>

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.]

Daily Bible Verse

Thursday, November 29, 2012

A Theological Reflection On: The women bishops vote in the Church of England | Theological Theology




"A friend of mine loves to repeat a paraphrase of the words of Oliver Cromwell about the perils of fighting battles against those who seem to be in control: 'The problem with fighting the king is that you have to win every time. He only has to win once.'"  -- Mark Thompson


Katherine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop, The Episcopal Church, USA.










By Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

Dr. Mark Thompson of Moore Theological College has offered his opinion on the vote in the Church of England which rejected women bishops by a narrow margin.  I quote an excerpt here:

However, there will be no real progress until it is recognised that opposition to this proposal is not only perfectly legitimate, but arises from a deep conviction that men and women are equally valued by the God who created and redeemed them yet are intended to complement one another not simply duplicate one another. The teaching of Scripture on the distinction between men and women in the exercise of Christian ministry for the building up of the church and glory of Christ's name is not a time-bound relic of a bygone culture. It is God's good gift which enhances our unity and challenges Christian surrender to one of today's cultural juggernauts. It genuinely values women as opposed to devaluing them.  Theological Theology:  The Women's Vote

Unfortunately, our gender confused and egalitarian society has taken the equality view to such an extreme that individual choice extends even to sex change operations and homosexuality.  Once the biblical roles of men and women are confused to the point that there is no distinction between male and female whatsoever, it irrationally follows that a man and a woman is whatever you say they are, and the logical propositions revealed in Scripture become a moot point.  Bill Moyers Journal makes my point well enough that women ministers and bishops go hand in hand with the homosexuality/transgender revisionism:

Bishop Jefferts Schori has assumed her leadership position at a particularly tumultuous time for the Episcopal Church, specifically due to mounting criticism from more conservative sectors of the Anglican Communion, in parts of Africa and Asia, regarding Episcopal stances on homosexuality, same-sex partnerships, and other social issues. In her first national interview since being elected, she told CNN that she does not believe homosexuality is a sin:

"I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us. And some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."  Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, Bill Moyers Journal.

Odd, but the Bible calls this a "reprobate mind" rather than a "gift of God."  (Romans 1:28 KJV; Romans 1:28).  Even the Thirty-nine Articles rejects the idea that being born with a propensity to immoral acts justifies the person who commits such acts:

Article XVII

Of Predestination and Election

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.  (Cf.  Article 9 and Article 10).

In short, the contrast between those elected before the foundation of the world with those who are passed over and left to the curse of original sin and their own evil acts is a sharp one.  Furthermore, saying that someone is a born sinner is no excuse for their actual sins.  The inability to obey God's law is not a blessing but a curse.  Furthermore, the natural or unnatural inability to obey God is the sign of reprobation, not a sign of God's blessing or that God has "gifted" someone with homosexuality.  (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:27).  While theological liberals say that sinners cannot help being homosexual, they unwittingly wind up agreeing with the biblical teaching that reprobation is predestined.  (1 Peter 2:8).  The fact is if God wants to convert the homosexual to heterosexuality He is well able to do so since He is omnipotent.  As the Seventeenth Article says, members of the church and humankind at large still have a moral obligation to follow God's will "which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God."  The moral law does not change with human experience.  Rather human experience is required to agree with the absolute standard of God's moral law:

5. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; (Romans 13: 8, 9; Ephesians 6:2; 1 John 2:3, 4, 7, 8) and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it.  (James 2:10,11)  Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.  (Matthew 5:17,18,19; James 2:8; Romans 3:31)  
Westminster Confession of Faith.  Of the Law of God:   Chapter  19, Section 5.

Following the logic of the revisionists, reason itself goes out the window.  Human sexuality and gender identities become a sort of Frankenstein monster where body parts are artificially exchanged in a vain attempt to reduplicate God's intended creation.  The technological tower of Babel, however, is a cheap imitation of the genuine article of God's created order.  The biological and gender identity of the physical body is obvious to all who observe a human birth.  But according to the revisionists and social engineers nothing is certain and therefore individual choice extends even to the physical body and a "choice" of gender.  As silly as the whole rationale behind the transgender movement is, people are blinded by dogmatic propaganda such that they assume that people are actually born with the mind of a man or a woman caught up in the wrong body.

This radical individualism and radical promotion of individual choice apparently extends to abortion and the murder of the unborn baby in its own mother's womb and to the euthanizing of the elderly and other undesirables in society.  Ironically, it is a secularized humanism that leads to a socialistic totalitarianism pretending to protect individual rights.

Same sex attraction, also an effect of the mind, is invalidly claimed to be a biological predisposition.  Yet empirical science is not able to prove the philosophical assumptions which go beyond mere empirical observation.  Exactly how is the mind and the body related to one another and how does sentience and consciousness arise in the soul of an individual?  The idea that the mind is merely a biological projection and predetermined by genetics, physiology, and the organ of the brain is a presupposition, not a precisely defined scientific "fact".  It is no more a "fact" than the theory of evolution is a "fact".  It is true that certain parts of the brain control other functions like motor coordination and long term and short term memory; but this in no way proves that the personality and the soul or mind is merely a product of biological functions.  The mind is a gestalt that is greater than the sum of its functions or the grey matter of the brain.  The irony is that so-called "empirical" science is used to make philosophical and metaphysical leaps of faith in order to justify the politically correct propaganda of the materialistic secularists, atheists, and theological liberals.

In the same way a form of sociological social engineering is underway to blur the lines between the biblical roles of men and women, both of whom are created in the image and likeness of God.  (Genesis 1:27).   Who among the feminists really wants to destroy the feminine nature of women as women?  If men and women are equal in every sense of the word, then maybe the men ought to step back and let the women fight all the wars, run the government, and make all decisions for the human race?  The idea that men should become effeminate and be house husbands and let the women defend the nation from aggression is a facade from the Amazon region of the world.  The idea that women ought to be deacons, presbyters, rectors or bishops makes about as much sense as saying that men should be housewives.

