BLOG AND INTERNET SITE WATCH

Since I usually spend a few minutes everyday, while at home and in front of my computer, checking up on various sites which I have bookmarked (and others). I thought it wouldn't take long to share my findings with you. And that's the way, I want to keep it: i.e. it wouldn't take long. Therefore the plan is for me to refer to the blog or website article and restrict comments (if any) just to a few words or sentences. Any feedback from this page will appear either in the "Calvinistic emails page" or "other emails page" if appropriate.

LATEST UPDATES:

Tuesday 28th August, 2007

Rose has started a study on Romans 9 but moving slowly at the first. Should heat up when we get to the controversial verses mid chapter. Antonio wants to debate another from within the self styled Free Grace Movement, but this is currently being resisted. So they are slugging it out on this post. "Stop pestering around. It is annoying! Why should I answer you when you do not answer my questions? I have no intention of answering your question until you answer mine. If you like, I will repost it. I have already said that I would be as verbose as necessary to answer your question when you answered mine. Listen. You are doing that which you accuse me of doing. I asked you point blank a question, and you have not answered it." Challenged Livers and Onions on two of his posts. First, where he tries to create a conversation piece discrediting the Calvinist position that God can ordain even sinful situations to come to pass and yet remain free from sin Himself. So I left him this comment: "Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee. (2 Chronicles 18:22) Simple question: When the Jehovah (according to His prophet Micaiah) put a LYING spirit into the mouth of Ahab's prophets, and that to the great end that he (Ahab) would be enticed (v19/21) was Jehovah guilty of sin? I say not, because He can not only ordain sinful events but actively takepart  in them and remain without sin. But what sayest thou?" I had to remind him in the second posting of this challenge. He claims that he was unaware of  it, due to a fault in the Blogger email notification system, but has said that he will get back to it. So far he hasn't done so and I am mightily interested to see what he comes up with. Secondly, I challenged him on his posting where he presents Calvinists as denying that saving faith comes from conviction of sin, but sources it instead in election. I told him that Calvinists actually believe both are true and therefore his either/or complaint has no foundation. Amazingly, in his reply Livers continued to press his original claim, along with his usual put downs and rudeness, but I have stood by my guns, pointed out that has totally misread my point and suggested that he should read it again and pay attention. To be honest, this man really is a lightweight. I don't hold my breath on a reply, on either points. I always look, though, to see what he is coming up with next. Sometimes I bother replying (as in this week) other times I just let him rabbit on.  Andrew is a young man mightily interested in spiritual things, although (again) from the FG perspective.  Here, he is lamenting that many of the commentators hold that James 2 hold that we must evidence our faith by our works. He admits in a reply that the FG theology is only really getting itself organised in the last 30 or so years. Which, after 2,000 years of Christianity, says a lot. My take on it is that it is new because it is not (on the controverted points) Biblical. I'll stand with the old faith of the Reformers and Puritans. I enjoyed a bit of discussion with Examining Calvinism   on the claims of various Calvinists (notably Spurgeon) that Calvinism is the gospel. The main thrust of his point is that the gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 and if Calvinism is the gospel, then is 1 Coritnhians 15 deficient? I reply that while we keep to 1 Corinthians 15 in the presentation of the gospel, yet Calvinism gives a purer basis for the explanation (or the under-the-bonnet details) of the gospel. Mark in his Missionary Insights gives us an interesting account of how he just bumped into a man looking for a Bible in a bookstore and got witnessing to him. Heart warming stuff. Phil Johnstone can fairly pull in the comments (153 as I write) with his graphical attacks on the so called Emerging Church - another movement that (by its very definition) is really the new boy on the block. Other blogs too which I could write about, but time is marching on. I'll keep you posted if Livers makes reply, but as I said, don't rush back expecting something too soon. I might be wrong on this issue, but I doubt it.

Tuesday 21st August, 2007

Still surveying the Free Grace sites. A massive debate blew up a couple of days ago when Antonio in his usual pugnacious form pontificated that Calvinists could not enjoy assurance of their salvation. The thesis runs like this: [i] Only those who endure to the end are saved. [ii] There is such a things as a spurious faith ergo we cannot know we are truly saved until we endure to the end. Which is logical...but only if this is all there is to tell about the matter. And it isn't. So the debate inspired this page on my own blog. Had a previous discussion, more or less on the same matter, with Matthew on Andrew's blog here, which was a bit off topic. The long and the short of it is that the promises of God in the gospel are our pointers and the Calvinist, as well as any one else, is invited to cast the burden of their soul upon them. The decree of God is an important issue but it is not the basis on which we try and discern where we stand with God. There is little point trying to peer down into a dark mine when God's revealed thoughts (i.e. the Bible) are the light unto our feet and the lamp unto our path.  Had a good and charitable discussion with a guest blogger on the Unashamed of Grace site (JL) over irresistible grace. By way of stark contrast of being charitable, Livers and Onion is still saying the same things over again, just in case you haven't read or understood his previous umpteen posts. New depths plunged include a comment  likening irresistible grace unto the Gestapo. Rose got a good page going on the many being called, but few chosen (Matthew 22:14) which gave rise to many differing interpretations. Current discussion there is on the fact that the most shoplifted Book. Lighter comments include blaming so many carnal Christians (Matthew) or totally depraved Calvinists (Earl). There are still a few bloggers out there whose inspiration has run dry, but Ulster Scot, Mark Thompson has got his blog moving again which is good.

Friday 10th August, 2007

I ended today a discussion/debate with Deviant Monk over the sovereignty of God and sin. His denial that sin exists caused me to pull the plug. On a discussion with another over the extent of the atonement, Antonio pointed me to a page of his where he denies that people go to hell because of sin. Atonio takes position that Christ did not merely make sin pardonable by His death (the classic Arminian/non Calvinist position) as opposed to Christ actually and effectually taking away the sin of His elect  (Biblical/Calvinist position) but actually has taken away the sins of each and every man ever born, and so (logically) men cannot go to hell for their sin, since the price has been paid. At least he sees the inconsistency of the non Calvinist position on this one, but he replaces it with the deviant position stated above: sin no longer damns. Are there folk in hell? Yes...those who refuse to believe that Jesus alone gives irrevocable eternal life. (Which sounds like a sin to me, but I'm glad I'm not trying to explain it.) Another FGer (Danny) denies here that faith is the gift of God...something which I challenge quoting Philippians 1:29/Acts 18:24 These are worrying developements coming from the (so called) Free Grace camp, exasparated by the fact that very few professing FGers are challenging them. (Just to be clear: I don't think that Deviant Monk, mentioned at the beginning, is a professing FGer. I think he is a dangerous mystic, but certainly radical enough to be part of that movement, if it keeps going the way it appears to be going.)

