God does not need to "stack the deck", whatever Hank is trying to say by that , for he controls ALL the cards. For if
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.( Proverbs 16:33)
then surely every card in every shuffle of any deck is also the same.
See also: Act 4:27,28; , Isaiah 14:24; Psalm 155:3; Daniel 4:35; just for starters, and don't forget Acts 13:48 . [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/readit.gif" alt="readit" title="readit[/img].
If the concept bothers you , then try Romans 9:19-20.
In reply to:My question is, how should the Canons of Dordt be interpreted in light of the evangelical church scene as a whole? Can a church teach some heresy, but not be filled with heretics? Isn't heresy, well, such a significant departure from the faith as to make the religious system something other than Christianity, such as modern liberalism?
[*]how should the Canons of Dordt be interpreted in light of the evangelical church scene as a whole? I believe that the findings of the Synod of Dordt are true and should be accepted as a subordinate authority in matters of doctrine within the entire Christian Church. Let's keep the historical situation in mind when we consider the Synodical decision. At that time, most all the Protestant Churches embraced what was later to be nicknamed, (an unfortunate reality), Calvinism; the Protestant Church in contradistinction to the Roman State Church embraced monergism which was summarized in the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation. Thus, this gathering of men from various denominations who met at Dordtrect, represented the vast majority of Protestants and therefore can be seen as being a united voice which spoke for all who held to the biblical doctrines of salvation. The fact that the evan-jelly-cal churches of today have forsaken their roots and have adopted the doctrines of Arminius and even Pelagius doesn't diminish the findings and judgment of Dordt.[*]Can a church teach some heresy, but not be filled with heretics? Yes, this is possible but not likely, IMHO. Because of the nature of Arminianism, in that it teaches that man's decision to alleged historical facts, e.g., the deity of Christ, salvation by faith in Him, etc., results in salvation (Sandemanianism, aka: Easy Believism) is contrary to the biblical doctrine of Christ, the essence of saving faith, the necessity of sanctification, the preservation/perseverance of the saints, and other fundamental doctrines. Yet, God has called some to Christ from within such churches and eventually leads them out when the doctrines of grace are made known to them. Consider Martin Luther! [*]Isn't heresy, well, such a significant departure from the faith as to make the religious system something other than Christianity, such as modern liberalism? I think the problem here is that often people begin to use that which is extreme as the standard by which they judge other heretical doctrines and thus conclude that something less heretical/offensive than the "standard" should be tolerated or viewed with less strictness. Such, IMHO, had happened since the time when German Liberalism and Existentialism (Neo-orthodoxy) came into popularity in the mid to late 1800's. Up until that time, Arminianism was not "tolerated" and deemed heretical. But when Liberalism came onto the scene, Arminianism had the appearance of being almost acceptable in comparison. This backing off, or turning a blind eye, to Arminianism has become like an infectious disease at this time in that many consider Arminianism to be nothing more than biblical Christianity which only has a few "flaws" added to it.[/LIST]
In reply to:Another question, if in fact the Arminian theology of most of the church is damnable heresy, why should a baptism in such a circumstance be accepted even upon examination of the profession of faith?
That's a more difficult question to answer, at least it is for me. I do not accept Roman baptism as being legitimate, but such men as Charles Hodge and other "notables" did and many still do. I would accept the baptism of an infant which was done in an Arminian church, but not that of an adult. Yes, this view will surely be challenged by some here. But what is most important to me is one's profession of faith. Since the fruit of Arminianism is "Easy Believism", I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has made a profession of faith in an Arminian Church. In practical terms, I am saying that if someone desired to transfer their membership or join a Reformed Church, having previously been members of an Arminian Church, I would not take them in automatically, based upon their previous "profession of faith". In fact, I reject any type of "transfer of membership" regardless of the origin of the petitioner(s). I hold that ALL who desire to join a particular congregation should be required to make a valid profession of faith, even if such individual(s) have been members in a sister church within the same denomination. Thus, their baptism is, de facto, suspect.