The implication of making all truth relativistic is that there is no absolute truth, morality or ethics.  That would mean that majority rule determines right and wrong and not a transcendent moral standard.  As the late Gordon H. Clark argued, apart from faith reason and rationalism always leads to irrationalism and skeptism.  Moreover, faith without reason leads to more skepticism:

Throughout the history of the Christian church there have appeared from time to time individuals and groups who look with disfavor on reason, intellect, and higher learning. From the Patristic period Tertullian is often quoted as saying, “I believe because it is absurd.” Although this is not precisely what Tertullian said, his opposition to pagan culture is well known. What has the Christian in common with the philosopher, he declaims; the church with the Academy; revelation with reason? Yet, because he did some philosophizing himself, perhaps he should be understood as deprecating, not reason in general, but pagan reason only. Nonetheless, there remains a suspicion that his is a faith without reason.

Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation. (Kindle Locations 1631-1635). The Trinity Foundation.

The only hope for true civilization is not postmodern irrationalism or hyper-individualism or even secular humanism.  Without a biblical revelation there is no basis for civilized society or religious truth.  All that remains for liberal theology is reason, and that reason always leads to skepticism such that sociology, psychology, political science, and vain philosophy is but the empty shell of a faith without a revelation from God.  Reason without faith leads ultimately to irrationalism.  Even faith without reason is irrational.  But revelation is itself revealed in a rational and logical format called the Holy Scriptures.  The Scriptures are God's logical propositions recorded for human understanding and comprehension of God's purposes, decrees, and precepts.  Even the promises of God's covenant of grace in the Gospel are revealed in logical propositions:

Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; (Romans 1:1-6)

Moreover, seen in the light of Scripture, women should never be ordained as ministers in the church or consecrated as bishops.  Although there are exceptions to the norm in Scripture, including Deborah who was a judge who led battles in the Old Testment (Judges 4:4-14), it is by no means a requirement that women become field generals or fight in wars.  History provides a few examples where women became effectual leaders of nations, including Elizabeth I in 16th century England and Margaret Thatcher in 20th century England.  Even here there are no examples in the Bible of women deacons, pastors, or bishops.  None of the apostles were women, although women did sit at the feet of Jesus and learn from Him.  (Luke 10:39).  None of this, however, can overturn the biblical prohibition of women as ministers and leaders in the church.  (1 Timothy 2:11-15; 1 Corinthians 14:34; Ephesians 5:22-29).

Although the schizophrenia of postmodernists has tried to reinvent reality so that whatever humans conceive becomes their own reality or what they say reality is, the physical universe remains what God created it to be.  The idea that humankind is the center of all logic, truth, and reality is an idol, and the technological Babel cannot reach heaven no matter how hard humankind tries.  Both logic and revelation flow from God alone, who is the source of all truth.  "Virtual reality" is a computer simulation, not reality itself.  So the "virtual reality" constructed by the revisionists is no reality at all.

While technological wonders continue to astound the world, God is still God and no one will ever overthrow Him.  He is indeed the Sovereign King of the universe and His decrees always come to be.  (Isaiah 14:24; Isaiah 45:7; Isaiah 46:9-10; Daniel 4:34-35).  Even if women bishops are eventually established in the Church of England, it will be nothing more than God's decree to reprobation and apostasy.  (Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:17-22).  Where women are ordained it is usually only a short step to the ordination of homosexuals and other pagan practices, which are completely foreign to Christianity as it is revealed in Scripture.  Furthermore, these aberrations never appeared in the traditional orthopraxy of the catholic and orthodox church from its inception in the first century under the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles.   It is apostolic teaching and not apostolic succession that proves catholicity and orthodoxy.  That teaching is infallibly and without error recorded in the plenarily inspired words and propositions of Holy Scripture.  (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Peter 3:15-16).  The Protestant Reformation was never about revising Christianity to make it agree with paganism and postmodern ideas of truth; rather, it is about restoring the universal and visible church to the apostolic teaching of Christ, which teaching is an infallible record in the Bible.

Fighting against God the King might seem to be wise.  Remember, however, that God only needs to win once and that battle is a decisive one.  (Luke 14:28-33)

Peace,

Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

 Click here to read the original post by Dr. Thompson:  The women bishops vote in the Church of England | Theological Theology

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Calvin Against the Well Meant Offer of Salvation: Calvin's Calvinism - Section VI

"But Paul teaches us (continues Georgius) that God 'would have all men to be saved.'" It follows, therefore, according to his understanding of that passage, either that God is disappointed in His wishes, or that all men without exception must be saved. If he should reply that God wills all men to be saved on His part, or as far as he is concerned, seeing that salvation is, nevertheless, left to the free will of each individual; I, in return, ask him why, if such be the case, God did not command the Gospel to be preached to all men indiscriminately from the beginning of the world? why He suffered so many generations of men to wander for so many ages in all the darkness of death? Now it follows, in the apostle's context, that God "would have all men come to the knowledge of the truth." But the sense of the whole passage is perfectly plain, and contains no ambiguity to any reader of candour and of a sound judgment. We have fully explained the whole passage in former pages. The apostle had just before exhorted that solemn and general prayers should be offered up in the Church "for kings and princes," etc., that no one might have cause to deplore those kings and magistrates whom God might be pleased to set over them; because, at that time, rulers were the most violent enemies of the faith. Paul, therefore, makes Divine provision for this state of things by the prayers of the Church, and by affirming that the grace of Christ could reach to this order of men also, even to kings, princes and rulers of every description.

