Let me begin by inviting members to visit our Articles Page at http://withchrist.org/articles.htm

We have numerous papers which address the issues of sovereignty, predestination, free will, etc. We also have our own 'hall of fame/shame' entitled Where They Stand, and Fall at http://withchrist.org/slavetosin.htm

In contrast to Bob Hill, et.al., we stand firmly against ALL forms of Christian humanism.

We look forward to a lively discussion.

Branch,

Why don't you discuss what you believe? I could care less what your cut and paste articles say at your site. Those ideas are not new, and have been rebutted here many times.

What do you believe? I hope you aren't one of the branches that's described in John 15. What? John 15 shows loss of salvation? I thought your calvinistic god preserved believers.

JEREMY:

Such an immediate hostile attitude toward outsiders does not speak well of you and yours, and appears to betray 1) the 'rules' set forth in the website intro which suggest that participants should be both "the student and the professor," as well as 2) the standards set forth for in Scripture--e.g., 2 Tim.2:24,25.

I'm very willing to discuss what I believe, but one of the ground rules for this forum is that comments be limited to "three short paragraphs." I'm sure neither of us can explain our beliefs within those limitations. Thus, I hope you'll grant liberty to others to reference documents on the WWW, especially since theologyOnline contains its own set of printed monologues by Hill, Enyart, etc. Seems only fair.

As for your rude and biting remark about "cut and paste" articles, should I interpret that to mean you're not interested in anything others have to say, or that you resent that fact that I include quotations from others Christian brothers in my articles?

During my 30 year walk with the Lord, I have met numerous saints far more intelligent and articulate than myself and the Holy Spirit has wonderfully used them to teach me. I have no ego needs to be 100% original with what I believe, nor do I believe the truth began with me.

As for John 15, my testimony is verse 16--my salvation is secure. Yes, some of the thoughts in John 15 parallel Paul's exposition on the subject of election found in Romans 11:17-21.

TrueBranch, this is a discussion forum, not an advertisement for another web site. Please engage in discussion here.

TrueBranch:

Does God have free will? If He does, then it stands to reason that He can and does change. Would you agree?

Also, if God sees into the future, then He not only sees the choices man will make, but also everything that He Himself will do. In this case, did God predestine Himself to act in certain ways within history? If so, would this be part of the "unchanging" nature of God as described by Calvinism?

Curious:

Q. Does God have 'free will'?

A. If by free will you mean 100% autonomy, then in the words of the Apostle Paul the answer would be--BY NO MEANS. Neither the Creator nor the creature (angelic, human, or ?) possesses absolute autonomy. Further, the level of volitional existence of all created beings is a derivative (less than) God's self-determination. The concept of absolute autonomy is Satan's lie and deception--the leaven of both secular and religious humanism.

God possesses the highest level of self-determination; He cannot act contrary to His character/nature - which by definition is the essence of SIN. In this regards, He is immutable.

For example, the Scriptures teach us that God cannot lie. “True liberty rests in the ability to do good; whereas he that does sin is the slave of sin. If true liberty rests in the ability to do good in God’s sight, then the highest liberty rests in the inability to do otherwise.” In this sense, He cannot change. God's essence / character is impeccable--i.e. not subject to change.

Keep in mind though, His unchangeable nature doesn't mandate volitional singularity. He can exercise choice. Both He and mankind are "active participants" in the drama of redemption. As a lost sinner in bondage to sin, I still had choice. I could make a number of different choices; however, all these shared a common essence--all were contrary to God's will.

If one refuses to give up the myth of autonomy, soon one is led to create a God in one's own image, so as to explain away the multitude of references to the sovereignty of God in Scripture. The mythical attribute (free will) is transferred from man to God. The philosophical and theological doors are then opened to allow the Creator to act contrary to His own nature. The God of the Universe becomes mutable. But, the mystery of corruption which occurred with Lucifer (his fall) and the secondary corruption which occurred with the first Adam (his fall) is NOT something which can 'backwash' into or 'infect' the Creator. To suggest such is both heretical, cultic, and the fulfillment of 1 Tim. 1:4, in my opinion.

To introduce even the smallest element of uncertainty in an effort to explain what appears to be God "changing his mind" is the work of a finite, humanistic mind. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the distinction between volition and so-called "free will" be clearly understood.

