Pastoral thoughts on doctrine

http://www.desiringgod.orgNovember 30, 2003Romans 11:5-7 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.As I pondered the pastoral implications of preaching through such a heavily doctrinal passage as Romans 11, it seemed good to me that perhaps every few weeks we should pause in the flow of the exposition, and step back, and talk about some of the practical implications of what we've been seeing. What we have been seeing again in recent weeks from Romans 11:1-10 (as we did in Romans 8:29-33 and Romans 9:10-24) is the biblical doctrine of unconditional election. This is the teaching that God chose, before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), who would believe and so be undeservingly saved in spite of their sin, and who would persist in rebellion and so deservingly perish because of their sin. In other words, the wisdom and justice and grace of God's will is always the ultimate explanation of what happens in the world -- all of it. Humans are not God. We cannot originate causes out of nothing. We, the leaders of Bethlehem, hold fast to the biblical paradox (not contradiction) that, on the one hand, God is sovereign, and on the other hand, we are all accountable and guilty for our sin and deserving of wrath. If God chose us to come to faith and to be saved from this guilty condition, it is owing to nothing in us. That's what we have seen in Romans 8 and 9, and now again in 11:1-10. That's what I mean by unconditional election.So we turn today to some pastoral thoughts on this doctrine of election.1. Not all things are good for us to know, and so God has not revealed them to us; and there are some things that are good for us to know, even when we can't explain them fully.I base this partly on Deuteronomy 29:29 where Moses said, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever." There are things God does not intend for us to know. They would not be good for us. For example in Acts 1:7, Jesus says, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." Knowing too much of the future would not be good for us. In fact we know almost nothing about what will happen tomorrow. James 4:14 says, "You do not know what tomorrow will bring." Another example would be Psalm 131 where David says, "My heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me." There are some things out of our reach.Other things we do know, because God has revealed them to us, but we know them only in part. So they are good for us to know. But we must be content to know only in part, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:12, "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." This is especially true of the doctrine of election. We are prone to ask more questions than God chooses to answer. There is a great danger that our questions will pass over into accusations.One of the implications of this point is that we will not always know how some particular doctrine in the Bible is good for us. We Americans are especially pragmatic and demanding. If we don't see the payoff of a doctrine immediately, we tend to ignore it. We are like foolish children when we do that. Every parent knows that children must be made to learn things without knowing how they will someday be useful. We teach them the particulars of table manners when they are small, for example, so that later they will be able to navigate every social situation with grace. And they don't have a clue why you are telling them to hold the spoon a certain way and keep their elbows off the table. They have to take your word for it that the sun is standing still, the earth is a ball, the green vegetables will make you healthy, and the little bag of rat poison will kill you. If children must know these things before they know why or how, imagine the distance between us and God and how much we may have to know without knowing how it will help us.The effects on our lives of what we know are always more than we know or can explain. Sometimes we must simply learn something because God says it's true. Then later we may see how the knowledge protected us, or strengthened us, or humbled us, or purified us, or guided us, or enabled us to see other things as true. The issue boils down to trust. Do we trust that God has revealed what is good for us to know?With the doctrine of election we don't know all the ways it is good for us, but we do know some of them. Which leads to a second pastoral thought about the effect of knowing the doctrine of election.2. The doctrine of election has a strong tendency to make a church rigorous about the truth and about the Scriptures, and so keep it from drifting into doctrinal indifference and conformity to culture. The doctrine of election tends to give firmness and fiber to flabby minds. It tends to produce robust, thoughtful Christians who are not swept away by trendy, man-centered ideas. It has an amazing preservative power that works to keep other doctrines from being diluted and lost. In general it tends to press onto our minds a God-centered worldview built out of real objective truth.Here is one illustration of why that matters. In the most recent issue of Christianity Today Chuck Colson discusses "postmodernism" -- "the philosophy that claims there is no transcendent truth." He gives four or five signs from the culture that postmodernism is losing strength and may be soon passé. But then listen to the call he makes to the churches.I can't think of a more critical time for pastors, scholars, and lay people to be grounded in a biblical worldview and to defend it clearly to those hungering for truth.But are we prepared for such a challenge? George Barna recently completed a tour of American churches and came back with a dismaying report that most church and lay leaders -- 90 percent, according to one survey -- have no understanding worldview. How are we going to contend with competing philosophies if we're not even rooted in our own truth system?Ironically just as there seem to be encouraging signs in the culture, there are also signs that the church is dumbing down, moving from a Word-driven message to an image- and emotion-driven message (note how many Christian radio stations have recently converted from talk and preaching to all music).It would be the supreme irony -- and a terrible tragedy -- if we found ourselves slipping into postmodernity just when the broader culture has figured out it's a dead end. ("The Postmodern Crackup," in Christianity Today, December, 2003, Vol. 47, No. 12, p. 72).The doctrine of election an amazing effect to awaken people who are drifting in the river of inherited assumptions with no engagement of the mind. Suddenly they are jarred by the radical God-centeredness of the Bible and the frightening man-centeredness of their own hearts. They are put on a quest to build a way of thinking Biblically about the God and the world that may avoid the tragedy Colson warns about: namely, the world discovering, at last, that truth really matters, just when the church has decided in the name of cultural relevance that doctrine doesn't matter. The doctrine of election is good for us and for our grandchildren in ways we can't even yet imagine.3. A third pastoral thought about the doctrine of election is that it is one of the best ways to test whether we have reversed roles with God. This is a timeless problem, but especially in the modern world that assumes human autonomy and questions all authority and takes the judgment seat to decide if God even exists.Paul addressed this issue most forcefully in Romans 9:6-23. As he did, he heard the ancient and modern objection, "Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?" his answer to that was, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'" (Romans 9:19-20). In other words, it's not fitting for you to reverse roles with God. He's the potter. Few doctrines test more clearly whether we are judging God or God is judging us. When the book of Job is finished and all Job's defenses are spent, and all the misleading counsel of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar has faded away, the sum of the matter is this: "Then Job answered the LORD and said: 2 'I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. . . . I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." God responds, "Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me." In other words, Take your proper place, Job, and listen to me. Learn from me; don't teach me. Trust me; don't accuse me. To which Job says finally, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:1-6). The doctrine of election puts us to the test as few others to see if we are in the shoes of the Job who accuses, or the broken and contrite Job who trusts. It is hard for a fish to know that it is wet. Wet is all there is for a fish. A fish doesn't even think of it. So it's hard for a modern person -- a person living in the last two hundred years -- to know that he is arrogant toward God. Arrogance toward God is all there is in the modern world. It's the ocean we swim in -- the air we breathe. It's woven into the fabric of our minds. We don't even know it's there. We can't see it, because we look through it to see everything else.Here's the way C. S. Lewis put it: The ancient man approached God . . . as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the Bench and God in the Dock. ("God in the Dock," in Lesley Walmsley, ed., C.S. Lewis: Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces [London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000], p. 36)That's virtually what it means to be modern: the imperceptible feeling - the assumption we don't even know we have -- that it is fitting for us to question and even judge God. The doctrine of election is one very effective test of whether you are being delivered from the indigenous ocean of arrogance in the modern world, or are still drenched to the bone. It is good for us to be tested in the crucible of God's sovereignty, so that we may say with Job: "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6). 4. The fourth pastoral thought about the doctrine of election is this: The humble embrace -- not the discussion of, not even the intellectual belief in, but the humble embrace -- of the precious truth of election and sovereign grace, produces radical, loving, risk -- taking ministry and missions.One example (and there could be so many more from William Carey and Adoniram Judson and David Livingston and John Patton and George Mueller and Charles Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards and on and on): Kristin Carlson has been in Zambia for almost a year working with street kids with Action International (Get to know them; I could have listed the director, Doug Nichols, among those radical Christians who went to Rwanda with colon cancer because he humbly embraces the truth of election). Here's what Kristin emailed to us on Thanksgiving morning:First of all, I am thankful for God's unfathomable grace in choosing me. I have done nothing to deserve this, and I continually marvel at my Father's goodness to me. The reason I am thankful to be chosen is because I know what I have been chosen for. Chosen to proclaim the excellencies of God; chosen to be eternally satisfied in God through Jesus; chosen to live in light and not darkness; chosen to taste and see that He is good. Don't miss this. Some of you have no idea of what Kristin is talking about because you have been taught that the doctrine of election is either untrue or unhelpful. You have always stood on the outside looking in and being suspicious or criticizing. You are now hearing in this email a story from inside -- from someone who knows what is like to embrace and be embraced in the doctrine of unconditional election. The effect is not what you may have been taught. Listen to its effects. She continues:I am thankful that God chose Vasco, a hard, ignorant, rebellious street kid, out of darkness into His marvelous light. And the fruit I already see in Vasco's life is testimony to his abiding in Jesus, the Vine. I am thankful for God's overflowing goodness in the past year. . . . What an amazing work to be a part of -- becoming friends with street kids and sharing the only lasting hope with them. And as an insert here, I'm thankful for the heart God has given me for these kids. Objectively speaking, I know it's not "normal" to LOVE treading through garbage piles and sitting on a plush couch (a small metal object with a piece of cardboard on top for a seat) with dirty, smelly kids, but, so it is, I love it. Embracing and being embraced by the doctrine of sovereign grace -- beginning with unconditional election -- first produces that kind of radical, risk-taking sacrificial love; and then it humbles us to rejoice in the truth that we did not produce this beauty in ourselves, God did. Then we give him the glory.If you ask: Is this a Biblical way of thinking? Does the Bible actually teach that the truth of election is intended by God to have these effects? the answer is yes. First consider the wording of Colossians 3:12-13, "Put on then, as God's chosen ones [God's elect], holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive." There's the connection. It's explicit and plain in Paul's mind. To know that you are chosen by grace, that you are set apart for God, that you are loved, should make you one of the meekest people in the world ready to endure mistreatment and ready to forgive. Loving the unlovely -- in Zambia and everywhere else.Here's another clue how this works. In Romans 8:33 Paul says, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies." The answer is: Nobody can make a charge stick against you if you are chosen by God. He is for you forever. It's crystal clear that Paul says this because he expects it to have a practical effect on us. He expects us to feel assurance and joy and then be courageous and fearless. As you stand before a decision today that seems right and loving, but risky, do you feel the effect of the question: "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" Do you feel the assurance-producing gospel force in the word "elect"?This is not mainly a doctrine to be argued about, but a doctrine to be enjoyed. It's not designed for disputes; it's designed for missions. It's not meant to divide people (though it will); it's meant to make them compassionate, kind, humble, meek, and forgiving.5. I close with one last pastoral thought. Don't think of election apart from Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:3 says, "[God] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world." In other words, when God planned in eternity to pluck us out of our bondage to sin, he had Christ in mind as the way he would do it. God planned before the foundation of the world to save us through the death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore, what God has done to save us and call us to himself is not to tell us ahead of time if we are elect. God never reveals this except through a relationship with Jesus Christ, so that Christ is central to our election. Instead of telling us if we are elect, what God did was to send his Son and say, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36). "Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself" (1 John 5:10). He knows that he is elect.So in the name of Christ I call you: Come, take him as your Savior and your Lord and the Treasure of your life. He never casts out any who comes in faith. He forgives sin. He clothes with righteousness. He gives the Holy Spirit. He will keep you. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:27). Hear the voice of the good Shepherd and come.John Piper

