Care to respond to this critique?

[Brandan Kraft]

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/03/wrath-of-god-and-heresy-of-eternal.html

[Forester07]

I've addressed this subject here: http://www.predestinarian.net/content/38-The-Eternal-God

Basically it doesn't look like he really understands the concept of eternity.

[Eileen]

I’ve been told many times that to put too much emphasis on predestination or election leads to error. I’ve never accepted that as a legitimate rebuke because the bible teaches time and time again predestination and election by the Sovereignty of God. The time/eternal issues will always bring out those who don’t think that we can understand God’s in an eternal sense. Daniel uses a lot of technical language but the Scripture doesn’t use that kind of language so I’m never impressed by it.

Ephesians 2:3 “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were BY NATURE the children of wrath, even as other”

Daniel reads that verse differently than I do. Our nature was no different than the others as we fulfilled the lusts of our flesh and of our minds and that is why those two words are there.…………. But Daniel neglects the next verse which says BUT GOD which explains the true difference between the elect and the reprobate. Who made us to differ BUT GOD 1 Cor 4:7 and He did that in from timeless eternity not solely in time.

He misrepresents eternal justification believers when he says that we deny we are deserving of His wrath; that is the whole point of Eph 2:3. We walked like them, we talked like them and we deserve exactly what the others do BUT GOD.

He believes that faith is prior to justification and so he leaves out the finished work of Christ on the cross who was raised BECAUSE of our justification. If we hadn’t been justified Christ wouldn’t have been raised from the dead.

He misrepresents anyone who believes in eternal justification when he says that we deny that God’s decrees are executed in time. We deny no such thing we simply know that is from our perspective because we are time creatures, God is not.

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began”. 2 Ti 1:9

BY NATURE I am like the others but only because of His grace before the world began was I created and fashioned a vessel of mercy, nonetheless a creature. He endures the vessels of wrath with much patience so that He can make known the riches of His glory. I am an object of His mercy, not His wrath and His riches can be seen in our redemption by His Son, in our regeneration and in our eternal salvation and all for His Glory!

There will always be those who use derogatory labels such crypto-hyper, etc; it’s just part of the journey. And I agree with Jimmy, he doesn't understand the eternal issues at all.

Eileen~

[Greg Winegar]

When he says "eternity past" and the way he speaks of God in eternity yet he keeps using time words to describe the eternal shows that he doesn't even understand the concept. Also, he like others, uses the "Hype-Calvinist" tag not understanding it's a pejorative and that there is no such creature.

[Robert R. Higby]

Everything in his assumptions depends on a false exegesis of Eph. 2:1-3. He builds the whole heresy of common wrath upon it. He has no other corroborating scriptures. Enough said.

[Saint Nicholas]

After reading his critique, I found most interesting the below statement in which I feel totes the typical low grace view of Justification.

"The second error made by Kraft follows from the first and in fact may be the rationale for embracing the first error. The doctrine of eternal justification is a most pernicious error in making justification prior to faith, contradicting the vital doctrine so explicitly taught especially in the book of Romans - that justification is by faith."


His view that Justification prior to faith is in error fully exposes the influence that "Papal Trent"
has had on protestant reformed theology.

The counter-reformation and it’s seminary agents have destroyed the Pauline and scriptural view of Justification.

Others and myself have written extensively on this subject. For God to declare ( the verdict) the elect soul as righteous after regeneration and faith in the Gospel has been manifested, this would place the ground or basis of God’s verdict not on the imputed merits of Christ alone, but rather a shifting to the infused merits of Christ making one regenerate. This is the essence of Trent no matter how you cut it.

Also in my opinion, the writer totally misrepresents our views due to lack of understanding.

While the writer claims to be "supra", his understanding of Justification and Eternal Justification is suspect.

Nicholas

[GraceAmbassador]

Brandan and Brethren:

It is useless! Every time we discuss issues of EJ people immediately think we are talking about something that is akin to the Mormon Religion or anything of the sort and NO MATTER how we explain about "experience in time" and that "God is not subject to time" and "that His decrees cannot be altered, so, at a minimum it is LOGICAL to think in terms of EJ", and no matter how much we try to explain that we are DEVALUING Justification by faith alone, they will NEVER accept our explanations and will try to prove us wrong often USING THE SAME ARGUMENT we use to prove US right! It is ridiculous!

They agree that God is eternal, unchangeable, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, to Whom be glory and glory forever Amen... The even so much as agree with our own verses but still keep accusing us of this and that... They simply do not understand what we're saying and most likely, find comfort in the fact that "they had the experience in time" and that this experience is so dear to them that is (for them) equivalent to justification itself!

I stopped communicating with FIRE because my mere mentioning of EJ caused a flurry of emails where people would REPEAT what I was arguing in my favor but not coming to the same conclusion, whereas accusing me of not considering important the "experience in time".

