A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism

A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism

Calvin Teaches Double Predestination and Equal Ultimacy: Calvin's Calvinism - Section II

And when Pighius holds that God's election of grace has no reference to, or connection with, His hatred of the reprobate, I maintain that reference and connection to be a truth. Inasmuch as the just severity of God answers, in equal and common cause, to that free love with which He embraces His elect.   -- John Calvin

Calvin's Calvinism - Section II

Made Willing: Calvin's Calvinism - Section II

Romans 9:16

Here, again, let me adopt the language of Augustine. "There are daily drawn unto Christ (says he) those who were His enemies. No one can come unto Me (says Christ), except My Father draw him.' He does not say 'lead him,' as if the will of man, in some way, preceded; for who is drawn that is already willing to go? But he that is chosen of God is drawn in a wonderful way by Him, who knoweth how to work in the hearts of men. Not that they may be made to believe against their wills, or unwillingly, but that they may be made willing who before were unwilling. Hence we see that a man's eternal election of God is proved by this subsequent 'running'; yet so proved, that God's mercy alone (which lifts up those that are down, and brings back the wandering into the way; nay, which raises the dead to life, and calleth things to be which are not) hath the pre-eminence."   John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism.

Calvin's Calvinism - Section II

Quote of the Day: Unique Features of Depravity

"I think better than saying people are 'born with' homosexual orientations is saying that each individual has unique features to his own depravity." Brandon Burdette

Pighius Tries to "Root" Up the Truth of Unconditional Election: Calvin's Calvinism -Section I

[I love it when I see that the Reformers had a sense of humor.  Notice the pun played on Pighius' name?  He's a "pig" or "hog" who tries to root up the "words of the apostle" :)  You'll notice that Calvin refers to the Roman Catholic Church as a "stinking sty of swine"!]

And yet Pighius, by a senseless cavil, as by a hog's snout, tries to root up these words of the apostle with all their positive plainness of meaning. He replies that the election of grace here means that Jacob had merited no such thing beforehand. But since the apostle commends this electing grace of God on the very ground that while the one was elected, the other was rejected, the vain fiction of Pighius concerning universal grace falls to the ground at once. . . .

. . . he should have me a seconder of his grave admonition, if he would shew to his readers, as the Church, a sheepfold of Christ, and not a stinking sty of swine!

 

  -- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism....

****

The apostle places before us the two sons of Isaac, who, when begotten together in the secret and sacred womb of nature, as in a temple of God, as it were, were nevertheless, while in the womb together, separated by the oracular word of God to an entirely different destiny. Now the apostle assigns the cause of this difference (which otherwise might have been sought in the merits of the lives of these two children) to the hidden counsel of God: "That the counsel of God might stand." We here distinctly learn that it was determined of God to choose one only out of these two children. And yet Pighius, by a senseless cavil, as by a hog's snout, tries to root up these words of the apostle with all their positive plainness of meaning. He replies that the election of grace here means that Jacob had merited no such thing beforehand. But since the apostle commends this electing grace of God on the very ground that while the one was elected, the other was rejected, the vain fiction of Pighius concerning universal grace falls to the ground at once. The apostle does not here simply say that Jacob was appointed heir of life, that the election of God might stand, but that his brother being rejected, his brother's birthright was conferred on him. I am fully aware of what some other dogs here bark out, and what are the murmurings of many ignorant persons, that the testimonies of the apostle which we have cited do not treat of eternal life, nor of eternal destruction, at all. But if such objectors held the true principles of theology in any degree (which ought to be well known by all Christian men), they would express their sentiments with a little less confidence and insolence. For the answer of God to Rebecca's complaint was designed to shew her that the issue of the struggling which she felt in her womb would be that the blessing of God and the covenant of eternal life would rest with the younger. And what did the struggling itself signify, but that both the children could not be heirs of the covenant at the same time, which covenant had already, by the secret council of God, been decreed for the one?