Hi, I thank you for your thoughts on this precept and the pastorial concerns by which those who are called to be shepherds through our Lord, must be concerned with. As your illustration points out, the training that we give our children must be tempered by their maturity level. Paul and the writer of Hebrews also clearly make this distinction. ie, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as carnal, as to babes in Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:1. This discernment I struggle with because I have forgot the times of learning from my Lord did not come all at once. Isaiah speaks to this learning process. "Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breast? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little." Isaiah 28:9-10. This is how I have learned. I just listened to my second sermon given by Paris Reidhead, these words struck me yesterday profoundly. (Paraphrase). "Salvation is revelation." These 3 words defined what I have also experienced. I know that Paris knows God in the same way He has revealed Himself to me. This is how Christ truly brings unity in the body of His church. I believe Jesus gives those He calls to pastor a church these directions. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THE THINGS I HAVE COMMANDED YOU; and lo I am with you always..."Matthew 28:19-20. I stumble because I have not dilligently sought to remember and then teach to others how my Lord has taught me. Because of the length of your message I also would like to address your thoughts sequentially. abiding in ChristJeff

I would like to look at the section of Scripture you began with. However, I will begin in verse 4, "But what does the divine response say to him: "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." This verse is crucial to understanding Paul's teaching about the work of grace that changes a man's situation. I agree with you on the nature of man. He can not save himself. He can not reach out to God. He has no understanding. He is at the mercy of his flesh," because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened...Therefore God also gave them up to uncleaness, in the lusts of their hearts..." Romans 1:20-24 So with this thought cemented within the context of Paul's teaching let us procede with verse 4. Please focus on these words, "men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Depraved men who are not born again, will bow their knee to Baal. God established this precept in Genesis 3:15, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed..." As you have stated what the Scripture teaches, man will perish with out God's grace. They will remain in the seed of satan. However in His promise, there are those who are of the Seed of the woman. We know that by faith we have been justified. "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God throught our Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 5:1 All who are of the seed of satan have enmity with God. Continuing, "through whom also we have access by faith into this grace..." Here Paul teaches that by faith we gain access through Jesus Christ. We are born of God or we remain in the seed of satan.Therefore we can see that those "men who have not bowed the knee to Baal could have only been saved by God's grace. The men were given a choice. The evidence is presented by God, we have a choice to remain dead, or to follow Jesus. I also agree with you in terms of the importance of the doctrine of election. This is God's revelation of His attributes to us. I can not begin to fathom His sovergnity. However, the words of " doctrine of unconditional election," are words used to define man's thoughts about God's attributes. I once might have believed as you in terms of what election could be defined as. Yet, I learn, day by day, precept upon precept, line upon line, here alittle there alittle that the only system that God has for man is to look unto Him for His revelation of Scripture to us. So my definition, or my theology, is refined by Him. This is what Adam had, and the predestined work of Jesus will restore those who live by faith. One can not teach about grace without faith. More to comeJeff

Hi Jeff,Thought I would interject something quickly here.The original post is not written in the first person. It was submitted by swsojourner and is attributed to John Piper, some of his sermons can be found here on this site. A small point, but thought I would point that out.Secondly, this is a fabulous treatment of this doctrine. It found a ready place in my thoughts as I have believed it to be as was stated eloquently "a reversal of roles".From a simpletons standpoint and please correct me if I am off base here, maybe it could be looked at this way.Your mother calls you and your brother in for supper. You, who love and obey your mother and also hate cold food, react instantly to her voice and come in. Your brother, being arrogant and rebelious, ignores his mothers plea and lingers outside till his food spoils. When he finnaly gets around to coming in, he realizes that it is too late, he will be going hungry.All along the mother, who loves both of her sons, knew how they would react, always holding out hope towards the rebelious one, that he would change his ways, but she knows her sons.Analogys always break down at some pointand when you are starting from that point, well....Much thanks to you, swsojourner

Mike's quote:Your mother calls you and your brother in for supper. You, who love and obey your mother and also hate cold food, react instantly to her voice and come in. Your brother, being arrogant and rebelious, ignores his mothers plea and lingers outside till his food spoils. When he finnaly gets around to coming in, he realizes that it is too late, he will be going hungry.All along the mother, who loves both of her sons, knew how they would react, always holding out hope towards the rebelious one, that he would change his ways, but she knows her sons.Mike, this is a nice illustration but it is not 'unconditional election' as Calvinism (and Piper) teaches it. The first point of the Remonstrants (Arminians) was Against Calvin’s teaching of the unconditional, arbitrary choice of a sovereign God, the Remonstrants taught that God’s foreknowledge of man’s faith was the condition of his election.Your illustration is a perfect example of election based on foreknowledge; the whole point about Calvinism's 'unconditional election' is that it is 'unconditional'. ;-) That is, it is based on God's sovereign choice without reference to man's merit or God's foreknowledge. Election based on God's foreknowledge of man's faith or action would not be 'unconditional'.and I have a question.. is election to salvation or to service?

Thankyou Mike for looking out for the rookie.

