepts 90% of the tenets of Arminianism but says he's not an Arminian. Again, a distinction without a difference.
Oh well. You can listen to this stuff yourself at http://aomin.org/dividingline.html. The shows in question are 10/28/04 and 12/14/04.
First, Dr. Patterson gives a list of Scripture that seems to support Calvinism. Then he gives a list of Scripture that he says seems to support Arminianism. How does one overcome such a contradiction? By sacrificing the sovereignty of God in favor or the sovereignty of man. Oh, he wouldn't call it that. He would never say that man's supposed free will is sovereign. But then, Catholics say that they don't worship Mary and the saints, the only venerate them. They give dulia to saints and latria to God. But as Calvin said, that is a distinction without a difference.
Anyway, Dr. White gives quick and basic responses to most of what Paige Patterson had to say. Patterson did a lot of spoof-texting, that technique common to dispensationalists in particular, where they just throw out a bunch of verses without ever examining the context or the original languages. For instance, he gave a lot of "whosoever believes" verses. For one thing, Dr. White points out that this is the KJV that Patterson was using. If you look at different translations, the phrase is often rendered as "he that believes" or something like that. But the main point is that these verses, without their context, does not say who "whosoever" is. All Calvinists agree that all who believe will be saved. But Calvinists argue that man is incapable of himself to believe. Only God can grant it to a man to believe, and therefore there is absolutely no contradiction between verses such as "No man can come unto me unless the Father draw him" and "anyone who comes unto Me will not be cast out." But Paige Patterson just works on his man-made tradition that says that "whosoever" must mean anybody in the whole world. Dr. White points out that many of the arguments that Patterson makes can just as easily be made by universalists. For instance, one verse says that Jesus paid for the sins of all men. Well, without looking at the context or giving any exegesis whatsoever, Patterson tells us that this must mean that every person in all of time and space had his sins paid for by Jesus Christ. WELL THEN WHY IS THERE ANYBODY IN HELL?!!! If we're going to use Patterson's hermeneutic, then the only logical conclusion is that everybody will be saved. Patterson would of course deny that everybody will be saved, but that is just because he is being happily inconsistent. If everybody isn't going to be saved, then there is only one other logical conclusion. That would be that Jesus was a failure. Metallica can now be justified in writing a song called "The God Who Failed." Of course, I'm not saying anything new. I am just pretty much rehashing the arguments made by John Owen in his irrefutable work entitled The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It would be nice if persons such as Dr. Patterson would respond to the Scripturally-based arguments of people like Owen before teaching students their hogwash. Of course, they can't respond to Owen. If Dr. Patterson read quotes from John Owen, including Owen's Scripture references, the students would immediately see how flatly Patterson's arguments fall. So he ignores such Scripturally-based arguments and hopes his listeners will ignore them, too, and just accept his word for it. So what do those verses mean, if it would be unacceptable to say that they support universalism or a failure redeemer? Well, a look at context would help. I am not responding to any verse in particular, so I am not being specific. Many verses don't have the words "died for all men". Instead, they say "died for all." At this point, the Arminian like Dr. Patterson eisegetes the word "men" in there to fit his tradition. But a serious student of Scripture should be more hesitant to throw in a word and instead stop and say, "All what?" That is where context comes in. More often than not, the discussion has to do with God no longer dealing exclusively with the Jews but now including the Gentiles. In such a case, it is very reasonable to assume that "died for all" means "died for all nations". This doesn't have to mean every individual ever. It just means that the work of God has spread geographically. Sometimes the verse will say something like "died for you". Here the Arminians say that "you" equals "everybody". James White says that so far nobody has been able to answer his question as to why the particular epistle this verse is found in was written to everybody and not just the church. You get the point. When Peter starts out a letter (1 Peter) with the greeting to those who "are chosen" (1:1), and refers to his readers as being "born again" (1:3, 23), as those who "love Him" (1:8), as those who are "believers in God" (1:21), "a chosen race" (2:9), "the people of God" (2:10) -- why should we assume that when Peter says "He Himself bore our sins" (2:24) that Peter is suddenly, without warning, talking about everybody? Why should not "our" refer to the same people that Peter has been talking about this whole time? Why the sudden switch? Perhaps because we're imposing our traditions on the text and making Peter switch topics when we need him to in order to fuel our tradition?
Which leads to the last thing. Patterson ends his lecture by saying that many people force their grid onto Scripture. The Calvinist sees verses that don't fit his grid, so he just cuts them out. Well. James White commends him for warning against forcing a grid on Scripture, but then points out that such a grid-forcing is what we've been listening to throughout the entire lecture. I should mention that Patterson also accuses Arminians of doing the same thing, speaking as if he wasn't an Arminian himself. He must be like Norm Geisler in that respect--he accepts 90% of the tenets of Arminianism but says he's not an Arminian. Again, a distinction without a difference.
