I have disabled anonymous commenting. If you wish to comment from now on, you will have to make yourself known. I have put my ideas and my theological thinking out there at the risk of being publicly attacked by those who oppose traditional Reformed theology. Sadly, that seems to include neo-Reformed folks who think anyone who disagrees with their spin on common grace and God's hatred of the reprobates. The Bible clearly says that anyone outside of Christ is under His wrath and are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3; John 3:36; Romans 5:9). Even the elect who have not yet been converted are hated by God and under His wrath, though God also loves the elect and effectually calls them into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ at a subsequent point in time.
It is truly saddening how Evangelicalism at large has mostly gone in a liberal direction and attacks those who are more on the conservative side of Evangelicalism. The evidence is indisputable.
Posts
11 comments:
Dear Brother Charlie,
Thanks again for sharing! I agree with your sentiments entirely. Love of the truth is a scarcity. People don't even realise that Luther's God is the same God as Calvin's. It was precisely that Luther rejected Erasmus' argument that God desires the salvation of all men based on a flimsy reading of Ezekiel 33 that Luther made his now famous distinction between the preached and unpreached God. We cannot infer that God desires to save all simply because He through the watchman does not desire the death of the sinner of the House of Israel. That would turn what is a Gospel promise to a Law command(!)
If I may share, related to your post: God loves the elect eternally. Hatred and wrath are not exactly the same. The elect though loved by God from eternity are under His judicial wrath in this world because of sin. Wrath is also in a sense equivalent to be under the curse of the Law. To be under God's wrath is to be in an unjustified state. To be loved by God is to be loved by God inspite of our sin.
Keep up the good work, Brother Charlie.
Hi, Jason...
Yes, thanks for the clarification. Yes, God loves the elect from all eternity. I believe in Calvin's commentary on Romans 5 he says that God both loves and hates the elect. But the same cannot be said of the reprobate because they are never loved by God at all. For the elect it is absolutely true that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. For the reprobate this can never be true.
I preached recently at my church. The pastor is an Amyraldian. But he almost never mentions justification by faith alone or any of the other doctrines of the Reformation. He's hung up preaching against homosexuality and criticizing the Episcopal hierarchy.
I'm trying to influence him in a more Protestant direction but it is difficult.
Hi, Jason.... You are welcome to jump into the debate I'm having with a "Reformed" fellow over common grace. Please look at the comments posted under:
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2008/10/calvins-commentary-on-romans-120_18.html
"He's hung up preaching against homosexuality and criticizing the Episcopal hierarchy."
Typical of an Anglican churchman these days. Instead of preaching the Gospel, which among other things require him to contend for the faith, he prefers to lash out on moral issues. But this paganism as morality cannot save but only damns.
And Brother Charlie, true and faithful expositors of Calvin are very rare these days. I think you know this too ... ;-)
Yes, Jason. I've been very frustrated with him. He is an Amyraldian for one thing. And he is from the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church in Australia, which is supposed to be Evangelical. Yet he just reads long portions of Scripture and does not explain it very well to the people.
He says they don't understand doctrine but he won't actually TEACH any doctrine. I preached on the doctrine of justification by faith alone a couple weeks ago. I was very nervous and stuttered around a bit at first. BUT, the people enjoyed it, learned something, and actually applauded at the end.
I probably didn't explain the doctrine of depravity or effectual call very well but I was limited to 20 minutes and I wound up going over to 30 minutes. I cut out part of the sermon because of the time. I posted the notes at:
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2008/11/sermon-outline-by-faith-we-have-peace.html
I have the audio file posted at the church website if you're interested in hearing my nervous sermon. hehe
Also, you can listen to a bit of the pastor's sermons and you will understand what I'm talking about. He's good at beating around the bush but afraid to really teach any of the doctrines of grace. The church site is:
http://www.christchurchlongwood.com/Sermons/Sermons.html
That's very sad, Bro. Charlie. Instead of meat, the congregation is being with something else! How pastoral is that (tongue-in-cheek)? He probably doesn't even believe in total depravity. The whole purpose of proclaiming the Gospel and preaching the Word is to set bound sinners free, to forgive sins.