Calvin's Calvinism - Section VI

Reprobation: The Awesome Power of God: Calvin's Calvinism - Section VI

So, when Pharaoh is said to have been "hardened" of God, he was already, in himself, worthy of being delivered over unto Satan by the Most High. Moses, however, also testifies that Pharaoh had been before blinded of God "for this very purpose" (Exodus 9:16). Nor does Paul add any other cause for this, than that Pharaoh was one of the reprobate (Romans 9:17).  -- John Calvin


Although, therefore, the Lord doth thus strike the wicked with vindictive madness and consternation, and doth thus repay them with the punishment they deserve; yet this does not at all alter the fact that there is, in all the reprobate generally, a blindness and an obstinate hardness of heart. So, when Pharaoh is said to have been "hardened" of God, he was already, in himself, worthy of being delivered over unto Satan by the Most High. Moses, however, also testifies that Pharaoh had been before blinded of God "for this very purpose" (Exodus 9:16). Nor does Paul add any other cause for this, than that Pharaoh was one of the reprobate (Romans 9:17). In this same manner also does the apostle demonstrate that the Jews, when God had deprived them of the light of understanding, and had permitted them to fall into horrible darkness, suffered thereby the righteous punishments of their wicked contempt of the grace of God. And yet the apostle plainly intimates that this same blindness is justly inflicted of God upon all reprobates generally. For he testifies that the "remnant were saved "according to the election of grace," but that all "the rest were blinded." If, then, all "the rest," in the salvation of whom the election of God does not reign, are "blinded," it is doubtlessly and undeniably manifest that those same persons who, by their rebellion and provocation of the wrath of God, procured to themselves this additional blindness, were themselves from the beginning ordained to blindness. Hence the words of Paul are manifestly true, where he says that the vessels of wrath were "afore prepared unto destruction"; namely, all those who, being destitute of the Spirit of adoption, precipitated themselves into eternal destruction by their own sin and fault. Wherefore, I hesitate not to confess that in the secret judgments of God something always precedes, but "hidden." For how God condemns the wicked, and yet justifies the wicked, is a mystery that is shut up in that secret mind of God, which is inaccessible to all human understanding. Wherefore, there remains nothing better, nothing more becoming us, than to stand in awe with the apostle, and exclaim, "How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Romans 11:33) For God's judgments are a profound abyss.

Calvin's Calvinism - Section VI

Obey the Gospel?



“Obey” the Gospel?

. . . in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:8 NKJ)

ἐν πυρὶ φλογός διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσιν θεὸν καὶ τοῖς μὴ ὑπακούουσιν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· (2 Thessalonians 1:8 STE)  (Stephanus Greek New Testament, 1550).(1) 

This discussion will only take into consideration the immediate context of the expression, “those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” in 2 Thessalonians 1:8.(2)  What is the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:8 where Paul tells us that there are those who do not “obey” the Gospel?  This is a good question since the Reformed or Calvinist view is the same as the Lutheran view in regards to the law and Gospel distinction.  The general understanding of the Protestant Reformers, both Calvinists and Lutherans, is that there is an absolute distinction between law and Gospel.  The apparent problem with this verse and several others is that it “seems” to make the Gospel a law to be obeyed.  But is that what the text says in the biblical or Koine Greek of the passage?  This article will examine that issue in enough detail that the reader will be able to draw his or her own conclusions in the matter.

One of the first considerations in determining whether or not a proposition recorded in Scripture is a command of the moral law (Galatians 3:10, 11) or a promise of the Gospel.  (2 Corinthians 1:20; Galatians 3:16-18; Hebrews 6:11-18).  The law must be distinguished from the Gospel in order to properly interpret Scripture and the law/Gospel distinction is fundamental to a proper interpretation and application of the Scriptures.  Moreover, this distinction between the moral law of God and the promises of the Gospel and the covenant of grace is a distinction recognized by both the Lutheran and the Reformed or Calvinist side of the Protestant Reformation.  
  
Since the Bible was not written in English, it is necessary to do an exegetical study to determine the Greek root of the word “obey” in 2 Thessalonians 1:8.  The word “obey” in Greek is a present active indicative participle and is in the dative case. The mood is “indicative” and not “imperative” as you will notice.  The root word here is “hupakouο̄” or ὑπακούω.(3)  Although participles sometimes function as an imperative, as in Matthew 28:19, there is usually an imperative mood verb somewhere in close proximity to the participles which function as imperatives.  In Matthew 28:19, the imperative is “make disciples” while the word “go” is a participle which literally means “as you are going”.  A more literal translation of Matthew 28:19-20 is “make disciples” and the command assumes a going and the following actions of baptizing and teaching.  

The nuances of the biblical Greek are often missed in the translation from the original language into the receptor language, in this case English.  A further problem is that the majority of Greek grammars simply repeat usages of the participle and cite these examples as a proof for a presupposed meaning or usage as a preferred translation into the receptor language.  The fact is no one is absolutely sure that the position taken by various lexicons and grammars is absolutely correct.  For example, “hupakouο̄” (1st person present active indicative root) of the participle ὑπακούουσιν or “hupakouousin” means literally to “hear” or “listen”.  Most of the lexicons indicate that the participle in the dative case, “hupakouousin”, is an imperative use of the participle.  The participle is itself one of the Greek moods or modes.(4)

Technically speaking, the Gospel is what God promises to do for us.  So why does the Bible command us to “obey” the Gospel?  (Mark 16:15-16).  The Gospel is not a moral law but what God has promised to do for us through the finished work of Jesus Christ.  (John 19:30).  So the problem here is that many Christians and ministers confuse the moral law and the Gospel when they read this verse and the only other verse where the negation of obedience occurs in conjunction with the Gospel:

For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17 NKJ)

. . . in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:8 NKJ)

What is interesting here is that the Koine Greek word used for disobedience in 1 Peter 4:17 is a different word altogether from the word used in 2 Thessalonians 1:8.  In latter verse the reader will remember the word was “hupakouousin”, a participle in the dative case from the root, “hupakouο̄.”  In 1 Peter 4:17 the word is “apeithounton” from the root word “apeitheο̄.”(5)  Additionally, the word Peter uses is a participle, also.  The difference is that Peter does not use the present active dative case but the present active genitive.  Also, the use of “apeithounton” does not need a negative particle since the prefixed alpha indicates unbelief or disobedience.