Oh well. You can listen to this stuff yourself at http://aomin.org/dividingline.html. The shows in question are 10/28/04 and 12/14/04.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Hometown Boy Makes Good, Gets Killed
I am a guitar player. I live in Arlington, TX. This gives me two things in common with "Dimebag" Darrell. This awesome guitar player was shot and killed while performing onstage in Ohio with his band Damageplan. If you've never heard of Damageplan, perhaps you've heard of Dimebag's former band, Pantera. I've never been a fan of their music, but I am very familiar with Dimebag Darrell via guitar magazines. I always noticed a complete sincerity in his appreciation of his fans. He seemed very humble, and always acted very honored about the status of guitar hero given him by his fans and peers. I will miss the down-to-earthiness that he brought to the guitar world that so many others just don't bring. Guitar magazines just won't be the same without interviews with him. Let us pray for his family and friends and fans. Though Dimebag Darrell's music and lifestyle were very ungodly, the Lord can use this tragic death to give glory to Himself. Let us pray that His will be done.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
My Turn to Post About Discerning Reader
Like many others, I have had a bad experience ordering from DiscerningReader.com, although i was fortunate enough to not receive any of the abuse and comments questioning my salvation like many other people who innocently inquire why their credit card has been charged but their ordered books haven't arrived after weeks and weeks. Now while I'm not going to question anybody's salvation, I am going to cut and paste for you a comment by DR owner Rob Schlapfer, which can be found at http://blog.peteweb.com/index.php?p=207&c=1
"GO [CENSORED] YOURSELVES — ALL YOU [CENSORED] CALVINISTS."
I'll let you formulate your own thoughts on this.
"GO [CENSORED] YOURSELVES — ALL YOU [CENSORED] CALVINISTS."
I'll let you formulate your own thoughts on this.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Another John Gill Post
Gee, this will be my third post about John Gill. I seem to have taken a shining to him, haven't I? At this point, many people would probably say to me, "Oh, Stephen, be careful reading Gill. He was a hyper-Calvinist!" Oh yeah? I disagree. I am willing to admit that Gill may have been a high Calvinist, but I do not think that he was a hyper-Calvinist at all. Tom Nettles seems to agree with me in his section on Gill in By His Grace and For his Glory.
I think the main reason people think Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is because that's what they were told. If someone has listened to Dr. Curt Daniel's 75-part series on the History and Theology of Calvinism, they will believe that Gill was the embodiment of hyper-Calvinism. I have enjoyed listing to this series by Curt Daniel very much, but I believe he is wrong on this point. In the aforementioned piece, Nettles says that Daniel started with the assumption that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and then defined hyper-Calvinism from Gill. For ages, people have said that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist without offering any proof from the writings or sermons of Gill (or at least not in context), and people simply accept what they are told.
Another reason people mistakenly believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is they do not read his supposed anti-free offer comments in the context in which they were written. Usually, in these cases, he was writing against universal salvation. He did not deny that ministers should urge sinners to believe. He simply said that this external call in and of itself can do nothing. There must also be the irresistable internal call of the Holy Spirit as well.
Now, go read some of Gill's sermons, particarly ones preached on the occasion of the ordination of another pastor, and you will see that he DOES preach that it is the duty of sinners to believe, and he exhorts sinners to believe. Then you will see that he was definately not a hyper-Calvinist.
For a nifty article that goes into more article, go "http://www.evangelica.de/John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism.htm">here.
I think the main reason people think Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is because that's what they were told. If someone has listened to Dr. Curt Daniel's 75-part series on the History and Theology of Calvinism, they will believe that Gill was the embodiment of hyper-Calvinism. I have enjoyed listing to this series by Curt Daniel very much, but I believe he is wrong on this point. In the aforementioned piece, Nettles says that Daniel started with the assumption that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and then defined hyper-Calvinism from Gill. For ages, people have said that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist without offering any proof from the writings or sermons of Gill (or at least not in context), and people simply accept what they are told.
Another reason people mistakenly believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is they do not read his supposed anti-free offer comments in the context in which they were written. Usually, in these cases, he was writing against universal salvation. He did not deny that ministers should urge sinners to believe. He simply said that this external call in and of itself can do nothing. There must also be the irresistable internal call of the Holy Spirit as well.
Now, go read some of Gill's sermons, particarly ones preached on the occasion of the ordination of another pastor, and you will see that he DOES preach that it is the duty of sinners to believe, and he exhorts sinners to believe. Then you will see that he was definately not a hyper-Calvinist.
For a nifty article that goes into more article, go "http://www.evangelica.de/John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism.htm">here.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
John Gill (1697-1771) on Matthew 24
I just read something that I had never thought of. I was looking through my John Gill CD-ROM, and I decided to see what he had to say about Matthew 24, so I went to his commentary on Matthew to see. There I found something interesting. In verse 3 when the disciples ask Jesus, "When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Well, most commentators, even dispensational ones, will admit that the first part of the question refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. However, the second half has been given all sorts of different interptretations. Some say that the disciples confused the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the world and Jesus sets them straight, some say that this was all one question, and that they were referring to the OT language of God "coming" in judgement, and that the end of the world really means end of the age, because that is the better translation. Well, I tend to agree with the second interpretation, but John Gill points out something I had never heard anybody else say. He says that when the disciples asked about Christ's return, they did not have in mind Him being gone in the first place. Remember that they just couldn't get it through their heads that Jesus was going to go back to Heaven. They thought he would always be with them. And though they may have figured out that He was going away, they still probably thought that He meant He was leaving their presence temporarily but would still be on Earth. Like, "I'm going to Dallas for a few days, and you can't follow me there, but I'll be back." He says:
That he was come in the flesh, and was the true Messiah, they firmly believed: he was with them, and they expected he would continue with them, for they had no notion of his leaving them, and coming again. When he at any time spake of his dying and rising from the dead, they seemed not to understand it: wherefore this coming of his, the sign of which, they inquire, is not to be understood of his coming a second time to judge the world, at the last day; but of his coming in his kingdom and glory, which they had observed him some little time before to speak of; declaring that some present should not die, till they saw it: wherefore they wanted to be informed, by what sign they might know, when he would set up his temporal kingdom; for since the temple was to be destroyed, they might hope a new one would be built, much more magnificent than this, and which is a Jewish notion; and that a new state of things would commence; the present world, or age, would be at a period; and the world to come, they had so often heard of from the Jewish doctors, would take place; and therefore they ask also, of the sign of the end of the world, or present state of things in the Jewish economy: to this Christ answers, in the latter part of this chapter, though not to the sense in which they put the questions; yet in the true sense of the coming of the son of man, and the end of the world; and in such a manner, as might be very instructive to them, and is to us.
