tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post8149167101228114821..comments2024-03-26T00:19:08.753-07:00Comments on The World's Ruined: Lest There be any Confusion as to Grace, Works, Faith, and Salvation... C. Hodge: "Salvation is in no sense, and in no degree, of works"Jack Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-43518399822261976442017-11-27T13:53:57.047-08:002017-11-27T13:53:57.047-08:00Hi Tim,
I wrote a reply the other day and now see ...Hi Tim,<br />I wrote a reply the other day and now see that it didn't post. I'd be more than happy to converse with you via email as to my history and anything else pertaining to your walk through various church traditions. My email link is on the side bar right below the Follower section > Send An Email - Jack Miller<br /><br />Blessings...Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-20408363871896530142017-11-27T13:50:54.769-08:002017-11-27T13:50:54.769-08:00Hi Roy,
The conflation of faith and works when ...Hi Roy,<br /><br />The conflation of faith and works when it comes to justification and salvation is far from a fringe error. Since the Reformation one can trace it from Arminius (thus the Canons of Dort) to Baxter (Owen's book on Justification was in part a refutation of Baxter's teaching) to Wesley, and more recently those who adhere to Federal Vision and its offshoots. The most current expression of this controversy was triggered by the teachings of John Piper and the support lent to him by Mark Jones. I think Dr. Jones has somewhat muddied the clear waters of Scripture as in the above quote of Hodge. That quote sums up what one needs to hear about necessity of good works FOR salvation, i.e. none. That being said, I agree with your run down on the need to hear teaching regarding the necessity of good works as our obedience to the Lord as well as warnings to all believers given our weaknesses and slothfulness expressed in our natural neglect of obedience and taking sin too lightly.<br />Blessings...Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-75911726189462425012017-11-27T11:52:17.437-08:002017-11-27T11:52:17.437-08:00Jack, what evangelical much less what reformed bel...Jack, what evangelical much less what reformed believer makes works the final ground of salvation? OK, there are a few fringe types. But what is going on across the reformed church? Not those groups, existent tho they may be. <br /><br />There exists a much greater danger in others who confuse in their wrestling with these truths: 1)The incredible wonder of a new life brought by regeneration. 2) The definitive certainty of multiple avenues of recognizing that God commands obedience, even holiness. 3) The totally undeniable need for grace to hear, to understand, and then to obey. 4) The multiple clues that those who do not do 3 are very possibly not regenerate (the outline of the Epistles, the idea of discipline, the explicit statements of Jesus, the warnings of Hebrews, the warnings of Rev 2-3, any biblically aware reader can provide many more.<br /><br />In this there is mystery, where on the one hand or from one perspective, all is of God, while on the other, all happens because a person chooses. Just like the mystery of that work of believing, of exercising faith (see what I did?). Some simply scorn the mystery. We call the Arminians, or Hyper-Calvinists when talking about hearing and responding to the Gospel. And we may correctly recognize that the same sort of error takes place among those thinking about sanctification. In their zeal to flee from justification by works, flee from the pernicious error, they bite into and consume a different apple. <br /><br />In their resultant confusion these folks do not merely tend to think of sanctification passive. They do so with gusto, with pulpits openly denying that God demands holiness, when preaching sequentially simply skipping those passages that detail obedience, minimizing the reality that the Lord chastens disobedience.<br /><br />Roy Kerns<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-39958695843575046412017-11-20T21:32:55.467-08:002017-11-20T21:32:55.467-08:00Hello. I just now ran into your blog. You have s...Hello. I just now ran into your blog. You have some interesting comments concerning Anglicanism. I'm 36 and I've had a wide range of experiences within Christianity. I grew-up Methodist and Episcopalian. I left the Episcopal Church when I was 23 because of the direction it was going. I participated in a prayer ministry. Left and then joined a PCA church with expository preaching. I decided to go to seminary and I'm attending Trinity School for Ministry. I am one of those reformed leaning Anglicans. There aren't very many of us but we are here.<br /><br />I think it would be interesting to hear your story. If you have an email, I would love to talk to you sometime.<br /><br />, TimAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00819630377207750626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-85331386669384523872017-11-18T21:01:29.539-08:002017-11-18T21:01:29.539-08:00I believe Ursinus writes essentially the same thin...I believe Ursinus writes essentially the same thing as Melancthon. Mel is in good company...Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-58425911162818625872017-11-18T09:54:21.052-08:002017-11-18T09:54:21.052-08:00John Gill-- The Papists finding they could not mai...John Gill-- The Papists finding they could not maintain with success their notion, that good works were meritorious of salvation, instead of the phrase, meritorious of salvation, substituted the other phrase, necessary to salvation, as being a softer one, in order to gain upon incautious minds; when one and the same thing were designed by both. And the Lutheran George Major was thought to be the instrument they made use of for this purpose. But however this be, certain it is, that the broaching of this doctrine by him gave great offence, and occasioned much disturbance. <br />This gave Major himself some concern; and Major declared in so many words, that “whereas he saw that some were offended, for the future he would no more make use of that proposition.” Among the chief of his opposers was Nicolaus Amsdorfius, who in great heat and zeal asserted, in contradiction to Major’s notion, that “good works were hurtful and dangerous to salvation ;” a position not to be defended unless when good works are put in the room of Christ, and are trusted to for salvation: But it is not doing of them, that is or can be hurtful to salvation, but depending on them when done.<br /> This controversy raised great troubles in the churches and gave Melancthon a good deal of uneasiness; who at first was ensnared into the use of the phrase, though he afterwards rejected it, as improper and dangerous. . Melancthon at length allowed that “good works were not necessary to salvation;” nor did he dare to assert it: “For these reasons,” says he, “we teach that good works; or new obedience, are necessary; yet this must not by any means be tacked to it, that good works are necessary to obtain salvation and eternal life.” In his answer to the pastors of Saxony, he has these words: “Nevertheless, let us not use this phrase, good works are necessary to salvation.” And, in another place, “Verily I say, that I do not make use of this phrase, good works are necessary to salvation; but I affirm, that these propositions are true, and properly and without sophistry thus to be declared; new obedience is necessary, or good works are necessary; because obedience is due to God, according to that saying, Debtors we are.” <br /><br />http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_45.htmMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.com