There are a couple of other similar verses in the New Testament that differ in that they do not use the word “Gospel”:

but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-- indignation and wrath, (Romans 2:8 NKJ)

 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? (Galatians 3:1 NKJ)

You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? (Galatians 5:7 NKJ)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (Romans 1:18 NKJ)

 . . . that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:12 NKJ)

Without going into further details that would detract from the central point, let it be said that there are synonymous uses of several Greek words that mean in effect to believe or hear or listen to the Gospel.  Those who refuse to hear the message of the truth, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  (John 3:18).  Perhaps a better way to translate both 2 Thessalonians 1:8 and 1 Peter 4:17 is that those who refuse to believe in salvation by grace alone but seek to justify themselves by their own righteousness and their own works are lost because only Jesus Christ lived a sinless life and only His active obedience, applied to the believer by imputation, can make anyone legally justified in God’s eternal courtroom.  (2 Corinthians 5:10).

The faithfulness of Jesus Christ and His sinless life alone can justify the ungodly.  (Romans 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 2:16 KJV; Philippians 3:9 KJV).  The Gospel is not a “law” to be obeyed but a promise made by God, which promise is to be believed.  (2 Corinthians 1:20; Romans 9:4; Hebrews 6:11, 12; Galatians 3:16, 21; 2 Peter 1:4). Although the sinner is not begged by God to be saved--nor is His desire unfulfilled to save all if they would just save themselves by believing--the promise is to all who will believe.  Since God is the ultimate cause of even our faith, His desire to save His elect is never frustrated.   Not one of his elect will be lost and not one of the reprobate will be saved.  (John 10:1-25).  

Yet it is not a suggestion that those who hear the Gospel should believe it and be saved.  Rather, it is a command to repent and believe the Gospel.  (Acts 2:38, 39, 40).  That particular command is given to all who hear the law’s condemnation, which drives the elect to Christ (Galatians 3:24, 25); the Gospel’s promise is to save those who listen and who believe.  (Romans 10:8-13, 17).  This distinction between the imperatives of the law and the indicatives of the Gospel promises is not to be confused.  Such confusion leads to an eternal consequence.  (Romans 10:1-5; Philippians 3:9).

Footnotes:



1. I am using Robert Etienne’s Stephanus 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament here because it follows the manuscript families used by the King James Version translators.  There are some textual variations between the eclectic editions of the Greek New Testament and the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text.  The main differences in this verse apply only to the end of the verse and whether it refers simply to “our Lord Jesus” or to “our Lord Jesus Christ.”  The section of the verse pertaining to the phrase “obey not the Gospel” remains the same across the various text families and manuscripts.
2.  To view the interlinear of this verse at Biblos.com, click here:  2 Thessalonians 1:8.  (For best viewing of Greek text at Biblos.com, download and install these fonts to your computer:  Fonts.
3.  To view some words here you’ll need to download the SBL Greek fonts here.  Fonts.  You can also access the SBL Greek New Testament here:  SBL Greek New Testament.
4.  See Greek moods.
5.  See 1 Peter 4:17 interlinear at Biblos.com.

EV News :: Gerald Bray - Evangelical supporters of women bishops are "liberals in disguise"

EV News :: Gerald Bray - Evangelical supporters of women bishops are "liberals in disguise"

EV News :: Almost half the lay members who voted against female bishops were women / Voting Records

EV News :: Almost half the lay members who voted against female bishops were women / Voting Records

What-Is-Moralistic-Therapeutic-Deism - YouTube


Although I have some serious disagreements with Mike Horton and his view of Scripture as an "analogy" of God's revelation rather than direct and univocal revelation in verbal, plenary inspiration, I believe he nails down the problem with "The Purpose Driven Life" here.   If everyone is good and deserves heaven, then the Bible must be wrong.  The Bible says the opposite.  Everyone is a sinner, is born a sinner, and deserves eternal punishment.  (1 John 1:8; Romans 3:10-23, 6:21-23; Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12-21; Revelation 20:10, 14, 15).


What-Is-Moralistic-Therapeutic-Deism - YouTube

Saturday, November 24, 2012

The Doctrine of Predestination Ought to Be Preached! Calvin's Calvinism - Section V

On the contrary, however, the doctrine of election ought to be preached constantly and thoroughly, that he that hath 'ears to hear' might hear. And who hath these 'ears' but he who hath received them from Him who hath promised to give them? Wherefore, let him that receiveth not the truth reject it; but let him that heareth and understandeth the truth, receive it and drink it, and drink and live! As therefore godliness is to be preached, that God may be rightly obeyed and worshipped; so is predestination to be preached also, that he who 'hath ears to hear' the free grace of God might glory in God, and not in himself."   --John Calvin

Calvin's Calvinism - Section V

Calvin Against the Hypo-Calvinists and Arminians: Calvin's Calvinism - Section V


"How can it be said that the doctrine of predestination stands against preaching, and exhortation, and correction, and renders them useless (which are all so frequently used in Scripture), when the same Scripture speaks so much of predestination also?"   -- John Calvin


Calvin's Calvinism - Section V

Calvin Against the Lordship Salvationists and Eternal Insecurity: Calvin's Calvinism

Why is this exhortation? Is it that they might live in fear and uncertainty as to the issue? By no means. But that, nestling under the shadow of the wings of God, they might continually commit themselves unto His care, depending on Him alone, and so resting in His almighty power, as not to doubt of their being victorious unto the end. -- John Calvin

