DOCSLIB.ORG

Message of the Latter Rain the Message of the Latter Rain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Message of the Latter Rain the Message of the Latter Rain The Message of the Latter Rain The Message of the Latter Rain (REMOVING THE FOG THAT OBSCURES THE LOVE OF GOD) Kelvin M. Duncan Earl D. Peters With a Foreword by Lourdes Morales-Gudmundsson, Ph.D. Printed by Review and Herald Publishing Association, Graphics Division, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Contents Editing and page layout by Ken McFarland, Page One Communications Cover design and cover art by Lars Justinen — Justinen Creative Group and Goodsalt.com Acknowledgments . ix Foreword . xi Copyright © 2012 by Kelvin M. Duncan and Earl D. Peters PART ONE: The Meaning of the Gospel ............................1 Printed in the United States of America by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Graphics Division, 1. Showers of Blessing Await ..................................3 Hagerstown, Maryland The Rain Begins . .4 All Rights Reserved The Rain Rejected ....................................6 The Return of the Latter Rain ..........................7 2. The Unresolved Theological Dilemma ........................9 Unless otherwise noted, Scriptures are taken from the King James Version of the Bible. 3. Three Attempts at Resolution ..............................13 The Calvinist Reaction ...............................13 Texts credited to NKJV are from the New King James Version, copyright © 1979, The Arminian Reaction ..............................14 1980, 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers. The Universalist Reaction ............................16 Bible texts credited to NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National 4. The Gospel in a “Nutshell” . .19 Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. The Wages of Sin ....................................19 The Gift of God .....................................21 Bible texts credited to the NLT are from the New Living Translation, copyright For Whose Sins?. .22 © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. All rights reserved. 5. Upside-Down Theology ...................................25 Bible texts credited to the NEB are from the New English Bible version copyright © 1961, 1970 the delegates of the Oxford University Press and the syndics of the A Legal Problem Solved . .26 Cambridge University Press. Implications of Corporate Universal Justification . .27 Why Confess Your Sins?. .29 Bible texts credited to the NJB are from the New Jerusalem Bible, copyright © 1985 by Darton, Longman. 6. Three Phases of Salvation. .31 Future Tense . .31 Present Tense .......................................32 Past Tense . .32 For additional copies of this book, please call: 866-954-4523 Identifying the Three Phases . .33 The Sanctuary Presents Three Phases ..................34 7. Refocusing the Fundamental Dilemma ......................37 No Respecter of Persons. .39 ISBN: 978-0-578-09949-1 PART TWO: The Unpardonable Sin ..............................41 PART THREE: What Does the Spirit of Prophecy Say? . .89 8. The Unpardonable Sin: An Introduction. .43 16. Does Ellen White Agree? ..................................91 What If Jesus Were Here? ............................44 The Unpardonable Sin in a “Nutshell” . .92 The Spirit’s Primary Work ............................44 E. G. White on the “In Christ” Motif ...................93 Defining “Righteousness”. .45 Defining “Judgment” . .47 17. Adventist Arminianism ...................................95 First Phase of Investigation ...........................47 Arminianism: A Working Definition ...................96 Second Phase of Investigation. .47 The Spirit of Prophecy Transcends Arminianism . .97 Third Phase of Investigation ..........................48 The Reason There Is Life .............................99 First Executive Judgment . .48 Second Executive Judgment ..........................48 18. The Significance of Corporate Salvation ....................103 Third Executive Judgment ............................49 Forgiveness in the Spirit of Prophecy .................105 Defining “Sin” .......................................50 Justification By Faith: The Second Phase. .107 9. What Is Blasphemy? ......................................53 19. Charizomai Produces True Obedience . .109 Other Examples Defining Blasphemy ..................54 Obedience Not Meritorious .........................111 10. Why the Unpardonable Sin Cannot Be Forgiven. .57 20. The Cross: An Atonement Completed ......................115 Why Different Punishments? .........................59 Why Some Will Be Lost . .117 Limits of the Atonement .............................61 21. The Unpardonable Sin ...................................121 11. Two Phases of Forgiveness. .63 The Language of the New Testament ...................65 22. The Unpardonable Sin in SDA History .....................125 “Charizomai” and “Aphiemi” . .66 Did Jesus Die for This? ..............................128 “No Sacrifice” ......................................129 12. Charizomai in the Sanctuary ...............................69 