Be at comfort at at peace (as if I needed to say that...) that, ONLY people who have no reason to expect a "raised hand", or a box of Kleenex tissue along with two verses of Just as I am in an altar call as something essential in the "justification timely experience" will really VALUE the Glory of understanding the inalterability of God's decrees and that the Covenant with Jesus Christ, is providing Him a Bride, precedes the Foundation of the World and therein it was completed!

An Anglican brother, of all people, a REAL CALVINIST Anglican, who hates, debates and writes against Roman Catholicism in a very similar way as we do here, published at Facebook what he calls the ORIGINAL version of the Nicene Creed that says that "Jesus was begotten of the Father before all WORLDS". It all started and finished in eternity!

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:
After reading the terrible composition of my last post, I noticed that I made a serious mistake. When I wrote this:


"and no matter how much we try to explain that we are DEVALUING Justification by faith alone, they will NEVER accept our explanations and will try to prove us wrong often USING THE SAME ARGUMENT we use to prove US right! It is ridiculous!"

I meant this :

"and no matter how much we try to explain that we are NOT DEVALUING Justification by faith alone, they will NEVER accept our explanations and will try to prove us wrong often USING THE SAME ARGUMENT we use to prove US right! It is ridiculous!"

I apologize for saying the opposite of what I was thinking!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

I KNOW the writer who wrote the critique is ANYTHING BUT a supralapsarian, regardless of his claims.

Nicholas: For God to declare ( the verdict) the elect soul as righteous after regeneration and faith in the Gospel has been manifested, this would place the ground or basis of God’s verdict not on the imputed merits of Christ alone, but rather a shifting to the infused merits of Christ making one regenerate. This is the essence of Trent no matter how you cut it.

Exactly right! ANY position proposing that Christ's merits are imputed CONDITIONALLY upon time-salvation is Tridentine and therefore the equivalent of SUBJECTIVE justification. Let us ignore all of the paradox theology and get to the real issue! Only justification from eternity is REAL justification based exclusively on Christ's obedience unto death for all of His elect. Everything else is paradoxical conditionalist gobbldygook.

--Bob

[Brandan Kraft]

I KNOW the writer who wrote the critique is ANYTHING BUT a supralapsarian, regardless of his claims.

Nicholas: For God to declare ( the verdict) the elect soul as righteous after regeneration and faith in the Gospel has been manifested, this would place the ground or basis of God’s verdict not on the imputed merits of Christ alone, but rather a shifting to the infused merits of Christ making one regenerate. This is the essence of Trent no matter how you cut it.

Exactly right! ANY position proposing that Christ's merits are imputed CONDITIONALLY upon time-salvation is Tridentine and therefore the equivalent of SUBJECTIVE justification. Let us ignore all of the paradox theology and get to the real issue! Only justification from eternity is REAL justification based exclusively on Christ's obedience unto death for all of His elect. Everything else is paradoxical conditionalist gobbldygook.

--Bob
I'm right there with you Bob, Milt, and everyone else. In my experience, most of the "supralapsarians" on the "I am supralapsarian" page are right there with this guy. They think supralapsarianism is something you pick out of a textbook!

[GraceAmbassador]

17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

There is not even a need for "context" here, although it is good! This final phrase IS a description of what God is in eternity! I worship Him for it! Even though I did not even exist at the beginning of the world HE CALLED ME, and JUSTIFIED ME AS IF I WERE; even if I were not! Comprende? Praise His name!
We're not kooks for believing what we do about E.J. because God DECLARES that He is what he declares what He is in the verse above! Of course things occurred in time, but God still calls us what we are even when we're not! Do I have a point?

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Here are some more articles about us lately:

The Heresy of Eternal Justification
http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2010/03/heresy-of-eternal-justification.html

More on Eternal Justification
http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-on-eternal-justification.html

Eternal Justification and Antinomianism
http://wheatchaff.blogspot.com/2010/03/eternal-justification-and-antinomianism.html

Eph. 2:1-4, the wrath and the grace of God
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/03/eph-21-4-wrath-and-grace-of-god.html

Eternity and Time: A brief look
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/03/eternity-and-time-brief-look.html
(Jimmy was quoted in this one)

[Robert R. Higby]

If the author at Puritan Reformed is claiming that ANY teacher at p-net subscribes to the teaching he outlines in the following quotation (which is implied by his 'guilt by association'), he is an outright liar. He is equating the conditionalist Primitive Baptists (who indeed ARE anti-gospel heretics) with all who affirm eternal justification and deny common wrath.

We would look briefly and refute the third and last objection raised by the hyperists against the orthodox doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Instead of this fundamental doctrine, the hyperists put foward their doctrine of "faith by justification alone". According to their flawed thinking, making justification by faith implies that justification depends upon faith, which would make salvation synergistic as both God and Man cooperate in the work of salvation.
One thing that we can see immediately is that the Arminians and the Hyperists share one thing in common — the unbiblical conviction that faith is a work of men. The Arminians believe that faith is Man's work, so therefore unconditional election is false for how can God saves Man without demanding of him his exercise (work) of faith? The Hyperists on the other hand believe that since faith is Man's work, therefore salvation is not dependent on faith, for otherwise faith would be made a condition for salvation which creates an opening for works righteousness.
The biblical teaching however is that faith is a gift of God (cf Eph. 2:9, Phil. 1:29), not a work of men. It is precisely because faith is God's work and gift that the Hyperists' third objection falls flat. Once again, it seems that the Arminians and the Hyperists actually do deserve each other, for they share a lot of false assumptions in common.


