Calvin's Institutes: Against the charismatics....

I have been reading Calvin's Institutes (Yes, this is my first time reading it since becoming a Calvinist; before that I have been reading lots of 'secondary' material.) Anyway, here is something interesting regarding Calvin's view of those who speak of the Holy Spirit apart from the Word, whom Calvin called 'fanatics':

But I wish they [fanatics] would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. [I.IX. p.84]

...

What an infaturation of the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use? Again, I should like these people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit thant that which Christ promised to his disciples. ... But what kind of Spirit did our Savior promise to send? One who should not speak of Himself (John xvi. 13), but suggest and instil the truths which He Himself had delivered through the Word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of-revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the Gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the Gospel recommends.

...

But they say that it is insulting to subject the Spirit, to whom all things are to be subjected, to the Scripture: as if it were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a perfect resemblance throughout, and to be in all respects without variation consistent with Himself. [I.IX. p.85]

In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Quench not the Spirit," he who does not carry them aloft to empty speculations apart from the Word; he immediately adds, "Despise not prophesyings" (1 Thess. v. 19,20). By this, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesyings fall into contempt. [I.IX. p. 86]

[Note: Prophesyings here refer to proclaimation of the Word of God]

[John Calvin (1559), Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Co, MI, USA]

According to Calvin, therefore, those Charismatics, especially those of the Third Wave movement, are basically fanatics who have in actual fact quench the Holy Spirit and are actively bringing reproach to Him by stating that 'it is disgraceful for the Holy Spirit to maintian a perfect resemblance throughout' and to be 'in all respects without variation consistent with Himself'.

Article: They will know we are Christians by ...

Look at this. [Warning: NC-16]

Article: Beware the bridge people

Here is an interesting article by Ingrid Schlueter on the Emergents being the Bridge people who will bring 'Christians' to the New Age moment, using the heretic Brian McLaren at his Deep Shift site as an example. And for more 'excitement', how about her discovery of a New Age site promoting the same bridge concept?

South Korean hostages released.... testing to come...

Well, it seems that the last of the Korean hostages have been released. Praise the Lord. Now, the recriminations and testing would come. Do pray for the Korean churches that they will be purified through the coming ordeal. Please especially do pray that the churches will wake up their idea and start doing their job of seperating from heretics such as David (Paul) Yonggi Cho.

Emergent and the Emerging Church Movement

I always wanted to do this, but anyway here's my take on the similarities and differences between Emergent and the Emerging Church Movement (ECM).

Similarities:

Both are a reaction to Modernism and the Modernist church situation

Both despise what they term as "dead orthodoxy"

Both desire to "reform the church"

Both desire to be "missional" and its members to be "authentic"

Both have a preference for "narrative theology" and have a skepticism of truth claims

Differences:

Emergent	Emerging Church Movement (ECM)
Teaches various heresies	Tolerates those who teach heresies and even defend them
Is more organized (i.e. Emergent Village)	More amorphous

Anymore?

More posters.... more signs of the times

Enough said, let's see the new posters fresh from Pyromaniacs, here.

P.S.: All the posters can be found here.

Gospel proclaimation and the 'well-meant offer'

After the interaction on Pyromaniacs on the topic of the 'well-meant offer' of the Gospel, here, I was denounced by a former friend who I have since disfellowshiped (and who is not attending any church either, I may add) as a hyper-Calvinist. This in fact is also the position of the common-gracers like Pst. John MacArthur and Phil. R. Johnson and others like them. However, is that so, or are they in actual fact wrong and as such thus bearing false witness against true belivers in Christ by calling them 'hyper-Calvinists'?

First of all, let me first say that I am not going to give an exhaustive reply to the 'common-gracers' yet, or as I would call them, Neo-Amyraldians. That would be perhaps done at a later date. I would just like to at this moment note the people and denominations on both sides of the divide of the main issue at hand (whether God has two wills with regards to salvation), and then interact with certain elements of the issue with regards to the proclaimation of the Gospel.

Those who are confirmed in the Neo-Amyraldian camp are the following:

Pst. John Piper, Pst. John MacArthur, Phil. R. Johnson, Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the CRC (Christian Reformed Churches), the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Churches)

and those who have embraced the same belief regarding this issue but are not Reformed are:

all Evangelical Arminians

And those who are confirmed on the consistent Calvinist camp (judged on this subject alone) are the following:

The late Rev. John Gerstner, Dr. Gordon H. Clark, John Robbins, Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, the Prince of Puritans Rev. Dr. John Owen

and

the Protestant Reformed Church of America (PRCA), all hyper-Calvinists

Now, it must be first stated that even though I clearly place myself in the latter group, that does not mean that I would necessarily endorse the positions espoused by any of them on other issues. Also, I may not agree and may even object to the various positions and proofs offered as rebuttals against the "common grace" position offered by any of these groups of people. As such, if anyone wants to interact with my position, interact with what I say and not with what others who may be like-minded say, even though we may come to the same conclusions, unless I explicitly commend their position.