Gill then goes on to give a very preteristic interpretation of Matthew 24. It is as if it were written by Gary DeMar or Ken Gentry. And Tim LaHaye says that partial-preterism doesn't have history on its side! If all we had was John Gill, that would be enough to provide partial-preterism with more history than dispensationalism. He believes that "this generation" that Jesus says his words apply to literally meant the generation of men He was talking to. In verse 29 ("Immediately after the tribulation in those days..."), Gill says that this still must have been in the first century and,
"therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment, or what should befall the church, or world, a little before that time, or should be accomplished in the whole intermediate time, between the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last judgment: for all that is said to account for such a sense, as that it was usual with the prophets to speak of judgments afar off as near; and that the apostles often speak of the coming of Christ, the last judgment, and the end of the world, as just at hand; and that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, will not answer to the word “immediately”, or show that that should be understood of two thousand years after: besides, all the following things were to be fulfilled before that present generation, in which Christ lived, passed away, (Matthew 24:34) and therefore must be understood of things that should directly, and immediately take place upon, or at the destruction of the city and temple."
John Gill then explains the astronomical language (sun and moon darkened) in the same manner as modern day preterists. This is not literal language but, again using OT prophetic language, refers to the shekinah glory of God leaving Israel, the disappearing of the old covenant form, etc. Concerning verse 30, he says,
"And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven, etc. Not the sound of the great trumpet, mentioned in the following verse; nor the clouds of heaven in this; nor the sign of the cross appearing in the air, as it is said to do in the times of Constantine: not the former; for though to blow a trumpet is sometimes to give a sign, and is an alarm; and the feast which the Jews call the day of blowing the trumpets, (Numbers 29:1) is, by the Septuagint, rendered hmera shmasiav, “the day of signification”; yet this sign is not said to be sounded, but to appear, or to be seen, which does not agree with the sounding of a trumpet: much less can this design the last trumpet at the day of judgment, since of that the text does not speak; and, for the same reason, the clouds cannot be meant in which Christ will come to judgment, nor are clouds in themselves any sign of it: nor the latter, of which there is no hint in the word of God, nor any reason to expect it, nor any foundation for it; nor is any miraculous star intended, such as appeared at Christ’s first coming, but the son of man himself: just as circumcision is called the sign of circumcision, (Romans 4:11) and Christ is sometimes called a sign, (Luke 2:34) as is his resurrection from the dead, (Matthew 12:39) and here the glory and majesty in which he shall come: and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, (Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27) and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly."
And further on he states,
"and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, “ye shall see”, as is expressed by Christ, in (Matthew 26:64). Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them: and when they felt the power of his arm, might, if not blind and stupid to the last degree, see the glory of his person, that he was more than a mere man, and no other than the Son of God, whom they had despised, rejected, and crucified; and who came to set up his kingdom and glory in a more visible and peculiar manner, among the Gentiles."
The angels in v. 31 are, as literally translated, "messengers." That is, they are men--ministers who spread the Gospel. The Gospel is the sound of the trumpet that is mentioned. As these men spread out into the world with the Gospel, they gather the elect into the kingdom of God. Thus, the gathering of the elect is not the rapture into heaven, but the delivering of souls from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God, which now happens every day.
Many people see v. 36 as the beginning of Jesus' discourse of the ultimate second coming. They say that Jesus moved to a different topic by ending the first topic in the same way He began it (i.e., "this generation shall not pass..." v. 34). For instance, J. Marcellus Kik, a postmillennial partial-preterist, took this view. Gill did not see this as the beginning of a different subject. He thought that Jesus was still talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age. In vv 40 and 41, where one person is taken and another left behind, Gill says that this is not a rapture but is the taking of one by the Roman armies to be killed, and another spared by Providence.
Gill doesn't leave Matthew 24 bereft of any meaning pertaining to the ultimate return of Christ. He says that some of what is said in chapter 24 of the end of the Jewish age refers to the end of all things, such as the unexpectedness of Christ's return.