Interestingly, the Federal Vision teachers of Reformed Presbyterianism teach the same anti sola-fide heresy as the conditionalist Primitive Baptists.

[Robert R. Higby]

On timeless eternity:

The third main pillar of the Hyperists over at the Predestinarian Network, which informs their error of Eternal Justification, is the [Neo-Platonic] theory of Timeless Eternity.

NO ONE at P-Net teaches a theory of a Timeless Eternity; I have opposed it many times. I believe the quote by Jimmy is taken out of context and made into a doctrine that no one here would support.

God both inhabits time (including eternal time, which has a beginning but no end) and also transcends it. When the Bible talks about God inhabiting eternity it refers to both of these aspects. Now those who want to deny that God created time would make time itself into a God more sovereign than the God revealed to us in the scriptures. Ditto for space, law, and sin--which most theologians practically treat as un-created in their expositions. The notion of 'past without beginning' as a valid description of eternity is something that virtually all who profess Christ believe in. Yet it is something that we ought to abhor as the inevitable corollary of Process Theism.

The false religions of the world, of course, indeed teach that eternity is truly timeless, that God inhabits only timelessness, and that WE ALL at some future point inhabit timelessness (eternity) also. Gnostic teaching following Platonic philosophy certainly taught the same.

--Bob

[Forester07]

My response that I posted on his blog.

Daniel,

I don't think you really read my article because most of what you are critiquing is a complete misrepresentation of my position on the issue of eternal justification. Re-read the section titled "According to the whole of scripture, what is God’s ultimate purpose for all of creation and human history?" Your whole "succession of ideas" argument is weak because the whole of creation from start to finish is a succession of ideas where God creates and orders time and history the way He wants. All the "acts' of history are determine by God's sovereign will. Charles Hodge was right on with the classical reformed view while your Robert Reymond is off.

In your blog you basically conclude with this thought:

"To make it simpler, God knows everything past, present and future, but these past, present and future events do happen successively in chronology before God."

I would agree with this statement. Where I think we would differ is that I believe God predestined every part of the past, present and future from eternity for a particular purpose. Time does indeed happen to us successively and in a chronological way and God is involved in every part of this order. However, I hold that God sees all of this at once, outside of time where He set it up successively and chronologically. At times God does indeed act within time. Christ Jesus is the perfect example of this. God in Time coming to die as a sacrifice for sins in time. Even though this act happened in time on earth God is eternal. Jesus is the ETERNAL son and His sacrifice and death are applied in an eternal way to the elect. The atonement is of an eternal nature because it is from the eternal Son and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the elect in time when God chooses (From our experience of it at least but from God's view from eternity).

You also said,
"Rather, God in eternity is everlasting — without beginning or end. God knows all things past, pesent and future, and remains the same throughout all time, yet God does have an idea of succession within Himself, and His decrees and the events that are caused by the decrees have a chronological ordering to them."

I can completely agree with this statement. God does have an idea of succession within Himself because he predestines every event in time to be ordered and controlled directly by Him. The only thing that I would add to your statement is that "God knows and Causes all things". Of Course God's decrees have a chronological order to them and the reason is simply because God created time and everything that happens within time.

The main issue with your view is that is leans towards the concept of open theism. If God is just flowing with time like the rest of us then is God really God? Here is a definition of open theism from Wikipedia

"Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions."

It looks like you are pretty close to this.

[Forester07]

On timeless eternity:

The third main pillar of the Hyperists over at the Predestinarian Network, which informs their error of Eternal Justification, is the [Neo-Platonic] theory of Timeless Eternity.

NO ONE at P-Net teaches a theory of a Timeless Eternity; I have opposed it many times. I believe the quote by Jimmy is taken out of context and made into a doctrine that no one here would support.

God both inhabits time (including eternal time, which has a beginning but no end) and also transcends it. When the Bible talks about God inhabiting eternity it refers to both of these aspects. Now those who want to deny that God created time would make time itself into a God more sovereign than the God revealed to us in the scriptures. Ditto for space, law, and sin--which most theologians practically treat as un-created in their expositions. The notion of 'past without beginning' as a valid description of eternity is something that virtually all who profess Christ believe in. Yet it is something that we ought to abhor as the inevitable corollary of Process Theism.

The false religions of the world, of course, indeed teach that eternity is truly timeless, that God inhabits only timelessness, and that WE ALL at some future point inhabit timelessness (eternity) also. Gnostic teaching following Platonic philosophy certainly taught the same.

