Monergism degraded into Synergism
through Revisionism
From:
sing
Date:
Sat, Aug 16, 2008, at 12:32 PM
Subject:
modernized wording of 1689 (Stank)
To:
list owner
Brother
Stank,
The
interesting subject heading reminded me of something about the subject.
This
is 1689.10.1 [original version)
Those
whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and
accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state
of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus
Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the
things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart
of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to
that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as
they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
A
popular version [published by Metropolitan Tabernacle]
Those
whom God has predestinated to life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted
time to effectually call by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and
death which they are in by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ. He
enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of
God. He takes away their heart of stone and gives to them a heart of flesh. He
renews their wills, and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue
that which is good. He effectually draws them to Jesus Christ, yet in such a
way that they come absolutely freely, being made willing by His grace.
The
original has:
"....
and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good."
The
'revised' has:
"...
and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is
good."
RBs and Calvinists everywhere insist that the two are STILL speaking about the same thing.
What do you think? I would like to hear your comments. [no reply from 'Stank' whatsoever].
I fear that most who want to modernize the ancient document end up changing the meaning intended by those Framers because they have moved away from the theological mooring of the old particular baptists. I believe the reviser, as indicated in the above attempt at 'modernization,' has somewhat moved from the faith of those who framed the 1689 CoF.
Fullerites were a new breed of Baptists, different from the old particular baptists.
This
and other related issues in this paragraph (10.1) would be an interesting topic
for discussion.
|
[I
did raise the above matter with Dr. Peter Masters much earlier, but received no
response whatsoever.]
sing in the far east.
==========
Since no reply was forthcoming from the listowner, I gave these very brief comments:
The
original has:
"....
and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good."
-
That which is good is none other than the state of grace and salvation into
which the almighty divine brought them when they were completely passive
because they were in their native state of sin and death when that almighty
power was exercised on them.
-
This is 'monergism', pure and pristine; grace, yes unadulterated grace. That
which is good is 'the state of grace and salvation' - all DETERMINED by the
pure and effectual grace of God, apart from anything in the elect, being dead
in trespasses and sins.]
-
This has the almighty power of God DETERMINING them which are in their native
state of sin and death to grace and salvation.
The
'modernized' has:
"....
and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is
good."
-
This is 'synergism' at best, confusion at worst. The power of God causes His
children to desire and pursue that which is good. He works in them (His
children) to will and to do. This is a biblical truth... but this is not the
truth INTENDED by the context of the paragraph and the exact wording of the
Confession.
-
The original focused solely on the CAUSE alone... the divine call that
effectually brought a elect out of that state of sin and death to that of grace
and salvation, even the divine almighty power determining them to that which is
good, the state of grace and eternal salvation.
-
The 'modernized' focused on the human effects of the divine cause. There is now
the human part of desiring and pursuing that which is good!
The almighty power that determines the elect who are dead in trespasses and sins to eternal good has been turned into an almighty power that enables the elect who are dead in trespasses and sins to desire and pursue that which is good.
On the one hand, by God's almighty power, good is determined and secured for the elect. This is grace indeed.
On the other hand, by God's almighty power, God's elect must desire and determine for themselves that which is good. This is work, a repudiation of grace.
What is that 'good' which is determined by the almighty power of God for everyone predestinated unto eternal life?
What is that 'good' which the elect of God, who have been enabled by the almighty power of God, to desire and pursue for themselves? Is the same 'good' being considered?
The attempt at modernizing truth has turned grace into works or putting it another way...
'Gillism' has been turned into ' Fullerism.'
It
is revisionism, the similar game with all those new versions of the Bible!
Men, EVEN sincere men, have that perverse inclination and evil propensity to pervert and degrade the monergism of divine grace into the synergism with man's work.
=========
Comments
Bill
Taylor
Eph
2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
We are HIS workmanship, created in Christ Jesus. That which is created is NOT a partial work, but a completed work. Did we create ourselves? Or did God do a part of the work and leave the rest up to us to finish? Poor workmanship, that! No, we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works - HIS good works of election, predestination, redemption, and salvation - which He hath before ORDAINED that we should walk in THEM. We walk in the works He has wrought. He does those good works and is pleased to bring us effectually to them, for His glory and our good.
Charles
Page
no
way!