Livers and Onion continues his onslaught against Calvinism. He never bothered responding to my request for verification on a point (maybe my miss was my mercy) and he hasn't needed to respond to any other comments on his last few posts either, since nobody has bothered commenting.
Nice to see various short (less than 50 words) quotes on Teampyro on the universal side of God's love, for example: here and surrounding quotes. Calvinists deny that God has a redemptive love for each and every sinner i.e. a love that actually redeems them, but that He does shower a lesser love upon the reprobate, for which he ought to be grateful. Kent Brandenburg deals with fundamentalist politics i.e. the inner workings and tensions within the Fundamentalist movement with quite a few comments showing the depth of feeling out there. In one comments, someone remarks that Ian Paisley sanitises (a lovely thought that, isn't it?...sanitises) Clarence Sexton while BJU hold on to Ian Paisley because he is a link to the historic past. Geoff Thomas hasn't blogged since January 25th which is a great pity. I enjoy(ed) reading his chatty blogs. Another blog which has got stuck in the ground is that of ExaminingCalvinism (last posting in June). He obviously has a lot to learn from L&O about being able to drone on and on :-)
 
Thursday 25th July, 2007

The place to be at the moment in blogsphere is the Unashamed of Grace blog where leading contributor Rose has (and rightly so IMHO) expressed her great doubts over the bare minimalism of many in the Free Grace movement. This has raised the ire of one of this movement's most vocal guru's i.e. Antonio (another contributor) who believes that people do not need to believe in the (say) Cross of Christ or the Deity of Christ in order to obtain eternal life. All they need to do is to believe that someone called Jesus (whether it be the JW Jesus or the Mormon Jesus) can give them eternal life and condequently believe it. Antonio posted his response soon afterwards to Rose's article, prompting Rose to regain top spot on the blog with another reminder that this house, at least on this matter, is truly divided.  I have contributed a little to this debate myself (under my blogname GOODNIGHTSAFEHOME) basically supporting the need to preach a full gospel and a full Christ. I view this bare minimalistic approach as a real danger to the gospel. So long as the "one" offering eternal life is said to be "Jesus" - then it seems that this is sufficient to these people who have arisen. Even if he is the JW Jesus who is merely "a god" (John 1:1 NWT) or the Mormon Jesus (a spirit brother of Satan). The JW Jesus has been reduced to dust in a Palestinian tomb (official JW teaching) but still...he can impart eternal life to others. As Rose herself comments, "Absurd!" Keep an eye on this one! I query Matthew, still on the UOG site, on the following statment: "The fact is that the only text in Scripture that is written specifically for unbelievers is the Gospel of John. It is the only book of the Bible that is written to evangelize the lost. If one is only going to use evangelistic texts to preach Gospel sermons, one can only preach evangelistic sermons from the Gospel of John." This seems to be one of those observations which have escaped the church at large until the FG Movement was sent to enlighten us all further.

Livers and Onion has  made no attempt to answer my doctrinal comments mentioned below, and continues his Jihad against Calvinists.  He takes up the Calvinistic opposition against dancing with a quote from the Puritan Cotton Mather. We may assume (for he is one of those folk who just loads stuff up and thinks his readers can see what he is getting at) that he himself is for dancing or that it is a blackmark in his book against Calvinists to oppose it.  Yet, we know that all the old time preachers (Calvinist or otherwise) opposed dancing. With all Billy Sunday's opposition to the booze, this non Calvinist said that he had more respect for a saloon keeper than he had for the dance teacher. I haven't bothered commenting on L&O's page and, to date, no one else has bothered either. One positive note, however, is that he has started giving references now for his statements, even if his application of these statements are usually "up the left".  Pyromanics continues to supply us with great reading material, too much to document here, but set aside an hour and read back a few posts. These folk do a good job on the emerging church type people and other deviants etc., Apprising Ministeries gives us a good video, produced from within the EC movement, of just how far they have departed from the faith. One thing all these deviants want to do is minimise truth. Satan hates the truth, because it is the truth that sets men free (John 8:32)

Again, I would love to share more with you, but there is a big wicked world out there needing evangelised and I have a wee part to play. It was said (by the Saviour) of the woman "Leave her alone, she hath done what she could" (Mark14:8) If we all did what we could, nothing less and (by definition) nothing more, then (under God) much more would be done to extend His Kingdom in this world. As L&O often writes (but usually after he has tried to humiliate you) "have a good one."

Thursday 19th July, 2007

I  managed to keep up with watching the various blogs while on holiday, but was unable to post any comments on this page. Two debates with Livers and Onion  both seem to have run aground. I pulled the plug on the first one because I refused to tolerate his insulting language. Here we are (or in this case, here I am) trying to conduct a serious Christian discussion concerning the dying agonies of our Saviour i.e. who exactly were those agonies for and this man insists (despite several rebukes from me and others) from using words like"meathead" etc., I wonder if he would use such language outside of his own blog i.e. when he is engaged in evangelism or church work? Neither are women spared his spleen as this posting shows (VA Calvinist is a sister in the Lord, and while this is not evident from her link, yet why should we assume that only men blog?) So I have simply pulled the plug on that particular thread. He shows that such restraint is not beyond him in this post when he was able to engage like any other grown up does - although I still await his reply on the sovereignty of God as expressed in verses like Luke 22:22 and Genesis 50:20. Currently he is lamenting the woes of fundamentalism, which he attributes to (and I quote) "...the unsavory methods, tactics, politicking, and strong-arming of its past or present leaders..." I shudder to think what the (largely non Calvinist BTW) leaders of Fundamentalism are doing to their people if L&O considers it unsavory! It can hardly be short of physical violence. But enough of this man, I must move on to others.

Matthew shares with us, under the somewhat dramatic title of Eureka!, of how he became a follower of the (as they call it) free grace doctrine. Interesting that, even though not a Calvinist, he found some dissatisfaction with David Hunt's book What love is this? considering it "quite weak in a lot of places" So did I. (Putting it mildly!) Rose complains that she is a graphic designer and not a theologian and struggles with a certain piece of Calvinistic writing that puts the difference between being active in (and I quote) "the drama of redemption."and being passive. How does this link up with Ephesians 2:1 where the sinner is dead in sins etc., (and, as Calvinists argue, spiritually unable)? I haven't had time to follow this through, either in the link to the original quote or on Rose's page, but I imagine that the writer is dealing with hyper Calvinism rather than Calvinism. Calvinists still urge sinners to repent and flee to Christ etc., and divine grace often takes the exhortation and uses it to enable them to do so. Hyper Calvinists do not, by and large, give such exhortations and expect the Lord, more or less, to work without them. That is my take on the article, but confessing that I have not had time to read it. Time is definitely not on my side today, so I'll leave the blogwatch there and take it up again when able.

Saturday 30th June, 2007

The debate with Tartanarmy on the free offer of the gospel remained amiable and came to an end, when we basically agreed to differ. I maintain that God has a desire towards the salvation of all men without exception, although that desire evidently does not carry the force of a decree. Tartanarmy disagreed, but nevertheless agreed (and for this we are thankful) that the gospel should be preached to all men who still bear responsibility to repent and believe the gospel. Rose raised the issue about the means which God used to ensure that His Son would be crucified upon the Cross i.e. the use of parables etc., and blinding of the Jews. This, of course, raised some rather awkward questions i.e. is such blindness sinful and therefore the responsibility of the Jews (i.e. punishable) and does it make God the author of sin? These are the questions which Calvinists get faced with regularly. The short answers are "yes" and "no" in that order. Rose was waiting for one of us Calvinists to bring this up and wanted my thoughts first. So we have started a discussion on this one.

From not a squeak last week, Livers and Onions continues to scratch around in the muck to see what else he can say or do to discredit Calvinists. He has discovered the rich mine of David Cloud's anti Calvinist feelings, and although he describes Cloud as "not my favorite character" yet he makes full use of the various bits and pieces Cloud has cobbled together over the years. Which gives me the opportunity to advertise my stuff about Cloud and his anti Calvinist views here. (Scroll down to the appropriate section.) I got an interesting bit of support from Rose when L&O was looking some information from Calvinists (so that he had beat us over the head with it BTW) Rose told him that he should answer any comments from Calvinists first. Without resorting to personal attacks, but he really seems to be an odd being in that he is pretty up front (to the point of being pig ignorant and rude) about Calvinists, but doesn't engage with them when they make reply. Take his question, for example, where he wants to know when was the term "Doctrines of Grace" first used in relation to the 5 points of Calvinism. A good question. I would love to know myself, but is he really interested or is it just another opportunity to try and humiliate Calvinists when he words it: "Perhaps one of you Calamites out there can help me. I've been wondering who first used the expression, the "doctrines of grace," to refer to the five-point nuttiness of TULIP." The very wording of the question precludes any Calvinist answering him.  Suppose every one in the professing Christian end of blogsphere got on like that? He seems to be hankering after Ruckman's mantle. If so, he is welcome to it. He denounces Jerome Zanchius as a "high ranking demon." You can see a pattern developing whereby he feels he has to word his attacks with more bitter language every time to keep up the momentum.  