****

 And not only this (saith the apostle), but when Rebecca also had conceived by one (embrace), even by our father Isaac (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth), it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. ix. 10). 

Pighius would slide away under the excuse that this is one of the most difficult places of Scripture. And suppose I concede this; I do not thereby acknowledge that his impious barking is to be endured, when he boastingly asserts that it is a labyrinth in which no straight way can be found. What! are we to suppose that the Holy Spirit, speaking by the mouth of the apostle, went out of His way or lost Himself, so as to lead us aside and beyond what it is useful or proper for us to know?

****

Our very modest (!) opponent adds, "This is one of the portions of Scripture which unlearned and unstable persons corrupt to their own destruction." Now this is the very fact which, by the plainest proof, he forces us to declare concerning himself, so lawlessly does he twist and pervert the whole context of the Apostle Paul. And when he exhorts his readers to hold themselves obedient to the Church, in the interpretation of all such difficult passages of Scripture, he should have me a seconder of his grave admonition, if he would shew to his readers, as the Church, a sheepfold of Christ, and not a stinking sty of swine! For which is Pighius' Church but that vortex, formed of the congregated mass of all iniquities, and ever filling, but not yet full, of every kind of error?

Calvin's Calvinism -Section I

Augustine Admits His Error: He Thought Faith Was Not a Particularized Gift

Augustine admits his error when he formerly believed that faith preceded grace:

And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate.

Augustine on Predestination

Calvinistic Cartoons: Arminian Welcome Committee

This one might apply to those classical Calvinists who are falsely accused of that dreaded disease called "hyper-Calvinism"!   What a dirty, low down curse word.  You're a Calvinist AND a -- GASP -- HYPER-CALVINIST!  Say it ain't so???!  The Van Tilian welcome committee is waiting in the bushes:)



Calvinistic Cartoons: Arminian Welcome Committee

Samson, Part II: Judges 16, etc. | Faith Alone

Samson, Part II: Judges 16, etc. | Faith Alone

Calvin Against the Free Offer of the Gospel: Calvin's Calvinism -Section I

The fiction of Pighius is puerile and absurd, when he interprets grace to be God's goodness in inviting all men to salvation, though all were lost in Adam.  -- John Calvin

Calvin's Calvinism -Section I

Quote of the Day: Calvin's Calvinism -Section I

Now, if we are not really ashamed of the Gospel, we must of necessity acknowledge what is therein openly declared: that God by His eternal goodwill (for which there was no other cause than His own purpose), appointed those whom He pleased unto salvation, rejecting all the rest; and that those whom He blessed with this free adoption to be His sons He illumines by His Holy Spirit, that they may receive the life which is offered to them in Christ; while others, continuing of their own will in unbelief, are left destitute of the light of faith, in total darkness.  -- John Calvin

Calvin's Calvinism -Section I

Calvin's Calvinism

Thanks to Brandon Burdette for providing me with this link.  Calvin's Calvinism pretty much shoots down the doctrines of "common grace" among the Reformed.

Click here to read the book online:  Calvin's Calvinism

You can hear a sermon by Angus Stewart on Calvin's diatribe against Pighius here:  Calvin Versus Pighius.  (See:  CPRC Audio).

Mere Anglicanism | 1.24.2013 Charleston, S.C.

I can summarize "Mere Anglicanism" in two simple words:  "Jesus wept."   (John 11:35).

Mere Anglicanism | 1.24.2013 Charleston, S.C.

Orthodox Semi-Pelagianism: Anglican Church in North America and Russian Orthodox Dialogue

 Oddly enough the Anglo-papists have more in common with other semi-pelagians in the Russian Orthodox Church than with the Evangelicals they "claim" to be a part of.  Go figure.  Rodney King theology at work: "Why can't we all just get along?"

On the other hand, Jesus and Paul seemed to have been exclusivist sectarians, not ecumenicalists.  That sort of thing could get you crucified or beheaded.  (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4; John 12:25).