Light From the Most Holy Place .......................70 23. Genuine Confession Flows From the Heart .................133 13. Pardon Precedes Confession ...............................73 24. The Message of the Latter Rain. .137 Forgiveness Illustrated ...............................75 Conclusion .............................................143 14. Jesus Explains Forgiveness . .79 Epilogue. .145 Jesus’ Parable of Forgiveness ..........................82 Appendix: Understanding John 3:18 .......................147 A Story of Love and Forgiveness .......................83 Index. .151 About the Authors. .157 15. Why Christians Confess Sins. 85 Acknowledgments e are very grateful to the Lord for the promise that His Spirit will guide us into “all truth.” Without the Spirit’s blessing and guidance, this book would never have seen the light of day. We Walso thank our wives for their patience and support as we devoted untold hours to studying, writing, editing, discussing, and revising the manu- script. Numerous others supported and contributed to this work in various ways. We are thankful to Michelle Cammack for proofing the early ver- sions of the manuscript and for her encouragement in this work. We are thankful to Crystal Duncan for proofreading the later versions of the manuscript and assisting with various grammatical and writing prob- lems. We are thankful to Helene Thomas for her excellent editorial assis- tance on the early chapters. And we are thankful to all of the pastors and Bible scholars who provided advice and guidance along the way. Without the assistance of all of these friends and relatives, this book would be much less than it is. Foreword he reader ought not to judge this book by its small size. Far-reaching spiritual implications are found on nearly every page of this closely argued treatise on God’s plan of salvation according to both Scrip- Tture and the writings of E. G. White. The subtext of this book is that Adventism is again at a crossroads similar to that of 1888, when two young pastors, students of Holy Writ, presented what they had learned about righteousness by faith to the leaders of the church. Like the early Adventists, the authors fear that our emphasis on Adventism’s unique doctrines relating to the Sabbath and the Second Coming have taken the focus of our outreach and our in-reach away from the core of the Chris- tian Adventist faith: God’s generous and comprehensive love, as manifest through Christ’s death “for all sinners” and His plan that this forgiveness should be transformative in the human life. The gift of forgiveness born of God’s amazing grace is at the center of our faith, a fact that we neglect at our own eternal peril. For the authors, God’s forgiveness not only erased past, present, and future sins but also launches the process of justification by faith, which produces sanctification (victory over temptation) and leads ultimately to glorification. This is the heart of the message of the latter rain and of the entire plan of salvation. They approach their study by asking how it is that if Christ died for all sinners, a sinner should ever have to die for his/her own sin in the lake of fire. Their effort to resolve the problem of this version of “double jeopardy” takes them on a journey to understand salvation, focusing on what the death of Christ on the cross really meant in terms of God’s forgiveness. They begin by eschewing the Calvinist concept of the “elect” fore- ordained for salvation, as well as the Universalist conclusion that since Christ died for all, all are forgiven and eternally saved. More interestingly, Duncan and Peters address what they call “Adventist Arminianism.” Ac- transformation. Genuine obedience is not a condition for receiving salva- cording to this understanding of the plan of salvation, Christ died for tion but the fruit of it. No inherent value is found in obedience if it does all humans, but His death is not equivalent to forgiveness, in any sense not arise out of the grateful and humble soul of one who understands of the term. Thus, Adventists hold that only those who believe receive him- or herself to be the object of an infinite, divine love gift. remission of sin. In other words, Jesus’ death on the cross was not really What if a human chooses not to accept this gift? This, called the un- applicable to all humans; something more is required to produce forgive- pardonable sin, the authors take great pains to explain in relation to God’s ness. Because of a failure to identify the two aspects of forgiveness, the forgiveness. Since
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Five Points of Calvinism
    • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Bethlehem College & Seminary 720 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.455.3420 [email protected] | bcsmn.edu Copyright © 2007, 2012, 2017 by Bethlehem College & Seminary All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Table of Contents Instructor’s Introduction Course Syllabus 1 Introduction from John Piper 3 Lesson 1 Introduction to the Doctrines of Grace 5 Lesson 2 Total Depravity 27 Lesson 3 Irresistible Grace 57 Lesson 4 Limited Atonement 85 Lesson 5 Unconditional Election 115 Lesson 6 Perseverance of the Saints 141 Appendices Appendix A Historical Information 173 Appendix B Testimonies from Church History 175 Appendix C Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism 183 Instructor’s Introduction It is our hope and prayer that God would be pleased to use this curriculum for his glory. Thus, the intention of this curriculum is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. This curriculum is guided by the vision and values of Bethlehem College & Seminary which are more fully explained at bcsmn.edu. At the Bethlehem College & Semianry website, you will find the God-centered philosophy that undergirds and motivates everything we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism and Limited Atonement Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 and Others
    CALVINISM AND LIMITED ATONEMENT ISAIAH 53:6; HEBREWS 2:9 AND OTHERS Text: Isaiah 53:6; Hebrews 2:9 Isaiah 53:6 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Hebrews 2:9 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Introduction: Of the five points of Calvin’s philosophy, (and I call it "philosophy" instead of "theology" because in this particular point, it is 100% contrary to the revealed will of God as given to us in the Bible, therefore, it cannot properly be called "theology") the weakest link is his so-called false teaching on the "LIMITED ATONEMENT," or the "L" of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym of Calvinism. - 1 - It is interesting to me that this point is the center of this deadly flower. We will consider the Basic Definition, Blatant Distortion, and the Biblical Dispute, of Limited Atonement. 1. BASIC DEFINITION OF LIMITED ATONEMENT By “Limited Atonement” we refer to the belief which states that Christ did not die for “all or everyone” but rather died only for the elect. While it is true that only the saved benefit from Christ’s death on the cross, Christ died for all people. 1 John 2:1-2 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature and Extent of the Atonement in Lutheran
    THE N A T U R E A N D E X T E N T O F T H E ATONEMENT I N L U T H E R A N T H E O L O G Y DAVID SCAER, TH.D. I. The Problem The· conflict concerning the nature and extent of the atonement arose in Christian theology because of attempts to reconcile rationally apparently conflicting statements in the Holy Scriptures on the atone- ment and election. Briefly put, passages relating to the atonement are universal in scope including all men and those relating to election apply only to a limited number. Basically there have been three approaches to this tension between a universal atonement and a limited election. One approach is to understand the atonement in light of the election. Since obviously there are many who are not eventually saved, the atonement offered by Christ really applied not to them but only to those who are finally saved, i.e., the elect. This is the Calvinistic or Reformed view. The second approach understands the election in light of the atonement. This view credits each individual with the ability to make a choice of his own free will to believe in Christ. Since Christ died for all men and since man is responsible for his own damnation, therefore he at least cooperates with the Holy Spirit in coming to faith. This is the Arminian or synergistic view, also widely held in Methodism. The third view* is that of classical Lutheran theology. This position as set down in the Formula of Concord (1580) does not attempt to resolve what the Holy Scriptures state con- cerning atonement and election.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Owner.KDM\My
    The Free Presbyterian Magazine Vol 110 April 2005 No 4 Which Version?1 he shelves of today’s bookshops carry an almost endless variety of Bible Tversions. But how should we assess them? And should we assume that the newer the translation the better? The book under review should give considerable help to those who are asking these and similar questions. In his Preface, Mr Macgregor gives his own experience: “As a young Christian I went to a church that used the Authorised Version (AV). However, on moving with my wife and family to a different area, we went to a church that used the Good News Bible (GNB) and the New International Version (NIV). This enticed me away from the AV for a while. At first these new versions appeared to be easier to read and understand. However, soon I began to notice serious discrepancies (that is, Old Testament references to Christ veiled or missing) in the GNB. This troubled me greatly. I stopped using it, but continued with the NIV, which seemed more reliable. However, as I studied it and compared it with the AV I had first used, I began to feel concerned. The NIV had verses missing, and later I found it had many words missing. Its rendering of some parts gave a completely different meaning. The more I read and compared, the more concerned I became. Also, like the GNB, the NIV was more difficult to commit to memory. I bought a Revised Authorised Version (called in the USA, and now here, the New King James Version (NKJV)).