Kent Brandenburg enlists both Spurgeon and Ironside on his side on the matter of there being no such thing as secondary doctrine. I left a comment about Spurgeon's very catholic (non Roman sense of the word) attitudes to other Christians e.g. he "opened" the new church of John Kennedy an ardent pedobaptist in the Free Church of Scotland. However, this comment never appeared. I don't know if the Gremlins are to blame or whether KB didn't think my comment worth putting up. I suspect the former since someone else makes the same line of  reply i.e. the ecumenical nature both of Ironside and Spurgeon's ministry within the Evangelical spectrum., which itself is (rightly) narrow enough. Sorry, I don't run with KB's idea at all. He hasn't got round to applying it all yet...it really is dragging on and on.

Saturday 23rd June, 2007

Still discussing the free offer of the gospel with Tartanarmy on the Pyromanic site. In a short reply to a rather long response on his part, I have effectively asked him whether the gospel is for all men without exception, or just for the elect. He tends to take a few days to answer. There appears to be hyper Calvinist tendencies showing here. Meanwhile, there has been a wealth of material from the various writers on Phil Johnston's team. Last week, Antonio threw down the gauntlet about repentance being necessary to salvation. I never bothered answering him, as it would take too long.  It has been a busy week here, and you would have to unpick a few tangled knots in there as well. So many debates...so little time. Currently, he is answering somebody or other on whether it is necessary to understand Christ's death for sin to be born again. To be honest, I think that we're heading for the position whether you will even need faith at all. It seems the least you know in Antonio's scheme of things, then the better it is. He has a go at those whom he brands "soft FG people" i.e. those who are not prepared to sacrifice everything they once held dear to accommodate his views.  Livers and Onions appears to have wearied even himself as there has not been a squeak out of him for over a week. Certainly no reply to any of the questions I posed him two reviews ago. His last post leaves the celebrated Christian poet and hymn writer William Cowper in a state of damnation. Rose comes up with an alternative view on John 6:37 where all that the Father gives to Christ come to Him. Rose certainly isn't a Calvinist when it comes to these verses. Again, found time hard to come by this week, so didn't get involved. (That's twice, I've tendered this excuse, but it is true. You need a tight control over the Internet. Redeeming the time etc.,) Terry McGovern from Missionary Insights is heading home on furlough. There has been nothing on the Calvinism issue since our last debate away back last year. There were great plans announced back then! Guy Davies has been conducting some interesting interviews with other bloggers and their various views. Easy reading and a change from some of the more confrontational type blogs that keep the interest too, but in a different way.

Friday 15th June, 2007

No movement from Livers and Onion since last blogwatch. He has neither posted nor made any reply to any of my three postings. I haven't met an Unlimited Atonement devotee yet who has given me an honest answer: "Did Christ die for the unpardonable sin, yes or no?" Until I do, I think I can be excused for maintaining my position of Particular Redemption.  There is a bit of disagreement among the Free Grace fraternity over the depth of knowledge a soul needs before he can be saved. Rose has asked the question. Some (like Antonio) require a bare minimum of knowledge: So long as you know of someone called Jesus who gives you eternal life in return for your faith, while others (like Rose herself), understandably, are not too happy with this minimalistic approach. I wouldn't be either. In fact, I abominate it any teaching that says that you don't have to accept the Deity of Christ or the Virgin Birth etc., to have eternal life. I pressed Matthew on the comment page and quoted about Paul's warning of "another Jesus" which I take it to be a psuedo Jesus - a lookalike Jesus - but Matthew thinks it may just refer to a self proclaimed Messiah. I tend to go for the conspiracy theory on this one, because we know that the Devil is the master of the counterfeit. I can't say that I warm to this Free Grace (as defined by themselves) stuff. No meaningful repentance, and now (in effect) no meaningful Jesus. It's getting worse instead of better! Currently in a debate with a Reformed man from NSW in Australia on Phil Johnston's weekly Spurgeon quote. This was over the Free Offer i.e. that God is sincere when He desires the salvation of every last man. This man said that  God does not desire the salvation of every last man, but he seems to be confused  on the matter of what God has decreed. God may desire something, but not give it the force of the decree.  Which He does when He says "Thou shalt not kill" etc.  Kent Brandenburg tells us that he cannot even agree to disagree with any who deny that Christ can come at any moment. If we all made our pet doctrines fundamentals of the faith, then we would be even lonelier than Noah in his ark.  I hope for the sake of his family that they all believe it. I think this article in the Tom in the Box satire blog  is genuine, but whether it is or not doesn't really matter. It is funny. Especially some of the comments as well.

Friday  8th June, 2007

Humble apologies for letting this run on so long without comment. Things have been very busy here of late. I have no less than 3 current comments running on Liver and Onions Page, although awaiting a reply on all 3. First of all, he prints a verse of a hymn which he claims is found in some Particular Baptist Hymnbook. As he, or anyone else for that matter, is unable to actually produce this hymnbook, I have asked him "Is it too much to hope that the unsubstantiated allegation is then going to be withdrawn until actual proof is supplied?" I'm not holding my breath on it, but events may prove me wrong. Any mud seems to do on this particular blog site. Secondly, after a particular article on his belief in a Universal Atonement, I ask the simple question "Did Christ make atonement for the unpardonable sin?" Someone else has made a reply, although not a very satisfactory one (it doesn't answer yea or nay) and Livers himself hasn't tackled it either. Did He or didn't He soon becomes will he or will he not? Thirdly, for good measure, Liver's latest article carries a quote from GK Chesterton (Romanist) about William Cowper being damned by John Calvin. Of course, this is right up Liver's street. It seems that even the severe mental anguish of a professing Calvinist (nay better, a saint of God) is fit fodder for the cannon and all useful in this ongoing Jihad against Calvinists. I point out in my comment how Cowper found consolation in the doctrine of the decree of God as expressed in the hymn "God moves in a mysterious way" but (as yet) this comment hasn't got past Liver's scrutinising eye, although I expect it will. He usually lets the comments appear...it is getting the answer that matters. Antonio isn't happy about somebody or other criticising Zane Hodge who obviously is his hero. He gives a scenario about an Indian man who finds a copy of John's Gospel and reads up to John 3:16 when he trusts the Lord, but without any knowledge of His Deity, death or resurrection. I challenge him on this. Surely if he reads John 1:1-3/v14 he has knowledge of the Deity? If he reads John 2:21-23, he reads of the resurrection while John 1:29/3:14 speaks of the Cross? Rose is chasing up the matter of Paul being alive without the law once and wondering does this throw light on what it means to be spiritually dead.  I quoted Wesley on it (to show that it is not a peculiarly Calvinist interpretation) that Paul was not actually alive, but thought himself to be alive i.e. not a bad fellow until the law came and he died i.e. he got his eyes open to his true condition.  A commentator called Bobby links this all to being alive in Adam before the fall etc., but I think this is a bit off beam, to be honest. Discovered Andrew McNeill's page through Livers and Onion's above. He is a young Plymouth Brethren lad from Newtownards in Northern Ireland, but caught up in the so called Free Grace theology. Discovered Guy Davies blog. He is a Welsh preacher, living in England. Nice to see that he is an open air preacher, which means that he can give a positive answer to Kent Brandenburg who wants to know if we evangelise? David Cloud gives a really good article about Requirements for Bible Study. Nice to read the article without any need to discern the various dispensations which many people insist are there in the sacred pages.