The Rev. Ray Sutton was once just a lowly bishop in a dwindling Evangelical continuing church called the Reformed Episcopal Church.  The REC is now a member of the Anglican Church in North America.  Although the REC was founded on Evangelical fellowship, it would appear that fellowship with papists and the eastern churches is more important that being faithful to the Anglican Formularies.  The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion clearly say that both Rome and the eastern churches are in serious error:

Article XIX

Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

My, how theonomy and reconstructionism deteriorates quickly into semi-pelagianism and idolatry.  It might also explain why the Federal Vision and Lordship Salvation errors are ravaging Presbyterianism.  The Reformed Episcopal Church was once solidly Reformed and Calvinistic. Theonomy and reconstructionist theology has lead that denomination into apostasy and the Anglo-Catholic/Tractarian error.  And folks like R. Scott Clark and Mike Horton dare to call folks like me "hyper-Calvinist"?  Go figure.  Even the Baptists are on board with this nonsense as Frank Turk of the Pyromaniacs blog is buddy buddy with none other than Doug Wilson, chief heresiarch of the Federal Vision error and also a theonomist/reconstructionist.  How the mighty have fallen.  (2 Samuel 1:19).

Click here to read the story:  Anglican Church in North America

See also:  Will the Real Ray Sutton Please Stand Up?

And:  Trinity Review:  Ecclesiastical Megalomania

The Passing of an Evangelist: With thanks for John Chapman 1930–2012 : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

I did not know John Chapman personally. However, I did see a video presentation where he was speaking to Tony Payne of the Sydney Anglicans. Although I think Sydney is mostly hypo-Calvinist due to their confusion about the extent of the atonement and their adherence to the quasi-Arminianism of the three points of common grace--all contradictory and irrational and illogical compromises against the logical propositions of the Scriptures--still I think Sydney is about the most theologically conservative Anglican diocese in the world. I strongly disagree with the Amyraldianism taught at Moore Theological College.  But still I hold out hope that Sydney's influence on the rest of the Anglican world will turn things back in a more Protestant and Reformed direction.  That is hoping a lot in the face of the apostasy of the Anglican Communion at large.

On the other hand, the so-called Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Anglican Church in North America are merely secular organizations with a few hints of the truth here and there. Mostly, however, the so-called "orthodox" Anglicans are simply Papist lite who reject homosexuality and the ordination of open homosexuals. Hello, but rejecting homosexuality is not the only qualification for true Christian faith. The ecumenical creeds are necessary for saving faith but so are the Reformed Confessions and the Anglican Formularies.  (See:  Anglo-Catholicism).

It's the Anglo-Catholics who reduce doctrine to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, not Evangelicals. Or at least that's supposed to be the case. But these Anglicans are all so tolerant, loving, kind and gentle that dissimulation and false teaching does not seem to bother them anymore. As much as I would like to sing the praises of the deceased John Chapman and the remaining Sydney Anglicans, I can only shake my head at their willingness to cave to broad latitudinarianism pretending to be "Evangelical" and "Reformed". That's not to say that I do not have an affection for their fellowship and friendship. It's just to say that I do not trust the direction they are headed. As the old saying goes, "Stupid is as stupid does." The movie Dumb and Dumber comes to mind as well. 

Will John Chapman be in heaven? Most likely. It's good that God overlooks the stupidity of some of us. But then if we get the law and Gospel distinction wrong it might mean that we miss heaven not just by an inch but by an infinite eternity. Anglo-Catholics get it wrong but Sydney is too insipid to say so. The vast majority of those in the Anglican Church in North America are unconverted papists and idolaters who worship the creatures of bread and wine, who think they merit salvation with the help of a common grace and other such nonsense. May God have mercy on John Chapman and may He grant the Sydney Anglicans the grace to repent of their Evangelical latitudinarianism and fake ecumenicalism. 