--Bob


I don't know where he gets the timeless eternity from what I wrote. I do focus a lot on God Transending time and the eternal aspect of God but I make it clear that God clearly inhabits time as it is seen throughout the scriptures. I thought it was obvious that since God is omnipresent that would include time bound earth.

[Eileen]

To those reading here:

I have used the phrase "timeless eternity" unknowingly without attaching the meaning of God not inhabiting time so that would be a word error on my part and perhaps where Daniel is coming from. Obviously it holds a meaning that was unknown to me or I wouldn't have used it. Of course God inhabits time and works in time, I have never denied that and I apologize for causing confusion on the teaching at P-net. We are time creatures and will always be time creatures, even in our glorified state, I have always believed that and have posted on that very fact many times over the years.

If you are reading this Daniel then I think it will suffice for a truthful explanation and hopefully will be reflected upon by you.

Eileen~

[Eileen]

I left this message on Daniel's blog:
Daniel,
"I don't know if you are reading at all over at P-Net, I have left a public message there and want to leave one here as well, following the rules of course and relating my comment to your current post.

The use of the word "timeless" was used once by me unknowingly as to any teaching or thought that it might represent. The use of the word reflected dishonor on the teaching at P-Net and for that I have publicly apologized. I've never believed that everlasting life would be anything but in time and have stated that many times on P-Net.

So this was a failure on my part by the use of a specific word not equating that word to any doctrine, a doctrine by the way I've never even heard of until now.

I publicly come here to your blog so that you will know this and so that you might in all Christian integrity retract any statement that P-Net believes in a timeless eternity even though you might have other problems with what is put forth on eternity."

Eileen~

[Forester07]

Eileen,

It's not your fault. Especially if you did not know that the phrase "timeless eternity" had a whole doctrinal position tagged along with it. I'm pretty sure Daniel got the whole concept from the systematic theology that he is using by Richard Reymond which he quotes extensively. If you read Reymonds views and the whole concept of timeless eternity it is clearly different from our views. I am probably the one to blame if Daniel thought this is what I was talking about in my artlice "The Eternal God" because I really only focus on how God transends time and only hint about the timely aspects of God. My article was not suppose to be a systematic theology expounding all points of the subject but a thought provoking piece to express a clear aspect of God that is often overlooked.

My Guess is that Daniel looked in the index of his systematice theology and found this timeless eternity stuff that Reymond wrote about and imediately assumed that is what we were saying. He was wrong. It is clear from what he wrote on his blog that he didn't read / understand what I was writing and in fact missed the whole point of my article.

Eileen, if anything, it is my fault for not being as clear on the subject in my article as I could have been.

[Forester07]

My further response to His comments...

You Said,
"This has nothing to do with your embrace of the Neo-Platonic idea of eternal timelessness."

You again are misrepresenting me. I hold that God does indeed work within time. God created time and exists within time. However, He is not bound by time in and of itself. Your view essentially makes time god because he is wholly subject to time. Once God created time he exists within time but at the same time apart. Just like when God became man. Jesus was 100% man and also 100% God. You are restricting God. God clearly exist outside of time but within time also. He is not subject to it. Please give me your reference for this "timeless eternity" that you are using so I can compare what I believe to what your book is saying. I think they differ.

You Said,
"The point of contention is that the "absolute predestinarians" like you make God into a timeless being utterly transcendent such that He does not work out His decrees in time but rather apart from time. God according to your position cannot be immanent."


Yes I am a absolute predestinarian. Yes I hold that God, before the foundation of the world predestined everything and that God, who transcends time, sees the past, present and future at once. However, where you are misrepresenting me is that I also hold the God does work out all of human history in time by the fact that he is omnipresent. God transcends time but works within time. How do you explain these verses. The view I hold to is in complete agreement with these.

2Pe 3:8 "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

This verse is showing my view perfectly. God is outside of time and sees one day and a thousand year the same. How do you read it?

Psa 90:2-4 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. You return man to dust and say, "Return, O children of man!" For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night."

This verse in consistent with my view. How can a thousand year in God's sight be as yesterday if God is not outside of time?

Isa 43:7-13 "Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?"

This is the end of an awesome passage. Read the whole chapter to get the context. This passage yells eternal justification. God has DECLARED and has SAVED! God's grace, election and justification is shown by this passage so clearly. "Before the day was I Am He" is clearly pointing to Gods transcendence of Time. God created the day and is not bound by it.

You can get my point. I am supporting my doctrines from Scripture alone.

You Said,
"Nobody is saying that God is not omniscient. What we are saying, and you are denying, is that God has an idea of succession in His mind which is worked out in time chronologically."

I've never said this. A misrepresentation my position.

You said,
"The "absolute predestinarians" collapse God's decrees with their execution, and make all things done by God timeless. However, Scripture does not present it in this matter."

