« Rosie the Riveter: An American Icon Overturned Remix | Main | LifeWay's Faux Pas in Banning Magazine »

2008.09.12

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

d

Dr. Russell Moore preached a great sermon recently in chapel at Southern on the practical implications of the doctrine of election. it is worth checking out. can be accessed on Southern's website.

Colin

d beat me to it. They are correct, Dr. Moore's sermon in chapel was excellent, and much the same as Kerfoot's thoughts here. However, I would say Dr. Moore's sermon far exceeds the beauty of the one you have posted here.

In Brown's "The English Baptists of the Eighteenth Century," he cites as one of the reasons of the fall into Rationalistic thought and hypercalvinism by the likes of Gill as the unbalanced attention paid to the doctrine of election. Those unbalanced in their theology, as it were, were those who were majoring on the doctrine, determined to teach the doctrine, and determined to let everyone know the historicity of the doctrine in the midst of Baptists. This, to me, sounds an awful lot like one of the Baptist organizations that blog today.


Moore's can be found here.

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: Gill was not hyper-Calvinist. Neither was A.W. Pink, who is also charged by some with being such. I think both were great theologians whom I have read a lot of over the years.

I agree with this sermon that the doctrine of Predestination was not intended to be used this way, and I don't know of a Calvinist who would disagree.

peter

d & Colin,

Thanks brothers, for the link.

Debbie,

If Gill was not a Hyper-Calvinist, there is no such thing as a Hyper-Calvinist. Best, then, we just drop the historical reference completely out of our vocabulary.

As for not "know[ing] of a Calvinist who would disagree", be my guest, Debbie.

With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

If Gill is your standard of what a hyper-Calvinist is, then there is no such thing as a hyper-Calvinist. This charge is usually to discredit Gill, and it shouldn't be. His writings are very valuable as is his commentary which I used all the time. I agree that he is best left out of this conversation, but I won't leave him out of mine. Good solid writers are constantly being charged with this, and it's time it stopped. There is no proof to such a charge, it is never an honest argument. If it seems this always gets my dander up, yep. It does. Anytime an untrue charge is leveled at good Christian authors, it gets my dander up. Even those who are falsely charge and are non-Calvinists.

peter

Dear Debbie,

You write: "I agree that he is best left out of this conversation, but I won't leave him out of mine." For my part, you should have stuck with your "I agree" rather than go on and spoil it with your "I won't". This post definitively did not mention Gill in any way. Period. You magically pulled him out of your bag of tricks.

Nor am I the least interested in a conversation about him with you. Thanks anyway, though.

With that, I am...

Peter

Debbie Kaufman

Not since you obviously took it out after my last comment. I'm scratching my head with you Peter. Scratching my head.

peter

Debbie,

I haven't one lonely clue to what you are referring--"obviously took it out". Took what out?

With that, I am...

Peter

selahV

Peter, never heard of Kerfoot before (that I know of). But this sermon is a fine example of what flows from my heart and mind. Wow. Clarity and somber sweet revelation. thanks. Now I must go to the Russell Moore link. selahV

volfan007

Peter,

Wow! Great stuff. Kerfoot and I think a lot alike on this subject. Thanks for bringing this to light.

David

The comments to this entry are closed.