Of interest, Gill at one point makes the comments that all of creation will not be destroyed at the return of Christ. It will merely be changed. I have been of this persuasion for a while, though I hardly ever speak of it because it seems so radical. Gill doesn't give reason for his assertion, but I would imagine that it has to do with the fact that when Paul speaks of the New Jerusalem in Galations, it is obviously not a literal new heavens and new earth, but is rather a way of referring to the Gospel age. Another reason I don't believe that heaven and earth will be completely done away with is because the Bible says that all of creation groans in anticipation of being redeemed. What sort of looked-forward-to redemption is complete annihilation? "that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." -- Romans 8:21
All that is mere sidenote. I'm too tired to read Gill's commentary on chapter 25, so I can't say where he goes from there, but I did see that he begins saying that the kingdom of heaven is the gospel church state.
Gill was one of the most influential Baptist pastors, yet his influence is very obviously not felt so much today. For shame.
That he was come in the flesh, and was the true Messiah, they firmly believed: he was with them, and they expected he would continue with them, for they had no notion of his leaving them, and coming again. When he at any time spake of his dying and rising from the dead, they seemed not to understand it: wherefore this coming of his, the sign of which, they inquire, is not to be understood of his coming a second time to judge the world, at the last day; but of his coming in his kingdom and glory, which they had observed him some little time before to speak of; declaring that some present should not die, till they saw it: wherefore they wanted to be informed, by what sign they might know, when he would set up his temporal kingdom; for since the temple was to be destroyed, they might hope a new one would be built, much more magnificent than this, and which is a Jewish notion; and that a new state of things would commence; the present world, or age, would be at a period; and the world to come, they had so often heard of from the Jewish doctors, would take place; and therefore they ask also, of the sign of the end of the world, or present state of things in the Jewish economy: to this Christ answers, in the latter part of this chapter, though not to the sense in which they put the questions; yet in the true sense of the coming of the son of man, and the end of the world; and in such a manner, as might be very instructive to them, and is to us.
Gill then goes on to give a very preteristic interpretation of Matthew 24. It is as if it were written by Gary DeMar or Ken Gentry. And Tim LaHaye says that partial-preterism doesn't have history on its side! If all we had was John Gill, that would be enough to provide partial-preterism with more history than dispensationalism. He believes that "this generation" that Jesus says his words apply to literally meant the generation of men He was talking to. In verse 29 ("Immediately after the tribulation in those days..."), Gill says that this still must have been in the first century and,
"therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment, or what should befall the church, or world, a little before that time, or should be accomplished in the whole intermediate time, between the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last judgment: for all that is said to account for such a sense, as that it was usual with the prophets to speak of judgments afar off as near; and that the apostles often speak of the coming of Christ, the last judgment, and the end of the world, as just at hand; and that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, will not answer to the word “immediately”, or show that that should be understood of two thousand years after: besides, all the following things were to be fulfilled before that present generation, in which Christ lived, passed away, (Matthew 24:34) and therefore must be understood of things that should directly, and immediately take place upon, or at the destruction of the city and temple."
John Gill then explains the astronomical language (sun and moon darkened) in the same manner as modern day preterists. This is not literal language but, again using OT prophetic language, refers to the shekinah glory of God leaving Israel, the disappearing of the old covenant form, etc. Concerning verse 30, he says,
"And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven, etc. Not the sound of the great trumpet, mentioned in the following verse; nor the clouds of heaven in this; nor the sign of the cross appearing in the air, as it is said to do in the times of Constantine: not the former; for though to blow a trumpet is sometimes to give a sign, and is an alarm; and the feast which the Jews call the day of blowing the trumpets, (Numbers 29:1) is, by the Septuagint, rendered hmera shmasiav, “the day of signification”; yet this sign is not said to be sounded, but to appear, or to be seen, which does not agree with the sounding of a trumpet: much less can this design the last trumpet at the day of judgment, since of that the text does not speak; and, for the same reason, the clouds cannot be meant in which Christ will come to judgment, nor are clouds in themselves any sign of it: nor the latter, of which there is no hint in the word of God, nor any reason to expect it, nor any foundation for it; nor is any miraculous star intended, such as appeared at Christ’s first coming, but the son of man himself: just as circumcision is called the sign of circumcision, (Romans 4:11) and Christ is sometimes called a sign, (Luke 2:34) as is his resurrection from the dead, (Matthew 12:39) and here the glory and majesty in which he shall come: and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, (Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27) and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly."
And further on he states,
"and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, “ye shall see”, as is expressed by Christ, in (Matthew 26:64). Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them: and when they felt the power of his arm, might, if not blind and stupid to the last degree, see the glory of his person, that he was more than a mere man, and no other than the Son of God, whom they had despised, rejected, and crucified; and who came to set up his kingdom and glory in a more visible and peculiar manner, among the Gentiles."
The angels in v. 31 are, as literally translated, "messengers." That is, they are men--ministers who spread the Gospel. The Gospel is the sound of the trumpet that is mentioned. As these men spread out into the world with the Gospel, they gather the elect into the kingdom of God. Thus, the gathering of the elect is not the rapture into heaven, but the delivering of souls from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God, which now happens every day.
Many people see v. 36 as the beginning of Jesus' discourse of the ultimate second coming. They say that Jesus moved to a different topic by ending the first topic in the same way He began it (i.e., "this generation shall not pass..." v. 34). For instance, J. Marcellus Kik, a postmillennial partial-preterist, took this view. Gill did not see this as the beginning of a different subject. He thought that Jesus was still talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age. In vv 40 and 41, where one person is taken and another left behind, Gill says that this is not a rapture but is the taking of one by the Roman armies to be killed, and another spared by Providence.
