Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Collect of the Day

The Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Collect.

O LORD, we bessech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Daily Bible Verse

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Dr. Gordon H. Clark on the Full Preterist Heresy

Dr. Gordon H. Clark was not a full preterist and I sincerely doubt that he would have agreed with anything C. H. Dodd had to say since Clark called Dodd a theological liberal. Here's a quote from Clark's book, The Holy Spirit, (Jefferson: Trinity Foundation, 1993). After saying that miracles only occur in certain periods of biblical history, Clark says:

"There will be, however, a fourth period when miracles will occur again. As the great tribulation of the last twenty centuries approaches its close, for 'we must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God,' the apostasy of the denominations will grow worse and worse, and the man of sin, who resides in a city on seven hills, will be revealed before the day of Christ. Then shall the Lord Jesus be revealed from heaven, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Pentecostalism is one step into this apostasy." The Holy Spirit, page 97.

The full preterist view is based on asserting the consequence, a logical fallacy. It goes like this:

If P then Q. Q therefore P.

So to fill in the information for the symbols in the syllogism.  If P (the Bible says Jesus would return soon), therefore Q (Christ has already returned in A.D. 70). Q (Christ already returned in A.D.), therefore P (the Bible says Christ has already returned).  Notice the second P is slightly modified and so is Q. But that is the basic argument of the full preterists. As you can see, it is illogical and a fallacious argument that assumes the consequent from another assumption, namely that because Christ would return soon P, then He has already returned. But does soon always mean imminent? Obviously not. As someone else has already pointed out, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. Two thousand years is nothing in God's scheme of things.

. . . knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:3-10 NKJV)

Full preterists are scoffers who ask those of us who believe the Bible's admonition to watch, "Where is the sign of His coming?" Of course, the answer is He has not come yet. But He will and when He does return what will He find you doing?  (Luke 18:1; Mark 13:35; Luke 12:37-38).   That's the question, isn't it?

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Full Preterism: Damnable Heresy

I am posting this after I discovered that many so-called Calvinist apologists on Facebook are secretly promoting a damnable heresy called hyper-preterism or full preterism.  I am particularly referring to Jeff Swayzee, who has posted many videos that support Dr. Gordon H. Clark's theology.  I have in the past posted some of those videos on this blog.  I do not wish for anyone to think that I am endorsing the heresy of full preterism because of those numerous previous posts.

I am not a theonomist; however, Brian Schwertley, a theonomist, has done extensive work showing how full preterism is a damnable heresy.  I am posting a link to Schwertley's blog article on this issue.  You can listen to his sermon that explains why this is a heresy by going to this link and clicking on the audio link there:  Reasons Why Full Preterism Is a Damnable Heresy.

I call upon everyone who is a Calvinist to distance themselves from anyone who professes to believe the full preterist or hyper-preterist view because it is an outright denial of Scripture and the plain propositional truths revealed in Scripture.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Common Grace and the Higher Criticism Connection

The following article was originally published in Calvin Theological Journal, the official journal of Calvin Seminary.  Calvin Seminary is affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church.  The article was written by John Bolt.  The connection between Professor Ralph Janssen and higher criticism and his resulting view that theistic evolution was an option is clearly shown in this article:

The 1924 synod of the Christian Reformed Church, meeting in Kalamazoo, Michigan, from June 18 to July 8, was one of the defining moments in the denomination's history. Two years after another CRC synod had deposed Calvin Seminary Professor Ralph Janssen for his allegedly higher-critical approach to Scripture, the 1924 synod affirmed the doctrine that had been at the heart of Janssen's defense, the doctrine of common grace.1 Now, seventy-five years later, time and distance may enable us to provide a self-critical retrospective on this decision that led to a tragic church division. This article will provide a summary of the synodical decision as well as a brief evaluation of the church orderly issues in l'affaire Hoeksema.2 We will consider the context of the common grace discussion as it arises out of the Janssen case, the events leading up to the synodical decision, the course of events at the synod, and its aftermath. This will be concluded with a few evaluative comments.

Click here to read the full article:  Common Grace and the Christian Reformed Synod of Kalamazoo(1924): A Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Retrospective

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.