Charlie

With thanks for John Chapman 1930–2012 : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

Calvinistic Cartoons: Not Much of a Battle

Calvinistic Cartoons: Not Much of a Battle

My Reflections On: The Hobbit's Invitation for Teens

Bilbo Baggins

 

Galatians 3:7 (NKJV) — 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

[Click on the title to see the article, The Hobbit's Invitation for Teens.]

Yesterday evening as I was driving to a professional educator's class I happened to flip to the local Moody radio station at WKES 91.1 FM out of Lakeland, Florida.  (See WCIE, 91.1 FM).  At any rate, I was listening to Janet Parshall's radio program, In the Market, which is broadcast via satellite out of Chicago. But I will come back this is a moment.  

Some background of WKES, Lakeland, Florida is in order here.  While the history of the radio station itself would take hours to recount, I will just tell you that it was at one time owned by the now defunct Carpenter's Home Church, a charismatic and pentecostal congregation in Lakeland, Florida.  Unfortunately, though the church was thriving during the mid-1980s, it died after a huge scandal struck.  Pastor Karl Strader's son, Daniel, had fraudulently bilked $3 million dollars from the retirees of the Carpenter's Home Estates retirement community, leaving them without their retirement nest eggs.  That point was the beginning of the debacle of the 10,000 seat sanctuary and a congregation of 5,000 regular attenders.  Moreover, WCIE sold out to Moody Radio.

Which brings me to the point of the article, namely that the theme of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, written by the late Roman Catholic, J. R. R. Tolkien, is that ultimate power ultimately corrupts the person who wields it.  Jesus clearly said that whoever would follow him must forsake all and take up their cross and follow Him.  (Cf.  Matthew 16:24, 25).  Given the popularity of the prosperity gospel these days and the false teaching of New Thought and the Word of Faith movement which lies behind those doctrines, Christians would do well to take heed to Tolkien's theme of good versus evil and that evil once taking hold corrupts all who touch it.  (Cf. Luke 22:3-6).

I was introduced to The Hobbit in a 9th grade English class at Hardee High School in Wauchula, Florida, by my teacher, Al Pace.  I will be forever grateful for studying the novel in that class in 1974.  It truly was and is one of my favorite novels of all time.  Afterwards, I read The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  Those books were and still are burned forever into my psyche.  I particularly enjoyed the underlying Christian themes of the books, something all Christians can and should benefit from apart from the fact that this is great literature.

My problem, however, is that whenever Evangelicals sing the praises of the books and the movies based upon them they conveniently overlook the fact that J. R. R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic.  Many of these same folks talk about Tolkien's friend and colleague, C. S. Lewis, as if he, too, were a flaming evangelist for the Evangelical and Protestant faith.  Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.  (See:  Was C. S. Lewis an Anglo-Catholic?  See also:  Did C. S. Lewis Go to Heaven?)

What particularly upset me about Janet Parshall's program, In the Market, was that she made a remark early in the program about J. R. R. Tolkien being now in the Lord's presence.  I would like to know how a man who was devoutly Roman Catholic and who apparently believed in the idolatries of the Roman Catholic Church and the false gospel of justification by faith plus merits and infused righteousness could possibly be in heaven?  The naivete of Evangelicals these days is for all practical purposes nothing more than an Evangelical version of ecumenical latitudinarianism and theological relativism.

If the Gospel revealed in the Holy Scriptures is not some nebulous, existential encounter with an undefined mystical and cosmic Christ of liberalism, then what is the Gospel?  The Gospel is a series of logical and rational propositions revealed in great detail and precision in the Bible.  Doctrine, in short, is dogmatic and non-negotiable.  If the gospel of Rome is true, then it would be impossible for the biblical Gospel to be at the time true because the two positions are mutually contradictory and exclusive of the other.  There can be no middle ground between Rome and Geneva or between Rome and Canterbury or even Wittenberg.  As Martin Luther said, the crux of the matter is whether or not there is free will or if everything is determined of necessity by God Himself, extending even to men and angels.  In addition to contending earnestly for the absolute sovereignty of God and the bondage of the human will to original sin and inherent sin, Luther contended that the doctrine by which the Gospel stands or falls is the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  (Romans 4:1-8; Galatians 2:14-16).

