Justification by Works - A Covenant Heresy
Listen to this lecture by Prof. David Engelsma here:
http://www.prca.org/Audio/Engelsma1.wma
Question and answers after the Lecture:
http://www.prca.org/Audio/Engelsma2.wma
The Latest Attack on Grace in the Reformed Churches:
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
The Latest Attack on Grace in the Reformed Churches:
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
No, then it would be Reformed Congregations of North America. This is the Protestant Reformed Churches.Vincent schreef:k Heb een van Engelsma's boeken gelezen. Btw.: is dat GerGem in Ned? Nee toch?
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
This is sort of a belated reaction, Vincent, but this article, by a Christian Reformed theologician, illustrates the main reason for the existence of the Protestant Reformed Churches:
http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html
The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed:
A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation
Raymond A. Blacketer
Introduction
The year 1999 marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the "three points of Kalamazoo," promulgated by the synod of the Christian Reformed Church, convened in Kalamazoo in the summer of 1994. The synod affirmed common grace, and condemned the teachings of two Christian Reformed ministers, Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof, who rejected the newly popular concept of common grace. The two ministers also denied that God demonstrates any grace or favor toward the reprobate, or that salvation is in any sense offered to the reprobate in the universal call of the gospel.1 The synod's decision and the surrounding debate over common grace resulted in the most significant ecclesiastical schism that the Christian Reformed Church has yet endured in its history.2
The synod's three points contended that there is a certain grace or favor God shows to his creatures in general, both elect and reprobate; that the Holy Spirit restrains sin in individuals and in society; and that unregenerate persons, while unable to do any saving good, can indeed perform acts of civic good.3 Thus far, these three statements are easily defensible from the standpoint of the history of Reformed theology, exegesis, and confessions. But the latter part of the first point introduces a concept of the general or universal offer of the gospel (algemeene aanbieding des Evangelies), and it is here that the matter becomes much less clear. The first point reads:
Concerning the first point, regarding the favorable disposition of God with respect to mankind in general, and not only to the elect, synod declares that according to the Scripture and the confessions it is certain that, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to the elect unto eternal life, there is a certain kind of favor or grace of God that he shows to his creatures in general. This is evidenced by the aforementioned Scripture texts and from the Canons of Dort II, 5 and III/IV, 8 and 9, where the confession deals with the general offer of the Gospel; while it is evident from the aforementioned declarations of Reformed writers from the most flourishing period of Reformed theology that our Reformed fathers of old have advocated this opinion.4
The latter half of this point not only affirms a general offer of the gospel, but also adduces this universal offer as evidence for God's common grace to all humanity. The report of the synodical advisory committee on common grace makes this matter more specific. The report argues that God is graciously inclined toward the godless and unrighteous, which naturally includes the reprobate.5 Putting aside the questionable nature of this conclusion itself for the moment,6 the proof that the synod produces for the first point includes the assertion that there are biblical texts that indicate that "God comes to all with a well-meant offer of salvation."7 The synodical committee cites Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11, which indicate that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and that he would prefer that Israel would repent of its sins and live. The report continues by claiming that the Canons of Dort (II, 5; III/IV, 8-9) deal with the "general offer of the gospel."8 These evidences are followed by the "declarations of Reformed writers from the most flourishing period of Reformed theology," namely, two passages from Calvin's Institutes and one from Peter van Mastricht's Theoretico-Practica Theologia. These passages lend weight to the concept of a general grace of God shown to all, but they do not demonstrate the existence of the doctrine of the well-meant offer in the early history of Reformed theology. 9
The proof adduced for the first of the Kalamazoo points is problematic. In the first place, Reformed theology has generally been reticent to connect any common or universal grace with the process of salvation, particularly since the Remonstrant party, the Arminians, conceived of common grace as a factor that made all individuals capable of responding to the gospel call.10 The first point, however, considers the universality of the call of the gospel to be evidence for the existence of common grace.