Gill doesn't leave Matthew 24 bereft of any meaning pertaining to the ultimate return of Christ. He says that some of what is said in chapter 24 of the end of the Jewish age refers to the end of all things, such as the unexpectedness of Christ's return.
Of interest, Gill at one point makes the comments that all of creation will not be destroyed at the return of Christ. It will merely be changed. I have been of this persuasion for a while, though I hardly ever speak of it because it seems so radical. Gill doesn't give reason for his assertion, but I would imagine that it has to do with the fact that when Paul speaks of the New Jerusalem in Galations, it is obviously not a literal new heavens and new earth, but is rather a way of referring to the Gospel age. Another reason I don't believe that heaven and earth will be completely done away with is because the Bible says that all of creation groans in anticipation of being redeemed. What sort of looked-forward-to redemption is complete annihilation? "that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." -- Romans 8:21
All that is mere sidenote. I'm too tired to read Gill's commentary on chapter 25, so I can't say where he goes from there, but I did see that he begins saying that the kingdom of heaven is the gospel church state.
Gill was one of the most influential Baptist pastors, yet his influence is very obviously not felt so much today. For shame.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
A Simple Question from a Credobaptist
I know that probably half of the few people who read this blog are paedobaptists, and I do not intend any offense for this post. I just have a simple question is all.
R. C. Sproul has a little story that he sometimes relates involving the late Dr. John Gerstner. It goes something like this: Dr. Gerstner is visiting a small country church where he is asked to perform the sacrament of baptism for an infant that day. He says sure, and so they give him a white rose to pin to the baby. He asks what the rose symbolizes. They say that it symbolizes the baby's innocents. Dr. Gerstner then asks, "Oh, I see. Well, what does the water symbolize then?" And then we all laugh at his cutting down of this original sin-denying symbol of the white rose.
But I have a question. Yeah, I say, What does the water symbolize? Does this mean that a baptized infant is now innocent? I direct this question to paedobaptists who reject baptismal regeneration and reject NPism and Federal Visionism. I just don't get it. Baptismal regeneration, though grossly unBiblical, at least has some logic to it. When David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me," can we assume that he could also add "And eight days later when I was circumcised I was no longer in sin"?
Though, as a credobaptist I must think that the New covenant is newer than paedobaptists reckon it, I do agree that baptism is, like circumcision, the sign of entrance into the covenant people. However, I understand the Old Testament Jewish nation to be but a type and shadow to the invisible church of the elect. In the Old Covenant typology, God's elect people was represented by a visible group of people who were visibly set apart from the rest of the world (ie, being their own ethnicity and nation). In the New Testament anti-typology it is a spiritual people that are God's people. His chosen are no longer recognizable by who their ancestors were or where they live. The members of God's covenant are those who are co-heirs with the Seed of Israel, Jesus Christ. There is all this talk of covenant blessings and curses for the children of believers, but that is exactly the same error of the Pharisees who claimed Abraham as their father. But Jesus is the seed to whom all blessings of the covenant go, and these blessings are shared with His children, His co-heirs. These children are not children by birth but children by election to be justified through faith alone. Believers are the true children of God, and therefore the baptism of believers only is the proper anti-type to the typology of OT circumcision.
But if not, then well....What does the water symbolize?
R. C. Sproul has a little story that he sometimes relates involving the late Dr. John Gerstner. It goes something like this: Dr. Gerstner is visiting a small country church where he is asked to perform the sacrament of baptism for an infant that day. He says sure, and so they give him a white rose to pin to the baby. He asks what the rose symbolizes. They say that it symbolizes the baby's innocents. Dr. Gerstner then asks, "Oh, I see. Well, what does the water symbolize then?" And then we all laugh at his cutting down of this original sin-denying symbol of the white rose.
But I have a question. Yeah, I say, What does the water symbolize? Does this mean that a baptized infant is now innocent? I direct this question to paedobaptists who reject baptismal regeneration and reject NPism and Federal Visionism. I just don't get it. Baptismal regeneration, though grossly unBiblical, at least has some logic to it. When David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me," can we assume that he could also add "And eight days later when I was circumcised I was no longer in sin"?
Though, as a credobaptist I must think that the New covenant is newer than paedobaptists reckon it, I do agree that baptism is, like circumcision, the sign of entrance into the covenant people. However, I understand the Old Testament Jewish nation to be but a type and shadow to the invisible church of the elect. In the Old Covenant typology, God's elect people was represented by a visible group of people who were visibly set apart from the rest of the world (ie, being their own ethnicity and nation). In the New Testament anti-typology it is a spiritual people that are God's people. His chosen are no longer recognizable by who their ancestors were or where they live. The members of God's covenant are those who are co-heirs with the Seed of Israel, Jesus Christ. There is all this talk of covenant blessings and curses for the children of believers, but that is exactly the same error of the Pharisees who claimed Abraham as their father. But Jesus is the seed to whom all blessings of the covenant go, and these blessings are shared with His children, His co-heirs. These children are not children by birth but children by election to be justified through faith alone. Believers are the true children of God, and therefore the baptism of believers only is the proper anti-type to the typology of OT circumcision.
But if not, then well....What does the water symbolize?