Because I was disturbed by the confusion on the part of Janet Parshall, I called the toll free number on my cell phone and was surprised to get an immediate answer.  (1-877-548-3675).  Trying to be low key, I mentioned to her that it might be that J. R. R. Tolkien's Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism were incompatible with each other.  I then asked her if she could mention that on the program and her immediate response was, "No."  Rather than get into a debate on the phone and because I was on the way to a class, I replied politely, "Well, thank-you," and hung up.

When Evangelicalism is so broad that the Gospel gets lost it has crossed over from the truth into compromise.  I can draw no other conclusion.  (John 14:6; Acts 4:10, 12; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 4; Galatians 1:6-9; 3:1-7).

Click here to read the linked article:  The Hobbit's Invitation for Teens

It's Official: The Southern Baptist Convention Has Affirmed Pelagianism

Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.  -- Our Lord Jesus Christ.  John 8:47

For those of you who want to know, which might not be very many, the Southern Baptist Convention's over-reaction to Calvinism in their ranks not only denies their fundamental roots in Calvinism but also fully affirms the doctrine of Pelagianism:

Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

Genesis 3:15-24; 6:5; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 6:5, 7:15-16;53:6; Jeremiah 17:5,9, 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:19-20; Romans 1:18-32; 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23; 7:9; Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 6:9-10;15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15  [Posted at:  SBC Today].

Closely related to this is the so-called Reformed Baptist view that "all" children who die in infancy are elect.  The late Roger Nicole held that view.  Nicole was a particular or Calvinist Baptist.  But the Bible only affirms that the children of born again believers are promised salvation if they die in infancy.  In fact, the children of believers are marked with the sign of baptism not because they are regenerated by baptism but because God's covenant of grace promise is to save the infants of believers who die in infancy.  All others are a matter of speculation.   (Cf. Acts 2:38-40; Acts 4:10, 12; Acts 16:14, 15).

Looks like sinners are not born sinful; they merely become sinners by following Adam's bad example.  Unfortunately, that is not what the Bible teaches:

Article IX

Of Original or Birth Sin

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin. 

(Cf.  Romans 3:10-23; Psalm 51:3-4; Psalm 58:3; Genesis 6:5; Romans 5:12-21; Jeremiah 17:9; Ecclesiastes 9:3; Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21-22; Jeremiah 13:23).

Only the new birth can open the eyes of those who are in bondage to sin.  (Cf.  John 3:3-8; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26).   The Southern Baptist Convention has unwittingly gone over to liberalism via Pelagianism.  It's not that far away.

The Founders Ministries site shows clearly that the SBC was at one time solidly Calvinist:  Abstract of Principles.  From the looks of things that leaves out any possibility of my ever joining another Southern Baptist congregation.  I suppose that could change if they retract the heresy printed above but that is not likely to happen.  Next thing you know the SBC will be back in the same old moderate theology or liberal theology it rejected a few years back.  It is only a matter of time, folks.

Ironically, the writer concedes that there were Calvinist connections in the SBC from early on:

While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism. For almost a century, Southern Baptists have found that a sound, biblical soteriology can be taught, maintained, and defended without subscribing to Calvinism. [Ibid.]

That will be as close as you will see of any admission of an association of the Southern Baptist Convention ever being part of the dreaded "Calvinism".  Looks like heresy has come full circle once again.