More significant, however, is the introduction of the concept of the universal, well-meant offer of salvation. A historical examination of the issue will demonstrate that at this point the synod introduced a quite debatable doctrine into the church, and in doing so misinterpreted the confessions and prominent Reformed theologians. The result was that the ministers Hoeksema and Danhof were condemned, in part, for defending the proper interpretation of the Reformed confessions. Even if one considers their sweeping rejection of common grace to be dubious and extreme, their repudiation of the well-meant offer is much more defensible from a historical and confessional perspective. A further result was that the Christian Reformed Church was left with a doctrine that is of doubtful logical coherence, given the soteriological framework confessed in the Canons of Dort, and that does not find support among leading theological figures of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The cause of this unfortunate state of affairs, moreover, appears to be a lamentable lack of careful historical and theological study of the issue by the 1924 synod and its defenders, as well as extreme and uncharitable recriminations on both sides.
http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html
The Three Points in Most Parts Reformed:
A Reexamination of the So-Called Well-Meant Offer of Salvation
Raymond A. Blacketer
Introduction
The year 1999 marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the "three points of Kalamazoo," promulgated by the synod of the Christian Reformed Church, convened in Kalamazoo in the summer of 1994. The synod affirmed common grace, and condemned the teachings of two Christian Reformed ministers, Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof, who rejected the newly popular concept of common grace. The two ministers also denied that God demonstrates any grace or favor toward the reprobate, or that salvation is in any sense offered to the reprobate in the universal call of the gospel.1 The synod's decision and the surrounding debate over common grace resulted in the most significant ecclesiastical schism that the Christian Reformed Church has yet endured in its history.2
The synod's three points contended that there is a certain grace or favor God shows to his creatures in general, both elect and reprobate; that the Holy Spirit restrains sin in individuals and in society; and that unregenerate persons, while unable to do any saving good, can indeed perform acts of civic good.3 Thus far, these three statements are easily defensible from the standpoint of the history of Reformed theology, exegesis, and confessions. But the latter part of the first point introduces a concept of the general or universal offer of the gospel (algemeene aanbieding des Evangelies), and it is here that the matter becomes much less clear. The first point reads:
Concerning the first point, regarding the favorable disposition of God with respect to mankind in general, and not only to the elect, synod declares that according to the Scripture and the confessions it is certain that, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to the elect unto eternal life, there is a certain kind of favor or grace of God that he shows to his creatures in general. This is evidenced by the aforementioned Scripture texts and from the Canons of Dort II, 5 and III/IV, 8 and 9, where the confession deals with the general offer of the Gospel; while it is evident from the aforementioned declarations of Reformed writers from the most flourishing period of Reformed theology that our Reformed fathers of old have advocated this opinion.4
The latter half of this point not only affirms a general offer of the gospel, but also adduces this universal offer as evidence for God's common grace to all humanity. The report of the synodical advisory committee on common grace makes this matter more specific. The report argues that God is graciously inclined toward the godless and unrighteous, which naturally includes the reprobate.5 Putting aside the questionable nature of this conclusion itself for the moment,6 the proof that the synod produces for the first point includes the assertion that there are biblical texts that indicate that "God comes to all with a well-meant offer of salvation."7 The synodical committee cites Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11, which indicate that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, and that he would prefer that Israel would repent of its sins and live. The report continues by claiming that the Canons of Dort (II, 5; III/IV, 8-9) deal with the "general offer of the gospel."8 These evidences are followed by the "declarations of Reformed writers from the most flourishing period of Reformed theology," namely, two passages from Calvin's Institutes and one from Peter van Mastricht's Theoretico-Practica Theologia. These passages lend weight to the concept of a general grace of God shown to all, but they do not demonstrate the existence of the doctrine of the well-meant offer in the early history of Reformed theology. 9
The proof adduced for the first of the Kalamazoo points is problematic. In the first place, Reformed theology has generally been reticent to connect any common or universal grace with the process of salvation, particularly since the Remonstrant party, the Arminians, conceived of common grace as a factor that made all individuals capable of responding to the gospel call.10 The first point, however, considers the universality of the call of the gospel to be evidence for the existence of common grace.