In reply to:But are we to say that the bulk of evangelical churches today have placed themselves so far from the trunk of Christian orthodoxy that we ought to consider them to be cut off?
I see from your remarks some differences in our premises. I see the calvinist message of the Reformed churches as offering doctrinal purity to the broader evangelical community. Calvinism is the theological backbone of the church. You, on the other hand, appear to conceive of that same orthodox group as offering not only doctrinal purity to their Arminian--can we say bretheren?--but also saving faith. So, there really is no broad evangelical community, just apparently a small Calvinist one. And with the bar on damnable heresy set so low, they should feel none too safe themselves!
My reflex is to say remember to leave room in our orthodox doctrines for God's sovereignty, but that sounds pious.
But I am not trying to write pithy little responses, I really appreciate the thought and care that went into what you have written. I just don't know what to say, what you have written is very heavy, I hate it, and I hope you are wrong, but that is my personal feeling and I need to investigate it further.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]My reflex is to say remember to leave room in our orthodox doctrines for God's sovereignty, . . .
I do appreciate the remark, and I don't think it is being "pious", as it is surely a biblical statement. However, perhaps it would be good to mention as a reminder, that in many instances, God works in ways which are in spite of what men do and not in agreement with or because of what men do! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/ponder.gif" alt="ponder" title="ponder[/img] As is too often the case, God's sovereignty is either intermixed with or diminished at the expense of emphasizing man's responsibility. That someone is saved at a Billy Graham Crusade, just to use that as an example, isn't a stamp of God's approval upon the heretical "gospel" that is preached. What it does show is God is fortunately not subject to man's foolishness nor unbelief in calling His own to Himself by what means He decides to use. On the other hand, we are wholly responsible to do that which God has revealed in His Word and to teach right doctrine and preach the pure Gospel of Christ. In these things ONLY may we have confidence that men will hear the truth and be saved. It is a serious error to think that because God can save whom He will and by any means He chooses, that we can simply ignore the "narrow way" and fabricate all kinds of "neato" methodologies and "dumb down" the gospel in order to get the best results. Unfortunately, this IS the thinking of most of the "Evan-jelly-cal" churches of today. Let us also remember that you will reap what you sow. Thus, offer another gospel and you will get people with a "faith" which is similar, which is no faith at all. (cf. 2Cor 11:4; Gal 1:7, 9)
Heresy is that which is at varience with what is orthodox.
Arminianism is therefore heresy. The bible tells us to reject heretics (arminians et al ) after a couple of admonitions (Titus 3:10). How is a heretic the brother of a christian if we are to reject heretics ?
Some folk clearly do not realise the evils of arminianism and the CARNAGE it has and is causing the church.
Below is a brief quote from Arminianism - another gospel by William MacLean.
During the Arminian regime of Archbishop Laud, the persecutor of the Puritans and the Covenanters, zealous Arminians were promoted to the best bishoprics. A famous letter written by a Jesuit to the Rector of Brussels and endorsed by Laud himself was found in his study at Lambeth. A copy of this letter was found among the papers of a society of priests and jesuits at Clerkenwell in 1627 the following is an extract ;
Now we have planted the Soverign Drug Arminianism which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresey; and it flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season ........... I am at this time transported with joy to see how happily all instruments and means, as well as great or smaller, co-operate with our purposes. But to return to the main fabric: OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISM.
If any here believes that arminianism is Christian doctrine , then by all means do so.
I personally, along with most Reformers believe arminianism is of the devil.
John Owen : " As blessed Athanasius sighed out in his day : ' The world is overrun with Arianism ' , so it is the sad sigh of our present times, the christian world is overun, yea, overwhelmed with the flood of Arminianism; which cometh as it were, out of the mouth of the serpent , that he might cause the woman (the church) to be carried away on the flood thereof ".
We would bode well to look upon arminianism as our great reformers saw it and offer arminians all the help possible to get them upon the path of Free and Sovereign Grace . Indeed , it is our duty to do so - lest their blood be upon our hands ( Ezekiel 33 ).
Prestor John - I meant 'modern' false gospels prevading today.
Paul S - Look where Packers "calvinism" has ended up ! Back to arminian Rome.
Gerry - Great post sir - we share similar "experiences".
In reply to:[color:"blue"]You have provided but yet another occasion to post my overworn quotes from Kuyper and Spurgeon which I first introduced here, January 7, 1997!
Pilgrim,
I missed my calling as a straightman! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]
Can you expand on the following quote that you made?
"Look where Packers "calvinism" has ended up ! Back to arminian Rome."
To me this quote makes it sound like you believe Packer is now an Arminian himself. We all know of Packer's ecumenicalism, but I have yet to see evidence that he embraces anything other than the doctrines of grace.
I have heard that lately Packer has entertained inclusivism. Have any of you heard this?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
"We all know of Packer's ecumenicalism, but I have yet to see evidence that he embraces anything other than the doctrines of grace."
I would offer the following in response to the first part of your statement, ie "We all know of Mr. Packers ecumenism":
Are we not explicitly told to: "Come out from among them and be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing."? Is not Rome an "unclean thing"? Can ecumenism, including an embracing of Rome, tacitly or otherwise, not to mention other heretical sects, be considered to be "coming out from among them"?
And are we not also explicity instructed; "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." ?(Jms 4:4) Is not the church of Rome part of the world and a tool of the "ruler of this world"?
These are not difficult questions to answer for even the weakest and least educated of the Lord's sheep. How therefore does Mr. Packer find difficulty in responding Biblically, for surely, on some level, as for example in his natural judgement as opposed to his spiritual judgement, he sees the error of his actions? I would suggest that the answer is found in the last quoted scripture, namely, that Mr. Packer "would be a friend of he World".
In response to the second part of your statement, ie; "but I have yet to see evidence that he embraces anything other than the doctrines of grace."
It would be accurate, in my opinion, to say that Mr. Packer esposes the doctrines of grace, or that perhaps he gives lip service to them, but to say that he embraces them, and that there is no evidence that he embraces anything else would make your statement in it's entirety a contradiction, because he has admitedly embraced ecumenism and the world. One cannot embrace the world, ecumenism, Romanism and the doctrines of grace at the same time, for to embrace the doctrines of grace is to reject Rome and ecumenism and any and all but adherance to the true Gospel.
One cannot truly embrace the doctrines of Grace and "be a friend of the world". One cannot love Christ and the world, just as one "cannot love God and mammon".
Or, again, the Lord asked the point blank question of the Pharisees; " How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?" Jn 5:44
I interpret the Lords words to imply that as long as the Pharisee's, or Mr. Packer, or you, or I, seeks the approval of the world over the approval of God, we cannot savingly believe, and one of the most obvious evidences of where we stand is not the words we speak to the contrary, for the Pharisees were full of words of devotion to God rather than the world and Ceasar, but rather, the actions we take, "to come out from among them and be ye separate".
In reply to:These are not difficult questions to answer for even the weakest and least educated of the Lord's sheep. How therefore does Mr. Packer find difficulty in responding Biblically, for surely, on some level, as for example in his natural judgment as opposed to his spiritual judgment, he sees the error of his actions? I would suggest that the answer is found in the last quoted scripture, namely, that Mr. Packer "would be a friend of he World".
I really think that what you wrote here and previously as well is unwarranted and anything but cordial in regards to Dr. J.I. Packer. There is little question that his deliberations with the Roman Catholics in the matter of "Sola Fide" is perplexing. However, he has publicly given a reason for his involvement which may not totally justify what he's doing in the minds of some, myself included, but there is no basis to judge the man and accuse him of being "a friend of the world"! As I have written elsewhere in defense of the inconsistencies which exist between one's mind and heart, e.g., with one who vocally professes to embrace Arminianism yet in the heart believes that God saves by sovereign grace, which should guard us against making rash judgments. I think that it is only appropriate that one be very careful to not be guilty of character assassination, especially one who has been one of the most prolific and staunch defenders of the doctrines of grace.