Saturday 22nd May, 2007

My two debates with "Free Grace" folk, as they call themselves, have come to an end. Matthew didn't come back to me since I last posted my blogwatch on Monday. What do you do in cases like this. Claim victory and smile smugly? I think not, but there must be some conclusion to be drawn. Are people saved by faith and kept by works, even in the revolutionary Free Grace theology? He has contributed since on his own blog, so he hasn't gone to seed or anything. Kevin refused to answer me about Spurgeon, although it was pretty obvious that the great preacher is indeed to be shamed and cursed (if Kevin is right) since he preaches that the repenting sinner must express a desire to forsake sin. I had to pull the plug on the debate with Kevin. An interesting scenario arose here. Kevin requires humility from the sinner before he will even preach the gospel to him and quoted from James 4 where God gives grace to the humble. But when I checked his reference, I discover that such humility is coupled with sorrow (See James 4:6-10) which of course is what I have been advocating. So I pointed this out. Void of any answer, an ad hominem attack was launched, so I just walked away from him. Elements of Hyper Calvinism also popped up in his withholding the preaching of grace from the proud sinner. I didn't expect it from such a quarter, but up it popped nevertheless. I don't think I'll bother putting these two debates up on this site as their conclusions were very unsatisfactory. I liked the conclusion we came to in an earlier debate with Terry McGovern which you may view here.

Liver and Onions is still on his Jihad against Calvinism, this time dealing with the thought that the non elect cannot come to Christ. Alas, and detrimental to the cause of taking him seriously, he omits to say that it is sin and sin alone that prevents men from coming to Christ. Kent Brandenburg is up to his fifth installment on the matter of secondary doctrines. If you have ever sat in a barge that floated along a canal at the leisurely (boring?) rate of about 2 miles an hour, then you will get the idea of the feeling you get when you read these words. I wonder how many more installments there will be and when his point becomes clearer? As it stands, we know that he disagrees with the idea of relegating (for the want of a better word) some doctrines to a secondary status. OK, it doesn't sound right, but is every thing God revealed necessary to salvation? Did I damn my soul by accepting Presbyterian rather than Baptist polity? Is there no Pre Tribulation Rapture for Post Tribulationists? I really enjoyed the Teampryo posting on Gresham Machen earlier this week about controversy in the church. One good article on a subject is better than 5+ postings that still leave us scratching our heads. David Cloud gives us a few quotes from here, there and yonder about the power of the printed page. His reproduction of an article by Wilbur Pickering on does grace only liberate but not discipline is also useful. His Friday notes continue their usual policy of chasing up those who depart from the faith, sometimes as defined by the Bible and others as defined by Mr Cloud. TomintheBox spoofs on the "Google Bible." Hard to know whether his previous posting where he replies to a reader is genuine or not. One of the problems with spoofing is convincing people that you are serious. James White shares with us (as I am sharing with you) his watchings of the various RC blogs and apologetic sites. Shares a picture with us of him in a kilt  - someone else conscious of his Scottish roots. So that's it for another while.


Monday 21st May, 2007

Just a short blogwatch as I am busy debating two different people on the Unashamed of Grace blog. Both over the need of repentance, which you follow here and here. Notice that in the second one, that I have been named (by my blogname: Goodnightsafehome) as a purveyor of another gospel. I am not actually debating Antonio who laid the charge, but another man who has taken up the cudgels. As it stands, I have challenged him as to whether his charge that those who preach an active repentance is necessary for salvation should be shamed and cursed also applies to Spurgeon.  He is prevaricating of this one. Obviously he doesn't want to damn Spurgeon, but I am pushing him on it. In the first debate with Matthew, (which we mention in our previous blogwatch) we have taken the scenario of a young fornicating lady (his choice of sinner) who professes faith without repentance over this sin. As it stands, Matthew says that eventually the church will reject her if she continues to fornicate. Interesting one that! According to the Free Grace folk, as they call themselves, if this girl simply believes the right theological preposition, then she has eternal life. Repentance isn't necessary, because it is a work and therefore meritorious. So if she asks before getting saved whether or not she must give up her illicit lover to go to Heaven , then they will ultimately say "no"and  lead her in a sinner's type prayer and tell her that she can never be lost. But, now it appears, that she can be kicked out of the church (by which, we assume excommunicated and treated as an unsaved person) because she did not repent i.e. change her wicked ways. So I've asked Matthew the obvious: Are we saved by faith, but kept by (meritorious) works? I'll probably put the comments of both these debates up on this website as they tend to take up time and I don't want them lying buried in some blog. All the other usual candidates have added new things to their blogs. Still no word from Bud.

Monday 14th May, 2007

Rose has moved on to analysing a view from Antonio on 2 Peter 3:9 where Daniel and Matthew are slogging it out over modern versions. Sometimes blog debates can get waylaid. The issue that sparked this side show is whether the text should read that God is longsuffering towards us (TR) or towards you (Minority Texts). Antonio's blog argues (consistent with his easy believism views) that repentance only ever delivers us from earthly calamity. The outworking of this is that, speaking of the great eternity, you can be saved and keep your sins too. Must say that I cannot warm to it. My old carnal self licks it lips, of course, but I'm busy trying to crucify it so I'll not be feeding it with that kind of thing. It puts him at odds with Spurgeon whose sermon on Isaiah 63:1 on "Christ mighty to save" Phil Johnstone quotes from in Teampyro. I must quote a little bit of CHS here: "Christ is not only mighty to save those who do repent, but he is able to make men repent; he is engaged not merely to carry those to heaven who believe, but he is mighty to give men new hearts and to work faith in them; he is mighty not merely to give heaven to one who wishes for it, but he is mighty to make the man who hates holiness love it, to constrain the despiser of his name to bend his knee before him, and to make the most abandoned reprobate turn from the error of his ways." To which I add my hearty Amen! Matthew isn't happy with John Newton's hymn on self examination as to whether or not he loves the Lord. Not too happy either as to my quoting 1 Corinthians 16:22 in the comments page where those who love not the Lord Jesus are accursed. According to Matthew, I have just destroyed the gospel of grace with my quotation. Hmmmm. At a loss as to why etc., but I'll keep you informed on the reasoning behind this, should Matthew deign to provide it. At least, I have the Apostle Paul on my side. Bud has returned to the blogosphere again. He hasn't forgotten that he owes me a debate on Irresistible Grace. I thought he had forgotten about it, but not at all. I sent him a comment, but so far it hasn't appeared on his site. Livers and Onions has likewise returned to blogshere. This time to haunt us with his opposition to the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. Analysing his latest contribution, he spends his time making unnecessary divisions and then building his opposition upon them. For example, he divides the decreeing of the salvation of the elect from the fulfiling of that decree. He separates the sacrifice of Christ from His praying ministry. Which all makes for fun and games on his part. I don't think I'll take the time to answer him. He is safely tucked away in his little corner and maybe best to leave him there. Kent Brandenburg is hammering a local church for its worldly ways, convinced that the Antichrist will be aided in his devious work by a false form of Christianity.  I must mention Fred Phelp's website in this latest blogwatch, since I have had a look at it. I got an email yesterday over in our Calvinistic emails page from a supporter and this has brought the occasion up. There are actually a few websites within Phelp's stable, usually with the word "hate" in the URL and they are all sick. It would be an interesting morning to count all the times he mentions the word "hate" on these sites as opposed to the word "love" and then, when counting the latter, see how many times he mentions the word "love" only to deny its application to certain people. Frightening, isn't it?