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Southwest Founders Conference mp3
Alrighty then, if you'd like to hear the mp3s of the Southern Baptist Founders Conference Southwest 2004, here they are.
Rev. Leslie Smith - Prayer Life
Rev. Bob Selph - The Man in Romans 7
Dr. James White - Justification & Sanctification
Rev. Jarrett Downs - Preaching That Sanctifies
Dr. James White - New Perspectives on Paul
Rev. Bob Selph - Q & A
Dr. James White - Suffering & Sanctification
Dr. James White - Knowing God's Will
Rev. Steve Garrick - Responsibility in Sanctification
Rev. Leslie Smith - Prayer Life
Rev. Bob Selph - The Man in Romans 7
Dr. James White - Justification & Sanctification
Rev. Jarrett Downs - Preaching That Sanctifies
Dr. James White - New Perspectives on Paul
Rev. Bob Selph - Q & A
Dr. James White - Suffering & Sanctification
Dr. James White - Knowing God's Will
Rev. Steve Garrick - Responsibility in Sanctification
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
A Baptist Declaration of Faith from History...
My last few posts have been about the Southern Baptist Founders Conference. What be the Founders, you ask? Well, the idea is not that they are trying to introduce doctrines foreign to Baptist theology. Rather, they are attempting to restore doctrines that were present in Baptist theology from the very beginning. Hence, the Founders moniker. They promote the doctrines taught by the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention. The doctrines of the Founders that are mostly missing from Baptist teaching today are the Doctrines of Grace. Aka, Calvinism. Now, for those of you who are certain that Baptists have always rejected the Calvinist doctrine of election, and that people like me are just making all this up, there is a plethora of examples from history to back me up. Today I offer you one. It is a declaration of faith drawn up by Dr. John Gill, who was a predecessor to Charles Spurgeon.
1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith
A Declaration of the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ at Horsely-down,under the Pastoral Care of Mr. John Gill, &c.
Having been enabled, through divine grace, to give up ourselves to the Lord, and likewise to one another by the will of God; we account it a duty incumbent upon us to make a declaration of our faith and practice, to the honour of Christ, and the glory of his name; knowing, that as with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, so with the mouth confession is made unto salvation--our declaration is as follows:
I. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
II. We believe that there is but one only living and true God; that there are three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are equal in nature, power, and glory; and that the Son and the Holy Ghost are as truly and as properly God as the Father.
III. We believe that, before the world began, God did elect a certain number of men unto everlasting salvation, whom he did predestinate to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, of his own free grace, and according to the good pleasure of his will: and that, in pursuance of this gracious design, he did contrive and make a covenant of grace and peace with his Son Jesus Christ, on the behalf of those persons, wherein a Saviour was appointed, and all spiritual blessings provided for them; as also that their persons, with all their grace and glory, were put into the hands of Christ, and made his care and charge.
IV. We believe that God created the first man, Adam, after his own image, and in his likeness; an upright, holy, and innocent creature, capable of serving and glorifying him; but, he sinning, all his posterity sinned in him, and came short of the glory of God: the guilt of whose sin is imputed, and a corrupt nature derived, to all his offspring, descending from him by ordinary and natural generation: that they are by their first birth carnal and unclean, averse to all that is good, uncapable of doing any and prone to every sin; and are also by nature children of wrath, and under a sentence of condemnation, and so are subject not only to a corporal death, and involved in a moral one, commonly called spiritual, but are also liable to an eternal death, as considered in the first Adam, fallen and sinners; from all which there is no deliverance but by Christ, the second Adam.
V. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, being set up from everlasting as the Mediator of the new covenant, and he, having engaged to be the surety of his people, did, in the fulness of time, really assume human nature, and not before, neither in whole nor in part; his human soul, being a creature, existed not from eternity, but was created and formed in his body by him that forms the spirit of man within him, when that was conceived in the womb of the virgin; and so his human nature consists of a true body and a reasonable soul; both which, together, and at once, the Son of God assumed into union with his divine Person, when made of a woman, and not before; in which nature he really suffered and died as their substitute, in their room and stead, whereby he made all that satisfaction for their sins, which the law and justice of God could require, as well as made way for all those blessings, which are needful for them both for time and eternity.
VI. We believe that that eternal redemption which Christ has obtained, by the shedding of his blood, is special and particular, that is to say, that it was only intentionally designed for the elect of God, and sheep of Christ, who only share the special and peculiar blessings of it.
VII. We believe that the justification of God's elect is only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, without the consideration of any works of righteousness done by them; and that the full and free pardon of all their sins and transgressions, past, present, and to come, is only through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of his grace.
VIII. We believe that the work of regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and faith, is not an act of man's free will and power, but of the mighty, efficacious, and irresistible grace of God.
IX. We believe that all those who are chosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and sanctified by the Spirit, shall certainly and finally persevere, so that not one of them shall ever perish, but shall have everlasting life.
X. We believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; and that Christ will come a second time to judge both quick and dead, when he will take vengeance on the wicked, and introduce his own people into his kingdom and glory, where they shall be for ever with him.
XI. We believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of Christ, to be continued until his second coming; and that the former is absolutely requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those only are to be admitted into the communion of the church, and to participate of all ordinances in it, who upon profession of their faith, have been baptized by immersion, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
XII. We also believe that singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, vocally, is an ordinance of the Gospel to be performed by believers; but that as to time, place, and manner, every one ought to be left to their liberty in using it.
