The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Steve Camp about Dr. Albert Mohler

In the past I have heard some Reformed Christians doubt that Steve Camp was a Reformed (or at least Calvinist) believer.
If anyone has had any of these doubts, I think this thread should put that doubt to rest.

Steve Camp himself is participating in that thread.

Tom

Yes and Charles Colson is an evangelical reformed Baptist it says so right in print and everything. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Boanerges

I am very confident about Steve Camp being Reformed.
He is a frequent guest of James White who is definitely Reformed Baptist.
I have yet to see anything that disproves Steve Camp being of Reformed persuasion, but I can't say that about Colson.
Steve Camp's beliefs run about parallel to John MacArthur’s.
Steve Camp also has a web site, where he is pretty clear about his beliefs.
http://a1m.org/
If you have something that disproves Steve Camp being Reformed, then by all means show me.

Tom

I can do that with just your own words Tom first of all you said that Steve Camp is parallel to John MacArthur who while he articulates much on Reformed view of Soteriology isn't Reformed. I quote CRTA:

Second I suggest you take a look at Steve Camp's Church Statement of Faith This is definately dispensational. As you know Reformed Baptists are either NCT <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> or hold to covenant (baptist) theology <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />.

If you go back to my initial post you will see the following words: Perhaps I should not have used the word “Reformed”.
I am well aware that Steve Camp holds to what I would call dispi-lite.
Steve is a staunch defender of the doctrines of grace, as is John MacArthur. Even though I disagree with their dispensationalism, I have grown to respect both men for their uncompromising attitude towards the Word of God.
I have seen MacAthur’s book ‘Ashamed of the Gospel’ recommended on the Highway many times over the years.

Tom

Please explain why premill dispie contradicts Reformed thought in the three reasons given. Especially the 2nd, God's aseity .

John, Boanerges is correct that dispensationalism a) is incompatible with the doctrines of grace (b) compromises God's aseity (self-existence), and (c) compromises God's sovereignty."
But I will say people like John MacArthur and Steve Camp are not dispensationalists in the areas where it is incompatible with (a) (b) &(c). This is why I called them dispi-lites (a term borrowed from Pilgrim)in my other post.
I will have to let Boanerges or someone else answer your questions more fully, because I have not figured out how I can answer your questions without taking more time than I have at the moment.

Tom

I, as Tom, have but a little time thus, here are some notes taken from John Hendryx (creator and editor of Monergism.com; the normal disclaimers apply):

It can be forcefully argued from the Bible and plain reason that the dispensationalist belief in the mutually contradictory doctrines of effectual grace and universal atonement give rise to a fatally inconsistent view of the Scriptures. All spiritual blessings have their origin in the person and work of Christ (Eph 1:3). Efficacious grace is a spiritual blessing. Dispensationalists, like Calvinists, also teach the doctrine of efficacious grace and that this grace is applied by the Holy Spirit to the elect only (not to the non-elect). Therefore it infallibly follows that they must believe that Christ died for the elect (to secure effectual grace) in a way that He did not for the non-elect. Therefore, either dispensationalists really do believe in the biblical doctrine of particular redemption without knowing it or they promote an unintelligible system of theology that is divorced from Christ with regard to the application of the work of redemption.

Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS), the Dispensational mother ship, widely promoted four of the five points of Calvinism (Amyraldianism). In agreement with traditional Calvinists the professors at this institution teach that man cannot save himself, God's grace is effectual (irresistible), His election is unconditional and the elect of God will be preserved by him in such a way as to never ultimately fall away. Yet, in contrast to Reformed theology, DTs teaches a universal atonement, that Jesus died for all mankind (elect and non-elect) in the same way, and with the same intent. Other traditional Reformed doctrines that most dispensationalists reject include monergistic regeneration.

Dispensationalists agree that the elect are given efficacious grace and the non-elect are not. In light of this I must point out as a reminder that all redemptive blessings we have can be traced back to the work of Christ, according to Scripture (Eph 1:3). If it were not for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to deliver us, then all that is left to us is God's wrath. The dispensationalist has forgotten that even the benefit of efficacious grace is to be found rooted in Christ and His work. In other words, since this blessing is only given to some and not others, it follows that such a blessing was purchased only for those He intended to save. Would someone dare argue that some spiritual blessings are to be found outside of Christ? Therefore, to embrace efficacious grace and, at the same time, teach a universal atonement is to contradict the Scripture. Even dispensationalists believe that the redemptive benefit of efficacious grace is for the elect only since the non-elect do not receive this benefit. Therefore, even by their own standards, Christ must have died in a way for the elect that He did not for the non-elect. If efficacious grace is among that which Christ purchased on the cross (as are all spiritual blessings) then the unavoidable, and only reasonable conclusion must be that the non-elect were not included in this particular redemptive blessing. Anything less is an unbiblical bifurcation of Christ and His redemptive benefits.

Dispensationalists believe "this present world system . . . is now controlled by Satan" (not by God) and will end in failure and apostasy (John A. Witmer, "A Review of 'Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth).

If you had said Dispie-lite then I wouldn't have called your statement into question at all Tom but you did say Reformed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Joe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />

Reformed or not I wouldn't give one dime to a
Christian who would sell a ticket to their concert.

Yankee

Steve Camp is not in the industry for the money and whether or not you agree with that kind of ministry or not, he is one of only a few Christian artists whose music is more than just fluff, It really has substance.
His ministry philosophy can be found here and here

Steve has taken it on the chin by many in the Christian music industry for his stand for reformation in the industry.

Tom