Monday 7th May, 2007


Monday 30th April, 2007

Rose has moved on to another posting on 2 Peter 3:9 where I ventured to comment that the willingness of God that none should perish, hinges largely on "how willing" God has shown Himself to be i.e. does he give it the force of a decree. Rose thinks I look too much at the decree of God and I think she is going to blog on this subject. Well, you have to think about the decree of God when you ask the questions which Rose asks. It cannot be airbrushed away as if it never existed! What God did, does or will yet do, He has always purposed to do and there is the decree. I came under a bit of flak in the earlier comments on her page. Currently two boys are slugging it out on a deeper subject, of which (I guess) few have a clue as to what they are talking about. Little to do directly with 2 Peter 3:9 Livers and Onions hasn't posted anything since our last comment. Good. David Livingstone is the latest missionary hero on David Cloud's site. A few other bits from Cloud reflecting his stand on various issues that obviously mean a lot to him e.g. what clothes a Christian should wear (or avoid) and drums in the church. Examining Calvinism is still sitting tight with McArthur's slip of the tongue. Kent Brandenburg has given us a second helping of his articles about "secondary doctrine" but it is very vague. Even one of his admirers says so. Phil Johnstone is branded as a "neo evangelical" and contrasted with Spurgeon. Geoff Thomas's blog always makes for chatty reading. He hasn't added anything since January past (Usually he blogs about once a month) but you will enjoy reading his past contributions. I wish he would add something more soon.

Wednesday 25th April, 2007

I got my response from Liver and Onion's but the exchange was short, though not sweet. I have let him have the last word on the exchanges, but he has moved on and posted new material, most of it in the same nasty spirit in which he invariably writes. I think that we are looking here at another Peter Ruckman i.e. one who feels that he has to insult any one who dares to disagree with him. In his latest posting against Engelsma (who I regard as a Hyper Calvinist) Pennock refers to his opponent as "the lopheaded meatneck from Holland" which must match anything which Ruckman came off with. Hard to fathom why he feels the need to do this. I suppose I could always ask him, but I'll give him a miss for a while. Glad he isn't on my side in this dispute. I wouldn't know where to look. Rose has started a debate on 2 Peter 3:9 where God is said to be unwilling that any should perish etc., This is based on a short Calvinist  video which another blogger drew attention to which applies these words to the elect of God. I have left a comment or two here, pointing out that the video clip did not expound the whole subject of the long suffering of God (which extends even to the vessels of wrath: Romans 9:22) and therefore we should not (as is happening) think that the speaker means that it is only extended to the elect of God. That may be his thoughts as far as 2 Peter 3:9 is concerned, but it should not be his thoughts as far as the whole subject is concerned. Antonio maintains his witness to (what he calls) Free Grace Theology, by pointing out all that came happen to the professing Christian e.g. shipwreck of his faith etc., but notes that "Hell is off the table." Antonio believes that even apostates will be saved. I quote: "The Spirit "explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Tim 4:13) [Ed. Note: You cannot fall away from something that you were not once in]" This is surely new theology?  I know Arminians believe that true Christians can apostasize and be lost (which I reject) while Calvinists (rightly in my view) say that apostates were never truly saved in the first place, but had a false and empty profession of faith. But we unite on the thought that there will be no apostates in heaven. Except Antonio and I assume those of his school of thought. Two thoughts of the top of my head on this one. One, is it falling away from "the faith" (objective) i.e. from a body of doctrines, as opposed to "faith" (subjective) although the two do become linked. Secondly, sometimes the Bible speaks as if the matter professed is true, even if it is not. Thus, the man who professed to have killed Saul was slain for his act, even though he did not do so. His desire or profession was held against him, even if not strictly true. Again, the man who lusts after a woman is guilty of the very deed of adultery, even though he did not touch her or even speak to her. The same website tells us that a new Bible Commentary is coming out with all this kind of teaching in it. The writer in Examining Calvinism has a piece quoting John McArthur about "contradictions" in the Bible. I think that this was an unfortunate slip on JMcA's part. McArthur is not noted for his deviant views on the Inspiration of Scripture and I would suggest that the word "paradox" might have been a better word to use. I think we should avoid making a man an offender for a word (Isaiah 29:21) McA's views on the Inspiration of Scripture are available widely on the Internet, including here where he affirms: "Secondly, it is infallible...it is infallible.  And that is collectively, totally, comprehensively, it misses nothing, makes no mistakes.  Psalm 19:7, "The law of the Lord is perfect.  The law of the Lord is perfect."  It is total, comprehensive and perfect. And then I like to use the word inerrant.  While it is infallible in the whole, it is inerrant in every part.  Proverbs 30:5 and 6 says, "Every word of God is pure," every one...every one, down to the jot and the tittle which will not be removed, Jesus said.  The Word of God is authoritative. When God speaks, you better listen.  The Word of God is infallible, that is the comprehensive Scripture is flawless.  It is inerrant, there is not one mistake in it in its original autographs, every word of God is pure."  Kent Brandenburg hasn't got any further with his "secondary doctrines" idea yet. It is generally known on this website, that I am definitely not the founding member of David Cloud's fan club, but his recent publication of articles on various missionaries have been enjoyable. Hudson Taylor is the latest missionary hero. Dan Philips over in Teampryo has an excellent piece about gospel preaching at places like funerals where it is not appreciated. Tom in the Box is a witty satiric site (and clearly flagged as such) which I enjoy.  Especially the article on Calvinix. However, I mention it here because he is starting something which I would dearly love to be able to do: a cartoon series. 


Friday 20th April, 2007

Had to write a second time to get a response from Liver and Onion's on the matter of his indictment of Calvinism's view of God. My main point (which has been moderated, as I write, and I await a reply) is basically that any indictment is effectively the same whether God ordains an event or permits it. He seeks to take refuge in his doctrine of man's free will, but this only holds water if God never intervened in these matters. The fact is that He does, and here He didn't and His inactivity (no matter how we look at it) allowed it to go ahead. We do not indict God whose ordination of this event is not the same as its necessity (See Shedd here on this matter). Pennock states that it is  Calvinist belief that the gun is somehow more responsible than the gunman. I challenge him to produce one recognised Calvinistic commentator who would acquit the gunman of murder. You can follow it yourself on the above link. Rose has introduced the quote from Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:4 where he believes (contrary to many other Calvinists) that the "all men" in the verse is "all men without exception" as opposed to "all men without distinction" i.e. "all kinds of men. However, I point out in the comments section that CHS then limits the force of "would have all men to be saved" to it being (to coin a phrase) a "decree-less wish." On the other hand, those Calvinists who limit the "all men" to the "without distinction" interpretation do not limit the wish, but give it all the force of the decree. Both interpretations preserve the text from teaching either universalism i.e. that every last man will be saved or from the idea of God decreeing things that do not come to pass. One commentator, below my comments, has God scratching His head as to why people do not take up His offer. As I ask, is He scratching His head in ignorance, frustration or helplessness etc.? (I did preface my question though with the qualifier that I do not want to make her an offender for a word.) 

Tuesday 17th April, 2007

Just as short observation here from Liver and Onion's site. He makes use of the tragic events in Virginia yesterday to snipe again at Calvinism i.e. our belief that God has ordained all that comes to pass, and therefore, the death of 33 people. This, of course, is an entirely different matter from indicting God with the sin of the gunman in question. But this is lost on Pennock, who speaks about "the all-consuming, all-devouring Calvinist God" and refers to Him as "the all-sovereign God of Geneva [who] felt particularly nasty at this moment in eternity past when determining the events for April 16, 2007. So I made a reply, asking the said Pennock, "Have you ever preached a sermon on the Utter Helplessness of God? Or did God choose not to intervene? Thus far, he has published my question which leads me to suppose that he will answer it sometime soon. I think it is the last question which may prove the most difficult for him to answer. My only regret is that I did not express my sympathies to the families concerned. I won't hide behind the obvious thought that neither did Pennock, but it does show how unfeeling we can become in theological debate when a real world is hurting out there. Kent Brandenburg: An interesting post here against the idea of "secondary doctrines". Since it is only the first part of what is obviously going to be a series, then I'll have to wait and see how it all develops. As it stands, we have a warning about only one sin being enough to damn with the angels that sinned being given at the example. I hope that you know what you believe and that you are 100% sure. Is it is a damning sin to be a Pre-Millennialist when and if we discover that the A's were right all along (or vice versa)? As it stands, it looks as if George Whitefield was right when he said that he would not see Wesley in Heaven. Whitefield thought that Wesley would be so near the throne and he so far away that a sighting would be impossible. Now it "seems" (as it stands) that one or the other won't be in Heaven at all, assuming, that is, that only Anglicans get there anyway because of their views on church government. Who then can be saved? I'll keep you posted on how this develops. "To be there, to be there, O what must it be to there?" (Old gospel Hymn)