Hi Ron, In regards to your question...is election to salvation or to service? I too have a sense that the doctrine of election covers more of what we will become in Christ. There is also another shadow that I see in regards to election. Within the Scriptures we are given individuals, who it is said of that the Holy Spirit has worked even within the mother's womb. "He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." Luke 1:15 This is speaking of John the Baptist. Like wise the seperation of Samson unto the life of a nazerite. Within these two examples we find that the life is filled with power of God to do His work. But there is also a seperation between these two people. Samson's life is impacted severly by his following the lust of the flesh. As I said these are shadows in my understanding. As the earthly tabernacle was a shadow He calls us to search for the heavenly sanctuary which is creating this shadow. in ChristJeff

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Within the pastorial concerns of this sermon, the author applies this verse in a sense that seems to discourage the believer from seeking a deeper relationship with our Lord. I rejoice in what Moses wrote, for the treasures of revelation are the source for my passion that the Lord has given me. You see the last section of this verse was not included within the verse the author quoted. "That we may do all the words of this law." This is the grace that I know. God revealing Himself to me is my salvation. He enables me, stumbling along the way, to do the words of His law. His law is spiritual. It is the shadow from which man suffers in the wilderness. Hebrews chapter 8 addresses the problem from which our Lord delivers us from. The author begins, "Now this is the main point of the things we are saying; We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. A Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man...Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer...I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I wil be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying 'Know the Lord." for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." Hebrews 8:1-11This is what our High Priest offer us who give up the shadow and seek His treasures.in ChristJeff

Thanks Ron,I figured if I threw it out there, someone would come along and help me dismantle my thought process. Even as I had finished the illustration I knew it was wraught with problems. If I follow along then, I guess that would make me a Remonstrant...(Gasp!) ;-) After going back and re-reading this original post, especially the latter part dealing with the email from "Kristin", if I counted correctly eight times the word "chose or choosen" is used.Going back to the other thought about "The ancient man approached God . . . as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. "Trying to tie these together with the key word "unconditional" doesn't seem all that difficult. It brings to mind for some reason David's "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?" (Psalm 8:4)Is it that we are asking the wrong question? Instead of "who" is choosen 'unconditionally' or with God's 'foreknowledge' isn't the wonder in that He is even "mindful" of us in the least, considering the depravity of us creatures, the exceeding sinfullness of the human heart..."The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt;There is none who does good,No, not one." (psalm 15: 2,3)The hard part for me is trying to grasp the thought that I could be "choosen","Who, me?, are you kidding?"Yet, I accept it while I shake my head in bewilderment.Amazing grace it is.I know this could go on endlessly, so I will stop short other than to ask, am I processing this correctly?To the question you posed "salvation or service"?Both?!?

I have had another thought in regards to pastoring a flock and the caution which point 1 stipulates. Again the thought conveyed by the sermon is one of saying don't think to high. Yet Paul who founded many churches taught this way. Paul prayed for the congregation of Ephesus, "That He would grant you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, that you, being rooted and grounded in love, MAY BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND, with all the saints what is THE WIDTH AND LENGTH AND DEPTH AND HEIGHT, TO KNOW THE LOVE OF CHRIST WHICH PASSES KNOWLEDGE; THAT YOU MAY BE FILLED WITH ALL THE FULLNESS OF GOD."Paul knows what he is praying for the other believers to know. He is exhorting them to seek Christ. Teaching the doctrine of election, with the thought of limiting the seeking of the believer, for fear of breaking the law, will only cause the sheep to look to Moses for the feeding. more to comeJeff

Mike's quote:Going back to the other thought about "The ancient man approached God . . . as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. "Trying to tie these together with the key word "unconditional" doesn't seem all that difficult. It brings to mind for some reason David's "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?" (Psalm 8:4)Hi MikeI generally try to keep out of these Calvinsim/Arminian debates other than to ask questions of those who have 'sorted it out'. However just a comment or two. As I understand it, Calvinism is a very tightly knit series of argument where each one is integrally part of another. (Finney's theology is the same but from a different direction) If a person feels the need to suspend judgment on a particular part of the theology the whole thing grinds to a halt.Unconditional election is part of a package deal which includes the heart of orthodox Calvinism; The ULI of TULIP.Unconditional election (please correct me if you are a card-carrying Calvinist and I am misrepresenting your view)is a theological term which puts God's choice of who will be 'saved' into the sovereign counsels of God's will. Without reference to faith or response or obedience God chose who would be saved. He based it on His own sovereign will and nothing must be added to this statement if it is to remain 'unconditional' election. Technically, to say 'He elected me because..' undermines the word 'unconditional'. There can be no 'reason' why God did this other than that He decided to do so. To enquire further is an impertinance. The 'double predestination' held by some Calvinists is the logical counterpart to this, namely that God 'unconditionally elected' the others to 'damnation'; this is likewise 'unconditional' This fate was determined before the worlds were made.Linked to 'unconditional election' is the L of 'limited atonement' (sometimes called 'particular redemption). This teaches that Christ only died for the 'unconditionally elected' and that no sacrifice or redemption has been provided for any who were not 'unconditionally elected'. They cannot be saved; no blood has been shed for them. Christ's death was 'limited' to provide 'atonement' only for the 'unconditionally elected'. Christ will see of the His travail and be satisfied as His travail was only for those who will inevitably be saved.Linked to the UL of 'unconditional election' and 'limited atonement' is the I of 'irresistable grace'. Those who were 'unconditionally elected' and for whom Christ died 'particularly' will not be able to resist grace; they will be saved. They will respond in faith because they were predestined to do so as part of the unconditionally elected. The fifth letter P is 'perserverance of the saints'.. (you will be used to the logic of this now..)those who were unconditionally elected will come to faith and their faith will not fail, consequently they have the guarantee of 'eternal security'.This is the package deal of classical Calvinism. You take it or you leave it. Strictly speaking, I can't even add the phrase 'it's your choice'. ;-)Now all this will have steam coming from the ears of some of our forum. Please remember that I am trying to explain what others believe. These are not my views. If I have misrepresented classical Calvinism, please forgive me and correct me. WKIP

Thankyou Ron, I am beginning to get the feel for this platform. I need listen and reflect upon what one is saying. Thankyou for clearly stating Calvin's thoughts. This is my understanding based on what I understand God has revealed to man through the Scriptures. First God says in Scripture, "Say to them; "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his evil ways! FOR WHY SHOULD YOU DIE, O house of Israel?' Ezekiel 33:11.Also, "Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is not fair" O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways." Ezekiel 33:20Also, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9.In these three verses God clearly shows us His desire for His creation. Especially note what Peter says, "The Lord...not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Knowing what Scripture teaches us about the nature of fallen man, again we know that it is imposible for man to know God unless God reveals Himself to man. Knowing this fact, again knowing this fact, points man to God for His grace. When Peter writes that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, who is responsible for enabling man to repent? Does not Scripture prove that all begins with God. He is the Creator. It is only through God's grace that man can come to repentance. So God declares, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live, Turn, turn from your evil ways!' God in His nature can not lie. If He says He desires that the wicked should turn to Him, He will also provide the grace to enable the wicked to turn. By faith those who turn to Him are snatched from the devil's hand. O House of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to HIS OWN WAYS.back at you.Jeff

I would like to address the second point of this sermon. The theme or reason for holding onto the doctrine of election is based on that the church must remain entrenched in the definitions presented by the men of the church. The doctrine of election will hold our eyes on God and thus while the world changes we will always be anchored to the only truth. I can picture a Roman Catholic bishops writing the same thing in the 1400-1500's. Their doctrine of election was somewhat different, yet they could argue the same way. And then God comes along and messess everything up by raising up a man such as Luther. The world was moving into the Age of Enlightenment. As Solomon says, there is nothing new under the sun. in ChristJeff

Hi JakeOur mutual friend Robert Barclay's 5th and 6th Propositions were aimed at this expression of the Calvinism of his day. Barclay referred to 'universal redemption'. By this he did not mean 'universalisim' which teaches that all men (and in its extreme form, Satan himself) will ultimately be saved. Barclay was strongly defending the teaching that the benefits of Christ's death were available to all.As I mentioned in my post, these are not my views. I am trying to state them as honestly as I can until someone comes along who will do the job from personal conviction.