Then follows another objection of Pighius: "It is not without purpose (says he) that Paul warns all the faithful to take heed that they 'receive not the grace of God in vain,' Nor is it without a purpose, that Christ exhorts all His disciples to 'watch and pray.'" But if we understand and hold fast the important difference between the unconcerned security of the flesh and that tranquil staidness of mind which faith produces, the knot of this objection is untied at once. Believers ought to rest in the certainty of their salvation. But for what end? That they might lie still in sleepy quiet? That they might throw themselves down in cowardly indolence? Oh, no! But rather that, as they thus enjoy a quiet rest in God, they might give themselves the more unto prayer. Paul exhorts such to "work out their salvation with fear (timore) and trembling'' (tremore) (Philippians 2:12). Why is this exhortation? Is it that they might live in fear and uncertainty as to the issue? By no means. But that, nestling under the shadow of the wings of God, they might continually commit themselves unto His care, depending on Him alone, and so resting in His almighty power, as not to doubt of their being victorious unto the end. For Paul immediately subjoins the reason why the faithful should be thus anxious to shelter under the wings and omnipotent power of God: "For it is God (saith he) that worketh in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). Moreover, that the faithful might not remain in hesitation and suspense, he had already relieved them from all possible doubt. "Being confident (saith he) of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you, will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6). The Holy Spirit, therefore, nowhere exhorts us to the care and exercise of prayer under any idea that our salvation fluctuates in a state of uncertainty or doubt, for it rests safely in the hand of God. He nowhere imposes upon us a fear which might tend in any way to shake our confidence in the free love of God. No! The blessed Spirit, by such exhortations as these, designs only to quicken our natural slothfulness and unconcern.

Friday, November 23, 2012

The BibleWorks Blog » Modules

The BibleWorks Blog » Modules

The BibleWorks Blog » calvin

Add Calvin's Commentaries to Bibleworks 9.  This comes in handy because in the Resources window you can see a link to the verse displayed in the Browse window.  

The BibleWorks Blog » calvin

BibleWorks - Software for Biblical Exegesis, Research, and Bible Study




BibleWorks - Software for Biblical Exegesis, Research, and Bible Study

The UK Moves to Approve Immorality: EV News :: Gay marriage could be approved within weeks

The liberals have tried to usurp the title of "reformers" in England while calling the Christians "traditionalists".  In the English Reformation the Protestants were called Reformers while the papists were called "conservatives".  It is ironic that the anti-Christian forces have decided to call themselves "reformers" when all they stand for is against Christ and the Protestant "catholic" church.

EV News :: Gay marriage could be approved within weeks

Thursday, November 22, 2012

The Floodgates Are Open: The Church of England Will Have Women Bishops

Once you allow women as deacons the next slippery slope is women priests and pastors.  The next step is usually women bishops.  And the final step is the ordination of open homosexuals.  When a denomination is more concerned about secular humanism than biblical truth the results are almost always paganism influencing the church rather than the church influencing paganism. Incredibly, the Church of England voted for the time being against the consecration of women bishops.  For now at least the attack on traditional biblical values has been stymied.


Click here to read the story at Evangelical News in the UK:  EV News :: Pete Myers Channel 4 News article: 'Why I support the vote against women bishops'

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Talks by D. Broughton Knox: Moore Theological College

Browsing All Audio Sermons and Talks by Author "Knox, David Broughton"

How Do You Know You Are Elect? Calvin's Calvinism - Section IV

When Pighius asks me how I know that I am elected, my answer is, "Christ is, to me, more than a thousand witnesses." For when I find myself engrafted into His body, my salvation rests in a place so safe, secure, and tranquil, that it is as if I already realised it in heaven. If Pighius says, in reply, that the eternal election of God cannot be judged of by present grace, I will not attempt, on my part, to bring forward as proofs those feelings which believers experience in this matter, because it is not given unto "strangers" even to taste that bread on which the "children" of God feed. -- John Calvin


Calvin's Calvinism - Section IV

Cranmer and Calvin: Not Weighing Our Merits: Calvin's Calvinism - Section IV

God therefore foreknew His own, not as foreseeing their merits--for they had none--but because He cast upon them an eye of mercy and favour, thus distinguishing them from others, and numbering them among His children, notwithstanding all their sin and unworthiness, . . .  -- John Calvin


It is interesting how Archbishop Cranmer's liturgy in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer is in agreement with Calvin's theology.  Cranmer's 1552 BCP is preserved in the official prayer book, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.  The post communion prayer given after receiving the bread and the cup says:



After shall be said as followeth.
O LORD and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. AmenThe Lord's Supper.
Compare that with what Calvin says to refute the semi-pelagian (and the Arminian) doctrine of divine foreknowledge as opposed to absolute predestination:

If, then, no one man has anything good which he hath not received from God, what can one man bring into God's sight more than another in which he can excel his fellow man? God therefore foreknew His own, not as foreseeing their merits--for they had none--but because He cast upon them an eye of mercy and favour, thus distinguishing them from others, and numbering them among His children, notwithstanding all their sin and unworthiness, according to that word of Paul, "Who maketh thee to differ?" But Pighius' free foreknowledge, which he calls naked (that is, naked of all preference in the mind of God), is no foreknowledge at all. With what feathers of merit or acceptableness, then, will Pighius adorn his foreseen and predestined man, so as to prevent him from coming before God naked and deformed in every part? For the Scripture declares aloud, that whatever there is in fallen and corrupt man by nature is hateful in the sight of God. And it pronounces, with a voice equally loud, that nothing is acceptable to God but His own image in those who are created anew in Christ.  Calvin's Calvinism - Section IV
Who then is foolish enough to argue that Cranmer's theology is compatible with the theology of the Arminians or the Anglo-Catholics, both of which are blatantly semi-pelagian?  The modernist tendency to reconcile contradictory systems of theology which are obviously incompatible is both irrational and illogical.  Would that Calvinists today were consistent with Scripture and with the Protestant Reformers who had no qualms about calling out the heretics on their irrational views.