Friday 13th April, 2007

Although away from my home computer (and so the ability to update this page) I kept an eye on the various sites I usually visit. As of today: Way of  Life: While I was away, David Cloud republished one of his many attacks on Calvinism. I answered him, earlier, here. I really do think that Cloud believes his own propaganda. He gives his views on Spurgeon and the modern version issue, dealing with CHS's views on the (then) newly printed Revised Version here. Basically, Spurgeon didn't know as much about the issues as Cloud does.  In fact, he doubts that any other man has done the research that he has done (here) in his review of Mark Minnick's book entitled: "Trusted Voices on Translations" which he finds untrustworthy. Just in case you didn't know. One of these cases, where if your opponent parades his learning, then it cannot be of God, because the faith was delivered to the saints in the pew e.g. little old sweet Grandma, but on the other hand, if you parade your learning, then everyone should be quiet and listen. Interesting article here on John Williams the great missionary. If Williams himself was not a Calvinist, those around him certainly where. But you owe it to me, not Cloud to tell you that. Unashamed by Grace: Matthew is another contributor on this group blog. He asks whether "God chooses elect individuals on the basis of: 1) characteristics they possess (they may be negative or positive characteristics)? or 2) no reason at all? If the latter is the case, how does the Elect differ from being a random sample of humanity?" The answer to the first question (and thus making redundant the second) is NEITHER. The question actually is loaded. There are more than the two options on the table here. The answer is that God made His sovereign choice as to who would be saved for reasons which He has chosen to reserve to Himself.  If a man is lost, it is because of his own sin. He perishes in his own corruption, but salvation from beginning to end is entirely of the Lord. Liver and Onions: Pennock shares with us his loathing of A-Millenial doctrine. A whopping 4 posts (out of 5) in one day. Where does he get the time to do all this posting on the Internet? No wonder, he has taken a break for nearly a week. Never actually read all these posts, so I can't say that much. Noticed though his usual pugnacious style which seems to ooze out of him. He  says at the end of his last post: Let God be true and every amillennialist a liar. I thought it was written: "Let God be true and every man a liar"? He does give the A-Mills some credit: I quote: To their credit amillennialists believe in a literal, physical return of Christ. So here and there, he eases up. Got it wrong though to say that the A-Mills do not believe in the Rapture. The Rapture is the event of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. It is not necessarily any one interpretation of it, and no one interpretative grouping should hi-jack it.  As for me, I do not sit comfortably in any of the three main camps. I suspect, they would all kick me out. I am just waiting for Him to return and to take me to be with Himself. Post tribulationist though and definitely non Dispensationalist, flowing from my views on the Church. Rose's reasonings: Rose has a good subject going on what is meant by being dead in trespasses and in sins. Quite a few posts. I have a few in there somewhere from when I was away. I don't think it is a matter of "dead" meaning either "alienated" or "unable" but both. It carries a few meanings. Furthermore, man's inability is not based on Ephesians 2:1 alone or the thought that he is spiritually dead alone.  I haven't read each of the comments - running now  over 150  - but it must've got a bit rough as Rose had to cough a little and remind her visitors that she is the one who does the wrist slapping. I must be honest, I loathe it when these debates get carried away and people start attacking one another.

Monday 2th April, 2007

My last blogwatch for a few days, but a good time for an update on some of the blogs. Liver and Onions: Pennock continues to pump out his arguments against Calvinism, sometimes at two or three a day. This serves to put any comment pages further down the pile and so they tend to "date" quickly. Practically speaking, you need to keep a page in the top two at least to draw comments that people will actually read and comment on. We did correspond a little. I would need to analyse his answers a bit. He certainly didn't come out with all guns blazing in his comments  as he tends to do in his text, but then neither did he say anything to the effect: "Well, even though we are poles apart in the outworking of salvation, we are still brethren in Christ." He did admit that Calvinists held to some good things,  which after I queried him, include things like Sola Scriptura etc., But then (just to take the shine of it) he said that this could be said of others who would be damned in hell. Humanly speaking (which falls far short) the first 10 minutes in Heaven could well be a very awkward time for the begrudgers. I jest...but you know what I mean :-) Unashamed by Grace  Antonio, Antonio, Where art thou Antonio? Thou didst make thine charge that we, sons of Calvin, believe that our God didst pound our heads to bring us into Christ.  But when I didst challenge thee whether God doth pound our heads to keep us in Christ, and stop us from wandering afar from His fold, thou didst not reply, but thou hast gone without even saying, Farewell. When shall I find thee to ask thee again? PryoManiacs: Phil's weekly quotation from Spurgeon, charging those who desire signs and wonders as idolaters. Small enough paragraph, but nicely to the point. Rose's Reasonings: An interesting discussion, carried over from a previous comment, on Luther's claim that "The Devil is God's Devil." Rose isn't all that happy with this quote and neither are a few others. The Calvinists, of course, see no problems with it. I have made a couple of comments myself in the comment section. The debate is starting to get a bit philosophical with the origin of evil. Missionary Insights: OK, I'll include this piece, but only on the understanding that you do not think that I trawl people's sites looking either for faults or arguments. But I did notice it and it'll only take a moment or two to record it here. Brother McGovern is not a Calvinist which is fine by me. He seems to be doing a good work for the Lord  in PNG and that's enough for me, when push comes to shove. He blogs here about one of his journey's to minister in another part of the island. He suffers two flat tyres and has only one spare. So they change the worst tyre and rejoice (and) I quote "the Lord allowed for one tire to have a little air remaining." Later on, the Lord is attributed in allowing them to complete their journey with no damage to the tyre or wheel. I say, "Amen, brother!" What God does in time, He planned to do from all eternity. Right down to the amount of air a certain flat tyre had on a certain vehicle on a certain day. What if there had been three nails in that tyre instead of one? But then, there wasn't and that wasn't chance. As I say, I don't read each and every blog  with my Calvinistic spectacles on my Calvinistic nose, but I do see the hand of God as my doctrine encourages me to do.

