I have much to learn indeed.<br><br>It is only recently that I have been reading contemporary theology and I've only read one Paisley book (Antichrist). Many would say he is an arminian . In southern England we would say Calminian (free-offer calvinist ).<br><br>Prior to this I usually read puritan books and I will continue to do so .<br><br>Thanks for your advice again Joe . <br><br>There is much for me to mull over.<br><br>howard
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Thanks ... for some of your post.
Despite my not knowing for which parts of my post you are not thankful, you are nevertheless completely welcome![img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]
Howard,<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Who believes that the position taken by Murray , Johnson and Watts represents Calvinism ?</font><hr></blockquote><p>How did I imply that it does?
Oh. Now I see. I had tried in vain to conceive how anything in my posts--to which you were apparenty replying--implied that I held that view. Hmm. Maybe the forum needs an "addressed to all" option.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
I shall endeavour to aquire the full articles by Watts and Johnson because on the little there is in the e-mail , they sure dont sound like Calvinists to me . I expect they refer to the Puritans as hyper-calvinists too !<br><br>howard
In reply to:[color:"blue"]. . . they sure dont sound like Calvinists to me.
Howard,
Let me take this opportunity to point out the fallacy of making one point of doctrine, a minor one at that compared to such major biblical themes as the deity of Christ, justification by faith, etc., the standard by which the whole of men's theological positions are judged. Should one conclude, for example, that Murray and Stonehouse erred in their position on the "free offer", it would be less than accurate never mind charitable, to accuse them of denying Calvinism as a whole. Let me try and give you an example, if I may, in the hopes that you will see the darkness of this type of thinking. If a man fails in one small way in his responsibilities as a husband, is it equitable to accuse him of not being a husband at all? If a child should disobey his/her parents in one thing, is this child to be denied the right or position to claim to be the son or daughter of their parents?
Summary judgments are most always fallacious when they are based upon issues that are not fundamental. Should one deny the Trinity, then a summary judgment that one cannot rightly profess to be a Christian is certainly justified. But if one should hold that the Lord's Table should not be fenced, but subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace as summarized in the great Reformation Confessions, one simply cannot charge this individual with denying "Calvinism" as a whole.
I would sincerely like to see you become more charitable and fair in how you esteem brethren with whom you differ in matters non-essential. Again, may these words of our Lord Jesus Christ become a living reality in your heart:
Matthew 7:1-5 (ASV) "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Maybe the forum needs an "addressed to all" option.
Actually, that option already exists. It is actuated by the use of an instrument called a "keyboard". By simply pressing a selection of specific keys, one's message is magically prefaced with the text: [color:blue]This is addressed to ALL!
Pilgrim, I have been called a hyper-calvininist by men who think themselves to be calvinists. This does'nt bother me of course because on closer examination these calvinists are not calvininists but arminians (free-will calvinists ).
I am begining to think that hyper-calvinism does not even exist. I have read nothing to convince me that this theologian or that theologian is hyper.
I am still waiting for help on this but I really expect little because it is VERY VERY difficult to denounce hyper-calvinism without exposing oneself to the charge of arminianism. There is no middle ground - as far as I can see.
Murray and Stonehouse may well have been calvinists but that free-offer booklet most certainly IS NOT calvinism. Calvin would be horrified if he read such stuff don't you think ?
Regarding Murray, Stonehouse et al , John H Gerstner writes :<br><br>"We must also sadly admit that the majority of Reformed theologians today seriously err concerning the nature of the love of God for the reprobates. We mention this here only because this defect in contemporary Reformed theology makes it all the easier for the dispensationalists to continue in their abyssmal error.<br><br>Most Reformed theologians also include, as a by-product of the Atonement, the well-meant offer of the gospel by which all men can be saved. Some Reformed theologians take a further step still and say that God even intends that they should be saved by this Atonement which nevertheless was made only for the elect. For example . John Murray and Ned Stonehouse write : " Our Lord......says expressly that he willed the bestowal of his saving and protecting grace upon those whom neither the Father nor he decreed thus to save and protect" (free-offer p26).<br><br>One must sadly say that Westminster Theological Seminary stands for the misunderstanding of the Reformed doctrine since not only Murray and Stonehouse but also Cornelius Van Til, RB Kuiper, John Frame, and, so far as we know, all the faculty, have favoured it. <br>The Christian Reformed Church had already in 1920 taken this sad step away from Reformed orthodoxy and has been declining ever since...................................................."<br><br>( from Wrongly dividing the word of truth; a critique of dispensationalism 1991 p127)<br><br>howard
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]....One must sadly say that Westminster Theological Seminary stands for the misunderstanding of the Reformed doctrine since not only Murray and Stonehouse but also Cornelius Van Til, RB Kuiper, John Frame....</font><hr></blockquote><p> Though one may not agree with everything EACH of these ascribes (ascribed) to, they do understand the TWO wills of God (sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.). <br><br>Here's an article that may help.
Joe,<br><br>Wasn't Piper's article on this issue of "two wills of God" discussed here before and it was found wanting? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/scratch.gif" alt="scratch" title="scratch[/img]<br><br><br>
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/giggle.gif)