In reply to:It would be accurate, in my opinion, to say that Mr. Packer espouses the doctrines of grace, or that perhaps he gives lip service to them, but to say that he embraces them, and that there is no evidence that he embraces anything else would make your statement in it's entirety a contradiction, because he has admitedly embraced ecumenism and the world.
That Packer has embraced ecumenicism and the world is again an unwarranted and unsubstantiated judgment on your part. I personally have not read anything written by Packer (not that I have everything which he has penned) which would justify this very serious and harsh allegation. May I remind you that the man is Dr. J.I. Packer and not Clark Pinnock or Dave Hunt, et al. Perhaps your definition of being "a friend of the world" goes beyond what the Scripture teaches? I have never known Dr. Packer to be guilty of worldliness. In fact, he is anything but "worldly" in his life. If we had more men who sought after holiness even close to that which he has exhibited over his life-time, it would be a good thing. Likewise the charge that he has embraced ecumenicism certainly would need to be proved; i.e., that he professes that there is salvation outside of Christ. Can you substantiate your allegation against Dr. Packer?
Let one's criticism of another be based upon FACT and not FANCY!
Matthew 7:2-5 (ASV) "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
I am not saying this to defend Packer, to me it doesn't make sense to me that he could embrace ecumenicalism and Calvinism at the same time. Personally I think (though it is only a guess) that he believes that he can influence from within ecumenicalism better than outside of it.
I have read quite a bit of Packer and as far as I am concerned his writing on the doctrines of grace is some of the best I have ever read. It is for that reason that I will continue to read his writing and would love to hear Packer's explanation of why he believes ecumenicalism and the doctrines of grace are compatible.
Perhaps, I should do a little investigation myself on this aspect of Packer.
Tom:<br><br>Thanks for your response and the spirit in which it was written. My comments were offered in a spirit of concern for Mr. Packers actions, not the judgement that Pilgrim has accused them of.<br><br>Gerry
Your response to my comments on Mr. Packers actions with respect to embracing the ecumenical movement indicate that you misinterpret both the scope and the intent of them.
As to the scope, when I suggest that Mr Packer's actions in this regard are due to worldly motives, I in no way imply that his whole life is worldly, or characterized by worldliness, for I do not believe this to be the case at all. Rather, just as you or I might lead a godly life and err in a given area, I believe that Mr Packer is subject to the same temptations, and, due to his position as a leader, I would suspect that misguided motives, not to mention countless other pressures, might make him even more suseptable.
Nor do I believe it is judgemental of me to offer these observations, as they are offered in the spirit of christian love, based on the scriptures, and wholely in keeping with the commands of scripture to alert our brothers in Christ when we believe they are in error.
As to Mr. Packers standing in the Reformed Christian community, I am fully aware of his long standing support of the Doctrines of Grace and his "wide swath" so to speak. It is because I have a great deal of respect for him, and his standing, that his actions bring such great grief to many who love the cause of Christ, of which I am one.
With respect to the validity of my observations on the nature of his actions in lending his considerable support to the ecumenical movement, I have no problem stating that regardless of the reasons stated for his actions, they speak to me, on their face, of pragmatism, a disease that infects the whole of Christianity today, and I am saddened to see you pass it off as other than what it is. I can not imagine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Owen, Bunyan, Toplady, Romaine, etc, etc, sitting down with representatives of the Roman church, in their latter, mature, Christian years, for the purpose of "deliberations with the Roman Catholics in the matter of "Sola Fide"", as you put it. Can you?