Charlie

Calvinistic Cartoons: Correcting Correctness



Calvinistic Cartoons: Correcting Correctness

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Questioning Christian Reconstructionism (Dominionism) – and Defending the Way of the Cross « Christian in America

The hypocrisy of the Reconstructionist Left wing of the "Evangelical" and "Reformed" spokesmen for the church is telling.  I'm certainly no Reconstructionist or Theonomist.  I agree more with the two kingdoms theology more often than not.  The blatant hypocrisy of the left is itself a form of reconstructionism and theonomy.  After all, it is a basic human right to murder your own unborn children, to spread gross immorality in the guise of gay/lesbian/transgender rights, and the right to view all the porn you want at any time you want.  And all this is hidden behind a sincere concern for the "poor".

But logically speaking if these idiots on the left are going to say that we and the government have a moral obligation to the poor, are they not advocating the idea that the government has an obligation to pass laws that uphold the moral law of God?  Is it a moral obligation or law to love our neighbors and our enemies or is it not?  If so, I have to ask how "love" endorses gross immorality and even murder under the facade of "love"?  Is it loving to destroy the traditional family, promote porn and homosexuality as "individual" freedom, while at the same time pretending to be for the poor and against the rich?

I posted the following comment over at Matthew Tuininga's blog:

If you're saying the "state" has a moral obligation to care for the poor, isn't that a form of "reconstructionism"?  And if the state has an obligation to keep God's moral law, doesn't that extend also to vice and gross immorality?  Murder and theft are against the law, aren't they?  But the state is also pushing gross immorality like the murder of the unborn and the gay/lesbian/transgender propaganda as if Christians are the ones who are immoral because they say there are limits to individual freedom, particularly when individualism is the source of moral decay and the erosion of traditional values that keep society healthy in the realm of general providence.

I'm no reconstructionist or theonomist.  But it seems to me that your criticism of Ball cuts both ways.  I am opposed to atheistic secularism and secular humanism.  But I have no problem with Christian humanism as it is supposed to glorify God and to do so by loving God, our neighbor and even our enemies.

Anyone who votes for the Left is voting not to help the poor but to kill babies, push pornography and homosexuality.  If you really want to help the poor, sell everything you have and give some of it to alms and charity:)  Oh, but wait, you just broke the 10th commandment.  Thou shalt not covet.  Higher taxes means you don't really have to love your neighbor or the church member you should have helped out.  After all, the evil secular humanists will do it for you.

Great Christian ethics you got there.

Charlie J. Ray

Anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that I reject postmillennialism, reconstruction, and theonomy.  I despise any idea of works or merits or the idea that human efforts alone can transform society.   On the other hand, any good Christian must also be a good citizen and obey God's moral law--which would include passing laws that uphold God's moral law as best we can.  If that moral law includes some moderation between pure capitalism and pure communism, so be it.  But one thing it cannot do is divorce the two kingdoms so completely that we go along blindly to the slaughterhouse while religious freedoms and the law of God are slowly being eradicated from our society.  At some point it seems that conservative Christianity will be for all practical purposes against the law.  Folks like Matthew Tuininga seem to think this is a good thing?

I certainly do not wish to confuse the moral law with the Gospel as the right wing reconstructionists have obviously done.  But when the two kingdoms folks attack the moral conservatives for opposing the politically correct propaganda of gay rights and the right to murder the unborn, they reveal themselves as leftist and atheistic socialists who care nothing for the moral law of God.  And the real irony is they hide their departure from the faith behind a moral law that says we ought to care for the poor.  Caring for the poor is all well and good.  But when that view is so prominent that secularism becomes the new "theonomy" of the nation, something is wrong.

Charlie

Click here to read Matthew Tuininga's blog:

Questioning Christian Reconstructionism (Dominionism) – and Defending the Way of the Cross « Christian in America

Calvin Rejects Two Wills in God and the Sincere Desire of God to Save All: Calvin's Calvinism - Section III

But men untaught of God, not understanding these things, allege that we hereby attribute to God a twofold or double will. Whereas God is so far from being variable, that no shadow of such variableness appertains to Him, even in the most remote degree.  -- John Calvin


All this Pighius loudly denies, adducing that passage of the apostle (1 Timothy 2:4): "Who will have all men to be saved;" and, referring also to Ezekiel 18:23, he argues thus, "That God willeth not the death of a sinner," may be taken upon His own oath, where He says by that prophet, "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the wicked that dieth; but rather that he should return from his ways and live." Now we reply, that as the language of the prophet here is an exhortation to repentance, it is not at all marvellous in him to declare that God willeth all men to be saved. For the mutual relation between threats and promises shows that such forms of speaking are conditional. In this same manner God declared to the Ninevites; and to the kings of Gerar and Egypt, that He would do that which, in reality, He did not intend to do, for their repentance averted the punishment which He had threatened to inflict upon them. Whence it is evident that the punishment was denounced on condition of their remaining obstinate and impenitent. And yet, the denunciation of the punishment was positive, as if it had been an irrevocable decree. But after God had terrified them with the apprehension of His wrath, and had duly humbled them as not being utterly desperate, He encourages them with the hope of pardon, that they might feel that there was yet left open a space for remedy. Just so it is with respect to the conditional promises of God, which invite all men to salvation. They do not positively prove that which God has decreed in His secret counsel, but declare only what God is ready to do to all those who are brought to faith and repentance.