John 8:31–47 (NKJV) — 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” 39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Benjamin B. Warfield: Against Accommodation

It was one thing for Paul to become “all things to all men” that he might gain them to the truth; it was another for Peter to dissemble at Antioch, and so confirm men in their error.  -- B. B. Warfield 

It is one thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity of the learner; it is another thing to adopt the errors of the time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate them as the very truths of God. It was one thing for Paul to become “all things to all men” that he might gain them to the truth; it was another for Peter to dissemble at Antioch, and so confirm men in their error. The accommodation attributed to the New Testament writers is a method by which they did and do not undeceive but deceive; not a method by which they teach the truth more winningly and to more; but a method by which they may be held to have taught along with the truth also error. The very object of attributing it to them is to enable us to separate their teaching into two parts—the true   (p 195)  and the false; and to justify us in refusing a part while accepting a part at their hands. At the best it must so undermine the trustworthiness of the apostles as deliverers of doctrine as to subject their whole teaching to our judgment for the separation of the true from the false; at the worst, it must destroy their trustworthiness by destroying our confidence in their veracity. Mr. Stuart chose the better path; but he did so, as all who follow him must, by deserting the principle of accommodation, which leads itself along the worse road. With it as a starting point we must impeach the New Testament writers as lacking either knowledge or veracity.

Warfield, B. B. (2008). The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume 1: Revelation and Inspiration (194–195). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Some questions for the new Archbishop of Canterbury | Theological Theology

Dr. Mark Thompson, Moore Theological College, has some pertinent questions for the new archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby:

 

• Will you have the courage to stand up to Ms Jefferts Schori and her companions in The Episcopal Church as they seek to impose their revisionist agenda on the rest of the Anglican Communion?
• Will you have the courage to call to account those who depart from the biblical teaching about the uniqueness of Christ as the only way of salvation and the necessity of repentance and faith as the proper response to Christ's atoning death and glorious resurrection?
• Will you have the courage to stand with the Primates of the Global South and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in the task of proclaiming Christ to a lost world?
• Will you have the courage to remove from office Canon Kenneth Kearon and the others in the Anglican Communion Office who have manipulated the ACC agenda over the past decade in extraordinarily unhelpful ways?
• Will you have the courage to challenge the British government over its social engineering agenda, including the promotion of the legitimacy of homosexual behaviour?
• Will you have the courage to stand with those faithful Christians and Christian congregations in other jurisdictions who are being persecuted because they want to stand with the teaching of Scripture against the revisionist proposals of denominational officials (The Tron, Glasgow in the Church of Scotland and St Johns Shaugnessy in the Church of Canada come to mind, but there are many others)?
• Will you have the courage to reform the structures of the Church of England to enable it to focus on winning the nation for Christ?
• Will you have the courage to break ranks with the other bishops of the Church of England if fidelity to the teaching of Scripture demands it?
• Will you have the courage to insist upon genuine, effective and permanent protection for those faithful Christian men and women in the Church of England who in good conscience cannot accept the oversight of a woman bishop?
• Will you have the courage to preach Christ crucified and risen if you ever have the opportunity to preach in an internationally televised Christian service (a royal wedding or royal funeral perhaps)?
• Will you have the courage to withhold an invitation to the next Lambeth Conference (2018) from those bishops who have denied the faith in word and action and persecuted the faithful who have opposed their agenda?
• Will you have the courage to support evangelistic initiatives throughout Britain, including the planting of churches in areas where there is no clear and biblically faithful Christian witness?
• Will you have the courage to refuse ordination to those who by word or lifestyle deny the teaching of Scripture?
• Will you have the courage to stand with and speak out for those Christians who are pilloried, persecuted and even prosecuted for being open about their Christian commitment and living consistently with that Christian commitment in Britain in the twenty-first century?

 Click here for the full story:  

Some questions for the new Archbishop of Canterbury | Theological Theology

American Anglican Council on the Archbishop of Canterbury announcement : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia

I have to ask if an oil company executive with less than one year experience as the bishop of Durham has any theological education or training?  Running a corporation is a sociological function, not the qualifications for pastoral and theological leadership in the church.  Although the new archbishop professes to be an Evangelical Christian that may or may not be a predictor of his actual performance as a leader in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion at large.  I recall that there were high hopes for the 103rd archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey.  Carey was better than Rowan Williams but only the future will tell how effective Justin Welby will be as the new archbishop.

American Anglican Council on the Archbishop of Canterbury announcement : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia