-
Duty Faith and the Protestant Reformed Churches
Dear Brother J., Thank you so much for your detailed analysis of my attempt to illustrate saving faith as opposed to duty-faith. You brought many coals to Newcastle for me and your Athens-bound ships were full of wise old owls, all of which were welcome. It is good to find that though you may disagrees with me on terms, we have so very much agreement on contents, though we are only at the beginning of a debate. It is very obvious that you Presbyterians use many words that I do, yet with different meanings. Thomas Scott used to say that all denominations tend to inject their own particular meaning into words and thus distinguish themselves from others. This is a true observation but it makes…
-
Preachers Today
Throughout last year, there was a rather one-sided debate in the internet concerning the alleged difference between preachers in pan-Biblical times and those of today. These were mostly carried out by para-church groups who had words such as ‘spiritual’ in their titles and were obviously against a settled ministry in a local church, some even arguing that the office of a preacher was only used of a peripatetic, itinerant servant of God. On most of these sites one found that the writers denigrated all modern preaching, presenting themselves, of course, as ‘spiritual’ preachers who were the exception to the sad rule. The result of this campaign was that a number of brethren copied quotes from these sites and sent them to various brethren, often without…
-
Arminian In The Pulpit / Calvinist On Their Knees
Perhaps you have heard of those preachers who boast themselves to be Arminian in the pulpit and Calvinist on their knees. They make an attribute out of their ambiguous theology. Yet we fear that many who profess themselves to be free-offer Calvinists play precisely the same role as these double minded misfits without being quite so blunt. Our free-offer brethren employ all the language of free-will teachers. They build their pulpits on reformed confessions but employ them to preach sermons that are indistinguishable from those heard in most Arminian churches any day of the week. The beauty of the distinctive, free-grace message is marred by lobbying for responses. In their eager pursuit of additions to the church they blur the distinction between a Holy Spirit…
-
Substituting Fable For Historical Truth
A marked negative feature of common-grace gospellers is the scorn which they pour on men of God who emphasise that the whole gospel must be preached to the whole man as the Spirit leads. Thus they condemn such Christians of the past as Tobias Crisp, John Ryland Senior, William Romaine, William Huntington, John Gill, Augustus Toplady and Robert Hawker who would not dilute their gospel to suit what the common-grace gospellers call ‘man’s agency’. These men were called to preach Christ’s victorious crucifixion accomplishments, including great Bible truths such as the eternal union of Christ with His Bride; Christ’s faith and righteousness imputed to His people, election, predestination and the justifying, saving decrees of God in and from eternity and a faith which endures. Common-grace…
-
“I Believe In Free Will” “Me, Too”
“That’s where we differ”, said my questioner, “I believe in freewill.” What do you mean by freewill? In one sense nothing can exist, or function, except God permits it, including man’s will. Man is not God, he is not free and self-existent. Man’s will is free only to the extent God allows. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). Yet, undoubtedly, God has allowed men a degree of freedom in their choices and decisions. He does not force us. Even the powerful, sovereign operations of God’s grace in conversion do not drive men to unwilling obedience. Rather, the elect of God, for whom salvation has been eternally purposed are…
-
Tom Nettles Versus George Ella On Fuller
Having been of quite another opinion than The Founders Journal so often about what I believe and disbelieve and having met their ill-founded and quite misleading arguments to a large extent in various articles and books, I was surprised to read an online article today (20.10. 2014) by Tom Nettles, originally published in Issue 53 of the Founders Journal for 2003 and entitled ‘Jonathan Edwards: An Appreciation’, containing a doubly mistaken report appertaining both to myself and Andrew Fuller. I had obviously missed this at the time it was written. In Nettles’ article, the author creates an effigy of wax to stick pins into which he gives my name in order to create an Andrew Fuller after his own heart. Bad as I believe Fuller’s…
