Oh well, Dr. James R. White has provided a commentary on the skewed 'gospel' being proclaimed in much of Evangelicalism today, which is focused ONLY on the statement 'God loves you' fullstop and is thus no gospel at all. This, in Dr. White's own words, is the Gospel, which I agree:
The gospel is not a bare "offer" to all people to accept God's love in Jesus: it is first a command to repent and turn, and then it is in fact a wide and broad and glorious proclamation that the love of God in Christ Jesus is freely experienced by all, Jew and Gentile, who in faith turn to Christ! But that does not mean you have to reduce the sovereign Creator to a suitor begging for acceptance by the almighty rebel!
Anyway, this article by Dr. White is also with regards to Michael Spencer aka the Internet Monk, with regards to his article here in response to a rather anthropocentric video put up by Pastor Francis Chan of Cornerstone Community Church, here. Looks like the controversy over the 'free offer of the Gospel' and the method of presenting the Gospel continues. As an aside, this is one of the points of contention I have with Pastor John Piper's version of Calvinism and his strange 'two wills of God' theory (which in my opinion is closer to Amyraldianism than true Calvinism).
"Free offer of the gospel"
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate... scripturally and historically - maybe in a separate post?
Jenson:
ReplyDeleteSoon. Perhaps after my long-overdue comments on the Feminism book.
Daniel...
ReplyDeleteI've only read your blog for 30 minutes or so, but I'd like to converse a little more with you concerning your comments on Francis Chan's "gospel" and John Piper's "calvinism". I'd love to hear a little more about what you think on these two men. Thanks.
www.chasinglions.blogspot.com
Hello Casey,
ReplyDeleteI have seen a bit of your blog, and quite frankly I don't think I will be able to match your output in terms of material.
Anyway, sure, I wouldn't mind conversing more regarding Chan's gospel presentation and Piper's version of Calvinism, but that would have to wait. Firstly, I would like the dust to clear after the recent massive "cyber-war" due to the issue. Secondly, I am currently doing a couple of projects like the ongoing series on the topic of "Assurance of salvation", which is not an easy one. This is on top of my "day-work", which is rather demanding also of me in terms of time. I was thinking of addressing the issue proper perhaps in a few months time (i.e. June would be good). Informal conversations would be fine, though.
So, may I know what are your views on the two topics, and why? I can see that you seem rather friendly to the entire emerging conversation, yet seemed rather orthodox, so what exactly are you?
God bless,
Daniel Chew.
Hello again Daniel!
ReplyDeleteI followed your link from the original Just Stop and Think post from January '07 to this post regarding James White's comments on the Biblical Gospel. I do agree with White, and in fact I'm a longtime reader of aomin.org and have listened fairly extensively to his debates, at least those that are available online.
Of course James does a brilliant job of "cutting it straight" and sticking with his "theology matters" credo, but he did say one thing over at his blog as it relates to the particular redemption and God's love that struck my mind as being wrongheaded. Now I may simply be confused by the context in which White made this statement, but here are his exact words:
"God's love in Jesus is specifically limited by divine revelation to those who are repentant and who have faith in Jesus Christ the risen Savior. To promise the love of God to those who continue in love with their sin is not only unbiblical, it is treasonous." - James White from his blog.
Also we have the testimony of a vast cloud of witnesses who will shamefully admit that in their flesh they fought against the Gospel of Grace before they were overcome by His matchless and irresistable grace, still loving their sin and hating the light of Christ. If it is treason to promise these elect saints, before they are regenerated and come unto a profession of faith in Christ and begin to bear of the fruit of the Spirit, that God promises His love to them, then count me as a traitor. In my mind this strikes at the very heart of the matter of the proclamation of the Eternal Gospel of Grace - we don't know who the elect are, nor do we know who the reprobate are, therefore we beg [them] on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God - ALL OF THEM.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
In Christ,
CD
5 days ago
CD:
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with that, actually. May I know your concerns?
5 days ago
I'm fine with that, actually. May I know your concerns?Sorry for not replying sooner, I just checked back!
ReplyDeleteAnyway my concern, which as I mentioned may be akin to splitting hairs, is that James White said:
"God's love in Jesus is specifically limited by divine revelation to those who are repentant and who have faith in Jesus Christ the risen Savior."That's simply not true since God loves the elect with an everlasting love meaning His love abides upon them even before they are regenerated unto repentance... prior to faith.
In other words we love Him, why? Because He first loved us.
I think James atypically dropped the ball on this one, that's all.
In Christ,
CD
CD:
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't see the problem. God's electing love is indeed everlasting. However, in time his electing love is not evident to the elect while they are still unregenerate, who instead experience his wrath against sinners prior to their salvation.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWhite doesn't say anything about God's love being "evident", he says it's "specifically limited to those who are repentant and have faith in Jesus Christ".
Again, in context, White says:
"God's love in Jesus is specifically limited by divine revelation to those who are repentant and who have faith in Jesus Christ the risen Savior."This is simply not true.
Surely no Calvinist is going to argue that God doesn't love the elect until they come to faith and repentance in Christ, amen?
Such would turn regeneration precedes faith Reformed soteriology on its head, making God's love for His elect dependent upon their response to Him.
Again, I'm sure this isn't James White's intent, nor yours, so I can only assume its an unfortunate choice of words.
I'll need to further investigate your contention that the elect experience or otherwise abide under God's wrath prior to regeneration. Surely the Lord chastens His own whom He has eternally foreknown, but He poured out His wrath on Christ upon the cross in their stead. But I think your assertion is novel and interesting. Do you have any resources on this subject?
In Christ,
CD
CD:
ReplyDelete> Surely no Calvinist is going to argue that God doesn't love the elect until they come to faith and repentance in Christ, amen?
I see Dr. White as talking about God's love in the temporal developmental perspective. After all, the larger context of the post is refuting the Neo-Amyraldians or Ponterites here.
> I'll need to further investigate your contention that the elect experience or otherwise abide under God's wrath prior to regeneration.
I think Eph. 2:1-3 is very instrumental at this point - "by nature children of wrath". Note that this wrath is about temporal wrath, not eternal.
>Do you have any resources on this subject?
I must admit I have not read as many books on this topic as I hope to. That said, Rutherford's book The Covenant of Life Opened uses the term "Law wrath" and "Gospel wrath" to differentiate these two senses of God's wrath - ie the unregenerate elect are never under Gospel wrath but under Law wrath.
In Matthew Henry's commentary on Eph. 2:1-3, it is written:
All men, being naturally children of disobedience, are also by nature children of wrath: God is angry with the wicked every day. Our state and course are such as deserve wrath, and would end in eternal wrath, if divine grace did not interpose. What reason have sinners then to be looking out for that grace that will make them, of children of wrath, children of God and heirs of glory!
I think this expresses the idea well.
CD:
ReplyDeletesorry, but the Rutherford example was wrong. It should be "the unregenerate elect are never under Law wrath but under Gospel wrath".