For a more comprehensive explanation of this distinction, see http://withchrist.org/freewill.htm

Outstanding answer TrueBranch! I believe that humans always choose according to their strongest inclination, it is impossible for it to be otherwise. Prior to the regenerating work of the Spirit, the human (who is by nature in the flesh) always chooses, but always chooses sin. (John 6:63 NASB) ""It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." The flesh profits NOTHING, as Luther maintained, that is not a little something. When asked, doesn't the human contribute something to his salvation?" he answered, "yes, his sin." Simply to Thy cross I cling, nothing in my hands I bring. Becasue of this innate sinful condition, we have lost liberty to not sin, but, we are still free. We, in our freedom, always choose sin. (Rom 3:11 NASB) "THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;" TrueBranch, there are some people on this forum that I have come to deeply respect, there is no doubt that they are sincerely serving God and are faithful to His Word. And I think that a few of them can even say the same of me. And just as they are convinced that the idea of an immutable God is disastrous to anyone who holds to that view, so too, it seems we (along with Tencor and others) feel equally as strongly that the mutable concept is disastrous as well. I think your phrase “If one refuses to give up the myth of autonomy, soon one is led to create a God in one's own image” is what I have been saying here for quite some time. I have heard it said like this “God created man in the image of God, and ever since that time, man has been trying to return the favor.” Of course those here at this forum do not think they are doing this at all, and say it is we who do violence to the text of Scripture. It is not as cut and dried as I had earlier thought, but I am as convinced as ever of the error. I commend you for being here, in a volatile and sometimes caustic environment.

I will always stand on the side of self-determination in at least the minor aspects of life. I believe that each of us has a job that must be accomplished before we die, but all the gaps in between are our time, our choices on what to do, even getting ourselves killed before our duty is done.

If we make no choices for ourselves, if we only do as God wills from when we come into the world until we leave it, then we are little more than puppets. IF THIS IS SO, what is the point of our creation? To serve God and do His work? If He is all powerful as many believe than why would He use puppets to do His work? The very idea of complete predestinations would seem to be contrary to the idea of an all powerful God.

True Branch, et al,

If in our sinful nature we do not have free will, and must wait upon God to do our thinking and choosing for us, what makes us any different from the angels? Why should God treat us better than the angels, since our sin would seem to be equal to that of fallen angels, namely, deliberate opposition to God?

In Luke 11:11-13 Jesus says:

Now if Jesus is saying that we know good from bad, while still being evil, why shouldn't we be able to understand the good of the gospel vs the evil of sinfulness? And knowing good from bad, why couldn't we seek good by seeking the gospel? And once being introduced to it, believe?

It seems to me that we can desire the good of the gospel, and God will bring it to us as a reaction to our 'action' of the will.

Ed E.

EDWARD:

Sorry, but your introductory statement/question seems rather absurb to me--at least for an evangelical Christian forum. Are you a born-again, new-creation Christian?

Both Jewish and Christian theism maintain a "Creator/creature" paradigm. In contrast to Eastern pantheism, Christianity maintains that the Creator and creature are always separate beings, although through redemption the creature comes to share both the "mind" and "will" of the Creator. (Romans 12:2)

Your statement "must wait upon God to do our thinking and choosing for us" seems bizarre. However, I am familiar with the fact that some Christians sadly suffer from severe misunderstandings regarding the nature of redemption.

Christian writer Norman Douty can shed light on this: "When we say that Christ's life has come into us to displace ours, what do we mean? We do not mean that this life of the Lord Jesus has come in to displace our personality as such. I mean the poison which permeates our personality, the poison of SIN which has degraded and defiled and distorted our humanity.

It is not that this NEW LIFE of the Lord Jesus comes in to take the place of our personality, to take the place of our faculties [intellect, emotions, volition] created by God, but He comes in to take the place of the sinful life [inherited from the first Adam-Genesis 5:3] which is operating in our personality and employing our faculties. The vessel [body and soul] is the same, but the contents are different--the same vessel, the same person, the same faculties, but the contents different. No longer this sinful element, but the very holy nature of the Lord Jesus Christ filling, interpenetrating, permeating.

Our Father is not seeking to abolish us as human beings [contra pantheism] and have the Lord Jesus replace us. He is seeking to restore us as human personalities so that we may be the vehicle through which Christ will express Himself. Therefore you find that whenever God gets hold of a man [or woman], instead of abolishing the personality, He makes it what he intended us to be.

Redemption is the recovery of the man, not the destruction of the man. And when the Lord Jesus in us is brought to the place He is aiming for, there will not be an atom [figurative speaking] of the old life [which flows from the first Adam] left, but the MAN will be left--glorified in union with the Lord Jesus Christ.

As for the remainder of your question, it would appear that you are both objectively and subjectively uninformed regarding the tragedy of the Fall and its consequences.

Let me recommend you schedule time to seriously read the article OUR HISTORY IN THE FIRST ADAM -- http://withchrist.org/our1.htm

KENNY:

Thanks for your comments. You made one statement at the beginning that I'd like to focus on--for the sake of clarity.

You wrote, "Prior to the regenerating work of the Spirit, the human (who is by nature in the flesh) always chooses, but always chooses sin. (John 6:63 NASB)"

I would like to suggest that there exists exceptions to this rule without undermining the truth of biblical depravity. While I could point to several examples in the Word, I'll use just one -- John 6:44. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

I believe it's very important to see that God CAN and DOES supernaturally control [efficaciously call] UNREGENERATE sinners. While one needs to avoid ALL forms of Christian humanism, it's also important to be aware of the subtle Calvinistic error of having to posit regeneration prior to the new birth.

