Several weeks ago, I received a surprising letter from the NCT website The Word of His Grace, signed by Peter Ditzel. We had last corresponded personally, Peter informed me, in 2007 when I was very ill. So now, in April 2012, five years later Peter was writing to hear if I were now, once again, on my feet. That was the nicest bit about the letter. Then Peter mentioned that he had written some six essays a number of years ago on his site attacking my doctrine of Justification and he had since been informed by a third party that I had responded, though I only discovered the essays some time later when surfing the web for information on Justification. It appears that Peter now wanted a larger public than a mere… Full Article
Posts Tagged Atonement
Ditzel’s Last Stand
Apr 26
Letter on Atonement
Dec 28
A letter to the English Churchman defending the term ‘atonement’ as being descriptive of Christ’s full work on the cross. Sir, The News & Comment article on the atonement (No. 7686) needs etymological and theological correction. The assertions that ‘at-one-ment’ is a breaking up of ‘atonement’; is only ‘a result of atonement’ (not atonement itself); and this is merely a ‘marvellous coincidence’; are false. The word ‘atonement’ was intentionally coined from the three particles ‘at’, ‘one’ and ‘ment’. Thus the term ‘atonement’ is meaningless if made to stand outside of its individual parts and semantic content. The word was a Reformation neologism, used to translate the Hebrew and… Full Article
Clifford’s New Reformation
Dec 11
Sir: Dr Allan Clifford (Issue 7780) wants a New Reformation, built on his own mixture of Amyraldism, legal, fictive justification and works-righteousness, arguing that the old Biblical Reformation was wrong. I am suspicious of Clifford’s lip-rejection of Rome and denounce his false Protestantism. Clifford’s atonement is not the Biblical-Reformed doctrine on which our reconciliation, redemption, justification and sanctification are built. The Bride for whom Christ died is redeemed, justified and sanctified in one synergistic action, impossible to be divided. The corollary to Clifford’s Hyper-Amyraldian idea of atonement is thus his faulty view of justification and sanctification. Clifford rejects our Reformers’ doctrine of… Full Article
The March/April, 1999 number of Reformation Today features four articles on John Gill. The first, entitled John Gill – a Sketch of his Life, is a succinctly written biography of Gill’s faithful and productive life in the service of the gospel. Next, Editor Errol Hulse continues with John Gill – An Appreciation, presented as a review of The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771), (ed. Michael Haykin). Here, Hulse ignores the facts of Gill’s own testimony to make what he calls ‘a fair assessment of the damage which emanated from his errors.’ Thus, though the book Hulse reviews chiefly depicts Gill as a great evangelist and soul-winner, his one-sided critique is centred on Gill’s supposed Hyper-Calvinism and lack of… Full Article
A Response to remarks of Dr. Frank Page made in the English Churchman SB origins were Calvinistic It was encouraging to read in No. 7732 concerning Reformed Southern Baptists and the Reformed faith. On April 30, 1858, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary drew up a charter which they called the ‘Fundamental Law’ of the SB churches and which stated that every Professor in the seminary and student for the SB ministry must believe the twenty principles outlined. These were all soundly Reformed (Calvinistic). Modern critics of the SB’s credal stance, complain that the principles were thrust on the movement by James P. Boyce and were not representative of the Southern Baptists. SB-rebel Jeff Pool in his Against… Full Article
For Whom did Christ Die?
Oct 5
Nowadays we are assailed from all sides with the novel and un-Biblical doctrine that Christ actually died to atone for all sinners, though this atonement is only a theoretical provision to be made good by the agency of man. Such a teaching is called Theoretical Universalism and such a teaching is demonstrably false. This teaching does not distinguish between the state of man before the fall and his state after the fall, viewing all men as on probation, like Adam, until they reject or accept Christ. There are seven good reasons for rejecting this error: 1. The objects of redemption are the objects of God’s love God has a special saving love which must be distinguished from His general, providential goodness… Full Article
Pink on Satisfaction
Aug 18
Arthur Pink, The Satisfaction of Christ: Studies in the Atonement, Truth for Today Publications. Arthur Pink hardly needs an introduction to the bulk of present day Reformed evangelicals as many of us have grown up with Pink’s books and grown in grace whilst reading them. Pink’s massive tome An Exposition of Hebrews has opened our eyes to covenant blessings, his Elijah (now being translated into Dutch) has shown us how God is still working his purpose out in this modern world and his The Sovereignty of God fills us with awe before our great and glorious Heavenly Father. Pink’s Profiting from the Word is a very handy tool for young Christians and, together with Grier’s The Momentous Event has been the work I have presented a… Full Article
The Atonement
Aug 17
The Atonement in Evangelical Thought: Part I The New-Look in Neo-Evangelicalism Enemies of the Word of God tend to develop their theories along lines of general fashion. One generation chooses to challenge the Sonship of Christ whereas another generation fixes its doubting gaze on the work of the Spirit. In one age it is fashionable to be social-minded, another age chooses to be ascetic and turn its back on the world with all its responsibilities. Modern critics have become more sophisticated and analytical and, professing to be within the church rather than without, they are focusing their gaze on the very centre of our faith and salvation. This is the Work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, otherwise known as the… Full Article
Most readers are familiar with the Calvinist-Arminian controversy of the 18th century in which free-grace, championed by Whitefield, Toplady and Romaine was set against free-will, maintained by Fletcher, Sellon and Wesley. The controversy dealt with whether salvation was made possible by Christ, depending on man’s acceptance of it, or whether Christ secured His Church’s salvation by His atoning death. At the same time, a similar controversy was raging on a closely related topic. “Is the Mosaic Law God’s eternal standard or has it become irrelevant to unbeliever and believer alike as a Covenant of Works and as a yardstick of sanctification?” The leading contestants in the Calvinistic-Arminian controversy were mainly… Full Article