Where have I said that all things done by God are timeless. I've never said that. Wow! another misrepresentation. I have said God is not bound by time and is outside of time but that He clearly works within time and history constantly. If you are going to critique a view make sure you fully understand your opponent and not try to push them into a pre-conceived box.

You said,
"And as I have mentioned, all of this is philosophy. You are assuming a particular theory of eternity (ie. Neo-Platonism) and reading that into Scripture (ie eisegesis)."

Wrong. I get it straight from Scripture. You might disagree with the interpretation but you have not argued along those lines yet.

You said,
"No Bible verses support such an irrational position; the atonement happens in time AT the cross."

The act of the atonement does indeed happen at the cross but I'm sure you would agree that the effect of the atonement happens to the elect on an eternal scale. Old testament saints are atoned through Christ's death in the same way as someone today or in the future are atoned through his death. That is what I am saying.

You Said,
"You deny that God is pleased to execute His decree of Justification in time. Instead, your good friend Brandan Kraft (aka Darth Gill) states that all of God's decrees are executed at the "time" they are made since God is timeless"

No, God works in time. However, to the mind of God, who is outside or Transcendent of time when his decree of justification occurs, it is as good as being done. I know this is difficult to grasp to our finite minds but think on it. From our perspective Justification happens to us in time. We are timely creatures. God, on the other hand is not bound by time. He sees 1000 years ago and today at the same time. We are stuck in time God is not. God determined to justify a people unto himself before the creation of the world and time. Ephesians Chapter 1 explains this.

Eph 1:3-12 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory."

We were chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved, justified, ect ect as a plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in Him.

[Forester07]

Another attack, mainly on Brandan but also mentioning Nick.

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/03/brandan-kraft-and-abomination-stewing.html

[GraceAmbassador]

My advice is not to bring this guy's blog more traffic by attempting to respond!

I do believe that Brandan should put a vigorous response! Make Daniel see that he needs to answer for what reason he calls Brandan a heretic:

for believing in E.J.? Then he is rendering Gill a heretic
for not believing in Duty Faith? then he is rendering Pink a heretic
for believing James as Antilegumena? then he is rendering Luther and a myriad of others, a heretic!

I think this guy is a neophyte disguised into an intellectual, akin to a parrot attempting to be Einstein.

Again let's not give him any more traffic!

Milt

[Greg Winegar]

Maybe I missed it, or did anybody bring up the point that this guy is a jerk?
(this was the nice way to say what I was really thinking) ;)

[Brandan Kraft]

I do believe that Brandan should put a vigorous response! Make Daniel see that he needs to answer for what reason he calls Brandan a heretic:

When I get time! :) If I recall, even Clark and Hoeksema believed in Justification from Eternity.

[GraceAmbassador]

When I get time! :) If I recall, even Clark and Hoeksema believed in Justification from Eternity.

He is calling you a heretic for E.J., for not believing "Duty Faith" and the Book of James; He must admit or retract calling you a heretic for these issues, because in doing so, he is also calling a heretic: Gill, Pink, Luther and a number of others!

He needs to know that a HERETIC is one who goes against Apostolic teaching in the Christ-centric message; NOT ONE WHO GOES AGAINST OTHERS' CONFESSION OF FAITH; He must prove above and beyond shadow of doubt that, the acceptance of the 66 book canons, is, not only essential for salvation, but also essential for one to be called a Christian and quote Scripture; quoting confessions won't do it.

I do think he is a neophyte who has not ever gone beyond studying what has been dished out to him by the mainstream reformed Confessional. In his profile he delineates the confessions he subscribes to. All are the same as I do, but I do not elevate them to the level of the Scripture and do not label a heretic any genuine reformed person (reformed being one who celebrates the Sovereignty of God and basically follows the teaching of the Reformers, without necessarily BLINDLY obeying them). Note that Baptists are heretics (at least in Europe) to Presbyterians, specially on the issue of baptism... etc. So, the term heretic has been used too loosely by some neophytes and by some more experienced brethren as well (guilty as charged) and should not be used hastily, ESPECIALLY BY SOMEONE WHO ACCEPTS JAMES AS HOMOLEGUMENA: James teaches them not to "lash others with their tongue", and Mr. Chew needs to be chewed by James because he is in direct violation of James' teaching!

Do whatever you please, Brandan, but of course I don't need to tell you that...

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

When I get time! :) If I recall, even Clark and Hoeksema believed in Justification from Eternity.

This is the only link I found supporting what you said above. Both Hoeksma, Kuypeer and Brine believed E.J. and their ENTIRE Protestant Reformed Church and/or the Dutch Reformed would be HERETICS according to the neophyte...

http://books.google.com/books?id=xYmwI3Ovh9UC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=Hoeksma+on+eternal+justification&source=bl&ots=mrX34hmxsW&sig=ohM8qNmps_1i3o2BJ80fnBQ_OVQ&hl=en&ei=epupS6XbNIzWNYacnN8B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I hope this LONG link helps... Read the excerpt on the lower part of page 43 and page 44.
(You can't copy and paste... It is copyrighted material)

(Maybe all of you want to drop the subject... if so, let me know. I will go quietly in the night...)