Thursday 29th March 2007  

Liver and Onions: Pennock continues his jihad against Calvinism with a few new pages on various subjects, liberally sprinkled with gratuitous insults. I am still engaging him in the comment section on the matter about Calvinism being (as he referenced it) a "damnable heresy" (2 Peter 2:1) He moderates his comment page, but he has allowed my latest question to appear, so I may hope for an answer. Briefly put: Does Calvinism damn the soul the way Unitarianism does? He mentions about 2 Peter 2:1 relating the denial of the Atonement - does this extend, then, to those of us who deny the Universality of the Atonement and believe that it was particular only to the elect? He hasn't answered overnight, so I may wait until he sees fit to explain his application of what is a very serious verse of Scripture. Unashamed by Grace Still engaging Antonio on Monday's issue. If God uses excessive and violent  force to get men into Christ (as he alleges of Calvinism) then does God use the same violent force to keep them in Christ? Since Antonio believes in eternal security, then the same thought must be applied to his position. Again, no answer overnight. This is one reason why I tend to defend in these debates rather than attack. It is very easy in such matters to (put it bluntly) blast your mouth off. The ease of publishing your views via the Internet probably doesn't help. However, it also makes for being a great way to put those to the test  who say things that are simply not true. No Calvinist believes that God pounds people on the head with Irresistible Grace.  What is truth? Another installment in the Atonement study. One line statement: "As its unwitting sacrifice covered unwitting sin, the conscious sacrifice of Christ was voluntarily offered for all sin. He sacrificed Himself to take away the sin of the world." I suppose I can't keep reading these blogs with my Calvinist controversy glasses on. It would worry me more, in this case, that he argues that Christ did not make atonement for sin, arguing that atonement is an OT word. He runs with "Reconciliation" in Romans 5:11 (margin) OK, there are differences between the OT priest's offering and that of Christ, but to deny the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ doesn't sound right, does it? Bud from Heights Church: Bud is so anti Calvinist that it is becoming dangerously possessive with him. He admits to wrestling with the thought that Calvinists are even saved. I quote: "I’m sorry, my friend. I don’t just think that the Calvinists and the lordship teachers are wrong, I am convinced that their message is evil. The challenge is relating to them as brothers in the Lord if that is what they in fact are. But I wrestle with that." Is this balanced? I answer his thinking and that of Liver and Onions above who seems to near the same position with his views on 2 Peter 2:1 here. Pyromaniacs: Dan Philips has written a humorous enough piece on the thinking of some Charismatics, and how they get a word from the Lord. Although I need to be careful here. Am I enjoying someone else getting a hiding, and bristling a little when the non Calvinists turn their sarcasm in my direction? There is a brilliant graphic in this  post. I assume it is true, but you never know. Why keep satire and humour in the text? However, the graphic features an advertising sign - a wayside pulpit if you like - outside a Pentecostal Church and it reads: "God told me to give you a sign - (Hope this helps)" Very good :-)

Monday 26th March 2007  

Liver and Onions: Pennock has added a new page today, still on the subject of faith in the Calvinist "order of salvation." Makes the allegation that Calvinists believe a "damnable heresy"? So (probably against my better judgment) I left a comment on his page asking him to "Define damnable heresy." He moderates his page, so the comment might or might not appear. I suspect it will. Keep an eye on this page. Update: He defines damnable heresy as: "A damnable heresy is simply the lie of a false teacher (2 Pet. 2:1), a lie that will end up suffering the heavy hand of God." This has led to another question on my part, asking him why is this heresy said to be "damnable" i.e. does it damn the soul of the man or woman who believes it? Rose's Reasonings has moved on from the page which took up a lot of my attention last week.  Have accepted in principle a debate with Bud on Limited Atonement...just waiting to work out a few details. This debate will be somewhere on this site (and probably on his site too, if he so desires) One of my other opponents wasn't happy with my exit statement. The latest issue on Rose's site concerns a comment her 8 year old daughter asked about God being in control with the comment on "How would you answer her?" I think Dan on the comment page give a good and simple answer. Obviously you have to give an answer that will satisfy a child (without saying something doctrinally wrong) but which not necessarily satisfy an adult. Unashamed by Grace: Mischievous enough statement, masked by the use of the word "fun" by Rose above on this other site where she is a contributor. A Calvinist, explaining that as an ex-non Calvinist, that he has heard all the arguments before.  Antonio, shooting from the lip again, makes the statement in the comments page that "God pounded them [Calvinists] on the head with His irresistible grace!" I wonder who finds this kind of debate helpful? After all, Calvinists don't make that claim and in all my discussions/debates with non Calvinists, I have never heard any one else, use it. I've posted the following response to Antonio's comments: "Antonio: (And no one else, please) If one of those people who believe unto everlasting life comes to God and say, "I'm returning your gift of eternal life. I don't want it anymore. Thanks, but no thanks!" does God "pound them on the head" and tell them to get back into line?" What is truth? Another installment in the Atonement study. No mention yet of who atonement was made for. Pyromaniacs: Centurion takes up Adrian Warnock over John Piper and God speaking personally with us and Charismatic gifts. Didn't read it all, so I can't comment here.  Way of Life: David Cloud's site. A few new pages, with three particularly helpful ones on a couple of missionaries namely David Brainerd and the Presbyterian James Morrison and a poem on the Sovereignty of God in providence (including the line:"All my life’s plan is Thy moulding/ Not one single choice be mine;/Let me answer, unrepining: “Father, Not my will, but Thine.”) Let me indulge in a little humour here...but is David Cloud among the Calvinists? James Morrison was particularly challenged by William Carey's missionary endeavours, of which we write a little here.

Thursday 22nd March 2007  

Must start off with Rose's Reasonings where we have a good solid battle with Bud in this comment page. Put succinctly, the supposed lie of Irresistible Grace which Acts 7:31 was supposed to nail was based on the idea that the non elect cannot refuse what was never offered to them.  This was then followed up with Bud's notion that Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit has no ministry to the Reprobate. He asserted this very strongly. I quote: "The doctrine of U.E. states that the Holy Spirit's ministry is NOT, repeat NOT, extended to the reprobate."Well, wasn't hard to shoot this one out of the water. I simply quoted the WCF 9 para 6 which clearly states that the Holy Spirit's ministry IS, repeat, IS extended to the reprobate, who, I quote, "may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved…" Bud has requested me to hang on and he'll come back next week with something or other. I hope he gets his facts right. Currently discussing smaller matters with two others, but I think this particular argument has run its course. Interesting to see if Bud takes it up again. Meanwhile Rose has moved on to another topic...this time about John McArthur and a reposting for the purposes of maintaining her sidebar on boasting in relation to faith. She asks the question: "If I believed in Calvinism, couldn't I boast because obviously God loved me more than those who won't be saved? Couldn't I say that it was ME ME ME ME that God chose?" Obvious answer: Not if the choice is unconditional! Unashamed by Grace: Antonio has an interesting enough blog on whether the chief priests etc, who believed in John 12:42-43 were truly saved seeing that they did not confess Christ for fear of excommunication. Noting the comment page, it seems to be a platform to be queried on whether confessing Christ is part of salvation, or consequent to it. If you comment, be prepared to have himself read your comments between the lines. Were these men saved? I would hold tight on this one. John 12:42-43 is like a photograph  -  a snapshot in time.  There is such a thing as a mere intellectual faith that accepts the evidences, interprets them the right way, but falls short of embracing Christ. Millions of people every Lord's Day in those churches that chant the Apostle's Creed, from Anglicans right through to Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (and others) but we dare not affirm that each and every one of them is converted to Jesus Christ. From what I can see of Antonio, I am not sure that this is grasped. It was said of Simon in Acts 8:13 that Simon "also believed" (same Greek word for John 12:42) and indeed was baptised, yet it was exposed to be a false faith that did not save him, because when he wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit, he was roundly rebuked with the damning words: "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." So, I would hold tight on the lads in John 12:42-43 and reserve judgment. I would like to think that they were genuine and later confessed Him boldly, as Joseph (a secret disciple) later did. God knows! What is truth: Kent Brandenburg has started a series on atonement. Will be interesting to see if he has an atonement that atones for the sins of reprobates, but requires them to suffer for these same sins! (A thought we explore here.) Pyromanics: Dan Philips does a good article on Acts 17:11 with a very funny graphic of the Pope in the middle. Pulpit Magazine Blog: Phil Johnstone has written a good article (thus far in 3 parts) on why he is a Calvinist and why, it is likely that you (if you are a Christian) are one too...although you mightn't recognise it. He is very moderate (and rightly so) towards Arminians. I always enjoy Phil on these kind of topics. He is easy to read, without being superficial.