For a detailed discussion of this matter, see http://withchrist.org/sovereignty.htm

TrueBranch, you finally did it, I thought you were perfect in your theological ideas (like me), now you have disappointed me. You said “Calvinistic error”, know first that this is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a “Calvinistic error”, subtle or otherwise. (OK, enough sarcasm!! LOL!)

Brother Kenny!

Good spirit. It’s important to LOL as our blessed Lord Jesus Christ appreciates it also.

First, let’s inform others who may be listening that your text references are to the article and webservant comments located at http://withchrist.org/sovereignty.htm Second, I must confess that I’m having a hard time following your logic; so grant this middle-aged man some mental elbow room.

My point in the introduction is that those of pure Calvinist persuasion overstate their case regarding “spiritual death.” This is the negative residual of having spent too much time in the boxing ring with the errors of Catholicism. See my http://withchrist.org/covtheo.htm

Love ya brother! But, listen to your own words,

Regenerated in order to be regenerated? Circular logic?

My Father supernaturally enabled me (John 6:44, not to be confused with regeneration) to believe the Word in order to exercise faith and embrace the Savior. THEN comes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Our immediate difficulty has to do in how we define “regeneration.” The Calvinist EMPHASIS (not truth) cuts across the grain of Scripture. Election is by sovereign grace. God’s effectual calling (John 6:44) is by sovereign grace. Neither should be made equivalent with “regeneration” as has been the case for hyper-Calvinist and Calvinist, respectively.

You write, “You seem here to mainly object to the oft’ quoted quip “regeneration precedes faith”. Yes. Because of where and what it leads to. Even the Calvinist stalwart Phil Johnson (John MacArthur’s webmeister) is dumbfounded why his soul-brothers tend to slide into varieties of hyper-Calvinism. I don’t claim to fully understand the dynamic myself, but I’m working on it.

Blessings to you and yours

Brother Ed!

Good job. You ask some excellent questions. Now let’s see if I can equally craft some good answers.

It was the Evil One who originally exploited the first couple’s vulnerability by raising the issue of THEIR self-worth and God’s character. Ever since, one of Satan’s most effective attacks is to ridicule and characterize God’s plan for the creature as being a mere “puppet.” [A recent variation--the movie The Truman Show with Jim Carrey.] Mr. Deceit loves to paint the issue in extremes—either absolute autonomy or puppets, with no middle ground. As for this saint, I am more than content to bend a knee and be a sheep of His pasture.

Yes, Scripture is clear that lost sinners can have a sense of good and evil (conscience) and also a sense of the Creator’s existence, based on what general revelation He has provided. This is established in Romans 1. However, because of the Fall we do not “seek good” nor God. (Romans 3:11). Rather, Scripture reveals that we typically abuse conscience (1 Tim. 4:2), suppress the truth of general revelation (Romans 1:18), and maintain hostility toward the things of God (Romans 8:7).

Failure to grasp (or be grasped) by these truths reflects one’s lack of both objective and subjective knowledge regarding SIN and SINS—the quintessential foundation for true spiritual growth.

You ask, “…can you explain how being in agreement with your theological beliefs will make me a better Christian? Or why I'm worse off in disagreement?”

Let me quote briefly from brother, Miles J. Stanford. “We cannot become what we already are in the Lord Jesus, until we learn what we are in ourselves, and know where we are in Him.” First, my goal is that you understand and be in agreement with the Apostle Paul and his teaching (Romans 6:17). My burden for you and every other brother or sister, is freedom from SIN and fellowship with the Father and Son. (Romans 6:18, 1 John 1:3).

And having said that, I’ve answered your final question—about the sad condition of our dear Calvinist brothers. Similar to the Jew (Romans 10:2), their passion for the law as a “rule of life” produces the “pretty cold stream” you mentioned, as well as severe bondage to sin. Their gallant effort to ensure that sin does not gain “mastery” over them (Romans 6:14) in time yields the pain of hypocrisy and offensive self-righteousness.

As an ex-Catholic myself, I won’t touch your misguided comment regarding the lost Romanist—MT.

Now we’ve come to what so many of my dear friends anxiously wait for….my external reference. Please take a look at the article ARMINIUS, to CALVIN, to PAUL at http://withchrist.org/armcalpaul.htm

True Branch,

If it is true that free will is a myth, where does that leave the sinner? We could not be held guilty for any sins that God predestined us to commit, because ultimate culpability for those sins would rest on God, who predestined the sins in the first place.

PAUL:

The lost sinner is wonderfully left in need of GRACE and MERCY! Matthew 9:12,13. One cannot understand either until you've been brought off the ground of thinking you can do something to earn or merit your own salvation. Lewis Sperry Chafer once remarked:

While both God and man possess volition (power of choice), either God is sovereign, or man is sovereign; there's no middle ground on the issue of sovereignty.

Further, the Scriptures never speak of God's predestination of us to sin, so we would do best to avoid such conclusions. This area involves mysteries which theologians have wrestled with for centuries--i.e., the problem of evil and God's culpability for allowing it. I've read several discussions which adequately satisfies me.

