Care to respond to this critique?

[Forester07]

Another attack, mainly on Brandan but also mentioning Nick.

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/...n-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

[Highlyfavored]

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=xYm...age&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=xYm...age&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. 10Under 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.

[Highlyfavored]

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/conten...ference-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...

[Brandan Kraft]

Here's another critique...: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_...ification.html

[Highlyfavored]

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.