And I'm glad we share the view on the Sydney diocese, Big Bro. Apart from not being Prayer-book Anglicans, they are also not even strong on the doctrines of grace. You won't hear them *preach* the doctrines of grace, unless you of your "free will" take the initiative to enrol and pay up to be student at the Preliminary Theological Course run by Moore Theological College! And then you will exposed. So, I guess the Gospel in all its purity is shut up in the classroom and kept out of the pulpit. This is ... what can I say ...
Hi, Jason. Thanks for helping me understand why my pastor takes the positions he does. Actually, his name is David Knox. His father was a famous theologian from the Sydney Diocese named David Broughton Knox, who was at one time a professor or dean at Moore. Later David Broughton Knox started Whitefield College in South Africa.
My pastor, David, is strongly against the smells and bells of Anglo-Catholicism but he doesn't seem to know why. He is Zwinglian on the sacraments and doesn't agree with the Presbyterian or the Reformed view at all. He thinks it is too "Anglo-Catholic." The irony here is that he refuses to preach justification by faith alone or deal with the doctrine of depravity. When I confront him on it he just says, "I agree with you, brother. But these people have no understanding of doctrine." To which I always reply, "But if they don't understand, it is YOUR job to educate them and HELP them understand," which usually falls on deaf ears.
I would transfer to RC Sproul's church but it is further from my home. The only other options have are PCA churches. Most of them are either into the church growth heresy or they are too accommodating to the Evangelical ecumenical thing. St. Paul's PCA is fairly conservative and orthodox and has traditional liturgy and sermons. However, when I talked to the pastor on the phone about looking for a solidly Reformed church he remarked that they want to be Evangelical. In other words, they are more committed to being accepted than they are to biblical truth and the Reformed tradition.
I must honestly say that I think Evangelicalism at large is in serious trouble and headed for outright liberalism. It is only a matter of time.
Please keep in touch, brother. I find your input to be an encouragement in the Lord. I am laid off from my work at the moment so that's why I'm spending more time commenting and blogging. I hope and pray that God will use my blog to open blinded eyes.
Soli Deo Gloria!
But the Apostle seems here to be inconsistent with himself; for if the death of Christ was a pledge of the divine love towards us, it follows that we were already acceptable to him; but he says now, that we were enemies. To this answer, that as God hates sin, we are also hated by him his far as we are sinners; but as in his secret counsel he chooses us into the body of Christ, he ceases to hate us: but restoration to favor is unknown to us, until we attain it by faith. Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies, until the death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this twofold aspect of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the gratuitous mercy of God otherwise than as it appears from this — that he spared not his only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was discord between him and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit brought to us by the death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our reconciliation with God, that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation that has been made, that he, who was before justly angry with us, is now propitious to us. Since then our reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ, the meaning is, that guilt is thereby taken away, to which we should be otherwise exposed.
Calvin's Commentaries, Romans 5:10
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.ix.iv.html
Brother Jason,
I would like to say about David that he is a nice guy. He was gracious enough to allow me to preach in his pulpit. I have had some serious arguments with him on theological issues, though. I don't let him off the hook. I challenged him on his Amyraldian views because I don't think it was around until after the Canons of Dordt.
I also challenged him on the issue of the sacraments and on preaching the doctrines of grace. He seems to think preaching the moral standards of the law is preaching the Gospel. He just doesn't get it.
Even the Baptists here at least have a basic understanding of the distinction between law and gospel and justification by faith alone. We both know the Baptists are heterodox as well but at least they have an outward appearance of having the gospel right.
I'm ready to pull my hair out! heheh
Blessings,
Charlie
Thank you for sharing, Brother Charlie! Yes, I have heard of David Knox before, or rather I;ve come across his website before or somewhere on the Net. DB Knox was an unabashed Amyraldian. But what is particularly shocking is the fact his son's attitude towards doctrine is appalling! He's not doing his job as a minister of the Word ... (sigh)
Where you are, Brother Charlie, may Our Good Lord continue to bless your ministry!
Warmly,
Jason
Thanks, Jason. I was particularly troubled because he thinks Anglo-Catholics are saved. I don't see how anyone who denies justification by faith alone can be a genuine Christian since they believe in justification by works or merits.
Soli Deo Gloria...
Post a Comment