Monday 19th March 2007  

A fair bit of activity over the St Patrick's Day weekend on the blog front. Rose's Reasonings: Rose has decided to give a fair bit of her time and space to the Calvinistic issue. I have presently one comment on this page about the sense in which faith may be viewed as a work i.e. if it is the condition in "conditional election" - the cause whereby God chose to save us rather than someone else. Another case, may be if we have made a Christ out of our faith i.e. given it some merit. Faith is not a work if it merely is the instrumentality whereby, like the grateful hand of a beggar, we reach out for a totally undeserved gift.  In another page, entitled "Why does One believe and Another doesn't?" I have taken up debate with two contributers. The first is with a lady called Dawn who sought to rearrange Acts 18:27 which speaks of those who "believed through grace." Our non Reformed friend sought to have this teach: "They believed that word and received salvation through grace by faith" but this is not what the verse says. They "believed through grace" and this grace derived faith brought them salvation. It takes you to watch. The second debate in this page is with a man called Bud who has been throwing a couple of allegations around him. He quotes Acts 7:51 and claims it nails the Reformed lie. But it can only nail the "Reformed lie" if Calvinists denied that men cannot resist God and what Calvinist believes that? So, I asked him to provide proof from any Calvinist commentator or theologian, stuck my neck out and said that I did not believe that he could do so, and supplied one quote from Calvin on the same verse which affirms that these Jews did resist God. (I have a fuller discussion of this matter on this website here.)  Then if this wasn't bad enough, before he honourably answers my  challenge on Acts 7:51, Bud ploughs ahead again with another unsubstantiated allegation that Westminster Calvinists believe that sinners are dead like the rocks and incapable of responding to God.  Well. I could hardly let him get away with that.  So I gave off a bit about his tendency to throw out these unsubstantiated allegations and then gave  a brief summary from the WCF "Practical Use of Saving Knowledge" that treats men as responsible beings etc. I reminded him of my hope that he would supply us with quotes on the Acts 7:51 matter, and by implication, any of his allegations. There hasn't been any nastiness on this site, and I wouldn't like some irresponsible person (from whatever camp) come in and ruin it.  An ongoing debate. Livers and Onions: The latest helping from our Non Reformed friend here is that Calvinists believe that we can pass from death unto life without faith - a reference to the Reformed teaching that regeneration leads to faith - although you would think that we denied faith altogether. Sometimes I ask myself why do I bother with this boy. I think it would be an utter waste of time engaging him in debate, especially now that I've been getting involved more in Rose's page. I hate slanging matches and I normally just walk away. Or (being kinda smart) I don't get involved in the first place. What doesn't help yer man here is that very few actually comment on his many pages, so I'm not for helping him out. If you want to see Calvinism debated, then see Rose above. I had to laugh though, because (as I compile this summary) he replies to one admirer on his Ephesians 1:4 page below. I quote:  "Having encountered them in numerous contexts, and having experienced their puffy and bloated spirit, I find it hard to take their claim that sovereign grace humbles a man. I've never met a more arrogant, conceited, and obnoxious bunch of blowhards than the sons of John." Yet if you read his various pages, he describes Calvinists as "Calamite Crazies" (Actually in the same comment as quoted) and "Cavlinuts" - "Calvin clones" etc., I haven't looked over his entire site - (If I did and admitted it, I would probably get a rebuke from our Mission Board or any other serious Christian) - but I do wonder if he gives Calvinists any credit at all. Oh well. I suppose it takes all kinds. Examining Calvinism: No less than three new pages appear together for the first time since February 2nd. In one of them ("Why Calvinists believe what they do") the writer accuses Calvinists as interpreting all Scripture through the glasses of  God's eternal decree which purposes whatever comes to pass. He accuses the Calvinist of reading in Ephesians 1:11 that God causes all things that comes to pass, instead of working all things.  OK...I'll give that one a bit of thought. Is there a major difference, and if so, what? Pyromaniacs: Phil introduces us to some folk from a church who emerged out of the Emerging Church movement. Basically, they caught themselves on and came into the mainstream through serious study of the word of God. One thing, though, which we should not lose. They came to Christ through the EC Movement and while this does not mean that we should endorse or copy this movement in its unBiblical ways, yet we should rejoice that God in His blameless sovereignty can and does use it for His glory. It used to be the Charismatic Movement, with all its eye brow raising antics, that supplied a steady trickle of genuine converts...now it is joined by the EC Movement as well.

Friday 16th March 2007  

Liver and Onions: Romans 8:29 takes up our attention in one of Pennock's latest blogs. Within the usual jibes of heresy etc., we get the amazing statement that God does not predestinate men to salvation, but to holiness. I have seen this before from these non Calvinist circles. Basically, the term salvation is taken to denote justification and that alone. It seems that it does not extend either to sanctification or glorification, yet it must do to make sense of those verses which teach a present ongoing salvation (i.e. 1 Corinthians 1:18 literal rendering) and a future salvation (Romans 13:11). This is shallow theology., and as seen in the debate here, it leads to all sorts of problems in theological discussion. His latest blog on Ephesians 1:4 follows much the same line: We are not chosen unto salvation, but holiness etc., This is nonsense. Romans 9 answers this, where Paul speaks about election and reprobation (including, in the latter, the hardening of the heart etc., in Pharoah, and vessels of wrath, afore fitted to destruction etc.,) The whole tone of Romans 9 is set in the opening verses where Paul agonises over the eternal destiny of his kinsmen according to the flesh and concludes with the evangelical piece about the Rock in Zion etc., I have commented elsewhere about there being "death in the pot" with this culinary titled blog and I have no reason to change my mind in these postings. Rose's Reasonings: Is God obliged to save? Rose has taken up the question which I posed in an earlier comment and made a whole article out of it. Although Rose rejects the Doctrines of Grace, yet she seems very open to pleasant discussion of it. Maybe we will get to the stage where we can talk more openly about the OT heathen who were left unevangelised and to perish in their sins. I raised this in the earlier post(Monday 12th March) and I mention it again here. We agree that God is obliged to His own promises to sinners etc., but is He obliged to promise in the first place? This is a crux question, although Rose doesn't think so. And least, not yet. Currently, two boys (Jon Lee and Antonio) are challenging some comments which I have made on the comments page. Pyromaniacs: Phil Johnston has a good piece about John McArthur - a fallout from last weeks stuff about Pre Mills and Calvinism. He makes a good point about people crediting McArthur with more than McArthur himself will claim. I usually enjoy Phil's articles and this is no exception. Unashamed of Grace: Antonio gives us a quote from John Piper about (and I summarise here and interpret) the possibility of apostasy. He himself refrains from any comment, apart from asking the question: "Does anybody agree with this quotation?" Maybe it is a bit premature to ask this question (bearing in mind that I had never heard of Antonio until pretty recently) but I wonder if he believes that Judas Iscariot is in Heaven? I have yet (and I haven't scoured his blog or the comments pages of other blogs) to see him admit to the possibility of false conversions. It seems to me that if you but profess Jesus Christ as your Saviour, then you are eternally secure no matter what you do or believe afterwards. These are relatively first impressions and may well stand to be corrected.

Wednesday 14th March 2007

Liver and Onions: Pennock has added two more pages. One with a list of 60 of Charles G. Finney's Resolutions which he claims are as strange and as unusual as J. Edwards (which we are left to assume, means Jonathan Edwards) Anyones guess as to which resolutions Pennock thinks are good or otherwise. In the second new page, entitled "Calvinism's day in the sun" he laments the onward march of Calvinism among fundamentalists (shades of David Cloud on this one which are answered here) Prophesies doom and gloom for the church as a result. What is truth? (Kent Brandenburg):  Interesting piece on the perspicuity of Scripture. Attacks the Neo Evangelicals, among whom he identifies  McArthur, Piper and Swindoll. Strange to see them branded also as "universalists" - does this mean they believe that all men will be eventually saved? Hardly, but that is the only definition of universalist that I am aware of. I wonder if an "Neo Evangelical" in this case is someone who isn't is my particular camp?

Monday 12th March 2007