Jeff wrote:I am beginning to get the feel for this platform. I need listen and reflect upon what one is saying. Thankyou for clearly stating Calvin's thoughts.Whether Calvin and his fellow-travellers will share your gratitude at my 'clear statements', I wait to see. ;-)

I would like to address point 3. The focus of this thought is that the teaching of election prevents us from reversing roles with our Creator. I submit to you that there are 3 ways to teach the sheep about the doctrine of election. The first, and probably most taught way is to tell the sheep who have confessed Christ as their savior that they were predestined by God to be believers. That as I have read of Calvin's thoughts, provided by Agent 001, the sheep are saved by the sacrifice on the cross. That the blood of Christ has done its work, and so on. I have heard of another group of teachers who feed the sheep in a similar way. "Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father." For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." Luke 3:8. The truth as I see it is that this way of teaching the sheep can easily lead them to the same conclusions that the Pharisee had arrived at. You see this teaching can easily lead to the promotion of man. How would a sheep of this fold react to Mordecai's statement. "For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" Esther 4:13-14The 2nd way to teach the doctrine of election is more correct than the first. The pastor teaches the sheep that they are the elect. And that since they are the elect, according to Romans 8:29, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON..." I know a few Mennonite brothers who live this way. You see Scripture clearly teaches that those who are the elect will be conformed to the image of His Son. They are taught that if your are one of the elect your life will begin to look alot like Jesus'. So here is the problem with this method. They begin to live under the law. And they struggle to know God in the middle of all their toil. Yet I know of some wonderful brothers who carry those burdens, and there heart is good. They are seeking hard after God. The third way to teach the doctrine of election is taught in Hebrews chapter 8. The writer is addressing those who are believers and yet have problems similar to the Mennonites. The more perfect way is to know our High Priest. "Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer...For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know Me..." Hebrews 8;1-11. If men would look to the High Priest so that He would write His words in their hearts, and no other man would have to continually intercede to correct a brother. If you know Christ as He has offered in the New Covenant, there would be no longer need of worrying about the focus of the sheep. Those who hear His voice are His sheep. They know His voice. They will always have the right view. He will increase and the believer will decrease.more to comeJeff

In addressing point 4, the author writes about the risk taking of an individual who holds on to the doctrine of election. This thought of risk taking is not compatible with what is taught in Scripture. What risk did Joshua take when Jesus came to him and told him exactly what to do in the taking of Jericho? What risk did Moses take when he lifted up his staff to part the Red Sea? What risk did Peter take when he healed a certain lame man at the gates of the temple? I believe rather that God speaks and we learn to trust as He leads us by the Holy Spirit. The problem is not of risk taking, the real problem is unbelief or disobedience. How many today who do works for God know Him? To the world it may seem a risk, but to those who have walked with Jesus there is no risk. In ChristJeff

And finally point 5. The author writes,"when God planned in eternity to pluck us out of our bondage to sin, he had Christ in mind as the way he would do it. God planned before the foundation of the world to save us through the death and resurrection of Christ." Andrew Murray speaks to this point, "A preaching that insists upon salvation by faith chiefly as pardon and acceptance must produce feeble Christians. The fulness of faith is indispensable to the full Christian life." The Holiest of All pg 420

Thanks Ron,I guess I am reaching more for personal conviction in a sense, not sure where my leanings fall in this I don't think I 'hold' to a particular camp. Maybe I was attempting to get someone to push me into one or the other ;-) It just seems so beyond me trying to figure out the ways of God in this matter and why it matters if I have an understanding (albiet limited) or not in daily practice. Something tells me it does.For now I think I will take the advice of Jeff and "listen and reflect" for awhile, my brain hurts.

Hi Greg and Ron I will address your hypothetical question posed to me, thankyou for both of you leading me. The Lord has much to do.In ChristJeff

After going back and re-reading this original post, especially the latter part dealing with the email from "Kristin", if I counted correctly eight times the word "chose or choosen" is used.Hello crsschk,hehehe..it's Karsten. :-)

Now all this will have steam coming from the ears of some of our forum. Hello Philogos,interesting how hypothetical responses are trying to be read-in, "steam", etc... :-) heheheKN

Philologos,I would like to revisit this thread at a later date. (At the present time, I don't have a computer)there were a couple of serious misrepresentations in thereKarsten

Hi Karsten,Unless you are pulling my leg, the part I was refering to was in the original post from you (Karsten) in the body of text from John Piper, towards the end discussing the email from "Kristen"...unless that was you and that is a typo?!?I can be gullible so.... ;-)

Spurgeon is my favourite Calvinist; his love for Christ and his passion for souls was very great.(and his sense of humour was delightful) If anyone could pursuade me it would be Spurgeon. "Mr Spurgeon, almost thou persuadest me.." but in the end I remain unconvinced. However, I commend Spurgeon on Particular Redemption because I cannot imagine anyone preaching it with so much heart. He will even tell you how you may know if you are 'elected'. If you would like to hear 'Particular Redemption' from the purest source please give it a read.It is remarkable that the Spurgeon who preached this sermon on Particular Redemption also said If sinners be dammed, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for. I have a lot of time for this kind of Calvinist. ;-)

crsschk wrote:ROFLOL ! why does the Lord use such strange ways to humble me ?I wasn't pulling your leg, crsschk. That was a combination of quickly skimming through posts, multi-tasking, and being used to having Karsten (a male name) and Kirsten and Kristen (female names) confusedIt's what I get for having a good chuckle about being mistaken for John Piper :-) I hereby sentence myself to penance.Kristen

warmly and with hugs,Kristen

namely that God 'unconditionally elected' the others to 'damnation'; this is likewise 'unconditional' that would be blasphemy. A little snippet from Berkof's for clarification:"This means that while it can be said that God is the author of the regeneration, calling, faith, justification, and sanctification of the elect and thus by direct action on them brings their election to realization, it cannot be said that He is also the responsible author of the fall, the unrighteous condition, and thus effects the realization of their reprobation....He did not predestinate some unto sin as He did others unto holiness. And as the Holy God, He cannot be the author of sin."oodles of love,Kristen

philologos wrote: If you would like to hear 'Particular Redemption' from the purest source please give it a read.Very good. Thanks, Philogos, and I appreciate the going to the source material.I have a lot of time for this kind of Calvinist. ;-) oh, there are lots of those kind of Calvinists :-) W.P. Nicholson, Duncan Campbell, John Piper, Andrew Murray, such a blessing they have been to the Church of Jesus Christ.Looking for the mistletoe,Kristen

swsojournerBoy, you are really getting some mileage out this one...Maybe you could just shorten it to "K"... :-D

Kristen's quotenamely that God 'unconditionally elected' the others to 'damnation'; this is likewise 'unconditional'. that would be blasphemy my original commentThe 'double predestination' held by some Calvinists is the logical counterpart to this, namely that God 'unconditionally elected' the others to 'damnation'; this is likewise 'unconditional' This fate was determined before the worlds were made.

swsojournerBoy, you are really getting some mileage out this one...Maybe you could just shorten it to "K"... Just in the cause of consistency, should that be 'you are really getting some kilometers out of this one' if you are going to shorten it to K?

Kristen wrote namely that God 'unconditionally elected' the others to 'damnation'; this is likewise 'unconditional' that would be blasphemy. A little snippet from Berkof's for clarification:"This means that while it can be said that God is the author of the regeneration, calling, faith, justification, and sanctification of the elect and thus by direct action on them brings their election to realization, it cannot be said that He is also the responsible author of the fall, the unrighteous condition, and thus effects the realization of their reprobation....He did not predestinate some unto sin as He did others unto holiness. And as the Holy God, He cannot be the author of sin."another little snippet from Berkof to muddy the waters again. ;-) In fact the first half of the paragraph whose latter half you quoted.The Belgic Confession speaks not only of election but also of reprobation. (Conf Belg. Art XVI: Canons of Dort, I,15) Augustine taught the doctrine of reprobation as well as that of election... That Calvin wsa deeply conscious of the seriousness of this doctrine, is perfectly evident from the fact that he speaks of it as a "decretum horrible" (dreadful decree). Nevertheless, he did not feel free to deny what he regarded as an important Scriptural truth..Berkof "Reprobation may be defined as that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice"Your quotation of the latter half of this paragraph is dealing not with reprobation (double predestination) but with the statement that the teaching of reprobation does not imply that God is the 'author of the fall'.You say that my implication would be blasphemous. But Berkof teaches that the determination to pass by some men (preterition) is a sovereign act of God, an act of His mere good pleasure, in which the demerits of man do not come into consideration. In other words that reprobation is also 'unconditional'.In his summary of doctrine Berkof says. Reprobation. The doctrine of election naturally implies that God did not intend to save all. If He purposed to save some, He naturally also purposed not to save others. This is also in harmony with the teachings of Scripture, Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 11:7, 8; II Pet. 2:9; Jude 4. Reprobation may be defined as God's eternal purpose to pass some men by with the operation of His special grace, and to punished them for their sin. It really embodies a twofold purpose therefore: (1) to pass some by in the bestowal of saving grace; and (2) to punish them for their sins.This may indeed be 'blasphemous', but it appears to be what some people believe.