I thought your earlier synopsis in this thread of the decline in the historical church's defense of true christianity, in the following statements was much more faithful:
" how should the Canons of Dordt be interpreted in light of the evangelical church scene as a whole? I believe that the findings of the Synod of Dordt are true and should be accepted as a subordinate authority in matters of doctrine within the entire Christian Church. Let's keep the historical situation in mind when we consider the Synodical decision. At that time, most all the Protestant Churches embraced what was later to be nicknamed, (an unfortunate reality), Calvinism; the [color:red]Protestant Church in contradistinction to the Roman State Church embraced monergism which was summarized in the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation. Thus, this gathering of men from various denominations who met at Dordtrect, represented the vast majority of Protestants and [color:red]therefore can be seen as being a united voice which spoke for all who held to the biblical doctrines of salvation. The fact that the evan-jelly-cal churches of today have forsaken their roots and have adopted the doctrines of Arminius and even Pelagius doesn't diminish the findings and judgment of Dordt. Can a church teach some heresy, but not be filled with heretics? Yes, this is possible but not likely, IMHO. [color:red]Because of the nature of Arminianism, in that it teaches that man's decision to alleged historical facts, e.g., the deity of Christ, salvation by faith in Him, etc., results in salvation (Sandemanianism, aka: Easy Believism) [color:red]is contrary to the biblical doctrine of Christ, the essence of saving faith, the necessity of sanctification, the preservation/perseverance of the saints, and other fundamental doctrines. Yet, God has called some to Christ from within such churches and eventually [color:red]leads them out when the doctrines of grace are made known to them. Consider Martin Luther! Isn't heresy, well, such a significant departure from the faith as to make the religious system something other than Christianity, such as modern liberalism? [color:red]I think the problem here is that often people begin to use that which is extreme as the standard by which they judge other heretical doctrines and thus conclude that something less heretical/offensive than the "standard" should be tolerated or viewed with less strictness. Such, IMHO, had happened since the time when German Liberalism and Existentialism (Neo-orthodoxy) came into popularity in the mid to late 1800's. Up until that time, Arminianism was not "tolerated" and deemed heretical. But when Liberalism came onto the scene, Arminianism had the appearance of being almost acceptable in comparison. [color:red]This backing off, or turning a blind eye, to Arminianism has become like an infectious disease at this time in that many consider Arminianism to be nothing more than biblical Christianity which only has a few "flaws" added to it."
You have now admitted that you have judged Dr. Packer's motives for his involvement in ECT, etc. Are you privy to something that I'm not? I have personally spoken to him face-to-face; have you? Have you even read his publicly published article which explained why he was involved in deliberations with the Roman State Church? If not, then I must ask you, On what basis do have you determined that his motives are akin to being "a friend with the world"? As I wrote previously, what he has told me and written publicly, I personally find wanting. But I can assure you that it there isn't even a hint of him being "a friend to the world".
If your actual intent was/is a genuine concern for him, then may similar intent, suggest that you find a better way of expressing it than you have? I seriously doubt there are many who have read your remarks who understood them to have been written out of a brotherly concern for Dr. Packer. Oh, btw, I doubt that Dr. Packer has any intent of watering down the doctrine of Sola Fide, as he has so faithfully defended it for decades, so as to produce ecumenicism. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]
What I said was that "they appear on their face" to speak of pragmatism. And I "suggested", as a result that they appear to me to be worldly, or misguided. I must confess that they still do, and I haven't heard anything to the contrary yet, and you have told us yourself that you don't understand them. Are you suggesting that Mr. Packer is above misguided motives?
No, I haven't spoken to Dr. Packer as I understand from others that have tried to reach him on this subject that he is hard to get in touch with. Since you have spoken with him about this, perhaps you can illucidate his reasons for us, and correct my error? It was reasoned from scripture, and whether you accept my intent as being genuine or not is between you and the Lord.
, for he controls ALL the cards. For if 
[*]
But what is most important to me is one's profession of faith. Since the fruit of Arminianism is "Easy Believism", I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has made a profession of faith in an Arminian Church. In practical terms, I am saying that if someone desired to transfer their membership or join a Reformed Church, having previously been members of an Arminian Church, I would not take them in automatically, based upon their previous "profession of faith". In fact, I reject any type of "transfer of membership" regardless of the origin of the petitioner(s). ![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/scratchchin.gif)
Oh, btw, I doubt that Dr. Packer has any intent of watering down the doctrine of Sola Fide, as he has so faithfully defended it for decades, so as to produce ecumenicism. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]