Luther's work THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL does a good job establishing the truth of accountability together with slavery to sin. As an ex-Catholic, you should appreciate it. I also found Dr. John F. Feinberg's work entitled GOD ORDAINS ALL THINGS very helpful.

I'm not sure where you found a basis for your last sentence. Please point out were I made that statement. Thanks.

Branch,

Food for thought: 11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Ezekiel 33: 11.

In another parable the teaching starts by focusing in on the younger of the two sons of the father, who asked for and received his share of the estate. Soon afterward, he departed from the father's presence for a distant country of "wild living" (v.13). There he squandered his wealth with prostitutes (v.30). After he spent everything he had there was a severe famine in that country, during which time he personally longed to eat the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything! He then came to his senses, returned to the father repentfully and found complete forgiveness and restoration. Beyond this, the father with no hesitation initiated the "kill the fattened calf" celebration for his homecoming.

Dear Truebranch;
You said___ “My point in the introduction is that those of pure Calvinist persuasion overstate their case regarding “spiritual death.””___ My point was that you have overstated your cause in reference to: ___ “In spite of many examples from both Old and New Testaments of God controlling the actions of unregenerates, the Reformed require an "initial infusion of the resurrection life of Christ into the human soul”___ The Reformed do not deny the many examples from both Testaments of God controlling the actions of unregenerate persons. The infusion of righteousness that the Reformed say is necessary for salvation has nothing to do with your accusation that the Reformed somehow ignore the many OT references to God’s sovereign control over “unregenerates”. I am aware of the your disagreement with the theological issue, I was not particularly responding to that at this point.

You said ___ “ This is the negative residual of having spent too much time in the boxing ring with the errors of Catholicism. See my http://withchrist.org/covtheo.htm.
Love ya brother! But, listen to your own words, “They [Calvinists] just believe that in order to be regenerated, you must be regenerated by the Lord Himself in order to posses __saving__ faith, because of the pervasive nature of the Fall, and verses like (Rom. 8:7 NNAS)” Regenerated in order to be regenerated????? What happen to logic?”
Can you tell me what is inherently illogical or non-logical regarding the point that if a person is to be regenerated, they are regenerated by God? Once a person is regenerated, why, err…, they are regenerated. I do not see what is so illogical about that statement. I mean, you of course may disagree, and adhere to some form of synergism in regeneration. That’s fine, I had no doubts before I ever posted that you would disagree, but the fact that you disagree with the statement is far from being the same thing as saying or proving that it is illogical.

You mention Phil Johnson. I have corresponded with him numerous times on the Reformed list, so your statement regarding him surprises me. Can you point me to a specific article where he clearly disavows “regeneration precedes faith” concept? In his article on hyper-Calvinism he says “The effectual call, sometimes known as the internal call, is the regenerating work of God in the hearts of His elect, whereby He draws them to Christ and opens their hearts unto faith. This call is for the elect alone and is issued by God alone.” (http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm) Where hyper Calvinism denies the general call, classic Calvinism maintains both. I could be confusing things (believe me, this has happened before!), but when I think of regeneration preceding faith, I think about it in much the same way as Phil lays it out in the quote above. The effectual call is what regenerates, it is God from start to finish in the salvation event, enabling the person to profess faith. But, it is not their decision or expression of faith that saves them. This is decisional regeneration, even if it is cooperationg with God's grace in some way, like Rome believes. The saved persons expression of faith is the result of the work already done in the heart by God, the regenerating work of the Spirit.

Of course you disagree by stating ___ “My Father supernaturally enabled me to believe the Word in order to exercise faith and embrace the Savior. THEN comes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.”___ But this only restates your objection. It does not help me to know why you object. You maintain that election is by sovereign grace, and effectual calling is by sovereign grace, but decline to agree with the idea that the Holy Spirit comes first in the logical ordo salutis. (John 1:12-13 NASB) "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, {13} who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (James 1:18 NASB) "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we might be, as it were, the first fruits among His creatures." As Boice notes: “In the final pattern we have: God’s foreknowledge, predestination, then his effectual call of us, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, sanctification and glorification.” (Foundations of the Christian Faith, Vol. III, Awakening to God, p52)

KENNY:

Your response is somewhat disheartening since it would appear that either you or I or both of us are not listening carefully to what's being said. True, the distinctions may be very subtle.

I never said the Reformed deny the many examples from both Testaments of God controlling the actions of unregenerates. What I did say was "In spite of many examples from both Old and New Testaments of God controlling the actions of unregenerates, the Reformed require an 'initial infusion of the resurrection life of Christ into the human soul' for John 6:44 to be effective." Because of their definition of "spiritual death," the Reformed typically use the term "regeneration" for any and every supernatural event in which God influences or controls the actions of the lost. I believe the Reformed approach is inadequate and leads to problems.

