Category Archives: The Doctrines of Grace

Seven Hours of Dividing Lines

Posted on by
Reply

Throughout 2014, while Dr. James White has been away on various ministry trips, I have had the distinct honor and privilege of guest-hosting his “Dividing Line” broadcasts. This allowed me the opportunity of teaching on some major doctrines at the heart of the Christian faith. Here are the youtube videos (all in one place):

Hour 1. “Law and Gospel.”

Hour 2. “The Five Solas of the Reformation.”

Hour 3. The “T” in the TULIP, “Total Depravity.”:

Hour 4. The “U” in the TULIP, “Unconditional Election.”

Hour 5. The “L” in the TULIP, “Limited Atonement.”

Hour 6. July, 2014: Continuing on from Dividing Line broadcasts earlier in the year, here is teaching on the “I” in the TULIP, “Irresistible Grace.”

Hour 7. July, 2014: The conclusion of the TULIP series – the Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints:

Saints Preserved!

Posted on by
Reply

Once again I had the privilege of guest hosting on Dr. James White’s Dividing Line broadcast and concluded the TULIP series with the “P” – the Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints. I actually recorded the show last week but there were so many technical problems with the original recording that I came in to the studio for a complete redo today. Here is the program:

Simply Irresistible

Posted on by
1

Man will always resist the grace of God in the gospel until God decides to overcome his resistance. Today I had the privilege of once again guest-hosting one of Dr. James White’s dividing line broadcasts and got to talk for an hour about the often misunderstood doctrine of “Irresistible Grace.” I trust it will be a blessing to those who watch:

5 Hours on the Dividing Line

Posted on by
1

As you might already be aware, for the last couple of weeks I have had the distinct honor and privilege of hosting Dr. James White’s “Dividing Line” broadcast while he was away on a ministry trip to Europe. For those of you would wish to have all five youtube videos at one internet link, view here they are:

Hour 1. “Law and Gospel.”

Hour 2. “The Five Solas of the Reformation.”

Hour 3. The “T” in the TULIP, “Total Depravity:

Hour 4. The “U” in the TULIP, “Unconditional Election.”

Hour 5. The “L” in the TULIP, “Limited Atonement.”

A Response to Shawn McCraney

Posted on by
Reply

John-RadioThe folk at Apologia radio write, we love God’s Gospel and the incomprehensible nature of His grace enough to defend those truths whenever attacked: whether by cults (like Mormonism) or by professing brothers. Theology matters. Shawn McCraney’s attack on the biblical view of grace, the sovereignty of God, and the truths surrounding election have far reaching implications. The Gospel is at stake with issues related to grace, our condition before God, and our works. McCraney’s views are not helpful- they are not founded upon the Word of God.”

In this two hour show I was asked to respond to Shawn’s attack on Reformed theology. You can hear the program at this link. (The response to Shawn McCraney begins around the 23 minute mark)

Spurgeon the Calvinist

Posted on by
3

sp057Was Charles Spurgeon a Calvinist? The Prince of Preachers himself answers this question in the affirmative:

“It is no novelty, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.” — Charles Spurgeon

In Dr. Steven Lawson’s book, The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Lawson argues that not only was Spurgeon a Calvinist, but his fervent commitment to the doctrines of grace actually “sharpened” his “gospel focus.”

Here are several adapted excerpts from The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon to outline Spurgeon’s beliefs concerning the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Total Depravity

For Spurgeon, total depravity was where the message of the gospel begins. The saving message of grace starts with total depravity. Man is entirely corrupted by sin. He is spiritually dead and unable to save himself. He could not be more hopeless and helpless.

“If God requires of the sinner, dead in sin, that he should take the first step, then he requires just that which renders salvation as impossible under the gospel as it was under the law, since man is as unable to believe as he is to obey.” — Charles Spurgeon

Simply put, Spurgeon believed that no human will is entirely free. It is either a slave of sin or a slave of Christ, but never free.

Unconditional Election

By necessity, unconditional election flows from belief in human depravity. Because the will of man is utterly dead and cannot choose God, God must exercise His sovereign will to save. Out of the mass of fallen humanity, God made an eternal, distinguishing choice. Before the foundation of the world, He determined whom He would save. Spurgeon contended that were it not for God’s choice of His elect, none would be saved.