Now all, and each of these doctrines and ordinances, we look upon ourselves under the greatest obligations to embrace, maintain, and defend; believing it to be our duty to stand fast, in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.
And whereas we are very sensible, that our conversation, both in the world and in the church, ought to be as becometh the Gospel of Christ, we judge it our incumbent duty to walk in wisdom towards them that are without, to exercise a conscience void of offence towards God and men, by living soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.
And as to our regards to each other, in our church-communion, we esteem it our duty to walk with each other in all humility and brotherly love: to watch over each other's conversation; to stir up one another to love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as we have opportunity, to worship God according to his revealed will; and, when the case requires, to warn, rebuke, and admonish one another, according to the rules of the Gospel.
Moreover, we think ourselves obliged to sympathize with each other, in all conditions, both inward and outward, which God, in his providence, may bring us into; as also to bear with one another's weaknesses, failings, and infirmities, and particularly to pray for one another, and that the Gospel and the ordinances thereof might be blessed to the edification and comfort of each other's souls, and for the gathering in of others to Christ, besides those who are already gathered--all which duties we desire to be found in the performance of, through the gracious assistance of the Holy Spirit, whilst we both admire and adore the grace which has given us a place and a name in God's house, better than that of sons and daughters.
1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith
A Declaration of the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ at Horsely-down,under the Pastoral Care of Mr. John Gill, &c.
Having been enabled, through divine grace, to give up ourselves to the Lord, and likewise to one another by the will of God; we account it a duty incumbent upon us to make a declaration of our faith and practice, to the honour of Christ, and the glory of his name; knowing, that as with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, so with the mouth confession is made unto salvation--our declaration is as follows:
I. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.
II. We believe that there is but one only living and true God; that there are three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are equal in nature, power, and glory; and that the Son and the Holy Ghost are as truly and as properly God as the Father.
III. We believe that, before the world began, God did elect a certain number of men unto everlasting salvation, whom he did predestinate to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, of his own free grace, and according to the good pleasure of his will: and that, in pursuance of this gracious design, he did contrive and make a covenant of grace and peace with his Son Jesus Christ, on the behalf of those persons, wherein a Saviour was appointed, and all spiritual blessings provided for them; as also that their persons, with all their grace and glory, were put into the hands of Christ, and made his care and charge.
IV. We believe that God created the first man, Adam, after his own image, and in his likeness; an upright, holy, and innocent creature, capable of serving and glorifying him; but, he sinning, all his posterity sinned in him, and came short of the glory of God: the guilt of whose sin is imputed, and a corrupt nature derived, to all his offspring, descending from him by ordinary and natural generation: that they are by their first birth carnal and unclean, averse to all that is good, uncapable of doing any and prone to every sin; and are also by nature children of wrath, and under a sentence of condemnation, and so are subject not only to a corporal death, and involved in a moral one, commonly called spiritual, but are also liable to an eternal death, as considered in the first Adam, fallen and sinners; from all which there is no deliverance but by Christ, the second Adam.
V. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, being set up from everlasting as the Mediator of the new covenant, and he, having engaged to be the surety of his people, did, in the fulness of time, really assume human nature, and not before, neither in whole nor in part; his human soul, being a creature, existed not from eternity, but was created and formed in his body by him that forms the spirit of man within him, when that was conceived in the womb of the virgin; and so his human nature consists of a true body and a reasonable soul; both which, together, and at once, the Son of God assumed into union with his divine Person, when made of a woman, and not before; in which nature he really suffered and died as their substitute, in their room and stead, whereby he made all that satisfaction for their sins, which the law and justice of God could require, as well as made way for all those blessings, which are needful for them both for time and eternity.
VI. We believe that that eternal redemption which Christ has obtained, by the shedding of his blood, is special and particular, that is to say, that it was only intentionally designed for the elect of God, and sheep of Christ, who only share the special and peculiar blessings of it.
VII. We believe that the justification of God's elect is only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, without the consideration of any works of righteousness done by them; and that the full and free pardon of all their sins and transgressions, past, present, and to come, is only through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of his grace.
VIII. We believe that the work of regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and faith, is not an act of man's free will and power, but of the mighty, efficacious, and irresistible grace of God.
IX. We believe that all those who are chosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and sanctified by the Spirit, shall certainly and finally persevere, so that not one of them shall ever perish, but shall have everlasting life.
X. We believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; and that Christ will come a second time to judge both quick and dead, when he will take vengeance on the wicked, and introduce his own people into his kingdom and glory, where they shall be for ever with him.
XI. We believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of Christ, to be continued until his second coming; and that the former is absolutely requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those only are to be admitted into the communion of the church, and to participate of all ordinances in it, who upon profession of their faith, have been baptized by immersion, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
XII. We also believe that singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, vocally, is an ordinance of the Gospel to be performed by believers; but that as to time, place, and manner, every one ought to be left to their liberty in using it.
Now all, and each of these doctrines and ordinances, we look upon ourselves under the greatest obligations to embrace, maintain, and defend; believing it to be our duty to stand fast, in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.