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

This is the only link I found supporting what you said above. Both Hoeksma, Kuypeer and Brine believed E.J. and their ENTIRE Protestant Reformed Church and/or the Dutch Reformed would be HERETICS according to the neophyte...

http://books.google.com/books?id=xYmwI3Ovh9UC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=Hoeksma+on+eternal+justification&source=bl&ots=mrX34hmxsW&sig=ohM8qNmps_1i3o2BJ80fnBQ_OVQ&hl=en&ei=epupS6XbNIzWNYacnN8B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I hope this LONG link helps... Read the excerpt on the lower part of page 43 and page 44.
(You can't copy and paste... It is copyrighted material)

(Maybe all of you want to drop the subject... if so, let me know. I will go quietly in the night...)

Milt

One more link: A great study on the issue of EJ, similar to a real debate:

http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2005.htm#The Doctrine of Eternal Justification in Light of the Westminster Tradition (2)

Milt

[gerhard]

He is calling you a heretic for E.J., for not believing "Duty Faith" and the Book of James; He must admit or retract calling you a heretic for these issues, because in doing so, he is also calling a heretic: Gill, Pink, Luther and a number of others!

He needs to know that a HERETIC is one who goes against Apostolic teaching in the Christ-centric message; NOT ONE WHO GOES AGAINST OTHERS' CONFESSION OF FAITH; He must prove above and beyond shadow of doubt that, the acceptance of the 66 book canons, is, not only essential for salvation, but also essential for one to be called a Christian and quote Scripture; quoting confessions won't do it.

“For one to be properly called a heretic, it is required (1) that he be a person received by the Sacrament of Baptism into the visible church; (2) that he err in faith …; (3) that the error conflict directly with the very foundation of faith; (4) that to the error be added malice and obstinacy, in which he stubbornly defends his error, though repeatedly admonished; (5) that he stir up dissensions and scandals in the church and rend its unity." J. Gerhard, Loci theologici, XIII

Using Gerhard's classic definition of heretic, Daniel has failed to prove his case: 1. Has Brandan Kraft even been baptized? Where's the evidence? 2. E.J., denial of duty-faith, and the omission of James from the canon are widely held catholic principles. Only Papists declare them anathema (See Council of Trent). 3. Daniel did not identify any error that touched on the foundation of faith (Christ as Redeemer). 4. Brandan Kraft was labeled heretic without being given a chance to defend his position. 5. Internet forums are not "the church" and cannot rend its unity.

[GraceAmbassador]

“For one to be properly called a heretic, it is required (1) that he be a person received by the Sacrament of Baptism into the visible church; (2) that he err in faith …; (3) that the error conflict directly with the very foundation of faith; (4) that to the error be added malice and obstinacy, in which he stubbornly defends his error, though repeatedly admonished; (5) that he stir up dissensions and scandals in the church and rend its unity." J. Gerhard, Loci theologici, XIII

Using Gerhard's classic definition of heretic, Daniel has failed to prove his case: 1. Has Brandan Kraft even been baptized? Where's the evidence? 2. E.J., denial of duty-faith, and the omission of James from the canon are widely held catholic principles. Only Papists declare them anathema (See Council of Trent). 3. Daniel did not identify any error that touched on the foundation of faith (Christ as Redeemer). 4. Brandan Kraft was labeled heretic without being given a chance to defend his position. 5. Internet forums are not "the church" and cannot rend its unity.

Excellent Dan! Thank you!

I have repented with bitter tears for having used this term loosely in the past! I think, in cases like the views of Daniel on Brandan thoughts, it purely demonstrates the neophyte character of the one calling the other a heretic... May God grant me maturity in Him so I will not use this term loosely.

Milt

[gerhard]

Yes, it's very sad. Daniel Chew condemns Brandan Kraft for his view of the canon, "You are however condemned not for your view of eternal justification but for throwing James out of the Canon - let's be clear about that."

Where have we heard that before? "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema." Council of Trent

Daniel follows the logic of Trent. He thereby condemns Luther, the early church fathers, and a host of Reformed and Lutheran theologians who all reject James as a canonical book on a par with other canonical books of the bible.

[Robert R. Higby]

Right on Dan! In all the centuries since the Diet of Regensburg, where Protestants subscribed to the high canonicity of James in order to please the Papacy, the respected teachers and theologians of Protestantism have been EQUATING the issue of the authority of scripture with the issue of the authority of James as one and the same. If one denies the latter, he/she is proposed to be aligned with the same level of heresy as those who deny the Trinity, Deity and blood atonement of Christ, 5solas, etc.