With regards to the proclaimation of the Gospel, I would just like to offer a brief rebuttal and observation to the tying of the 'well-meant offer' with 'God's perceptive will' (I keep this term only for its historical usage), as construed by Phil. R. Johnson. Granting such a link to be the case in actual fact is fatal to the propping up of the 'well-meant offer' theory. This is because God in the Scriptures doesn't command people to be saved at all, only to repent of their sins. Since God's perceptive will by definition deals only with what God commands in Scripture, then the only thing which is 'well meant' in Scripture is the command for sinners to repent. As I have said before in my reply on the Pyromaniacs post, although if a person repents they will be saved, yet even if God desires a person to repent does not mean that God desires a person to be saved. The analogy I used to prove that such reasoning is logically fallacious is that of a person desiring to eat fatty food (which would cause one to be fat), and yet such a person does not desire to be fat. Such a person could very well desire to eat fatty food because such food are delicious.

On a similar note, therefore, the preference of God for the repentance of all people does not stem from a desire that all should be saved [Common salvific grace], but from the fact that repentance is what all of us fallen sinners owe to God as our duty as fallen created beings. In other words, the basis of the Gospel call and proclaimation is our status as created beings under a Sovereign Creator God. Such is the basis of the Gospel, not the so-called desire of God for all to be saved.

I would like to elaborate more on this topic sometime in the future, as I think this is a very important and very wide topic which has serious ramifications and practical applications in how we present the Gospel. In the meantime, here's something to think about with regards to how the various systems might present the Gospel if they are consistent with their professed theologies:

Pelagian:

God loves you and desires that you love Him. All you have to do is to say yes to God's forgiveness for the sins you have done, and then resolve to continue to do good. Salvation would be given to those who in the final analysis do more good and repented of the bad things they have done.

Semi-Pelagian:

God loves you and desires that you love Him. You have been born sinful and are thus deserving of hellfire. However, God has already paid the price to save you by the death of Jesus on the cross for your sins, and all you have to do now is to say yes to accept Christ as your Savior and Lord, and then continue on in faith in Him with the doing of good works.

Roman Catholic:

God loves you and desires that you love Him. However, you have been born sinful and are thus deserving of hellfire. God has already paid the price to save you by the death of Jesus Christ, of which merit is placed in the Church. To be saved, therefore, you are to trust in Christ for your salvation by submitting to His representative on earth, the Church, and accepting Baptism to remove your Original Sin, and then striving to grow in Christ-likeness by doing works by the power of your God-given faith, and atttending church and partaking of the Mass. If you should at any time falter, which you will, do not worry, for Christ has given in place many avenues whereby you can grow and restore yourself. Such avenues are by way of indulgences, penance, confession, and of course final purging in Purgatory. After all these then are you finally saved.

Historic Arminian:

God loves you and desires that you love Him. You have been born sinful and are thus deserving of hellfire. However, God has already paid the price to save you by the death of Jesus on the cross for your sins, and all you have to do now is to repent and accept Christ as your Savior and Lord, and then continue on in faith in Him with the doing of good works.

[Note: Although both historic Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are different soteriologically, the differences matters little in the way they present the Gospel]

Evangelical Arminian (Calminian):

God loves you and desires that you love Him. You have however been born exceedingly sinful and are thus deserving of hellfire. However, God has already paid the price to save you by the death of Jesus on the cross for your sins, and all you have to do now is to repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Savior and Lord. Your salvation would be manifested in a regenerate spirit and good works, and if you are truly saved, God has promised that you will never fall away.

[Note: The last statement is disputed between the more 'evangelical' and less 'evangelical' Evangelical Arminians. The early Arminian Methodists certianly did think that true Christians could fall away, but some evangelical Arminians today (i.e. Norman Geisler) think otherwise.]

Neo-Amyraldian:

God loves you and desires that you love Him. You have however been born exceedingly sinful and totally depraved, utterly detestable to God and deserving hellfire. However, God in His mercy has already paid the price by the death of Jesus on the cross for the sins of all who would turn to Him. Please therefore repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Savior and Lord, producing good works in accordance with your regenerate nature. If you are repent and are truly saved, God has promised that you will never fall away.

Hyper-Calvinist:

God has chosen people unto salvation before the foundation of the world, damning the rest who whom God hates. All humanity has fallen in sin and are totally depraved. The only way of salvation is thus to believe in Christ who dies on the cross for the sins of the elect. Do you desire to be saved? Repent therefore of your sins and thus show yourself to be the elect of God. If you do so, you are saved and will not fall away as you would continue to prove your salvation by doing good works.