Please keep in mind that there is wide diversity amongst those who are theological determinists, as well as amongst those who are theological indeterminists. Try to avoid the reactionary position that sees those who differ in a monochromatic light. I realize you're sceptical about how I can believe in sovereign grace, election, and reject "free will" and not be Reformed. Trust me, there are many of us.

Regarding YOUR statement on regeneration, you are correct. "Illogical" was the wrong choice of adjective on my part. What I should have said was "circular logic." How? Your statement posits "regeneration" as both the cause and the effect. Logically, it can't be both, unless like many Reformed you're using the term "regeneration" to 1) describe the new birth, and 2) describe any point in Boice's soteriological "pattern" which you cite above.

Again, you write, "Can you point me to a specific article where he [Phil Johnson] clearly disavows “regeneration precedes faith” concept?"

I never said or intimated such. PJ is currently a staunch Reformed Baptist who's suspicion regarding 'all things Calvinistic' is evolving. His 1998 article A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism is the result of having spent time in Reformed circles. He may make several more discoveries in the years to come--particularly regarding his absurd Gerstner-like rantings about so-called antinomianism.

In the introduction to the article by PJ which you reference, he states, "Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences." My point is (was), Phil doesn't explain in his article why this "hyper-Calvinistic tendency" phenomena occurs. If Calvinists knew, I would think they would have taken steps to mitigate it long ago.

PJ correctly says, "Hyper-Calvinism is sometimes defined as the view that God will save the elect apart from any means." How and why do Calvinists loose or de-emphasize the means aspect of salvation? Why do Calvinist succumb to what PJ calls hyper-Calvinistic tendency? My theory is that there's a side-effect from making the effectual call theologically synonymous with the new birth, as I've repeatedly said.

What do I believe and how do I label myself? I am a sovereign grace dispensationalist. Salvation from eternity to eternity is:

God’s foreknowledge/predestination/election, effectual call, repentence/faith, new birth. The new birth has two dimensions (position and condition) and three parts (justification, sanctification, glorification).

Pursuant to the Apostle Paul's teaching, salvation is "by grace through faith".

Not, by faith alone; nor by faith plus works
Not, by grace alone; nor by grace plus works
Not, by faith through grace
Not, through grace by faith

Grace, mercy, and election are the cause. Eph.1:3-6; Rom.3:24; Eph.2:8,8; Rom.10:16, etc.

Faith, hearing, and calling on the Lord are the means. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.10:17; Rom.10:13, etc.

This morning I read again Acts 9 and the description of the experience of Saul of Tarsus.

I find it odd and ironic that the sponsers and supporters of theologyOnline use this chapter to designate themselves [Acts 9 dispensationalists] while denying the Scriptural truths of election, sovereign grace, and bondage of the will.

Acts 9:1 -- demonstrates Saul's Adamic enmity against God and the things of God.

Act 9:3-6 -- doesn't provide Saul with any "free-will" choice. How is it that the Risen Lord Jesus Christ didn't offer Saul an option to choose to do otherwise and continue "breathing threats and murder." How come no 'alter-call' so Saul can decide to follow Jesus?

Acts 9:10-16 -- The Lord Jesus supernaturally recruits another participant, Ananias, and discusses Saul's election with him. All the while, Saul appears to have little say in the matter. Later the Apostle Paul would reflect on God's individual antecedent actions.

Acts 9:1-19 -- Saul, Ananias, and the Risen Lord Jesus Christ are all active participants in the drama of this redemption. All have volition (will), but the text clearly shows that One will is more "free" than the two others.

You said ___ “Because of their definition of "spiritual death," the Reformed typically use the term "regeneration" for any and every supernatural event in which God influences or controls the actions of the lost. I believe the Reformed approach is inadequate and leads to problems.” ___
I have never seen this before. Would you mind providing me with some resources, or even better, exact quotes where this is plainly spelled out by a well known Reformed writer? Regeneration, as I have understood the Reformed position, is referring to salvation, and not to ANY and EVERY “supernatural event in which God influences or controls the actions of the lost.” I believe, as a person who considers himself a Reformed Baptist, that the idea in which God influences or controls the actions of the lost, supernaturally or otherwise, is called “sovereignty”, and not “regeneration”.

BTW, I do not think I am being reactionary to you at all, or “monochromatic”. I have read persons who would be classified as indeterminists (Pinnock, Rice, Reichenbach) and across the spectrum of determinists (Edwards, Sproul, Gerstner, Buswell, Reymond, Erickson, Geisler, Feinberg, Helm; that’s where I spend most of my time!) so my reaction to you was not based on you daring to be different than myself, and still trying to adhere to some form of sovereignty in election etc. It was more of what I perceived to be an inaccurate characterization of what Reformed persons believed regarding God’s sovereignty over all, regenerated or otherwise. Perhaps this is just my misunderstanding, or perhaps what you are saying in that passage is not clearly worded. At the very least you could submit it to other Reformed persons for their critique and if they misunderstand as I have done, perhaps the wording could be changed so as to be sure and do justice to your opponents position. If they instantly grasp what it is you are saying they are guilty of, then it is just me being dense.