So the truth on this issue has not been acknowledged by well-published Protestant teachers at all! It is ground into the dust as sure and certain as the gospel itself was ground into the dust by the Papacy for well over a thousand years.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Here's my response;


ESV: II Timothy Chapter 1
3. I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day.
4. As I remember your tears, I long to see you, that I may be filled with joy.
5. I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.
6. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands,
7. for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
8. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God,
9. who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
10. and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

[Robert R. Higby]

This is one of the best Pauline passages on Grace from eternity and it completely harmonizes with Eph. 1. This Grace was/is MANIFESTED in time, not GIVEN in time!

I'm thinking right now on the whole concept of 'sanctification from eternity' and will soon write about it.

--Bob

[Myrddin]

I think it's a big shame that people would anathematize you for believing in eternal justification. This amateur believes in Justification in Time, but I have an open mind about it, and appreciate all your insights on it. Anyway, what do you say about Genesis 15:6 ("And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."), and Pauls quotation of it in Romans 4:3 ('What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”'), and his further comment in Romans 4:9-10 ("We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 (http://bible.cc/romans/4-10.htm)Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!"). Sounds to me like a point in time justification (and definitely *not* when Abe offered Isaac on the altar, contra James), though decreed from all eternity to be for the Elect. If you've already dealt with these verses, a simple pointer to the right thread or article will do. I enjoy your site! Cheers, John.

[Greg Winegar]

I think this answers any debate on EJ:


Ephesians 1:3: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ;
Ephesians 1:4: according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
Ephesians 1:5: having predestined us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Ephesians 1:6: to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He has made us accepted in the One having been loved.
Ephesians 1:7: In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace,
Ephesians 1:8: which He caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding;
Ephesians 1:9: having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
Ephesians 1:10: for an administration of the fullness of times, to head up all things in Christ, both the things in Heaven, and the things on earth, even in Him,
Ephesians 1:11: in whom also we have been chosen to an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will,
Ephesians 1:12: for us to be to the praise of His glory, who previously had trusted in Christ;
Ephesians 1:13: in whom also you, hearing the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, in whom also believing, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 1:14: who is the earnest of our inheritance, to the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

[Brandan Kraft]

John, thanks for your comment! Nobody here would deny that justification occurs in time. Search the forums here, we've talked about it before. But essentially, there are two main types of justification in Scripture. 1) Constituted Righteousness (Justification before God) ---- 2) DECLARED Righteousness (God's communication of Christ's righteousness to the mind of the the elect via faith)

The issue is not really in my opinion about the doctrine of Justification, but essentially it's the topic of GOD and His attributes. Is He eternal? Is He bound by time? Is He dependent upon something happening in time for His affections to change? A justification without an eternal element essentially leads to a MUTABLE god as opposed to the immutable Sovereign Lord we worship.

If you have an opportunity, take a look a the article "2006 Eager Ave. Grace Church Review." The topic of the timing of Justification is the major theme of the paper....

http://www.predestinarian.net/content/23-2006-Eager-Avenue-Conference-Review

Thank you for posting!

[Brandan Kraft]

Genesis 15:6 ("And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."), and Pauls quotation of it in Romans 4:3 ('What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”'), and his further comment in Romans 4:9-10 ("We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Christ's righteousness was credited to Abraham in the mind of Abraham by faith alone. This was a revealing from God to Abraham that he was now righteous in God's sight. Yet from God's perspective, Abraham was always constituted as righteous.

[Brandan Kraft]

John, here is a video we made in 2006 about the topic of Justification from Eternity...


http://vimeo.com/23135501

[Brandan Kraft]

Here's another critique...: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/EternalJustification.html

[Greg Winegar]

First off I love the name dropping.
The Neo-Amyraldians Tony Byrne and David Ponter for example routinely castigate all who refuse to impute irrationality to God as "hyper-Calvinists", attacking both Dr. James R. White and Dr. Robert Reymond in the process.I suppose in this this guy's world like most reformed buffoons, you must have a doctors of divinity after your name to be worthy of listening to. I love the reformed church's caste system.

He also has qualifiers:
Despite the fact that the term has been frequently abused, there is a sense in which the term applies to those who are historically called Hyper-Calvinists. Hyper-Calvinism therefore can be defined as believing in any one of these:


God is the author of sin and evil
Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
God does not command all people to repent of sin
Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification (antinomianism)
Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only “Calvinists” are Christians)
Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence (common grace)
Though I personally agree with some of this list but not all, it begs the question "would that make me a partial hyper calvinist?"

I decided to stop when I got to this next quote.
The theory of Eternal Justification therefore seeks to preserve the fact that God is the one who only saves. Eschewing Arminianism as heresy, it seeks to remove all forms and semblances of human co-operation in salvation, thus making the entirety of salvation absolutely of God as the only active agent and sinners as passive recipients..I guess this guy thinks that actively participating in his salvation is biblical. I think Balaam's ass was smarter than this dumb @$$.

I have read this sort of drivel before and I've come to realize I really don't care what this guy or the rest of the reformed church thinks of me or my brethren. They are blind leaders of the blind and have no light in which to see by. These "Calvinists" don't seem to understand that they have made their god only somewhat sovereign and that only leads to more problems.

