5solas.org and PristineGrace.org make Phil Johnson's bad theology page!!! Woo Hoo!!!

[Brandan Kraft]

Brandan. I did not check the link to the sound file. But "wayoflife" looks familiar. Is "the guy" perchance David W Cloud?

Brother, you are most definitely correct.

If so then I am familiar with him. He is a "fundamental Baptist". Soteriologically he is closer to "arminianism" than "calvinism", but could probably be labeled as "semi arminian" or "3 point calvinist" or something like that. I think he mainly praises Spurgeon because Spurgeon was such a "soul winner". Cloud is of those fundamental Baptists who makes much of "soul winning" so called, and missionism, but he has written against decisionism though.

Yeah, I kind of discovered that at the end of his sermon. I was listening to this guy praise Spurgeon and soul winning, and then turn around and criticize most baptists for their decisionism. It was actually quite a bit surprising.

As for myself I have some respect for Cloud for some things he has said and taken a stand for, but am well aware of his many errors. I have a comparatively interesting book written by him, called "Rome and the Bible". I also have others but this would be about the only worth having as far as I am concerned, as one being interested in bibliology.

As for this Phil Johnson I do not know him, but he errs in many things. Usually in those things where he carps against "hypercalvinists" he is himself in error. There are errors on the part of some known hypercalvinists past and present, but Johnson has for some reason concentrated on the issues where the hypers are right, like duty faith, and the free offer and such like.

Exactly! What a shame that he didn't mention a doctrine like conditional time salvation. It turns out that many of the primitive baptists are universalists as well, but did you hear anything about that? Not at all. I wouldn't call this "hyper-calvinism" though.

Among such errors on the part of hypers I would mention water baptism, which some have been ignorantly zealous for. Myself has recently come to believe water baptism is a real dividing factor, which has no Divine sanction for today. Whether one holds to immersion or sprinkling or pouring or whatever mode.

Harald, that is my opinion as well. Baptist hypers won't even call you a brother unless you're rebaptized in their church. The Old School Absoluters, whom I admire greatly are so exclusionary, they won't even call each other brothers unless they're part of the same local church sometimes.

I also saw you are to write a book. This is not an easy task by any means.

I'm chugging right along on my first chapter and about ready to chuck it and start over again. I think you are right, but I want to have a simple easy to read book on soteriology and basic covenant theology that's easy for anyone to read.

I think it shall be interesting to look at it when you are finished with it. Stanley C Phillips wrote, some years ago, a book in defence of "Hypercalvinism". I have it and did read it with interest. He said many things well, but also some thing not so well at all as compared to what the Scripture says.

I have corresponded with Stanley and have purchased his book. I read it about four months ago and I think it was excellent! However, as you said, it was not perfect, and there were a couple errors. One such error which I actually corresponded with him by e-mail about was that absoluters when asked will not call themselves a christian. They'll tell you, "I hope so". Now, that answer is alright by me, and that's the response I give to people that inquire into my faith. However, I will also tell them that I believe the Spirit has testified to my conscience that I am one of His. It seems that the Absoluters don't emphasize assurance being the essance of faith, and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

- Brandan

[harald]

Brandan. Thanks for your thoughts.
When I hinted at errors of hypercalvinists I did not then have in mind Conditional Time Salvationists. But now that you bring them up I recall they are one error fraught faction. It might be appropriate on my part to bring up some things I consider errors on the part of hypers, but not here and now. Maybe later if occasion is given.

As for the Old School Absoluters I admit that I have admired them. Perhaps not so much anymore. Because I have seen some serious defects in their opinions etc. But I think this was new to me that they won't even call each other brother if not of the same church. I have seen in the Absoluters and in PBs generally a boasting, as if they only were "the true church(es) of Christ on earth". Or "the true followers of Jesus", or whatever lofty titles they give themselves.
I think that when some movement begins to give itself fine sounding epithets like "Primitive Old School Baptist" or "Old School Absolute Predestinarian Baptist", and begins to identify itself as such (cp. "we're of the Primitive Baptist order"), then apostasy has begun to set in. That is, if indeed the movement has been of God from the first. This would be interesting to discuss, whether you have had similar thoughts.

As for Stan's book I recall also the thing you bring up. I did not regard that an error, though. It may or may not be false humility, I do not now wish to go into which it is or may be. But I do know that the word "Christian" occurs about 3 times in the NT. Once in the mid of Acts, where it is said that the heathen began first calling the disciples "christians" in Antioch. Then it was in later part of Acts that some ruler used the word when he spoke to Paul. The ruler was not a believer himself. Paul did not use "christian" of himself. Then Peter in his epistle uses it once. It appears to me the early believers did not themselves self-label themselves with this epithet. Paul in his epistles uses not "Christian" at all. The epithet is most misused today. I personally do not use it for myself. If any one else uses it with regard to me that is their business.