Kristen wrote:oh, there are lots of those kind of Calvinists W.P. Nicholson, Duncan Campbell, John Piper, Andrew Murray, I don't think Duncan Campbell would have called himself a Calvinist. The Faith Mission is 'second blessing holiness' and there are not many Calvinist who hold to that view. There is a quote somewhere on this site (can't find it, sorry) which goes something like this..."that I believe in total depravity' doesn't make me have to agree with all of calvinism. ... I do not believe in any conception of sovereignty that nullifies man's responsibility." -Duncan Campbell"

Hi brothers,I have read Spurgeon's sermon on Particular Redemption highlighted by brother Ron. Thankyou for the link.I have not read Spurgeon until today. I have heard that in the times he preached he had found an audience of common people who could understand the ways he expressed his thoughts. I must say that we are only more depraved than the working class of his day. He paints a picture well. I wonder how many of today's preachers preach the justice of God the way he did. I believe the majority tickle the ears of the sheep. Is that a fair assumption, I would like to know from my brothers and sisters? With that said, I would like to draw attention to the parable of the sower of the seed. Now those who preach doctrine similar to the teachings of Calvin say that one group limits the atonement in one way and the other group limits it in another way. This thought was expressed by Spurgeon at the end of his sermon. I say that the parable of the sower brings to light the work of God in the life of the believer. Without running through the parable, I see that there are given to us three elements which if allowed to ferment within the believers life will cause that believer to fall short of the new covenant promise. The first, satan comes and steals the meaning of the words sown in the believer, the second, trials and persecution dries up the life, and third, the cares or affections for this world prevents the believer from the new covenant life. Only the believer who takes on the death of Jesus Christ will be ready to live the resurrected life. The fourth group has had their hearts made fertile for the work that God had purposed for them. This I believe are those who are of the elect, chosen for good works. These are the believers that Titus urges on. "who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His OWN SPECIAL PEOPLE, ZEALOUS FOR GOOD WORKS." As a shepherd, election must be preached through faith. Faith comes by hearing the spoken word of God. Those who say, Yes Lord, will have died to the god of self. The grace of God will continually lead them to repentance that makes the heart fertile. They will see that the only life worth living is one that learns of God's will for them. This is where the power of the gospel is. The gospel of Jesus Christ reveals the will of God to us. In Christ,Jeff

Ron's reply to:swsojournerBoy, you are really getting some mileage out this one...Maybe you could just shorten it to "K"... Just in the cause of consistency, should that be 'you are really getting some kilometers out of this one' if you are going to shorten it to K?We don't use metric over here unless it's forced upon us. :-)

Hi Jeff!I believe the majority tickle the ears of the sheep. Is that a fair assumption, I would like to know from my brothers and sisters? In my opinion that is more than a fair assumption, I would say it is fact.I say that the parable of the sower brings to light the work of God in the life of the believer.I could not agree more. If that parable isn't being proven more true now, in the day we are living...In another thread started by Christian Night and day on my knees he had mentioned a sermon from Leonard Ravenhill(Jeremiah) that, by the way I would also highly recommend.Ravenhill talks about how the Puritans were terrified of 'shallow ground conversions' and how even in Spurgeons day there was no such thing as an alter call (Might be mixing that up with Edwards, though he touches on both)We have come a long way from these men.A lot of similarites here, might be worth a listen.Only the believer who takes on the death of Jesus Christ will be ready to live the resurrected life. The fourth group has had their hearts made fertile for the work that God had purposed for them.Amen

We don't use metric over here unless it's forced upon us.Nor over here for travelled distances.. but we hear it is coming. :-x

crsschk wrote:swsojournerBoy, you are really getting some mileage out this one...don't hate me because I'm beautifulKristen

philologos wrote:Your quotation of the latter half of this paragraph is dealing not with reprobation (double predestination) but with the statement that the teaching of reprobation does not imply that God is the 'author of the fall'.You say that my implication would be blasphemous.[/quote}You're right on top of it, Philologos.

But Berkof teaches that the determination to pass by some men (preterition) is a sovereign act of God, an act of His mere good pleasure, in which the demerits of man do not come into consideration. In other words that reprobation is also 'unconditional'. but not election :-) This may indeed be 'blasphemous', but it appears to be what some people believe.missing it again :-) Karsten

philologos wrote:I don't think Duncan Campbell would have called himself a Calvinist. huh ? I'm stunned by that. The Hebrides Revival of 1950 or so was psalm-singing Presbyterians. In fact, it was one of the factors that got me interested in the power side of Reformed theology. (when I wasn't reformed.) The old Scottish Covenanters and the associated propheticThe Faith Mission is 'second blessing holiness' and there are not many Calvinist who hold to that view. a few, you're right there is not many..the baptism of power is generally how it is put"that I believe in total depravity' doesn't make me have to agree with all of calvinism. ... I do not believe in any conception of sovereignty that nullifies man's responsibility." -Duncan Campbell"I would love to have this full quote ! if Campbell was talking about doctrinal calvinism or certain emphases should be most interestingadios,Karsten

another little snippet from Berkof to muddy the waters again. ;-) In fact the first half of the paragraph whose latter half you quoted. you have the book ! that's good ; it is a pretty good comprehensive look at at philosophys and theologies all-around. Btw, I'm working on putting it into e-format, not as profitable (spiritually speaking) as doing Thomas Vincent's the Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture http://www.ccel.org/pipeline/1-text/Vin.txtbut I've been learning some things along the way. hope to get set up here shortly for internet access God bless,Karsten

Karsten wrote Quote:But Berkof teaches that the determination to pass by some men (preterition) is a sovereign act of God, an act of His mere good pleasure, in which the demerits of man do not come into consideration. In other words that reprobation is also 'unconditional'. but not election I have missed your line of thought here. Are you saying that Calvinism does not teach unconditional election? I know that the main body of Calvinists don't teach that God predetermined sin, although apparently Calvin did. See my little note on Supralapsarianism elsewhere.

philologos wrote:Karsten wrote Quote:But Berkof teaches that the determination to pass by some men (preterition) is a sovereign act of God, an act of His mere good pleasure, in which the demerits of man do not come into consideration. In other words that reprobation is also 'unconditional'. but not election I have missed your line of thought here. Are you saying that Calvinism does not teach unconditional election? the statement "in other words that reprobation is also unconditional" is directly refuted by what was above it. Reprobation is not Unconditional Election.It could be the theological terms that are throwing you here. (1)Preterion and (2)condemnation for sins.Reprobation Asserted by John Bunyan is a good treatment somewhere on http://www.johnbunyan.org I know that the main body of Calvinists don't teach that God predetermined sin, although apparently Calvin did.And ALL Calvinists and Reformed hold very strongly and firmly and without question that God is not the author of sin. Right ?KN

several nested quotes!philologos wrote:Karsten wrote Quote:But Berkof teaches that the determination to pass by some men (preterition) is a sovereign act of In other words that reprobation is also 'unconditional'. but not election I have missed your line of thought here. Are you saying that Calvinism does not teach unconditional election? the statement "in other words that reprobation God, an act of His mere good pleasure, in which the demerits of man do not come into consideration. is also unconditional" is directly refuted by what was above it. Reprobation is not Unconditional Election.Hi swsojournerI'm not sure I'm picking up your line of thought any better. (Churchill said we were two nations separated by a common language). Obviously I know that Reprobation is not Unconditional Election. What am I saying is does not the original quote demand that 'reprobation is unconditional'? i.e. that reprobation is 'unconditional reprobation'? If it is the sovereign act of God, an act of His mere good pleasure, in which the demerits of man do not come into consideration to pass by some men and thereby not offer them the opportunity thereby condemning them to eternal loss, surely this must be 'unconditional reprobation'?your quote And ALL Calvinists and Reformed hold very strongly and firmly and without question that God is not the author of sin. Certainly, as far as I know, they would all agree with the words here. The Supralapsarians, of whom Calvin was one, say that man's fall was included in the Divine Decrees. I would have thought that all that God has decreed He has authored, the Decrees being His determinations rather than His permissions?Perhaps, if we cannot get on the same wavelength, we could start again by you expressing authentic Reformed teaching on reprobation, then I can question you. :-P