I guess that's what happens when you build a god in your own image.

[Brandan Kraft]

Well the guy has a new argument I haven't seen before.... Let's give him some kudos for originality. Scroll on down to the section titled: "The crux of the issue: Eternal Timelessness versus Everlasting time"


Time has to do with succession. However, as what Reymond has pointed out, the advocates of timeless eternity confuse the "idea of succession" with the "succession of ideas". The idea of "divine time" therefore has to do with the "idea of succession". God never does learn anything new nor change in any way, yet that does not mean that He does not have an [epistemic] idea of succession in which He knows every single event in successive detail. To make it simpler, God knows everything past, present and future, but these past, present and future events do happen successively in chronology before God.

I disagree with him that we deny the concept of a "succession of ideas." God's unfolding plan of predestination certainly was a succession of ideas, but these succession of ideas start at the end view and work their way back. The succession of ideas is not timely, but LOGICAL. I wouldn't call that "divine time" though! We also do not deny that God works His ideas out in time. But to say God's perception is BOUND by that time is ridiculous.

[Forester07]

Here's another critique...: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_...ification.html (http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/theology/EternalJustification.html)

Actually this is the same guy that this thread was originally started for. Here is his blog that is in the OP.

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/search/label/Hyper-Calvinism

[rlhuckle]

Most seminaries (IMO) are merely theological "sales" and "engineering" academies that specialize in the design and marketing of deities.

[Robert R. Higby]

Exactly, they fashion a god in their own image that would run the universe as they see fit and proceed to market him/her to the world for profit!

[Saint Nicholas]

Actually this is the same guy that this thread was originally started for. Here is his blog that is in the OP.

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/search/label/Hyper-Calvinism

After reading some of the articles on their website, I have found that they have misrepresented our beliefs to some degree.

My comments will be in blue letters after some of their statements.



God is the author of sin and evil
This is true,

Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
This is false. All men have a will. But their will is not free from God's own will.

Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
If their definition of responsible means to be accountable, then I would disagree
If they define responsible as to mean that human actions and decisions originate
soley within themselves apart from any Divine Causality, then I agree


Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
On the former, I agree. On the latter, I disagree.

God does not command all people to repent of sin
God commands His elect people to repent of sin. And they do obey that command
because God causes them to repent.The non-elect will for ever rebel against any command from God.

Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
If they mean ( and I think they do) man has a duty and the ability to believe, I disagree.

God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
I agree. Unbelief is existent within the non-elect via a positive decree from the initial creation of each unique soul.

Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith.
I disagree. Assurance of election can only be known after regeneration and faith.

Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification(antinomianism)
To the former, I agree. To the latter, I disagree. Sanctification is the fruit and
and consequence of a true profession of faith.


Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only “Calvinists” are Christians)
I disagree. There are many Calvinist that are not Christians either.

Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
I disagree. You must first be born from above. Then and only then can a true believer
understand Limited atonement.

Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
Proclaiming the Gospel is never wrong and unnecessary. However most current forms
Evangelism (soul winning) are quite wrong.

God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence (common grace)
God loves Elect humanity, and hates non-elect humanity.

[GraceAmbassador]

When a person starts his/her argument, or uses in any debate the argument "The Westminster Confession of faith "against, or in favor, or teaches" this person sounds to me (maybe unwillingly and unknowingly) placing an importance over the WFC that is equal to the Bible itself. It is what I said in another Thread: it sounds as Papist as Papist can be. It is an imposition; you believe different then the WFC therefore you're wrong, (heretic, etc.). So, this fellow has no credibility. He was the one who made me place a status on F.B. once where I said that I was tired of debating with Presbies while they could not say anything without quoting the WCF miles and hours before they ever even quoted the Bible. No credibility to me! Novices! Bible students seeking the notoriety that they certainly will NEVER achieve because the very monster they defend will make sure that they never come out of their shell and be useful for the biblical Gospel.

Milt

[Saint Nicholas]

When a person starts his/her argument, or uses in any debate the argument "The Westminster Confession of faith "against, or in favor, or teaches" this person sounds to me (maybe unwillingly and unknowingly) placing an importance over the WFC that is equal to the Bible itself. It is what I said in another Thread: it sounds as Papist as Papist can be. It is an imposition; you believe different then the WFC therefore you're wrong, (heretic, etc.). So, this fellow has no credibility. He was the one who made me place a status on F.B. once where I said that I was tired of debating with Presbies while they could not say anything without quoting the WCF miles and hours before they ever even quoted the Bible. No credibility to me! Novices! Bible students seeking the notoriety that they certainly will NEVER achieve because the very monster they defend will make sure that they never come out of their shell and be useful for the biblical Gospel.

Milt

Well said Milton! This very box (prison cell) that they are confined too can only be shattered and opened by God's merciful Grace upon them. That is why I deplore denominationalism. Those that try to break away are shunned and labeled as backslidden or heretics.

They themselves are no better than the Papists in this regard.

Nicholas