More significant, however, is the introduction of the concept of the universal, well-meant offer of salvation. A historical examination of the issue will demonstrate that at this point the synod introduced a quite debatable doctrine into the church, and in doing so misinterpreted the confessions and prominent Reformed theologians. The result was that the ministers Hoeksema and Danhof were condemned, in part, for defending the proper interpretation of the Reformed confessions. Even if one considers their sweeping rejection of common grace to be dubious and extreme, their repudiation of the well-meant offer is much more defensible from a historical and confessional perspective. A further result was that the Christian Reformed Church was left with a doctrine that is of doubtful logical coherence, given the soteriological framework confessed in the Canons of Dort, and that does not find support among leading theological figures of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The cause of this unfortunate state of affairs, moreover, appears to be a lamentable lack of careful historical and theological study of the issue by the 1924 synod and its defenders, as well as extreme and uncharitable recriminations on both sides.
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
-
Bookreader
- Berichten: 175
- Lid geworden op: 09 aug 2007, 16:24
Hello, this is the first time that I am here.
I have not seen threads for introduction, so I say it now in this way.
Are there users here from the UK or the USA? Or is everyone from the Netherlands here? (I am Dutch too, unfortunately.
)
This morning, I read this article, and I found it very interesting: http://www.reformed.org.ua/index.php?wl=1&id_mat=85.
According to me, it has to do with the subject of this thread.
R.C. Sproul... the name sounds in my ears as known to me. But I don't know from what or when.
I have not seen threads for introduction, so I say it now in this way.
Are there users here from the UK or the USA? Or is everyone from the Netherlands here? (I am Dutch too, unfortunately.
)This morning, I read this article, and I found it very interesting: http://www.reformed.org.ua/index.php?wl=1&id_mat=85.
According to me, it has to do with the subject of this thread.
R.C. Sproul... the name sounds in my ears as known to me. But I don't know from what or when.
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
R.C. Sproul is certainly sound in this article.Bookreader schreef:Hello, this is the first time that I am here.
I have not seen threads for introduction, so I say it now in this way.
Are there users here from the UK or the USA? Or is everyone from the Netherlands here? (I am Dutch too, unfortunately. :( :wink: )
This morning, I read this article, and I found it very interesting: http://www.reformed.org.ua/index.php?wl=1&id_mat=85.
According to me, it has to do with the subject of this thread.
R.C. Sproul... the name sounds in my ears as known to me. But I don't know from what or when.
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
-
Bookreader
- Berichten: 175
- Lid geworden op: 09 aug 2007, 16:24
The grace of God is something absolutely uncomprehensible. Exactly as that God is uncomprehensible for us. That's the problem! How to put in words these things adequately for human beings? That's absolutely impossible!
If we understand a little bit of our sinfulness, we would say to God: "Don't do this for me! I am a sinner, and I don't deserve your grace!"
Karl Barth was absolutely right when he wrote: "'Gott.' Mann weisst nicht was mann damit sagt!" I saw that sentence when I looked in his book "Römerbrief", a commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans. Although I do not agree his doctrines, at that point he described strikingly in that setence what the human problem is with relation to God. We simply don't understand God! Or to say it with a bible text: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) A known text, but do we understand this a little bit?
When I was speaking about my belief and how I experience that, the last monday of July, I was thinking about these things. And it hit me, how uncomprehensible the grace of God is!
But this means also that we have a problem: we can't explain these thing in our words for other people. Of course, we can try so say what we mean. But we cannot make someone else understand these things, how hard we ever try.
If we understand a little bit of our sinfulness, we would say to God: "Don't do this for me! I am a sinner, and I don't deserve your grace!"
Karl Barth was absolutely right when he wrote: "'Gott.' Mann weisst nicht was mann damit sagt!" I saw that sentence when I looked in his book "Römerbrief", a commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans. Although I do not agree his doctrines, at that point he described strikingly in that setence what the human problem is with relation to God. We simply don't understand God! Or to say it with a bible text: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) A known text, but do we understand this a little bit?
When I was speaking about my belief and how I experience that, the last monday of July, I was thinking about these things. And it hit me, how uncomprehensible the grace of God is!
But this means also that we have a problem: we can't explain these thing in our words for other people. Of course, we can try so say what we mean. But we cannot make someone else understand these things, how hard we ever try.
You mean 'sound' in the second meaning of this dictionary. Not the 'sound' that is etymologically cognate to the French word 'son', but to the German word 'gesund'/ Dutch 'gezond'. I have learned something today, thank you!Bert Mulder schreef:R.C. Sproul is certainly sound in this article.