Hi swsojournerI'm not sure I'm picking up your line of thought any better. (Churchill said we were two nations separated by a common language). two ships passing in the night ? :-) well, my personality profile says I'm logical to the point of hair-splitting...I don't think so, but Obviously I know that Reprobation is not Unconditional Election. What am I saying is does not the original quote demand that 'reprobation is unconditional'? i.e. that reprobation is 'unconditional reprobation'? If it is the sovereign act of God, an act of His mere good pleasure, in which the demerits of man do not come into consideration to pass by some men and thereby not offer them the opportunity thereby condemning them to eternal loss, surely this must be 'unconditional reprobation'? not necessarily..first, they are condemned for their sins and there is opportunity offered. Second, it is not double election or unconditional reprobation. It sounds like hair-splitting but there is a difference. Terms like unconditional and election are specific terms. In a way I can understand the using of the term unconditional reprobation, what I was objecting to was the term unconditional election and some twists that were thrown in there and some significant parts that are being left outso call it a draw. :)The original post by Piper was just something that blessed me, and I posted it. I wasn't intending a debate on it at all. I tend to steer clear of debates..one of the reasons is I come from an extreme Arminian background...raised evangelical Friends, then attended a dispensationalist, so called Calvinist Christian high school, which soured me towards Reformed theology for a long time. That is just thrown in there, it just seems that most of these things tend to start going the wrong way early and I understand a little bit of how it goes. Been there, done that. It's pretty predictable. (much like discussions on hell with new-agers, same arguments.) I'm encouraged by so much else on the boards. your quote And ALL Calvinists and Reformed hold very strongly and firmly and without question that God is not the author of sin. Certainly, as far as I know, they would all agree with the words here. The Supralapsarians, of whom Calvin was one, say that man's fall was included in the Divine Decrees. I would have thought that all that God has decreed He has authored, the Decrees being His determinations rather than His permissions?well, one verse here to chew on, not necessarily related to the infra and supra debates, but something to wrestle withMen of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourself know -- this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.. Perhaps, if we cannot get on the same wavelength, we could start again by you expressing authentic Reformed teaching on reprobation, then I can question you. I'll probably bow out, knowing that is usually considered a sign of weakness -- hehehe :-) In a different season right now, if you understand. Nothing personal.God bless,Karsten

Hi Krist..er..Karsten,By the way what is the deeper meaning behind 'swsojourner'?Btw, I'm working on putting it into e-format, not as profitable (spiritually speaking) as doing Thomas Vincent's the Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture http://www.ccel.org/pipeline/1-text/Vin.txtbut I've been learning some things along the way. Did you transcribe/convert this?Have you done work for CCEL in the past?Just curious.Mike

Karsten's quote I'll probably bow out, knowing that is usually considered a sign of weakness -- hehehe In a different season right now, if you understand. Nothing personal.Hi Karsten. I don't regard it as a sign of weakness, and hadn't regarded our conversation as a competition. I may seem to have lots of answers but I have even more questions, and the rare opportunity of 'grilled Calvinist' was just too good to miss. :-D and I'm all for logic as long as it remains the servant of revelation.I also respect your decision to halt the conversation. Thank you for your contributions. Enjoy your new 'season'.

Thanks Greg but your quote doesn't seem to refer to Calvinism by name. A google search on ["Duncan Campbell" calvinsim] produces this[SermonIndex.net - audio sermons, mp3 sermons, free sermons, audio ... ... depravity' doesn't make me have to agree with all of calvinism. ... believe in any conceptionof sovereignty that nullifies man's responsibility." -Duncan Campbell. ... www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/ viewtopic.php?topic_id=861&forum=36 - 39k - Cached - Similar pages[ More results from www.sermonindex.net ] ]but although I have spent quite a time looking I can't spot the 'calvinism' reference on the forum. Perhaps the google result will help you to identify if more easily.

Hi Karsten, Here is the more full quote from campbell its take from The nature of a God sent revival booklet ;-) Yes. That fleshes out the quote, so to speak. Thanks a bundle, Greg.---------------------------THE ORIGIN OF REVIVALNow, let me touch first of all on the origin of revival. You have it in this verse. "Wilt Thou not revive us again."My dear people, we do well to remember that in the whole field of Christian experience, the first step is, and remains, with God. We want to remember that. Thought, feeling, endeavor must find their basis, must find their inspiration in the sovereign mercy of God. Now I believe that. I believe it with all my heart.I remember making that statement at a conference outside London some time ago. And at the close of the conference the chairman overheard a certain titled lady say, "That was a wonderful address that we listened to, but I don't agree with all that he said, particularly to the sovereignty of God. But we must not forget that the dear man was born and brought up among the hills of Scotland, and that is his background and he can't help it."My dear people, let me say again, in the field of revival, God is sovereign! But, I hasten to say, that I do not believe in any conception of sovereignty that nullifies man's responsibility. God is the God of revival, but we are the human agents through which revival is possible. And God found that man in the postman of Berneray.I believe this to be the reason for so few making contact with Christ that is vital: to me, one of the most disturbing factors of present-day evangelism, (let me say, present-day evangelism) is the overemphasis on what man can do. "Come to the front. Raise your hand. Respond to the altar call. Come to Jesus and be happy!" God have mercy on us! I say, God have mercy on us! Man, in the final analysis, can do nothing but throw himself on the sovereign mercy of God! Oh, let's get that clear. That is not Highland Theology. It's New Testament Theology! It's Old Testament Theology! I'm tired, positively tired of this gospel of simple believism!

crsschk wrote:Hi Krist..er..Karsten,By the way what is the deeper meaning behind 'swsojourner'?Hi Mike,:-) the deeper meaning behind swsojourner ?well, I spent a couple of years wandering around the Southwest with a backpack and my little cross-eyed Australian Shepherd pup...and then harvested native seed throughout the southwest(Arizona, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico)Hence the handle southwest sojourner, shortened to swsojourner Did you transcribe/convert this?Have you done work for CCEL in the past?Just curious.MikeI helped in converting, cleaning up some of the typos, and things like that. It was a very beneficial project.I haven't done work for CCEL in the past. This was for a friend, who does that sort of work all the time. I really enjoyed it. It causes you to slow down in the reading and ponder a little bit more. I'm working on some of Amy Carmicheal's stuff, The Dynamic of Faith -- Paget Wilkes, and a few other books. It's a blessing. in Christ,Karsten

conversation. Thank you for your contributions. same here

philologos wrote:Thanks Greg but your quote doesn't seem to refer to Calvinism by name. A google search on ["Duncan Campbell" calvinsim] produces thisI think this may be what you are looking for Philologos, in regards to referring to Calvinismby name "Oh, Calvin was right, and I love to quote him, although I am not an extreme Calvinist—though I'm a Highlander. Calvin said, "We are saved through faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." God is in it! Surely that is what Paul tells us in that great passage. "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. Yet not I, but Christ, He liveth in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the"—faith of Paul? Oh, no! That wouldn't get him very far. "I live by the faith of the Son of God!" The faith of God.The Nature of a God sent revival, Duncan Campbellhttp://www.healing-ministries.net/etudes/men_women/duncan_cambell/duncan05.htmlFor Christ's Crown and Covenant,Karsten

Karsten,I love the word sojouner. It has the word meaning 'day' at its heart (cf jour - French). It reminds us that we are not permanent residents anywhere.One of my favourite nonbible quotations is the way that Clement describes churches at the end of the 1st Century.The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.Free translation:God's church living a day at a time in Rome, to God's church living a day at a time in Corinth...Keeps our grandiose 5 year projects in perspective doesn't it?

Thanks Karsten,For fleshing out your 'handle'.My original hunch wasn't to far off.I haven't done work for CCEL in the past. This was for a friend, who does that sort of work all the time. I really enjoyed it. It causes you to slow down in the reading and ponder a little bit more. I'm working on some of Amy Carmicheal's stuff, The Dynamic of Faith -- Paget Wilkes, and a few other books. It's a blessing. Slow down and ponder... ah, yes, that is a problem for me, I tend to read like I eat, with a metabolism that operates like a steam engine. Keep hearing that I will one day start putting on the pounds....still waiting.But actually Tozer is one that causes me to stop in my tracks often, "Oh my" is a usual response.Would love to read up on Amy Carmicheal's work, you will have to keep us posted on these project's.Mike

swsoujourner wrote:It's New Testament Theology! It's Old Testament Theology! I'm tired of this gospel of simple believism! Amen! One thought, New Testament and Old Testament are one theology. We have one God, and the volume of this book is written of me, to do Your will Oh God. Those who are faithful live in the same house that was built by Jesus Christ.In Christ Jeff

KarstenPlease keep me up to speed with your work on Amy Carmichael, and anything from Paget Wilkes. Do you have any plans for Barclay Buxton? They are life long literary companions and it would be great to have some of their stuff in electronic form.