Charles
Page
you
dare attack the Metropolitan Tabernacle!!!
Sing
F Lau
Attack
no one, but upholding the truth of the gospel of grace.
Always
pro-truth, anti-error is merely accidental.
Sing
F Lau
No
which or what way?
Charles
Page
Metropolitan
Tabernacle = CH Spurgeon, exalted head of 33rd degree Reformed order, 5 point
calvinist
Dallas
Eaton II
Brother
Sing, this is the same effort as that to make CTS acceptable in language to
presentation to the people, mo. I see no difference in determine or cause,
though I have not looked at the original or modern meaning of either word.
For this reason, I insist on the terms Conditional Time Salvation, it speaks exactly what it is and what the Bible teaches. No confusion. But, understanding of or meanings of words do change. I find it interesting to note the Word is the same in both versions. What Word is this? the Express Image of God or the written? I would guess this statement meant the written, therein is where I would find my anti-position rather than in the determine. But, I may be wrong. Or at least, not right...
Sing
F Lau
New
schoolers who adore Spurgeon do DESPISE the man he owned as own his mentor.
Gill! Isn't very strange phenomenon?
Spurgeon was halfway between Gillism and Fullerism.
Dallas
Eaton II
yep.
I agree.
Sing
F Lau
I
find it interesting to note the Word is the same in both versions. What Word is
this
=======
Effectual calling involves bringing a man out of his native state of sins and death to that state of grace and salvation... on this consideration ...alone, the Word must be the eternal life-giving Logos.
Effectual calling involves EVERY SINGLE ELECT... if the Word is not the eternal life-giving Logos, but the written/preached word, then the effectual calling of many elect is put into serious doubt.
Just two reasons are enough to debunk the fanciful idea of the Fullerites.
Dallas
Eaton II
Brother
Sing, that was my point. The same power that is effectual toward regeneration
is recognized in both versions. The same power, the Logos.
I do not know the difference between determine and cause. They seem to be obvious in my language today, but were they obviously different in 1856? I don't know. I would have to look.
Dallas
Eaton II
Most
Sovereign Grace Baptists I know oppose Fuller, and Spurgeon because of his
position on open communion. There are several different grounds for opposition.
Sing
F La
Dallas
@ Brother Sing, that was my point. The same power that is effectual toward
regeneration is recognized in both versions. The same power, the Logos.
=========
The same word yes, but VASTLY different meanings.
EVERY Fullerite takes 'Word' to mean the preached word to be consistent with their gospel regeneration.
Old school baptists take it as the eternal life-giving Word, the second person of the Godhead. The Triune God is actively involved in unison in the effectual call out of the native state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation.
Dallas
Eaton II
Yeah.
That is why I said I would take issue with the two versions of the usage of the
Word, 'word.' That was the issue that jumped out at me when I read it, I didn't
perceive a possible difference in cause and determine, I would have to look
those two words up in the context of Spurgeon's understanding and compared to
today's usage.
But, the understanding of the Word by Spurgeon was very different. He often preached that millions were dying daily the world over for lack of gospel ministers entering into the mission field, yeah, he was in error.
Sing
F Lau
Dallas
@ "I do not know the difference between determine and cause. "
==========
It
is NOT just the word 'determines' and 'causes.'
Look
carefully now:
"....
and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good."
"...
and by His almighty power, causes them to desire and pursue that which is
good."
The former involves divine activity ONLY, God's activity terminates on the object and brings them to that which is good.
The latter involves human activities (as an effect) to desire and pursue that which is good.
Former:
His
almighty power >> determines them >> to good
(no
human activity here)
Latter:
His
almighty power >> causes them >> to desire and pursue >> good
(human activity here between God's power that causes and the good attained)
A world of difference!
Dallas
Eaton II
ok.
What distinction did Paul make in Romans 7? The word pursue becomes the
problem. that inner man would be either determined or caused to desire and
pursue, but we have the warfare in the flesh that does despite or grieves that
Spirit of Grace.
But I understand what you are saying now and I do not disagree with you.
Charles
Page
did
my comment get deleted, Sing?
Sing
F Lau
Soldier
Charles, no, I have not deleted any comment in the last few months. I normally
demand the offending person to delete themselves... failing which then I will
delete.
Charles
Page
it
is that enter delima of FB ...I forget!!! my error try to comment tomorrow.
good discussion a bit deep for my mind but I am trying!