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Arminian Soteriology in Methodist-Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogues in 20Th and 21St Century
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto ASPECTS OF ARMINIAN SOTERIOLOGY IN METHODIST-LUTHERAN ECUMENICAL DIALOGUES IN 20TH AND 21ST CENTURY Mikko Satama Master’s Thesis University of Helsinki Faculty of Theology Department of Systematic Theology Ecumenical Studies 18th January 2009 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO − HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET Tiedekunta/Osasto − Fakultet/Sektion Laitos − Institution Teologinen tiedekunta Systemaattisen teologian laitos Tekijä − Författare Mikko Satama Työn nimi − Arbetets title Aspects of Arminian Soteriology in Methodist-Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogues in 20th and 21st Century Oppiaine − Läroämne Ekumeniikka Työn laji − Arbetets art Aika − Datum Sivumäärä − Sidoantal Pro Gradu -tutkielma 18.1.2009 94 Tiivistelmä − Referat The aim of this thesis is to analyse the key ecumenical dialogues between Methodists and Lutherans from the perspective of Arminian soteriology and Methodist theology in general. The primary research question is defined as: “To what extent do the dialogues under analysis relate to Arminian soteriology?” By seeking an answer to this question, new knowledge is sought on the current soteriological position of the Methodist-Lutheran dialogues, the contemporary Methodist theology and the commonalities between the Lutheran and Arminian understanding of soteriology. This way the soteriological picture of the Methodist-Lutheran discussions is clarified. The dialogues under analysis were selected on the basis of versatility. Firstly, the sole world organisation level dialogue was chosen: The Church – Community of Grace. Additionally, the document World Methodist Council and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is analysed as a supporting document. Secondly, a document concerning the discussions between two main-line churches in the United States of America was selected: Confessing Our Faith Together.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical and Logical Warrant for Limited Atonement
    M. Howell 1-10-04 Biblical and Logical Warrant for Definite Atonement He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing eternal redemption. -Hebrews 9:12 The crux of the entire debate surrounding limited atonement is whether Christ is a real Savior or a potential Savior. Did Christ actually or potentially accomplish His purpose for dying for our sins? It is my position that Christ's death actually accomplished its purpose, that is, that it ensured the salvation of His people rather than merely provide the possibility of salvation for everyone who believes. This, therefore, makes Christ’s atonement limited in its efficaciousness. David Steele and Curtis Thomas write, “Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.”1 But as we shall soon see, regardless of your theological assumptions, the atonement is limited. That is why I prefer the term definite atonement to limited atonement. I shall be arguing for definite atonement in two parts, the first part consisting of the Biblical basis for definite atonement, and the second part consisting of the Logical basis for definite atonement. This separation should in no way imply that the Bible should or even could be divorced from logic. God is a God of logic and His special revelation is consequently inherently logical.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal
    FALL 2019 volume 6 issue 1 3 FROM RUTHERFORD HALL Dr. Barry J. York 4 FOUR CENTURIES AGO: AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE SYNOD OF DORT Dr. David G. Whitla 16 THE FIRST HEADING: DIVINE ELECTION AND REPROBATION Rev. Thomas G. Reid, Jr. 25 THE SECOND HEADING - CHRIST’S DEATH AND HUMAN REDEMPTION THROUGH IT: LIMITED ATONEMENT AT THE SYNOD OF DORDT AND SOME CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL DEBATES Dr. Richard C. Gamble 33 THE THIRD HEADING: HUMAN CORRUPTION Rev. Keith A. Evans 39 THE FOURTH HEADING: “BOTH DELIGHTFUL AND POWERFUL” THE DOCTRINE OF IRRESISTIBLE GRACE IN THE CANONS OF DORT Dr. C. J. Williams 47 THE FIFTH HEADING: THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS Dr. Barry J. York STUDY UNDER PASTORS The theological journal of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary Description Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal is the online theological journal of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal is provided freely by RPTS faculty and other scholars to encourage the theological growth of the church in the historic, creedal, Reformed faith. Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal is published biannually online at the RPTS website in html and pdf. Readers are free to use the journal and circulate articles in written, visual, or digital form, but we respectfully request that the content be unaltered and the source be acknowledged by the following statement. “Used by permission. Article first appeared in Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal, the online theological journal of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary (rpts.edu).” e d i t o r s General Editor: Senior Editor: Assistant Editor: Contributing Editors: Barry York Richard Gamble Jay Dharan Tom Reid [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] C.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism and Arminianism Are Tw