Having gone to a Dispensational\Calvinistic school, I know very well that there are “a great many of you.” There are former professors I still keep in contact with who are “Calvinistic” and not Reformed at Grace College and Seminary, and several Profs are there as transplants from Dallas Seminary, of course another Disp\Calvinistic school. Do you feel as if these two schools teach what you believe regarding soteriology, or is there a Seminary where what you believe is taught? You approvingly quoted Chafer, is that your influence…Walvoord, Zuck, Thomas, …Dallas?

Among Reformed theologians there has been a difference about the relation of calling to regeneration. No theological issue is at stake in this question. Both are the act of God alone. Hoeksema argues for the priority of regeneration, on the basis that regeneration takes place in the subconscious whereas calling is addressed to the conscious. He thus concludes that logically regeneration must precede effectual calling . Murray, on the other hand, argues for the priority of calling. He points to the relation of calling to the predestinating purpose of God. Calling is presented in these passages as that by which the eternal purpose of God comes to effect in the sphere of application. Along with this, calling is specifically the work of God the Father, which suggests the priority.
Since God the Father’s love is the ultimate foundation of the whole process of salvation, and since it is by the Father’s action that Christ was given to accomplish redemption, we would expect that that element in the application of redemption which is specifically the action of God the Father would be first. In other words, since the whole initiative of salvation resides with God the Father, we would expect that the inception of application would begin with that action which is specifically and pre–eminently his.
Accepting the priority of calling, we have the following order thus far: calling, regeneration, faith, justification, glorification.

I thank you for your later discussion regarding means. This does help me see a little better where it is you are coming from, and trying to avoid. I have subscribed in the past to a list (Primitive Baptist) that strongly rejected the use of any means. But, that is very different from what I would believe. These (I can only say Hyper Calvinists) reject the gospel call and evangelism itself. I, and many other Reformed persons, do not go that route. Does that mean that we are not Reformed, or does that mean that you could be viewing the Reformed through a monochromatic lens? There are means to be sure. The means are used of God, but the effectual call coming as a result of the proclaimed Gospel is the Holy Spirit awakening and saving a dead sinner. As Reymond notes, reflecting on Murray; “…. Salvation is not `one simple and divisible act’ but rather comprises a `series of acts and processes’.” Repentance and faith are independent graces, faith is a response to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Here is Reymond’s exegesis of Galatians 2:16. “ Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith (dia pisteos) in Christ Jesus in order that we may be justified by faith (hina dikaiothomen ek pisteos) in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” He adds, “Therefore faith in Jesus Christ…must precede justification as its logical (not chronological) prius.” Also, faith precedes adoption, Jn. 1:12-13.” So, as you can see, as is usual, to make all encompassing statements like “The Reformed believe X” is dangerous, because there is widespread disagreement on the subject among those who adhere to the Reformed tradition, though it is not an essential or distinguishing mark of a Reformed person. Since you believe that Reformers overstate man being dead in his sins, do you consider yourself to be a combination of Arminian and Calvinisitic thought?

Once again, I appreciate your admonition for me to not view you and yours through a monochromatic lens, I in turn urge you to do the same to those in the Reformed tradition.

At any rate, this point is not worth debate with you. You obviously have your perspective which is very well settled. I am learning about the various ways Reformed persons wrestle with this issue, so I thank you for the impetus your point caused in me to study this point a little more deeply. More specifically, I was only pointing out to you that your introduction to the article at your site you encouraged people to read is worded in such a way as to not fairly or clearly represent the Reformed tradition. Whether you choose to do anything about the articles themselves based on readers suggestions is wholly up to you. I gave my perspective on the impression it gave me, I’ll not beat a dead horse. I am quite happy to drop the rest of the discussion.
In Christ, Ken

Ken:

You ask, "Do you feel as if these two schools teach what you believe regarding soteriology, or is there a Seminary where what you believe is taught? You approvingly quoted Chafer, is that your influence…Walvoord, Zuck, Thomas, …Dallas?"

No, neither Grace or Dallas is representative of my views. I have an appreciation for Chafer's Systematic; however, Miles Stanford http://withchrist.org/MJS/index.htm has been my primary "influence".

All current-day, dispensational seminaries more-or-less teach horizontal forms of dispensationlism. Institutions like Dallas have substantially deteriorated from the position of its founder, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and have moved toward positions in which Israel and the Church, law and grace, are not kept separate.

You ask, "Since you believe that Reformers overstate man being dead in his sins, do you consider yourself to be a combination of Arminian and Calvinisitic thought?"

I view myself as striving to fully embrace that "form of doctrine or teaching" (Romans 6:17) which the Apostle Paul delivered to the various new-creation churches. Thus, it's neither Arminian or Calvinistic, nor a combination.