I have begun "The Pursuit of Man," by A.W. Tozer, and here are some of his pastorial thoughts."The churches (even the gospel churches) are worldly in spirit, morally anemic, on the defensive, imitating instead of initiating and in a wretched state generally because for two generations they have been told that justification is no more than a "not guilty" verdict pronounced by the heavenly Father upon a sinner who can present the magic coin "faith" with the wondrous "open-sesame" engraved upon it.""For sin's human captives God never intends anything less than full deliverance. The Christian message rightly understood means this: The God who by the word of the gospel proclaims men free, by the power of the gospel actually makes them free. To accept less than this is to know the gospel in word only, without its power."Tozer address men who are in bondage to the motivation of pleasing men. "Still the desire to please men is back of all social acts from the highest civilizations to the lowest levels upon which human life is found. No one can escape it. The outlaw who flouts the rules of society and the philosopher who rises in thought above its common ways may seem to have escaped from the snare, but they have in reality merely narrowed the cirlce of those they desire to please. The outlaw has his pals before whom he seeks to shine; the philosopher his little coterie of superior thinkers whose approval is necessary to his happiness. For both, the motive-root remains uncut. Each draws his peace from the thought that he enjoys the esteem of his fellows, though each will interpret the whole business in his own way. Every man looks to his fellow men because he has no one else to whom he can look. David could say, "Whom have I in heaven by thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee" Psalm 73:25 But the sons of this world have not God; they have only each other, and they walk holding each other and looking to one another for assurance like frightened children." Chapter 2In Christ Jeff

Slow down and ponder... ah, yes, that is a problem for me, I tend to read like I eat, with a metabolism that operates like a steam engine. Keep hearing that I will one day start putting on the pounds....still waiting.It'll happenSo is the kingdom of God as if a man should cast seed into the ground and should sleep and rise night and day and the seed should spring and grow up he knoweth not how

philologos wrote:KarstenPlease keep me up to speed with your work on Amy Carmichael, and anything from Paget Wilkes. sure thing Do you have any plans for Barclay Buxton? I will keep an eye out for Barclay Buxton. I haven't heard of him before, but that's probably just because it's like when you get a new yellow polka-dot car..all of a sudden you notice how many other yellow polka dots cars there are on the road :-DThey were there all along I love discovering little known authors who maybe put out a couple of books hundred of years ago and catching some of their spirit from yesteryore. Karsten

KarstenBarclay Buxton was Paget Wilkes's leader in Japan in the earliest days of the Japan Evangelistic Band. He came from a famous evangelical Quaker family. He once said that the period of time covered in the gospels and Acts was both about 30 years. They were designed, he used to say, to show what God could do in one generation.Try Barclay Buxton