    K-Group week 3 Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?" Answer: Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609. Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation. Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism #Not Fatalism Calvinism: Argued in Outline
    Study guide for Calvinism #not_fatalism Calvinism: Argued in Outline I. CALVINISM B. B. Warfield defines Calvinism as theism and evangelicalism come to their own. That is to say, quite simply, that God saves sinners. He does not merely provide the possibility or opportunity for them to be saved. He does not “do His part” and leave man to do his part to accomplish salvation. No, God actually saves sinners, and that salvation is all of Him. Cornelius Van Til says that Calvinism’s only system is to be open to the Scriptures. He adds, “The doctrines of Calvinism are not deduced in a priori fashion from one major principle such as the sovereignty of God.” This has been one of the most frequent arguments against Calvinism. The charge is that it fastens on to one Scripture principle, God’s sovereignty, and proceeds to develop a logical system based on that principle, with little or no regard to Scripture. As Van Til indicates, such a charge is groundless. Here is a fair statement of the Calvinistic position. We may here note the following Clarifications in particular: 1. The Five Points. What has just been said will make it clear that Calvinism is more than “five points.” The five points were actually answers to five points made by Arminians. Five-point Calvinism is frequently referred to as TULIP theology, using the T-U-L-I-P as an acrostic: Total Depravity; Unconditional Election; Limited Atonement (though Calvinists believe that Arminians, not they, limit the atonement; they prefer such terms as particular redemption or definite atonement); Irresistible Grace; Perseverance of the saints.
    [Show full text]
  • The Five Points of Calvinism
    THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM "Weighed And Found Wanting" TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction MAJOR SECTION ONE: EXPLANATIONS 1. Total Depravity Explained 2. Unconditional Election Explained 3. Limited Atonement Explained 4. Irresistible Grace Explained 5. Perseverance of the Saints Explained MAJOR SECTION TWO: COUNTER POINTS 6. Calvinistic Total Depravity Refuted 7. Unconditional Election Refuted 8. Limited Atonement Refuted 9. Irresistible Grace Refuted 10. Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints Refuted Conclusion The Lazy Man's Guide to Understanding Calvinism An Even Lazier Man's Guide to Understanding Calvinism INTRODUCTION For more than a decade I was the host of a Christian talk show called 'Scripturally Speaking.' On many different occasions the topic of Calvinism in general, and the Five Points of Calvinism in particular, was introduced either by me, an in-studio guest, or a caller. I can clearly remember one discussion in which a Calvinist guest was debating with an Arminian caller over the question of whether or not predestination was taught in Scripture. When the question before us was simply a matter of affirming or denying predestination, I appeared to be on the side of my Calvinist guest. The caller expressed surprise at my agreement with my guest because he incorrectly thought that I must have been a Calvinist because of this agreement. When I explained to him that I was not a Calvinist, the caller's surprise then turned to confusion. Affirmation vs. Definition My guest then admitted that he was also surprised, if not confused, for he too wrongly assumed I was a Calvinist because I agreed that predestination was taught in Scripture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip Van Limborch: a Study in the Development of Seventeenth Century Dutch Arminianism
    The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch: A Study in the Development of Seventeenth Century Dutch Arminianism By John Mark Hicks A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy 1985 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Richard C. Gamble Second Faculty Reader: Mr. David W. Clowney Chairman, Field Committee: Dr. D. Claire Davis External Reader: Dr. Carl W. Bangs 2 Dissertation Abstract The Theology of Grace in the Thought of Jacobus Arminius and Philip van Limborch: A Study in the Development of Seventeenth Century Dutch Arminianism By John Mark Hicks The dissertation addresses the problem of the theological relationship between the theology of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) and the theology of Philip van Limborch (1633-1712). Arminius is taken as a representative of original Arminianism and Limborch is viewed as a representative of developed Remonstrantism. The problem of the dissertation is the nature of the relationship between Arminianism and Remonstrantism. Some argue that the two systems are the fundamentally the same, others argue that Arminianism logically entails Remonstrantism and others argue that they ought to be radically distinguished. The thesis of the dissertation is that the presuppositions of Arminianism and Remonstrantism are radically different. The thesis is limited to the doctrine of grace. There is no discussion of predestination. Rather, the thesis is based upon four categories of grace: (1) its need; (2) its nature; (3) its ground; and (4) its appropriation. The method of the dissertation is a careful, separate analysis of the two theologians.
    [Show full text]