Post Script Note:
On pages 263-264, Knox says the following:
[From D. Broughton Knox. Selected Works. Volume 1: The Doctrine of God. (Kingsford NSW: Matthias Media, 2000).]
Knox is reading the issue of "savable" and "non-savable" into the text. There is no place in Scripture where the two terms are taught either implicitly or explicitly. But the Bible does say that all men are cursed because of Adam's sin (Romans 5:12ff) and all men are sinners (Romans 3:23). Therefore, the correct doctrine is that all deserve hell and all are bound over to disobedience for God's greater glory (Romans 11:32). The fact of the matter is that Scripture over and over says that no one is "savable." What it does say is that all deserve damnation (Romans 3:9, 20, 23). God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and He will harden whom He wills (Romans 9:18-20). So God determines who is saved, not who is "savable." The term is completely foreign to the Apostle Paul.
Furthermore, there is nothing "gnostic" about five point Calvinism. God does not work secretly in providing the means of salvation. There is an outward and general call to repentance to all who hear the Gospel preached (Romans 10:4ff; John 12:38; 17:20; Galatians 3:2, 5; Titus 1:3). But many are called and few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). Notice Matthew does not say that "all" are called but "many." This is in line with Romans 1:18ff which says that natural revelation only provides sufficient revelation to make them without excuse, as natural religions prove. There is only one way of salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:11-12). So for Knox to say that classical five point Calvinism is gnostic is silly, particularly when the Reformed confessions univocally say that the appointed means of God's saving of the elect is through the right preaching of the law and gospel and through the right administration of the sacraments. If the Gospel is hidden, it is hidden to the reprobate (John 12:36-43). By Knox's view it would appear that he agrees with liberal theologians who attribute the Gospel according to John to gnostic Christianity in the second century. I might add that this same criticism could be leveled at Amyraldians who also claim to believe in election and reprobation after the decree for Christ to redeem all men.
The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
LORD, we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
On pages 263-264, Knox says the following:
"Salvation and redemption are terms which properly belong to the elect (see, for example, the 'new song' of the living creatures and the elders before the Throne in Revelation 5:9). But in a secondary sense, salvation and redemption through the death of Christ are spoken of in Scripture as applying to all men. A recognition of this terminology will prevent a harsh classification of humanity into the savable and the non-savable, after the fashion of the Valintinians. [Footnote 28]"
"28. The Valentinians were a 2nd century gnostic sect who divided all mankind into three distinct categories: the pneumatics (i.e. themselves) who alone had access to the secret 'gnosis' (or knowledge) of salvation and would enjoy eternal bliss; other Christians (the 'psychics'" who might inhabit a lower level of heaven; and the rest of mankind (the 'hylics') who were destined for damnation. (Knox, pp. 263-264)."
[From D. Broughton Knox. Selected Works. Volume 1: The Doctrine of God. (Kingsford NSW: Matthias Media, 2000).]
Knox is reading the issue of "savable" and "non-savable" into the text. There is no place in Scripture where the two terms are taught either implicitly or explicitly. But the Bible does say that all men are cursed because of Adam's sin (Romans 5:12ff) and all men are sinners (Romans 3:23). Therefore, the correct doctrine is that all deserve hell and all are bound over to disobedience for God's greater glory (Romans 11:32). The fact of the matter is that Scripture over and over says that no one is "savable." What it does say is that all deserve damnation (Romans 3:9, 20, 23). God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and He will harden whom He wills (Romans 9:18-20). So God determines who is saved, not who is "savable." The term is completely foreign to the Apostle Paul.
Furthermore, there is nothing "gnostic" about five point Calvinism. God does not work secretly in providing the means of salvation. There is an outward and general call to repentance to all who hear the Gospel preached (Romans 10:4ff; John 12:38; 17:20; Galatians 3:2, 5; Titus 1:3). But many are called and few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). Notice Matthew does not say that "all" are called but "many." This is in line with Romans 1:18ff which says that natural revelation only provides sufficient revelation to make them without excuse, as natural religions prove. There is only one way of salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:11-12). So for Knox to say that classical five point Calvinism is gnostic is silly, particularly when the Reformed confessions univocally say that the appointed means of God's saving of the elect is through the right preaching of the law and gospel and through the right administration of the sacraments. If the Gospel is hidden, it is hidden to the reprobate (John 12:36-43). By Knox's view it would appear that he agrees with liberal theologians who attribute the Gospel according to John to gnostic Christianity in the second century. I might add that this same criticism could be leveled at Amyraldians who also claim to believe in election and reprobation after the decree for Christ to redeem all men.
The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
LORD, we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Posts
2 comments:
A very poor comment by Mr. Knox, indeed.
Anglicanism's failure occurred when Queen Exegete 1, Sovereign Theologian of England, repressed Whitgift in 1595. Then, the Laudian disaster of Arminianism. Had the theologians governed the Church, Laud and that wicked Wesley also, wouldn't have seen the light of day.
Then, the repeated failures to "get with it" in terms of the English Reformers.
Thanks.
On another note, anyone notice that the house is on fire at the Puff-site of Virtueoneline.org?
With the Nashotah House accords with the Orthodox? I'm howling in eastern North Carolina at the level of naivete. Ya can't make this stuff up. It's a hugfest.
I haven't been at the VirtueOnline site lately. I am continually disappointed by the responses of David Virtue. The fact that he sides with the transexual "man" (whom he mistakenly calls a "lady") is proof enough that Scripture is not the final authority for Virtue and for the AC-NA. It is only a matter of time before AC-NA is completely liberal like TEC. Unfortunately, the sin of covetousness has overtaken the bishops of the REC. Their desire to have a piece of the pie from the point of view of natural religion is proof that they have forsaken any theology of supernatural revelation from above. This can only lead to idolatry and compromise with the papists and romanizers.
Charlie
Post a Comment