But men untaught of God, not understanding these things, allege that we hereby attribute to God a twofold or double will. Whereas God is so far from being variable, that no shadow of such variableness appertains to Him, even in the most remote degree. Hence Pighius, ignorant of the Divine nature of these deep things, thus argues: "What else is this but making God a mocker of men, if God is represented as really not willing that which He professes to will, and as not having pleasure in that in which He in reality has pleasure?" But if these two members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ever ought to be? "I have no pleasure in the death of the' wicked;" and, "But that the wicked turn from his way and live"? read these two propositions in connection with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once. God requires of us this conversion, or "turning away from our iniquity," and in whomsoever He finds it He disappoints not such an one of the promised reward of eternal life. Wherefore, God is as much said to have pleasure in, and to will, this eternal life, as to have pleasure in the repentance; and He has pleasure in the latter, because He invites all men to it by His Word. Now all this is in perfect harmony with His secret and eternal counsel, by which He decreed to convert none but His own elect. None but God's elect, therefore, ever do turn from their wickedness. And yet, the adorable God is not, on these accounts, to be considered variable or capable of change, because, as a Law-giver, He enlightens all men with the external doctrine of conditional life. In this primary manner He calls, or invites, all men unto eternal life. But, in the latter case, He brings unto eternal life those whom He willed according to His eternal purpose, regenerating by His Spirit, as an eternal Father, His own children only.

It is quite certain that men do not "turn from their evil ways" to the Lord of their own accord, nor by any instinct of nature. Equally certain is it that the gift of conversion is not common to all men; because this is that one of the two covenants which Cod promises that He will not make with any but with His own children and His own elect people, concerning whom He has recorded His promise that "He will write His law in their hearts" (Jer. xxxi. 33). Now, a man must be utterly beside himself to assert that this promise is made to all men generally and indiscriminately.


Calvin's Calvinism - Section III

Calvin the Comedian: Are All Ordained to Eternal Life?

"Let our readers hence gather how much religion and conscience Pighius has in dealing with the holy Scripture! He then adds, from the Psalm, "The Lord is good to all" (cxlv. 9), from which he concludes that, therefore, all were ordained unto eternal life. Now, if this be true, the kingdom of heaven is open for dogs and asses!"   -- John Calvin  [Psalm 145:9].

Imagine if John Calvin were a blogger today?  Mike Horton, R. Scott Clark, Tim Keller, and all the Van Tilians would be hollering like stuck pigs about how uncouth such remarks are.  Sometimes a little plain language is called for.

Calvin's Calvinism - Section III

Monday, November 19, 2012

The Banner of Truth Attacks Gordon H. Clark: Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

But neither Christ nor the Apostles ever demanded that sinners have an emotional experience; they demanded that they believe the truth.  -- John Robbins



What Is Saving Faith?

John Robbins, Ph. D. 


Recently The Banner of Truth published two essays [this one above and the one entitled Sandemanianism at the Westminster Conference, dated 17/12/2004, ed] linking the names of Robert Sandeman, the 18th-century Scots preacher, and Gordon Clark, the 20th-century American theologian and philosopher. This is most unfortunate, for several reasons.

First, neither author of these essays, Douglas Barnes and Geoff Thomas, is qualified to make this comparison. At the time of their writing, neither had read the relevant works of Robert Sandeman, and one of them had not even read Gordon Clark's book What Is Saving Faith? (Whether they have tried to do their homework since they wrote, I do not know.) Despite not having read Dr. Clark's book, Thomas dismisses Clark's view as "the erroneous teaching of the late Gordon Clark." When I was a college professor, any student who made such claims, not having read the sources, would have flunked the course. Apparently seminary graduates and ministers are not expected observe even minimum standards of scholarship.

Second, these authors, Thomas and Barnes, have used Sandeman as a bogeyman to scare people away from reading Dr. Clark. In so doing, they have not only dragged a red herring through the discussion of Clark's views, but they have libeled Dr. Clark.

Third, the authors of these essays, both seminary-trained men, both claiming to be Reformed, ought to know that the question is not, Does Clark agree with Sandeman, but, Does Clark agree with Scripture? For all Protestants that is the question to ask. To ask the question, Does Clark agree with Sandeman, and to answer it, Yes, he does, not having read Sandeman (or even Clark), is less than honest and worse than unscholarly. The long-term effect is even more serious: Such a question introduces into readers' minds a standard other than Scripture for evaluating theological opinions. Tradition, regarded as either negative or positive, becomes the standard, and the Protestant rule of faith is eclipsed.

Let us turn to the body of Barnes' essay. In his opening paragraph he describes Clark's view: "For Clark, faith was none other than intellectual assent. Believe the proper things about God and Christ, and you were saved. Misunderstand, and all is lost. No heartfelt emotion or trust is needed...or even involved."

In his essay, Barnes does not define the word "trust," making it distinct from assent (which is crucial to his argument), so the reader must guess what he means. Unlike Dr. Clark's careful definition of terms in What Is Saving Faith? Barnes makes undefined terms central to his argument. The result is that Barnes, quite literally, doesn't know what he is talking about.

When he uses the phrase "heartfelt emotion or trust" that seems to be about as close as he comes to defining "trust." Trust is a "heartfelt emotion." Which emotion Barnes does not say. Perhaps it is a feeling of absolute dependence, as the German Liberal Schleiermacher said. (Barnes uses the phrase "trusting reliance," which makes him sound like Schleiermacher.) Whatever it is, this heartfelt emotion, Barnes says, is what makes belief saving, for Barnes denies that believing the truth (see the quotation above) saves anyone. To be saved, one must also feel an emotion. But neither Christ nor the Apostles ever demanded that sinners have an emotional experience; they demanded that they believe the truth.

Barnes flatly asserts: "Faith alone is not belief alone." Faith and belief are two different things in Barnes' soteriology. It follows, does it not, that when Christ said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life," that he was misleading Nicodemus? And when the Apostle Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" he was misleading the jailer? One might quote scores of similar verses, but these two will do to show how far Barnes is from Christian soteriology. According to the Scriptures, belief of the Gospel, and only belief of the Gospel, saves.

This point deserves some emphasis, for in his emotional zeal to charge Clark with error, Barnes attacks, repeatedly and emphatically, the notion that belief of the Gospel saves the sinner. This is a frontal attack on the Gospel itself.