I seek to recognize those areas of "Calvinism" which are in agreement with Paul's message and reject Calvinism when they contradict the Apostle. I appreciate what the Reformers accomplished in re-establishing the authority of the Word of God and sovereign grace. However, their hamartiology was deficient and in turn produced new chapters in church history on experiential 'bondage to sin', rather than freedom in Christ. This same statement would apply to the majority of contemporary dispensationalists.

The Risen and Ascended Lord Jesus Christ rescued me from 20 years in the bondage of Roman Catholicism. During those religious days, I came to understand all too well the effect of law. See my article THE LAW at http://withchrist.org/law.htm . Having been freed from that religious system, I am unwilling to re-enter the Reformed version.

I have spent some time this morning with Miles, very interesting to say the least! I especially enjoyed the response to Gerstner's book on Dispensationalism, and Gerstner's response to Stanford. Since you are often encouraging others to visit your place of business, I thought that I could add a link for you to visit that critiques Dispensationalism; Here is an excerpt from one entitled “Honey, We Shrunk the Gospel”

“It is Chafer, mentor to the bulk of fundamentalist pastors for several generations, who unapologetically eviscerated the Bible as an integrated vehicle to expand God's Kingdom, and who single-handedly reduced God's Ten Commandments to the "Ten Suggestions" with his heretical assertion (by Lewis Sperry Chafer) that "these actual written commandments, either of Moses or the kingdom, are not the rule of the believer's life under grace, anymore than these systems are the basis for his salvation." In other words, Christians need not concern themselves with obeying or applying the Ten Commandments or the commands of Christ (i.e., kingdom Law).”

This article is a fascinating study of the historical influences of what came to be known as “Dispensationalism”, with Darby being influenced by the ecstatic utterances of a 21 year old girl (Margaret MacDonald) who had been a Christian for about 1 year. Her “visions” were later developed and impacted the movement that became known as “Dispensationalism”. Found at
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98oct/Doner_Shrunk_Gospel.html

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98apr/Braswell_Hard-Believism.html
with many articles related to Dipensationalism

http://www.cet.com/~dlavoie/solo.christo/theology/nct/Presuppositions/presup.disp.html
also there are lots of articles related to Dispensationlism at Sola Christo

Miles pointed out that in his opinion, many Dispensationalists have abandoned the “faith of the fathers”, there is a good reason for this, says one writer:

“There are many Reformed critiques of dispensationalism available. Among the best are: the gentle but penetrating analysis by Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists; the detailed work by Curtis I. Crenshaw and Grover E. Gunn III, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow; and the humorous and devastating newsletter by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Dispensationalism in Transition.[1] Although there is overlap between them, they each provide different perspectives from which to consider the basic issues.
Reformed critiques have been so numerous and so successful, in fact, that dispensationalists themselves have joined the bandwagon. Some of the most helpful evaluations of dispensational errors have been provided by a new school of dispensationalism.”
Found at http://www.berith.com/English/ESCH0061.html

Go to http://www.ids.org/ for New Covenant Theology( I know that Miles has negatively critiqued this view, as well as every other major theology\theologian! I truly respect the depth and extensiveness of his writings and reading!) Phil Johnson says of Miles “Here (at Mile's page)you will find the musings of Miles Stanford, self-appointed guardian of dispensational truth, known for his exposés of just about every well-known evangelical leader. Stanford himself is an antinomian ultradispensationalist. (Antinomian, because he denies that the Law has any application to the Christian; and ultradispensationalist, because he believes the apostle Paul's ministry launched a new dispensation.) According to Stanford, Paul preached a new message of grace that had never before been proclaimed by anyone, including Christ. This sort of ultradispensationalism renders the vast majority of the New Testament irrelevant to Christians in this age.”

Just FYI

Kenny:

Thanks for the effort. I had all of your referenced links, except the article by Ralph Smith. I'll enjoy reading it.

I am well acquainted with both the view and spirit of how Recontructionism views dispensationalism, as well as their critique of traditional covenantism. Gary N. lays it out in Sutton's manifesto.

As for the oft-repeated Margaret MacDonald theory, it was refuted years ago with substantial documentation. This whole thing was and is extremely lame, except for those who harbor anti-dispensational feelings.

As for Phil Johnson, we've had a few encounters. In my opinion, he's the Jeremy Finkenbinder of the Reformed Baptist realm, but with a lot higher profile.

See my critiques beginning at http://withchrist.org/faqs.htm under Question #3.

I spent a few years in fellowship with Dr. Kenneth Good, author of Are Baptists Calvinists and Are Baptists Reformed. Do you have his books?

Branch,

TrueBranch - This is the first time I've read any of your posts. Wow. A disciple of Miles Stanford. And I thought I was the only one on this forum. Other than the disagreement on when the Body of Christ began (Acts 2 or Acts 9) I really don't see much difference between your primary distinctive and Jeremy's. Your (and Miles') primary distinctive is the view that Paul's gospel is different from the kingdom gospel. Well, guess what? Jeremy agrees with you. I asked Bob Enyart if any of Stanford's material would be mentioned in the bibliography of The Plot since much of it reminded me of Stanford's writings. Bob was influenced by Bullinger and others but not Stanford. Have you read The Plot?

