Email Doctrinal Discussions
My first email exchange is with a long time aquaintence who has given me permission to use his name. He really is not into email debates but has allowed this exchange to be public. My response preceeds his question below:
Geoff Volker, thank you for responding. Please bear with me a moment. I believe that you don't fully understand my position. That is why I must answer. I have been concerned about many folks misunderstanding me.
I am simply saying that the 1646 confession and my position is that unbelief is the central sin and that the conviction associated with gospel salvation revolves around unbelief and associated sins, like idol worship, etc. In other words, the gospel makes us aware that we are sinners, but with regards to unbelief, not with regards to adultery or other "results" of unbelief.
I don't want to be misunderstood, but in a way, adultery or drunkenness, and these resultant sins are in a way "lesser" sins than are those sins related to the weighty matters, ie, justice mercy, faith. They are not venial, as the Catholics call some sin, but they are not weighty, or as central to the essence of man's separation from God. Unbelief is the essence of man's separation.
That is why the 1646 people could say with confidence that the preaching of the law was "unnecessary", ie unneeded. That is why all Peter had to do in Acts 2 was preach the gospel and they were cut to the heart.
This conclusion interestingly enough, is the opposite position to John Owen, and those who have adopted similar positions to his, including Spurgeon, who has said that where the gospel cannot save, the law must be introduced.
Anyway, if you agree with me I rejoice, if you don't I hope you will understand where I am coming from. I believe scripture is on my side in this issue, and I hope the New Covenant community adopts my view. It is not mine alone. Gary
Geoff Volker wrote: Gary, My position seemed to me to be quite clear. I do not embrace your take on the 1646 confession. But you seem to want to make this a huge issue. Do you really think it is possible for someone to embrace the gospel without understanding their sinfulness/ You need not answer, I was just expressing my thoughts. Bye, Geoff
Please note that Geoff is part of a New Covenant community with a website
http://www.ids.org While you can learn some doctrinally accurate information there, it goes without saying that Geoff is a follower of John Reisinger, and that we do not fellowship, although we do have cordial exchanges without animosity.
My second email went to Cliff Bjork and Jon Zens. It is an important one:
Hello Cliff and Jon. Johann Agricola apparently debated Luther on whether to use law preaching or just gospel only preaching. It appears that Luther was then ready to put an obstinate Mr Agricola on trial in criminal court because of his stand for the gospel. So, Cliff in particular, the Reformers had the light. They had the truth, shining them in the face, and they walked away from it!
And not only that if you go to my website,
http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/spurgeon.html you will see that even Spurgeon was accused of preaching law and he denied it. Of course it was obvious by the sermon that he most certainly was preaching law. Again, Spurgeon had the light and he walked!
These encounters are indisputable evidence that in an unbroken chain the Reformers and their offspring knew the correct doctrine of gospel only preaching and rejected it to a man! They rejected it because they did not have the truth inside! If they had Christ revealed they would have known that no law had anything to do with that divine revelation!
You cannot say that these peddlers of a false gospel had anything whatsoever to do with salvation as revealed both by revelation and by scripture. Please, take a stand. Don't turn your back on the Lord and his saints that were persecuted for the gospel! If this gospel is in you you should be outraged by those who have trampled on the truth!
Gary Anderson
"Jesus Himself denied that He came to destroy the Law and condemns those who teach men to break it:
Mat 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
How did Jesus fulfill the Law? By coming and paying the price the Law required. By satisfying the requirements of the Law Jesus validated it!"
said... Hello Styles. You just made the argument for keeping a Saturday sabbath and restoration of animal sacrifices. That is part of the jot and tittle? Lol. What jot and tittle do you accept and what do you not accept? And how would you know? Clearly, the apostles are the final interpreters and they say that the law of Moses has passed away, that there is a new Law of Christ (Heb. ch 7) and that as James said, faith with works is keeping the new law of LIBERTY rather than the law of Moses which was the law of sin and death, the law which required that you do it and live establishing your very own righteousness. We know only one did so and that was Christ.
The gospel and the law of Christ, the law of faith, was hidden in the law of Moses, and now stands apart from the law of Moses. The law is fulfilled by Christ, and also, as the author of Hebrews says, is rolled away by a better promise.
The idea that not one jot or tittle would pass away is true in that Christ fulfilled the law. But clearly Paul said one man esteems a day and one man views every day the same. If jot and tittle meant sabbath day, then Paul would be in error saying it is ok for a Christian to believe that every day is alike! So then, you are misinterpreting the Lord's words.
The following is a message to one who would like to know the arguments for Predestination in the face of claims that man has free will:
Hello *******. Essentially the doctrine of election (predestination) is the biblical one because of the way that God brings people into His kingdom. On my central webpage that I sent you I make the argument that the gospel is the instrument that God uses to convict, ie cut the hearts of the elect. Obviously, if the law of Moses convicted, someone like Billy Graham could say that there is no election, because the person can refused to be chosen. But if Graham is incorrect, if conviction comes by the sword of the Spirit, the gospel of the savior, then one cut by that conviction cannot refuse to be chosen.
The problem with Covenant Theology, the dominant theology of sacral "Christendom", is that it has within it the seeds of capitulation to free will. The Covenant Theologians all stated their belief in election. However, their insistence upon law preaching and use of sacral power (as in Augustines view that men could be compelled to come into the church by force), totally destroys their adherence to the doctrine of predestination. Indeed if you view my websites:
http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/calvin.html http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/bunyan.html
you can see the extent that the Protestants went to great lengths to have these long repentances and also preached in such a way as to make it more likely that the listeners would put themselves in the "way of grace" by mulling over the law, by dredging up their sinfulness regarding particular sins.
The examples in the scripture regarding repentance was quite different. The many Jews who heard Peter's message were not asked to introspect regarding this or that sin. It was their unbelief regarding the savior that came under conviction. The gospel cut them to the heart regarding unbelief. Indeed, that is exactly what was predicted by Christ in John 16:8-9. The Spirit was sent to convict the world of sin because they do NOT BELIEVE.
The listeners to Peter had no choice but to ask how to be saved. They could not, having had their hearts circumcised by the spirt, refuse to enter His Kingdom! Could a child who was circumcised refuse to enter the economy of Moses? That physical example teaches us of the spiritual, as Christ always had done in His ministry on earth.
So, we see that the elect must be convicted of the Spirit, and indeed, we know from the book of Ephesians that these were chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world. In Romans chapter 9 we see that clearly, God had mercy on whom He chose, and did so before the people in question had done either good or bad. And of course, Jesus, speaking to the pharisees said that the reason, the cause of them not believing was because they were not His sheep. He also said He had sheep of another fold, ie the Gentiles who had not yet even heard the gospel!
I hope these thoughts help.
Sincerely,
Gary D Anderson
My StumbleUpon Page