In denying that belief of the Gospel saves, Barnes has apparently been misled by the Latin fides, a word not found in Scripture. Barnes refers to the "traditional threefold definition of faith as notitia (understanding), assensus (assent) and fiducia (trust)." He correctly describes this definition as "traditional," but he fails to show that it is Biblical. And that is what he must show, if we are to accept his argument.

Contrary to Barnes' preoccupation with Latin terms, Dr. Clark disposed of the misleading Latin definition by showing it to be tautologous, and then he examined the Greek terms of the New Testament, demonstrating by the meticulous exegesis of scores of verses exactly what the Holy Spirit meant by the words "believe" and "belief": Belief is assent to a proposition. For example, John 4:50: "The man believed the word that Jesus had spoken to him." John 2:22: "They believed the Scripture." John 9:18: "But the Jews did not believe...that he had been blind." And so on. Saving faith is not belief of any stray proposition, such as "he was born blind," but belief of the propositions of the Gospel.

Furthermore, saving belief is a species of the genus belief, and unless one knows what belief is, one cannot understand what saving belief is. What distinguishes saving belief/faith from generic belief/faith is not some additional subjective psychological factor, as Barnes asserts, but the object, the propositions, believed. It is not our subjective emotional state that saves us, but the objective truth. Saving belief is belief of the Gospel truth. Barnes' subjectivism is subversive of Christianity.

Barnes asserts: "Clark simply has no place in his system for trust." Well, Clark has no place in his system for undefined terms, and if trust remains undefined, then there is no place in Christian theology for it. But Barnes apparently did not read page 76 of What Is Saving Faith?: "If anyone wish to say the children [of Matthew 18:6 and Mark 9:42] trusted in him, well and good; to trust is to believe that good will follow." Here Clark defined "trust" as belief of a proposition in the future tense, in this case, the proposition "good will follow." To trust a person is to believe the proposition, "he always tells the truth." To trust God is to believe the proposition: "God will be good to me forever." Or as Paul put it more eloquently in Romans 8: "For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." But an undefined psychological state called "trust" has no place in the Gospel or in Biblical theology.

Barnes next misquotes and misinterprets the Westminster Confession: "Westminster Confession of Faith 14.2 declares that saving faith involves not merely believing God's word and accepting Christ's claims, but also 'receiving and resting upon Christ alone for all that salvation entails.'"

Once again, Barnes' un-Biblical view of faith leads him to assert that "believing God's word and accepting Christ's claims" is inadequate for salvation because it is different from "receiving and resting upon Christ alone." When one recalls that Christ's claims include this one, "No one comes to the Father but by me," it is obvious that Barnes' alleged distinction collapses. Believing Christ's claims is ipso facto "receiving and resting on Christ alone."

Here is what 14.2 actually says: "By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and [he] acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains, yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."

A careful reading of this paragraph shows that the Westminster Assembly first asserted that the Christian believes to be true whatever Scripture says, simply because God says it; and then Assembly identified the "principal acts of saving faith" as belief of the Scriptural propositions about Christ. Barnes imagines a contrast between belief (which he says does not save) and an emotional experience, but there is none in the Confession. It is all belief, all intellectual assent, and the contrast in 14.2 is between believing all the propositions of Scripture, and the "principal acts of saving faith," which is believing the specific propositions about Christ.

Barnes makes a similar blunder with regard to the Larger Catechism, which in question 72 is not burdened with drawing a distinction between "assent" (a literal term) and "receiving and resting" (figurative terms), but with making clear that it is not merely the promise of the Gospel (eternal life) that the sinner believes, but also the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ as the sole basis for pardon and salvation. Because of his subjectivist bias, Barnes misreads both these passages in the Westminster Standards, trying to make the effectiveness of saving faith depend on something inside the sinner, rather than on the objective work of Christ.

Barnes' bias leads to his misreading of the Belgic Confession as well. He quotes Article 23, which contradicts his views: "We do not presume to trust anything in ourselves [that includes emotions] or any of our merits, 'relying and resting upon the obedience of Christ crucified alone, which becomes ours when we believe in him.'" Admitting that this statement teaches "intellectual belief," Barnes asserts that "relying and resting" involves "something more." What this "something more" is, Barnes does not say. He asserts this because "Belgic 23 concludes that such a response to God [that is belief] frees one's conscience 'of fear, terror, and dread' -- emotions which rather clearly transcend the intellect!"

This is a most bizarre argument. First, Barnes told us that heartfelt emotion was necessary for salvation; now he claims the Belgic Confession supports him, even when it says that belief of the Gospel ends emotions!

Second, Barnes asserts that emotions "transcend the intellect," a statement that betrays his fundamentally Antichristian and secular psychology. Barnes has absorbed more Freud that he cares to admit. He simply does not understand that emotions are reactions to beliefs, and that beliefs are more fundamental than emotions. That is why, as the Belgic Confession says, belief of the Gospel frees the sinner from these emotions.

Barnes' appeal to the Heidelberg Catechism rests on the same subjectivist misreading of the document. Answer 21 is concerned to state first a general principle ("all that God has revealed to us in his word") and then the specific propositions of the Gospel. Like 14.2 of the Westminster Confession, it does not use the word "trust."

Barnes also cites several confused statements from a number of theologians. One of the benefits of reading Dr. Clark's book is that he shows how the theologians speak out of both sides of their mouths, contradicting on one page what they had asserted on the page before. Clark easily can and does cite a Reformed tradition supporting his views, just as Barnes cites a tradition supporting his view. Such quotes settle nothing. Only Scripture is decisive, and Scripture says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." To go beyond this, to assert that belief is not enough, is to deny the Gospel.

Therefore, when Barnes concludes, "Belief alone is not enough," he denies the Gospel. And when he cites as a reason for this "inescapable conclusion" that man's "intellect is just as polluted and helpless as his conscience and emotions," one can only conclude that he has not understood anything in Dr. Clark's book. His essay is merely an emotional rant against Clark.  

To read what Dr. Robbins was responding to, click here:  Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.