Theology Club: Calvinist MADs

musterion

Well-known member
Someone recently wondered if they exist. They do, and the late Ernie Campbell was one of them. He's written some excellent commentaries (I was given the whole set) but his Calvinism really comes through in a lot of his interpretations. This is an article he wrote on the sovereignty of God in salvation. He was very wrapped up in Calvinism, so much so that he's demonstrably wrong in a couple areas of this piece, but I share it just to prove the point that Calvinist MADs do exist.

http://paulsgracemessage.blogspot.com/
 
I'm not a MidActs Dispy, but I'm interested in where you believe the author is wrong in his understanding of scripture. Would you supply more detail when you get a chance? Thanks.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Someone recently wondered if they exist. They do, and the late Ernie Campbell was one of them. He's written some excellent commentaries (I was given the whole set) but his Calvinism really comes through in a lot of his interpretations. This is an article he wrote on the sovereignty of God in salvation. He was very wrapped up in Calvinism, so much so that he's demonstrably wrong in a couple areas of this piece, but I share it just to prove the point that Calvinist MADs do exist.

http://paulsgracemessage.blogspot.com/

yep, i see what you're saying -
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Fascinating thread, thanks for linking. I read about 10 pages but quit when it looked like he was never going to answer Delmar's question.

You will have to read onwards, for the answer was given:

John 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Faith is a work...of God. It is the fruit of your regeneration, the instrument, not the cause, of your justification.

See also:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2142156#post2142156

People often ask the same question when it has been answered quite often by the target of their question. If I had a nickel...etc. ;)

AMR
 

Danoh

New member
You will have to read onwards, for the answer was given:

John 6:28
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Faith is a work...of God. It is the fruit of your regeneration, the instrument, not the cause, of your justification.

See also:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2142156#post2142156

People often ask the same question when it has been answered quite often by the target of their question. If I had a nickel...etc. ;)

AMR

Consider the following...

John 6:

25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

He has just related to them that they showed up only for the feast He was able to provide. That they had not shown up to believe in Him; which was what His being able to feed an astounding number of people out of a few pieces of bread had been meant to lead them to.

In other words, these miraculous works the Father was performing through Him were those signs prophesied the Son would be able to do as evidence He was the Son and by said signs, draw men to the Son.

They ask Him what would be required of them that they too might be able to do the works of God that He - Jesus - was able to perform.

Isn't that just like the natural man, lost as he is - focused on "never mind all that, you've got yourself a gen you wine lottery ticket there; how can we get in on that!"

He replies that this - these sign works of His - are the work of the Father; that they believe on Him given the irrefutable evidence said signs are that He IS The Christ!

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Nothing changes - instead of taking Him at His Word given those signs He has been performing up to this point; all they can focus on is how they might get Him to continue to be their free meal ticket...

Fortunately for us all, grace is not grace unless it is willing to risk being abused.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Interesting he would say these things. He dislikes Open Theists that much? In today's world usually MAD and Open Theism go hand in hand. They fit together.
Darby was the first to write of Dispensations and he was a Mid Acts Dispensationalist. He was also the founder the Brethren movement. The catch phrase from scripture "Rightly dividing the word of Truth" was his motto.

He was also a Calvinist.

"For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation."--John Nelson Darby

 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Interesting he would say these things. He dislikes Open Theists that much? In today's world usually MAD and Open Theism go hand in hand. They fit together.
At the risk of speaking for Hilston, my reading of his posts in the three Open Theism archives is that he disagrees with openism (unsettled theism) and not to the point of being so emotionally invested as to "hate", "dislike", etc., its adherents. Now, when he encounters an openist acting badly, Hilston is not hesitant to take them to task, usually at a higher level of sophistication to support his underlying reductio ad absurdum tactic.

I am not that convinced the ultimate doctrinal destination of MAD is open theism. After all, Hilston is a prima facie example to the contrary. Nevertheless, your point is well taken, in that once someone starts to thinking of God as having changed His mind about this or that way God administers His redemptive plans, moving to full-blown open theism seems but a small step. I think Hilston would vehemently object to any notion of God having changed his mind.

AMR
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hilston resembles a lot Baptists out here in the Midwest. Most Baptists, particularly out in the Midwest are Calvinistic unless you attend an American Baptist Church. They are Free Will. Many of them are dispenationalists. I never heard of the Term 'MAD' applied to the first dispensationalists before joining this board, though I have encountered it before. There were proponents of it in the American Baptist Church I attended in Lincoln, Nebraska.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Nevertheless, your point is well taken, in that once someone starts to thinking of God as having changed His mind about this or that way God administers His redemptive plans, moving to full-blown open theism seems but a small step. I think Hilston would vehemently object to any notion of God having changed his mind.

AMR

MAD (as far as my 10 years of studying it go) does not in any sense require subscribing to the belief that God ever "changed His mind" with regard to how things played out from the Gospels, through Acts, through the epistles. I'll go as far as to submit that most MADs would raise at least one eyebrow at your suggestion.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
MAD (as far as my 10 years of studying it go) does not in any sense require subscribing to the belief that God ever "changed His mind" with regard to how things played out from the Gospels, through Acts, through the epistles. I'll go as far as to submit that most MADs would raise at least one eyebrow at your suggestion.
I highly doubt any of my Dispensational buddies in Nebraska knew what Open Theism was. I was introduced to Open Theism by a couple that attended the Assembles of God. They referred me to the works of Gregory Boyd. That was my 'baptism' into Open Theism if you would.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I confess that I find Open Theism hard to understand, even though I have studied it for a long time. But MAD I can get handle on. It is pretty easy to follow. I was raised in churches that were Dispensationalist.

I am too thick in the skull to study Theism.
 
Top