[There are many possible presentations, depending on which version of hyper-Calvinism a person embraces, and I have decided to choose the most compassionate hyper-Calvinist presentation here, if and when it is presented to a person who may show signs of regeneration]

Biblical aka Calvinist:

God creates Man who rebelled against Him. As a created being, are are answerable to God for violating His commands. You youself know that you have been born exceedingly sinful and totally depraved, utterly detestable to God and deserving hellfire and eternal damnation for your rebellion against your Creator and for not seeking Him. However, God in His mercy has already paid the price by the death of Jesus on the cross for the sins of all who would turn to Him. Come therefore and repent of your sins and receive Christ as your Savior and Lord while you are still able to, before the day of wrath and judgment comes when there is no more any second chance. Do so and produce good works in accordance with your regenerate nature. If you repent and are truly saved, God has promised that you will never fall away.

What is this supposed to be for?

Look at this. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what's the use of such merchandise...

Heretical song...

I was looking through various song sheets which I have accumulated, and of which I am trying to compile, when I noticed one song entitled I'm held by Your love. It has a nice tune, and it is featured on Bob Fitt's album I will bow to You. However, as I was trying to find out the author and copyright owner of the song, I found out that it was written by a certain Karen Lim from New Creation Church in Singapore, the largest Word-faith 'non-church' here. That set off alarm bells, and I analyzed the song more closely. Here are the lyrics of the song, and here is the first stanza:

I’m held by Your love,
Upheld by Your strength,
On Your shoulders You bore me,
By Your faith I stand,
Cherished by You, Lord,
Treasured in your sight,
So close to Your heart,
Held firm in Your hands.

Look closely at the text in bold red. Is the song trying to say that the reason why we Christians stand is because God has faith?! What nonsense is this!!?!! This is blatent heresy! Isn't it enough that the 'church' preaches a false gospel of prosperity or 'health-and-wealth', and that they deny that the first chapter of 1 John applies to Christians? Must they continue to add to their iniquity by exporting their poison to the non-discerning churches of Singapore?

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be anathema. (Gal. 1:8-9 - ESV with slight modification)

Article: The Healer

Interesting article here. I wonder what would happen it this were to actually happen during a Benny Hinn 'crusade'...

Article: Many dunking pastors are 'sprinklers' when it comes to God's Word

Here is an interesting article on how many pastors and churches that believe in baptism by immerson somehow are 'verse sprinklers' when it comes to God's Holy Word.

[HT: Christian Research Net]

Open Season on Open Theism

Christian Research Net has declared war on Open Theism ever since it came to Pastor Ken Silva's attention that Emerging Church leader Erwin McManus promotes the heretical theory of Open Theism. Here is Dr. Gary Gilley's series on Open Theism [part 1, 2, 3, 4] and here is Pastor Bob DeWaay's article on the same subject. Coincidentally, I have been doing a series on Open Theism and Process Theology. Here is my review of The Openness of God by Clark H. Pinnock et. al. and my comments relating to my review of the book Deeper than Darwin which is very pertinent to the entire ECM movement also.

Simple logical refutation of the Arminian theory of simple foreknowledge

Here is a simple logical argument showing the incoherence of Arminian thought, with regards to the Arminians' twin subscription to the doctrine of divine foreknowledge and the theory of libertarian free will, as shown by William Hasker.

Review of book Deeper than Darwin

I have just finished a review of the bok Deeper than Darwin by John F. Haught, a philosophy of religion book which espouses Liberal theology in its particular mode of Process theology. Here it is.

Now, although ths system of Liberal theology is waaaaay out and very much different from anything remotely resembling biblical Christianity, the reason why I think this review is important is because Process theology is very similar to Open Theism, but possess certain qualities that would make it superior to Open Theism. For example, unlike Open Theism, Process theology is much more compatible with Evolution, Mysticism and the Eastern orthodox theory of Theosis with its close companion in Contemplative Spirituality. It is therefore my contention that the Emerging Church Movement (ECM), especially the Emergent wing, would take off in that direction. Although the ECM seems to be currently enamored by Open Theism, it is my prediction that Open Theism is not sufficiently post-modern and ambiguous enough for the ECM and definitely not for its Emergent wing, and therefore I predict that the ECM would move into a form of Process Theology, with its conception of 'surrendering to the depth of mystery'.

Since such is the case, and the ECM is permeating the visible churches, I think it would be a matter of time before we would have to face this in so-called 'evangelical' and post-evangelical churches. I therefore offer this review as a (hopefully) pre-emptive strike against the growing apostasy. May God help us all.

Article: The myth of common grace

Interesting article here, although I think some clarification may be needed. I think there is a need to talk about this issue later, especially since I seem to have raised up a mini hornet's nest from my comments over in Pyromaniacs on the 'Well meant offer of the Gospel'.