As for Absoluters and teaching on assurance I think some may teach this and some that. To say "I hope so" when asked by someone "Are you a Christian?" is not to use the Scripture verb "to hope" in a scriptural manner. The verb "elpizô" briefly means "to confidently expect (something) or anticipate". Thus if one asked Stan "are you a Christian?" and he would answer "I hope so" he seems to mean "I would definitely want it to be so" (or with closely similar sense). But this is an unscriptural usage of "to hope" (elpizô). To be specific. A definite error I spotted in Stan's book, which was confusing to me, was that "the faith of Jesus Christ" within a man is what justifies before God. This is, it seemed to me, how he interpreted Rom. 3:22 from the KJV. If this was indeed Stan's genuine and sincere belief at the time he wrote the book I say he was ignorant of Paul's gospel back then. Indeed I have come to see Absoluters generally are not united in their view of forensic justification. And few if any of them are scripturally dogmatic about the timing of it. This is alarming indeed. If justification before God as to God's elect did not take place at Christ's being on that cross then it has never occurred. It is there or not at all.

As to water baptism, once more. I have come to suspect that water baptism does not at all pertain to our day and age. I see in Ephesians 4 Paul say "one baptism (immersion)". This is not water immersion. It is the same which he talks about in 1Cor. 12:13. Immersion in the one Spirit into the one Body. Paul did not immerse anyone (if the record of Acts is true) after Acts 19. Ephesians is written some 5 or more years after this, from Rome c. 62 AD or thereabout. And those he baptized at Ephesus (Acts 19) were Jewish believers who had been disciples of John the immerser. If indeed it is true that water baptism ceased sometime during Paul's latter days of life then to me it would explain some crucial errors of otherwise seemingly sound hyper-calvinist Baptists of our day and age. I find all these things most intriguing.


Harald

[Brandan Kraft]

Some further dialog with Stan on the subject about calling yourself a Christian...

You wrote the following in the book: "Are you a Christian?" We heard recently, and frequently, that a certain national president was "a born again evangelical" Christian. Interestingly, we know of no Hyper-calvinist that will ever say "Yes, I'm a 'Christian." This may be shocking to the readers, but they have a good reason for their answer. The above is one. To say that you are a "Christian" is to say that you are "Christ-like." Hyper-calvinists have such an exalted view of Christ, and such an intimate knowledge of themselves, that they dare not compare themselves with Him. Again, their exalted view of His Personage is so great, they cannot bring themselves to compare Him to themselves either! Another reason pertains to their view of salvation. They believe the term "salvation" is all inclusive of the full and complete redemption of both soul and body in the resurrection, and the final stage of this salvation is not until *their* future glorification. Therefore, they do not say "I am saved." There are three great gifts of God that every believer possesses: "Faith, Hope, and Charity." They are "begotten again unto a LIVELY HOPE by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;" and believe that Christ dwells in His people -"in you the Hope of Glory." Thus their answer is "I believe I have a hope in Christ." Or as Paul wrote, "We are saved by HOPE, but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why does he yet hope for." (Rom 8:24) It is sad that too few people know that verse is in the Bilbe! The child of God is called to "walk by faith," and hope is faith in its most basic exercise. A "know-so-salvation" is not walking by "faith." Worse, it is based upon carnal deception in almost all cases. There is no humility in boasting that one is a "Christian," and the deception is so great in the Pelagian "world of the ungodly," that no one should want to be associated with those too ready to call themselves "Christians." "Christians" of this sort, give Christ a very bad image in the eyes of non-christians. (Hyper-Calvinism, Stanley Phillips, pp. 221-223)
I think you make excellent points here... I agree that God's people do have such a high view of Christ and such a low view of themselves that they would not dare claim they are "Christ-like" or another absurdity that I've heard, "have kept the law by Christ's help." I also agree with you and the apostle Paul that God's people are saved by hope. But I also believe there have been a number of saints throughout the centuries that used the word "Christian". It is a biblical word - used in the book of Acts and 1 Peter. No doubt you're familiar with the passages. I'll paste them here for the purpose of discussion.

Acts 11:26, (KJV), And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Acts 26:28, (KJV), Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

1 Pet 4:16, (KJV), Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Most of the old particular baptists, Gospel Standard baptists, and old school baptists in this country including John Gill, JC Philpot, and Gilbert Beebe used the term "Christian" to describe one who has experienced the joy of experiencing regeneration and conversion. In fact, I see that you have used the term in some of your past articles. I don't think they, you, nor myself would ever compare ourselves to Christ in the competive sense. But in a sense I believe that being a Christian inherently means you've debased yourself in your own eyes before Christ. You've agreed with the Word that you are not just a sinner, but the chief of sinners, completey and totally unable to please the Lord. In other words, you agree with God that you are deserving of hell and damnation and have turned to Christ alone as your only hope of righteousness. I believe a Christian is one who sees himself as a worm before the Lord of Glory and he counts his self-righteousness as dung. Now it is true that the vast majority of so-called "christians" are not what they claim to be, however I'm not sure we should reject the terminology because of this. What do you think, and where am I going wrong? If I thought it was presumptuous to adopt that label, I wouldn't be known as such; but since it is a biblical term, I don't necessarily think it is presumption. Further, if a child of God does not consider himself to be a Christian (not "christ-like" but one who loves Christ and revels in the message of "being justified freely by His grace"), what would 1 Pet. 4:16 mean to him?