Sing
F Lau
Flavio,
Gill regularly distinguished between unconditional eternal salvation by the
free grace of God, and temporal salvation conditioned upon the obedience of
God's children.
Apostle
Paul taught the same.
[Flavio
has deleted all his comments]
Sing
F Lau
Dallas,
what about Romans 7?
Sing
F Lau
You
go and do your own homework.
Then
you have not read Gill much.
Go
and read more... go search 'temporal' or 'conditional' in his works... and be
instructed.
Better still, go directly to the Scriptures.
Have fun. I am leaving for the morning service.
Sing
F Lau
Flavio,
just something to whet your appetite:
In
commenting 2Thes 2
13
¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the
Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
Gill
wrote:
".....
The end to which men, by this act, are chosen, is "salvation": not
temporal, though the elect of God are appointed to many temporal salvations and
deliverances, and which they enjoy both before and after conversion; yet
salvation here designs the salvation of the soul, though not exclusive of the
body, a spiritual and an eternal salvation, salvation by Jesus Christ, as is
expressed in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 and the same decree that appoints men to
salvation, appoints Christ to be the Saviour of them; and there is salvation in
and by no other."
Did you read, "... though the elect of God are appointed to many temporal salvations and deliverances, and which they enjoy both before and after conversion..."
Old school baptists most certainly knew the distinction between eternal salvation and temporal salvations!
Sing
F Lau
Let
me ask you, did Gill makes the distinction between eternal salvation and
temporal salvations?
If
he did not, you stay on to argue with me.
If
he did, then admit and hold thy peace.
No raving and foaming here. Why should I waste time with Bartley's article?
Sing
F Lau
What
makes you think so? Gill is not so daft as many think!!!
You
commit one basic error - you learn your idea of temporal salvation from those
who oppose and caricature it. Foolish method! You see, one basic rule in
life... if you want to learn something, learn it from those who believe and
teach it, and not from those who oppose and caricature it. Then if you still cannot
agree, give a better explanation to debunk what has been presented.
In
your understanding, temporal salvation relate to natural things - like
salvations from illnesses and burning building - that are common to men as men!
In the Scriptures, temporal salvation relates to spiritual things that concern God's children! Your idea is as far from the truth as the east from the west.
If you need to grind your axe, do it elsewhere! But if you to sharpen your axe, hang around and we will learn together.
1Ti 4:16 "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
What is the salvation spoken of that is conditioned on Timothy's faithfulness in his ministry? How does a faithful ministry save those children of God under Timothy's charge? deliverance and salvations from illnesses and burning building etc???
Ph 2:12 "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
What is the salvation spoken of that is conditioned on the faithfulness the Philippian believers in working out for themselves? Deliverance and salvations from illnesses and burning building etc???
Flavio, surely you can do better! Come on, brother!
Charles
Page
can't
wade in,,, too deep! Soldiers aren't supposed to be smart just obedient!
I understand eternal salvation and temporal salvation and "for the life of me" I can't understand how there is any argument if anyone subscribes to the clear difference of the two. On one hand we are regenerated monergistically and guaranteed an eternal life with God and on the other hand we are left on this earth to become aware of that salvation and incorporate it into a life here on earth, working it out with fear and trembling.
if one is not capable of coming to awareness he is none the less regenerated and has an eternal life thru Christ.
Sing
F Lau
Charles,
triple amens, and hearty ones!
I
believe US Marines are some of the most intelligent and fearsomely obedient
soldiers! They strike fear into their enemies.
May
we be soldiers like that!
Charles
Page
Not
only US, but British, Israeli, Russian, etc. special forces people are
specially trained in many forms of knowledge and I am humbled by your
comparison and I wish nothing better than to be Christ's special forces saint!
Sing
F Lau
Flavio
@ "You're saying Gill contradicted himself? I'm only concerned about
"eternal life" salvation of the elect, not salvation from a burning
building. Easy strawman to build.
What makes you think I say Gill contradicts himself? I am not. I said Gill rightly distinguished monergistic eternal salvation and synergistic temporal salvation.
But
if you want to be concerned with eternal salvation alone, then you are
DEFICIENT in understanding, choosing to believe half the truth, then that's
your choice, but don't accuse Gill of contradicting himself!