And whereas we are very sensible, that our conversation, both in the world and in the church, ought to be as becometh the Gospel of Christ, we judge it our incumbent duty to walk in wisdom towards them that are without, to exercise a conscience void of offence towards God and men, by living soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.
And as to our regards to each other, in our church-communion, we esteem it our duty to walk with each other in all humility and brotherly love: to watch over each other's conversation; to stir up one another to love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as we have opportunity, to worship God according to his revealed will; and, when the case requires, to warn, rebuke, and admonish one another, according to the rules of the Gospel.
Moreover, we think ourselves obliged to sympathize with each other, in all conditions, both inward and outward, which God, in his providence, may bring us into; as also to bear with one another's weaknesses, failings, and infirmities, and particularly to pray for one another, and that the Gospel and the ordinances thereof might be blessed to the edification and comfort of each other's souls, and for the gathering in of others to Christ, besides those who are already gathered--all which duties we desire to be found in the performance of, through the gracious assistance of the Holy Spirit, whilst we both admire and adore the grace which has given us a place and a name in God's house, better than that of sons and daughters.
Monday, September 27, 2004
James White Messages Available
On Sunday, September 26, 2004, Dr. James White delivered two messages at Heritage Baptist Church, which happens to be the church I attend. If you would like to hear these great messages, well, now you can.
Unity Through Humility (Phil. 2:1-11) http://65.71.233.194/mp3_hbc/040905am.mp3
Mormonism http://65.71.233.194/mp3_hbc/040926pm.mp3
Unity Through Humility (Phil. 2:1-11) http://65.71.233.194/mp3_hbc/040905am.mp3
Mormonism http://65.71.233.194/mp3_hbc/040926pm.mp3
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Southern Baptist Founders Conference SW 2004 - Days 2, 3, and following
Well, I ended spending most of the night after Day 1 nursing a headache, and then the rest of Day 2 as well, so I didn't go. Arg! So I can't report on the busiest day of the conference. But it will be online soon so we can all hear the speachings. Still, it's not the same as physical fellowship. But I did go on Day 3, and it was good. It started off with Dr. James White speaking on "Knowing God's Will." It was excellent, of course. This was followed by Pastor Steve Garrick filling in for an absent Fred Malone. He spoke on "Responsibility in Sanctification." Also excellent. That marked the end of the conference, but Dr. White stuck around to preach on Sunday. His sermon was on Philippians 2:1-11. I guess the main theme was on our duty to be humble with Christ as our example. However, a lot of time was spent on Christ's deity and the difference between the orthodox Christian view of this passage and the heretical views of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Arians. The outcome is that the Arian view of Christ's humiliation isn't really humility at all. A mere creature does not grasp for godhood? Well, the only creature who has done that is Satan, so that makes Jesus as humble as...everybody else except Satan. Then Dr. White taught the afternoon service. He spoke on Mormonism, and wow did I not want him to stop. He helped to explain the communication problem that exists between Christians and Mormons--how they will use the same terminology as Christians, but mean entirely different things. And we learned, among other things, that Mormons wrote Battlestar Galactica. And that show pretty much explains their beliefs. Not as a clever metaphor, but literally. Pray that the Lord gives sight to these blind people and removes the hardness of their hearts. We too were once blind and hardened and showed no more righteousness or intelligence than they, yet God had mercy on us and graciously changed our hearts. If God is able to do that with me, then He can do that to the most die-hard Mormon. Let us pray that His will be done.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Southern Baptist Founders Conference SW 2004 - Day 1
I'm reporting to you here from Arlington, TX where I have just returned from neighboring Mansfield. Mansfield is home of Heritage Baptist Church, and Heritage Baptist Church is home of the Southern Baptist Founders Conference SW 2004. I showed up in plenty of time, got a nifty name badge that states my name, church, and city of residence, and then I walked around a bit looking at other name tags. Then things start sounding a little musical so I went to the auditorium and sat down. Ken Puls from Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, FL came to lead the music. The first speaker for the day was Rev. Leslie Smith, an elderly man from the United Kingdom. He gave an excellent sermon on prayer and its importance in our lives. Next was Rev. Bob Selph from Carlisle, PA, coordinator of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. He spoke on "The Man in Romans 7." Pastor Larry Vincent of Heritage said that it was the clearest expounding of Romans 7 that he had ever heard. Then we break for dinner. It was during this time that I got to meet Dr. James White. I hope I didn't gush at him too much. I'm a huge fanboy. It's quite embarrassing, really. Then after dinner I met a fellow chatter from Dr. White's chat room who goes by the nickname of Shamgar. He looks like Ed from Radiohead! Then we all sat down to hear a marvelously wonderful discussion on Justification and Sanctification by Dr. White. Again I quote Pastor Larry, when after it was over said that he doesn't believe in clapping in church but this time he was really tempted. So good is Dr. White at getting at the heart of things and letting you know what is really important! And then the day was over. Stay tuned for Day 2!
Some links pertaining to this article:
http://www.aomin.org James White's webpage.
http://www.reformedbaptist.org Heritage Baptist Church's webpage
http://www.founders.org Southern Baptist Founders webpage
Some links pertaining to this article:
http://www.aomin.org James White's webpage.
http://www.reformedbaptist.org Heritage Baptist Church's webpage
http://www.founders.org Southern Baptist Founders webpage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)