Stan's reply: In the above you have used the word "Christian" in every case as it should be used. It is Biblical to use it when speaking of the household of faith, and if you can be rather fully persuaded that someone else has had an experience of grace, there is nothing wrong with applying the term to such (so long as you know that one can be deceived by even "good" people in appearance). But I do not find Beebe and Trott, nor other Old School Baptists calling THEMSELVES such, and I can't do it myself. I have a consciousness that it is self-exalting.

[doctr_of_grace]

http://wayoflife.org/streaming/audio...sm-debate.html

Hey, listen to this file by this free willer who denounces calvinism and criticizes "Hyper-Calvinists"! I have difficulty distinguishing between neo-calvinists and arminians. Just listen to this guy!

I just finished listening! WOW this guy PRAISES Spurgeon! Whoda thunk?!

Does this Mr Cloud dude call himself a "neo-calvinist"? Oh of course not!!! How silly of me ... He hates calvinism. I heard him say he isn't an arminian but he holds to "arminian" doctrine. He spends 40 minutes telling us how it is about "Our" decision in salvation then 5 minutes telling us that a man can't make that decision. (are you confused yet?) hahaha

He admits that Spurgeon is inconsistent and he believes that scripture is inconsistent. This double minded belief of Spurgeon (neo-calvinists) leads one to believing in a double minded God.

Brandan this guy misrepresents Calvin like I haven't heard in long time. He says Calvin hated baptists ... he married a baptist hahaha. Oh well ... Thanks for the link it only causes me to be more convicted of the truth of "calvinism". If it weren't such a hateful sermon I would say it is laughable.

Out for now ... Jan

[Skeuos Eleos]

Most of the old particular baptists, Gospel Standard baptists, and old school baptists in this country including John Gill, JC Philpot, and Gilbert Beebe

Brandan,

I know you Americans want to rule the world and like to think everything good must be American. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm afraid Messrs Gill and Philpot are ENGLISH and never lived 'in your country'. Hands off! They're ours!

From your English friend,
Martin

[harald]

Brandan. I have no big problem with Stan's reasoning above. I believe he is doing as his conscience dictates. And I neither have any big problem with your reasoning. As for Stan's saying "christianos" means "Christ-like" I think he is not on the money. If not amiss I think it literally means "belonging to Christ" or "follower of Christ" (cp. the 2nd occurrence in Acts). Not so much having the sense of "Christ-like". I would not have any great problem of calling myself (or being called) "follower of Christ". I think it is more proper than "Christian" (at least to me), especially in the light of today's misuse and misunderstanding of what the term originally signified.

Personally I also think people use the word "believer" in a wrong sense, generally. I think most people think "believer" refers to an individual who "believes" IN ORDER TO gain or maintain or secure his present and/or future salvation from the wrath to come. If some free willer over here (most over here are such) would ask me "Are you a believer?", then I'd probably answer something like "Not in the sense you understand the word.". I firmly believe that in the NT e.g. John and Paul uses the word "believer" (translates the Greek present active participle of PISTEUOO - lit. "believing one", or the adjective PISTOS - lit. "faithful one") means a person who believes, trusts, is confident, that salvation from sin is all of and through the grace of Christ apart from conditions or prerequisites or law works etc. A "believer" (in the Pauline and Johannine sense) is one who continuously believes that Christ fulfilled all conditions whatsoever pertaining to salvation and "life eternal". Professed "believers" who think/believe that "faith" (God-given, God wrought such) is a prerequisite or condition of justification before God are not "believers" at all, but "workers", CONDITIONALISTS, DOGS, "of the CONCISION" (mutilation) etc. Such professed believers are "of works of law". Professingdom, not to speak of Calvindom, is swarming of the such today, and they are those who consider themselves "orthodox calvinists" and what more. I trust you see alike.


Harald

[Brandan Kraft]

Brandan,

I know you Americans want to rule the world and like to think everything good must be American. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm afraid Messrs Gill and Philpot are ENGLISH and never lived 'in your country'. Hands off! They're ours!

From your English friend,
Martin

Ya know Martin, England only exists today because the United States jumped in and rescued it during WWII HA!

[ray kikkert]

This may seem a bit silly, but I thought this cartoon summed up the argument pretty well

LOL, the force is not strong in this one. You may be the tool to lead him from the dark side knowing the deadly power it wields. Though the "neck grasp of death" may not yeild the intended purpose.I would submit the lifesaver of sovereign particular irresistable grace will in the end prove to be the ultimate weapon for this one. I can safely advocate that you are not his father though, I see no resemblance whatsoever.



greetings and salutations, el rana