Like all the doctrines that Spurgeon held, he believed this truth because he was convinced it is rooted and grounded in the Bible:

“Whatever may be said about the doctrine of election, it is written in the Word of God as with an iron pen, and there is no getting rid of it.” — Charles Spurgeon

Definite Atonement

Charles Spurgeon strongly affirmed the doctrine of definite atonement. This truth teaches that Christ died exclusively for those chosen by the Father and, thus, actually secured the salvation of all those for whom He died. Such a definite redemption stands in contrast to the Arminian view, which claims that Christ did not actually save anyone in particular by His death, but merely made salvation possible for everyone. Spurgeon adamantly rejected this vague position:

“A redemption which pays a price, but does not ensure that which is purchased—a redemption which calls Christ a substitute for the sinner, but yet which allows the person to suffer—is altogether unworthy of our apprehensions of Almighty God.” — Charles Spurgeon

Such a nebulous belief, he insisted, grossly dishonors God, especially His justice, and distorts the saving purpose of Christ in His substitutionary death.

Irresistible Grace

God’s sovereign call, Spurgeon affirmed, is far more powerful than any man’s resistance: “A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved.” This means no one is beyond the saving power of God:

“Difficulty is not a word to be found in the dictionary of heaven. Nothing can be impossible with God. The swearing reprobate, whose mouth is blackened with profanity, whose heart is a very hell, and his life like the reeking flames of the bottomless pit—such a man, if the Lord but looks on him and makes bare His arm of irresistible grace, shall yet praise God and bless His name and live to His honor.” — Charles Spurgeon

In short, no human heart is so obstinate that the Spirit cannot conquer and convert it.

Preserving Grace

“I must confess that the doctrine of the final preservation of the saints was a bait that my soul could not resist. I thought it was a sort of life insurance—an insurance of my character, an insurance of my soul, an insurance of my eternal destiny. I knew that I could not keep myself, but if Christ promised to keep me, then I should be safe for ever; and I longed and prayed to find Christ, because I knew that, if I found Him, He would not give me a temporary and trumpery salvation, such as some preach, but eternal life which could never be lost.” — Charles Spurgeon

Preserving grace became a key component of Spurgeon’s gospel focus. Without it, he claimed, he would not be able to preach: “If anybody could possibly convince me that final perseverance is not a truth of the Bible, I should never preach again, for I feel I should have nothing worth preaching.” Simply put, the perseverance of the saints was a necessary link in the unbreakable golden chain of salvation that he preached.

Source: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/charles-spurgeon-calvinist/

Was the Cross “Sufficient for All”?

Posted on by
1

by Jim Ellis

Among those who generally accept the doctrine of a definite or limited atonement, it is often heard by way of explanation that “the atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.” In fact this terminology may be found in some of the most respected Reformed theologians such as Hodge, Shedd, Buswell and others. While no Calvinist would deny the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s death for the redemption of all men had God so designed and intended it, I find the use of such phraseology dubious.

Maintaining the infinite intrinsic value of Christ’s death is not the same as saying “He died sufficiently for all men and efficiently only for the elect.” The latter seems to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention to die in the place of all men, and to benefit all by the proper effects of His death as an atonement or propitiation. This inference is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement. My purpose here is to show that this phraseology is ultimately meaningless and fails to adequately perceive the nature of the atonement. In the final analysis, it does not distinguish a definite atonement from a general or universal atonement1.

Why is the term “sufficient for all” used in discussing the atonement?

It is with some interest that we look at some of the probable reasons why such language has become rather common in discussions of this matter. Primarily, the use of this terminology seems to be an attempt to soften the impact of the doctrine of limited atonement on the natural mind, for it is indeed no simple matter of understanding. Most people don’t want a theological treatise as an explanation, they just want a simple answer (and in no more than three minutes, if you please). So we say, “His death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.” This may be brief and easy to remember, but accuracy and integrity have been sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Its use anticipates objections to the doctrine and pretends to diffuse those objections by declaring a universal application of the atonement. Rather than providing a real answer, however, it only deflects the potential objections and often leaves the questioner unsatisfied or at least scratching his head, wondering what it really means.

This statement has been used by good solid Calvinists who have no intention of giving way on the doctrine of limited atonement, but that does not make it valid or advisable phraseology. There appear to be several underlying reasons why this statement has been used. I believe the following are representative of those reasons: Continue reading →