Jefferson:

Sorry to disappoint, but there are several major-major differences between Stanford and the Derby group. In fact, I find it curious the Grace Gospel Fellowship doesn't have a problem with the Derby group. Out of sight, out of mind?

Miles Stanford's fifty year ministry has focused on experientially establishing believers in a vertically-oriented dispensationalism via the identification truths brought out in Paul's epistles. Thus, he disavows any relation to horizontial varieties of dispensationalism--no matter where they place the advent of the Body of Christ. See his testimony - http://withchrist.org/MJS/MJStestimony.htm

You write, "Your (and Miles') primary distinctive is the view that Paul's gospel is different from the kingdom gospel."

"Primary distinctive"? Sadly, you couldn't be more wrong. While Miles (and I) has certainly differentiated between Israel, Kingdom, and Church as well as the earthly vs. heavenly ministries of the Lord Jesus, his focus has been soteriological and heavenly. His spiritual roots, in part, go back to the rich ministries of the original PBs and totally byp*** the likes of: O'Hair, Baker, Stam, Bultema, etc. See PB History at http://withchrist.org/MJS/pbs.htm

Finally, having written hundreds of polemic papers, many on the errors of covenant theology and its earthly/kingdom orientation, you would never find MJS involved in a ShadowGov.com in any form.

Webmaster: As for the NetNanny or whatever inserts the ***, we view such as legalistic and childish. It unnecessarily calls attention to this particular three-letter word. Christians or others who use foul language maintain a testimony to the indwelling power of the sin nature (flesh), their soteriological error, and thus discredit themselves. 1 Cor.11:19. Would someone like to start a new discussion thread under Misc. entitled "When is censorship appropriate?"

Truebranch, the links were for you if you wanted, but also for anyone else that might have been interested in critiquing the great "critiquer", so to speak. That is, you often provide links to articles supporting your views, I was just offering some that were responses to your view, thats all. My Pastor has the books Good has written, though I have never read them, that is not where my primary interest has been....If the MacDonald deal is not true, I would like to check into that a little further..what resources are there showing the theory to be untrue?

And Jeremy, I do not know if you are familiar with Phil Johnson, but yes, in my opinion Truebranch paid you a compliment. Jeremy, if you have never been to Phil's site, IMHO it is one of the best around, especially The Hall of Church History or "Theology From a Bunch of Dead Guys".
http://www.gty.org/~phil/welcome.htm

This is really facinating to me, to see the (apparently) vast differences come out among all those claiming to be Dispensationalists or THE "true" Dispensationalists, I had no idea the rifts were so large and so many... Of course this is no different than what often happens among "Calvinists". One thing this has taught me is that I need to be careful with the term "Dispensationalist" as I have encouraged others to be careful with the terms "Calvinists" or "Reformed".

Kenny:

Thanks for your comments. I particularly appreciate your third and final paragraph. I view this as real progress. You say, "I was just offering some that were responses to your view, thats all." Unfortunately, the links you offer are generic anti-dispensational and don't specifically address the views of Miles Stanford. This is all rather typical. Thanks anyway.

Regarding PJ's critique, we asked him to refrain from engaging in grossly-distorted lampoonery. He did do some minor editing, but he found it necessary to maintain the distortion and twisting. According to his own testimony, his editorial style of "writing opinions that infuriate other people" dates back to high school.

Pursuant to your request regarding historical issues, see these introductory articles:

Is the Pre-Trib Rapture a Satanic Deception? by Thomas Ice millennianet.com/atpro4se/raptures.html

Dave MacPherson's the Rapture Plot: weighed and found wanting by Frank Marotta millennianet.com/atpro4se/macphers.html

R.A. Huebner did some heavy lifting in his The Truth of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Recovered. This book deals in depth with the early Plymouth Brethren movement, the various eschatology positions, the radical Irvingites, and the notorious Ms. Margaret.

PS. I've been meaning to ask you, "Are you getting the opportuntity to fellowship with some "Calvinist" "Reformed" group? I see this as vital to gaining an understanding of Covenant theology.

The reason I brought up Dr. Good's books is that you might find them very relevant having begun your own spiritual journey in a non-Reformed realm. Dr. Good's books chronical the theological odyssey of a number of GARBC baptists into the land of Reformed/Calvinist/Puritian and their various encounters. They are rich with both historical and theological data. Get'em if you can.

Kenny:

What's your take on this quote?

TrueBranch:

Just a quick aside. I'd like to ask you this via private email but since I don't know what your email address is I'll have to briefly violate the forum rules against private messages.

Jeff:

Sorry, but that ability is granted only to senior members of the forum.   Just joking!

Like many others, my email link is found under the envelope icon in the header bar of my posts. Try it, you'll like it.

Eighty seven (87) years later, we hear the dispensationalist Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer echo J.N.D:

For the sake of discussion, What is the root and reason for this "strange blindness" mentioned by Chafer?