I have begun "The Pursuit of Man," by A.W. Tozer, and here are some of his pastorial thoughts.Jeff, we agree And that is a choice chapter, too. If you liked the In Word or in Power chapter, you will probably like this booklet on Carnal Christians by Ernest Reisinger alsohttp://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=199It changed my thinking. I think the recovery of this doctrine is just vital. Anyways, about a year ago or so, I typed out the whole of that chapter in response to someone (it really is a good stand-alone book) and it was posted on the web. So it was easy to access again and copy and paste :)then lengthy section of Tozer follows. Well worth reading, if all the Tozerphiles haven't read it already. KarstenTue Sep 3, 2002 2:35 amSubject: Re: Response : In Word or in Power - wrote:> What is the only real difference between believers and> non-believers? The fact and act of faith is all I can find.>"This secondary aspect is almost wholly overlooked in our day. The GIFT element in the gospel is held to be its exclusive content, andthe SHIFT element is accordingly ignored. Theological assent is all that is required to make Christians. This assent is called faith,and is thought to be the only difference between the saved and the lost. "from In Word, or in PowerFor our gospel came not unto in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost-- 1 Thessalionians 1:5If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature -- 2 Corinthians 5:17Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead -- Revelations 3:1To one who is a student merely, these verses might be interesting, but to a serious man intent upon gaining eternal life they might well prove more than a little disturbing. For theyevidently teach that the message of the gospel may be recieved in either of two ways: in word only, without power, or in word with power. Yet it is the same message whether it comes in word or in power. And these verses teach also that when the message is recieved in power it effects a change so radical as to be called a new creation. But the message may be recieved without power, and apparently some have so recieved it, for they have a name to live,and are dead. All this is present in these texts.By observing the ways of men at play I have been able to understand better the ways of men at prayer. Most men, indeed, play at religin as they play at games, religion itself being of all games the one most universally played. The various sports have their rules and their balls and their players; the game excites interest, give pleasure and consumes time, and when it is over the competing teams laugh and leave the field. It is common to see a player leave oneteam and join another and a few days later play against his old mates with as great zest as he formerly displayed when playing for them. The whole thing is arbitrary. It consists in solvingartificial problems and attacking difficulties which have been deliberately created for the sake of the game. It has no moral root and is not supposed to have. No one is the better for his self-imposed toil. It is all but a pleasant activity which changes nothing and settles nothing at last.If the descriptions we describe were confined to the ball park we might pass it over without further thought, but what are we to say when this same spirit enters the sanctuary and decides the attitude of men toward God and religion ? For the church has also its fields and its rules and its equipment for playing the game of pious words. It has its devotees, both laymen and professionals, who support the game with their money and encourage it with theirpresence, but who are no different in life or character from many who take in religion no interest at all.As an athelete uses a ball so do many of us use words: words spoken and sung, words written and words uttered in prayer. We throw them swiftly across the field; we learn how to handle them with dexterity and grace; we build reputations upon our word-skill and gain as our reward the applause of those who have enjoyed the game.But the emptiness of it is apparent from the fact that after the pleasant religous game NO ONE IS BASICALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HEHAD BEEN BEFORE. The bases of life remain unchanged, the same old principles govern, the same old Adam rules.I have not said that religion without power makes no changes in a man's life, only that it makes no fundamental difference. Watermay change from liquid to vapor, from vapor to snow and back to liquid again, and still be fundamentally the same. So powerlessreligion may put a man through many surface changes and leave him exactly where he was before. Right there is where the snare lies.THE CHANGES ARE IN FORM ONLY, THEY ARE NOT IN KIND. Behind the activies of the non-religous man and the man who has recieved the gospel without power lie the very same motives. An unblessed ego lies at the bottom of both lives, the difference being that the religous man has learned better to disguise his vice. His sins arerefined and less offensive than before he took up religion, but the man himself is not a better man in the sight of God. He may indeed be a worse one, for always God hates artificiality and pretense. Selfishness still throbs like an engine at the center of the man's life. True he may learn to "redirect" his selfish impulses, but his woe is that self still lives unrebuked and even unsuspected within his deep heart. He is a victim of religion without power.The man who has recieved the Word without power has trimmed his hedge, but it is a thorn hedge still and can never bring forth the fruits of a new life. Men do not gather grapes of thorns norfigs of thistles. Yet such a man may be a leader in the Church and his influence and his vote may go far to determine what religion shall be in his generation.The truth recieved in power shifts the bases of life from Adam to Christ and a new set of motives goes to work within the soul. A new and different Spirit enters the personality and makesthe beliveing man new in every department of his being. His interests shift from things external to things internal, from things on earth to things in heaven. He loses faith in the soundness of external values, he sees clearly the deceptiveness of outward appearances and his love for and confidence in the unseen andeternal world become stronger as his experience widens.With the ideas here expressed most Christians will agree, but the gulf between theory and practice is so great as to be terrifying. For the gospel is too often preached and acceptedwithout power, and the radical shift which the truth demands is never made. There may be, it is true, a change of some kind; an intellectual and emotional bargain may be struck with the truth, but whatever happens is not enough, not deep enough, not radical enough. The "creature" is changed, but he is not "new". And right there isthe tradegy of it. The gospel is concerned with a new life, with a birth upward onto a new level of being, and until it has effected such a re-birth it has not done a saving work within the soul.Wherever the Word comes without power its essential content is missed. For there is in divine truth an imperious note, there isabout the gospel an urgency, a finality which will not be heard or felt except by the enabling of the Spirit. We must constantly keep in mind that the gospel is not good news only, but a judgment as well upon everyone that hears it. The message of the Cross is good news indeed for the penitent, but to those who "obey not the gospel" it carries an overtone of warning. The Spirit's ministry to the impenitent world is to tell of sin and righteousness and judgment.For sinners who want to cease being wilful sinners and become obedient children of God the gospel message is one of unqualifiedpeace, but it is by its very nature also an arbiter of the future destinies of men.This secondary aspect is almost wholly overlooked in our day. The GIFT element in the gospel is held to be its exclusivecontent, and the SHIFT element is accordingly ignored. Theological assent is all that is required to make Christians. This assent iscalled faith, and is thought to be the only difference between the saved and the lost. Faith is thus concieved as some kind ofreligious magic, bringing to the Lord great delight, and possessing mysterious power to open the kingdom of heaven.I want to be fair to everyone and to find all the good I can in every man's religous beliefs, but the harmful effects of this faith-as-magic creed are greater than could be imagined by anyone who has not come face to face with them. Large assemblies today are being told fervently that the one essential qualification for heavenis to be an evil man, and the one sure bar to God's favor is to be a good one. The very word RIGHTEOUSNESS is spoken only in cold scorn,and the moral man is looked upon with pity. "A Christian, " says these teachers, "is not morally better than a sinner, the onlydifference is that he has taken Jesus, as so he has a Saviour." I trust it may not sound flippant to inquire, "A SAVIOUR FROM WHAT ? " If not from sin and evil conduct and the old fallen life, then from what ? And if the answer is, From the consequences of past sins and from judgment to come, still we are not satisfied. Isjustification from past offenses all that distinguishes a Christian from a sinner ? Can a man become a believer in Christ and be nobetter than he was before ? Does the gospel offer no more than a skilufl Advocate to get guilty sinners off free at the day ofjudgment ?I think the truth of the matter is not too deep nor too difficult to discover. Self-righteousness is an effective bar toGod's favor because it throws the sinner back upon his own merits and shuts him out from the imputed righteousness of Christ. And tobe a sinner confessed and consciously lost IS necessary to the act of recieving salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. This wejoyously admit and constantly assert, but here is the truth which has been overlooked in our day, A SINNER CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OFGOD. The Bible passages which declare this are too many and too familiar to need repeating here, but the skeptical might look atGalatians 5:19-21 and Revelation 21:8. How then can any man be saved ? The penitent sinner meets Christ and after that saving encounter he is a sinner no more. The power of the gospel changeshim, shifts the basis of his life from self to Christ, faces himabout in a new direction and makes him a new creation. The moral state of the penitent when he comes to Christ sweeps away both hisgood and his evil and turns him into another man. The returning sinner is not saved by some judicial transaction apart from acooresponding moral change. Salvation must include a judicial change of status, but what is overlooked by most teachers is that IT ALSOINCLUDES AN ACTUAL CHANGE IN THE LIFE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. And by this we mean more than a surface change, we mean a transformation as deepas the roots of his human life. If it does not go that deep it does not go deep enough.If we had not first suffered a serious decline in our expectations we should not have accepted this tame technical view of faith. The churches( even the gospel churches) are wordly in spirit,morally anemic, on the defensive, imitating instead of initiating and in a wretched state generally because for two full generationsthey have been told that justification is no more than a "not guilty" verdict pronounced by the Heavenly Father upon a sinner thatcan present the magic coin FAITH with the wondrous "open-sesame" engraved upon it. If it is not stated as bluntly as that, at leastthe message is so presented as to create such an impression. The whole business is the result of hearing the Word preached withoutpower and recieving it in the same way.Now faith is indeed the open-sesame to eternal blessedness.Without faith it is impossible to please God, neither can any man besaved apart from faith in the risen Saviour. But the true quality of faith is almost universally missed, viz., its moral quality. It ismore than mere confidence in the Holy Writ. It is a highly moral thing and of a spiritual essence. It invariably effects radicaltransformation in the life of the one who exercises it. It shifts the inward gaze from self to God. It introduces its possessor intothe life of heaven upon earth.It is not my desire to minimize the justifying effects of faith. No man who knows the depths of his own wickedness would dare to appear before the ineffable Presence with nothing to recommendhim but his own character, nor would any Christian, wise after the discipline of failures and imperfections, want his acceptance withGod to depend upon any degree of holiness to which he might have attained through the operations of inward grace. All who know theirown hearts and the provision of the gospel will join in the prayer of the man of God:When He shall come with trumpet sound,O, may I then in Him be found;Dressed in His righteousness alone,Faultless to stand before the throneIt is a distressing thing that a truth so beautiful should have been so perverted. But perversion is the price we pay for failure toemphasize the moral content of truth; it is the curse that follows rational orthodoxy when it has quenched or rejected the Spirit ofTruth.In asserting that faith in the gospel effects a change of life-motive from self to God I am but stating the sober facts. Every man with moral intelligence must be aware of the curse that afflicts him inwardly; he must be conscious of the thing we call EGO, by the Bible called FLESH or SELF, but by whatever name called, a cruelmaster and a deadly foe. Pharoah never ruled Israel as tyrannically as this hidden enemy rules the sons and daughters of men. The wordsof God to Moses concerning Israel in bondage may well describe us all: "I have surely seen the afflicition of my people which are inEgypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows." And when, as the Nicene Creed so tenderlystates, our Lord Jesus Christ, "for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and the third day He arose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, " what was it all for ?That He might pronounce us technically free and leave us in our bondage ? Never. Did not God say to Moses, "I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them upout of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey... and thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Let mypeople go" ? For sin's human captives God never intends anything less than full deliverance. The Christian message rightly understoodmeans this: The God who by the WORD of the gospel PROCLAIMS men free, by the POWER of the gospel ACTUALLY MAKE THEM FREE. To acceptless than this is to know the gospel in word only, without its power.They to whom the Word comes in power know this deliverance, this inward migration of the soul from slavery to freedom, this release from moral bondage. They know in experience a radical shiftin position, a real crossing over, and they stand consciously on another soil under another sky and breathe another air. Their lifemotives are changed and their inward drives are made new.What are these old drives that once forced obedience at the end of a leash ? What but little taskmasters, servants of the greattaskmaster, Self, who stand before him and do his will ? To name them all would require a book in itself, but we would point out oneas a type or sample of the rest. It is the desire for social approval. This is not bad in itself and might be perfectly innocentif we were living in a sinless world, but since the race of men has fallen off from God and joined itself to His foes, to be a friend ofthe world is to be a collaborator with evil and an enemy of God. Still the desire to please men is back of all social acts from thehighest civilizations to the lowest levels upon which human life is found. No one can escape it. The outlaw who flouts the rules of society and the philosopher who rises in thought above its common ways may SEEM to have escaped from the snare, but they in reality merely narrowed the circle of those they desire to please. Theoutlaw has his pals before whom he seeks to shine; the philosopher his little coterie of superior thinkers whose approval is necessaryto his happiness. For both, the motive root remains uncut. Each draws his peace from the thought that he enjoys the esteem of hisfellows, though each will interpret the whole business in his ownway.Every man looks to his fellow men because he has no one else to whom he can look. David could say, "Whom have I in heaven but thee ? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee," but the sons of this world have not God, they have only eachother, and they walk holding on to eachother and looking to one another forassurance like frightened children. But their hope will fail them, for they are like a group of men, none of whom has learned to fly aplane, who suddenly find themselves aloft without a pilot, each looking to the other to bring them safely down. Their desperate butmistaken trust cannot save them from the crash which must certainly follow.With this desire to please men so deeply implanted within us how can we uproot it and shift our life-drive from pleasing men topleasing God ? Well, no one can do it alone, nor can he do it with the helo of others, nor by education nor by training nor by any other methodknown under the sun. What is required is a reversal of nature (that it is a fallen nature does not make it any the less powerful ) andthis reversal must be a supernatural act. That act the Spirit performs through the power of the gospel when it is recieved in living faith. Then He displaces the old with the new. Then Heinvades the life as sunlight invades a landscape and drives out the old motives as light drives away darkness from the sky.The way it works in experience is something like this: The believing man is overwhelmed suddenly by a powerful feeling that ONLY GOD MATTERS; soon this works itself out into his mental lifeand conditions all his judgments and all his values. Now he finds himself free from slavery to man's opinions. A mighty desire to please only God lays hold on him. Soon he learns to love above all else the assurance that he is well pleasing to the Father in heaven.It is this complete switch in their pleasure-source that has made believing men invincible. So could saints and martyrs stand alone, deserted by every earthly friend, and die for Christ under the universal displeasure of mankind. When, to intimidate him,Athanasius' judges warned him that the whole world was against him, he dared to reply, "Then is Athanasius against the world ! " Thatcry has come down the years and today may remind us that the gospel has power to deliver men from the tyranny of social approval and make them free to do the will of God.I have singled out this one enemy for consideration, but itis only one, and there are many others. They seem to stand by themselves and have existence apart from each other, but it is onlyseeming. Actually they are but branches of the same poison vine, growing from the same evil root, and they die together when the rootdies. That root is SELF, and the Cross is its only effective destroyer.The message of the gospel, then, is the message of a new creation in the midst of an old, the message of the invasion of our human nature by the eteranl life of God and the displacing of theold by the new. The new life seizes upon the believing man's nature and sets about its benign conquest, a conquest which is not completeuntil the invading life has taken full possession and a new creationhas emerged. And this is an act of God without human aid, for it is a moral miracle and a spiritual resurrection.A.W. TOZERTHE DIVINE CONQUEST-- GOD'S PURSUIT OF MANthe sequel to THE PURSUIT OF GODpgs. 31-43Jesus, speak to my heart and change my life

Tozerphiles I could live with that 8-) Might have to borrow that term for another thread...Thanks for the article Karsten!