Michael Horton, Justin Holcomb, Walter Strickland, and Bob Hiller answer audience questions on Jonathan Edwards, deliverance …
39 COMMENTS
On occasionalism your understanding seems to be superficial. The work on free will by Edwards is still the best on the topic which helps explaining Occasionalism.
Hello all. This is a interesting topic. I used to attend Catholic Faith, but now a member of Baptist Church. My granddaughter who is baptized in the Catholic Church now attending Baptist Church for 8 years, does she need to be baptized again in order to receive communion? Praying you'll be able to give me some clarity? Thank you for teaching 🙏 evangeline
Edwards was influenced by the developing philosophies of the Enlightenment, including that of John Locke and others, He argued that the will was necessitated in the same way as the newly developed universal laws of nature. It came to include not just certain spiritual choices of a person, but all the choices of the will and all of nature was determined as well.
One must judge Dispensationalism by the lens of the Bible, specifically the Book of Hebrews. How does this book of the Bible categorize those Jews who went back to the sacrifices? The answer is obvious. Now, or for the past 200 years, we have a group professing to be Christians saying that there will be a reestablishment of O.T. sacrifices in a supposed millennium. The bottom line is that Dispensationalism is heretical. One can say what one will about Dispensationalists individually, but Dispensationalism is a departure from the faith once delivered to the saints.
The danger of "deliverance ministries" is that they were not established by the Apostles, churches were established by the Apostles. With the "deliverance ministries" comes the zaniness of the Pentecostal movement. The real danger in "deliverance ministries" is that they confuse the flesh with a demon where personal sins are not owned but blamed on a demon. If someone does not own their sin and guilt they have no part of Christ. While some in "deliverance ministries" say that Christians cannot be possessed by a demon, if you listen closely to them, it is obvious that they do believe Christians can be possessed by demons. These people are trichotomists (not dichotomists) and believe that a demon can possess the soul but not the spirit. Christian cannot be demon possessed, period.
Baptism is the sign of covenant just as circumcision. Baptism has replaced circumcision. From the beginning the sign was to believers and their children. Nowhere is it set in stone that the children, being recipients of the sign of the covenant, will necessarily be recipients of the promise. Lutherans get the idea that a person can lose their salvation because they assume that when an infant is baptized that that infant is automatically saved. If circumcision automatically saved, then most all who came out of Egypt would not have been condemned. It is absurd to believe that because God demands that the sign of the covenant be administered to children that this automatically makes them regenerate and believers, it does not.
It seems like an oversimplification when Bob lays out two camps as those grounded in the Word of God and those "always looking for something outside it." The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements would not describe themselves in these philosophical terms but rather in Biblical terms such that the Bible is sufficient for binding doctrinal revelation but the Spirit is Biblically given so that the believer has the power to live out the Bible's teaching and commands. To these movements as well as those from the Second Great Awakening, a sacerdotal answer to questions of assurance or as an alternative to the Spirit's power is a tradition foreign to the Bible.
I know there are issues in these groups (and most Evangelicals) with throwing out tradition wholesale such that one loses helpful interpretive traditions, but I'm inclined to give a lot more credit to the movements responsible for most of the evangelism of the last few centuries when they testify to the need of the Spirit's power.
Thanks Dr. Strickland for being the one true pillar of truth against the heterodox, heretical, un-Christian teaching of paedobaptist! Love all of you and what you do.
I am fine with Jonathan Edwards being lower than a C, and his pantheism/panentheism wouldn't even be the most determining factor to me. The hyper-introspectivism intrinsic to the Edwardsian move, constitutes, in my reading, a genuine stumbling block for the eternal security and genuine confidence preached by earlier reformed theologians. See Heidelberg Catechism 1:1. For some weird reason, neo-calvinists adopted an Edwardsian psychology which to my reading, removes the type of rational sobriety Christians should be striving for. It borders being quasi-charismatic (though Edwardsian neo-calvinists will probably experience more soteriological doubts than your average pentecostal) and is far more similar and comparable to an Eastern Christian conception of theosis. People love Edwards in the same way they love Baxter, blindly, without ever questioning the consensus on these guys handed to us by this para-church neocalvinist establishment that is thankfully dying out.
Regarding Dispensationalism, it would have been great to hear a Bible based difference or view about the topic. It appears that you all have similar views and there is a way in which you all subtly affirm Belivers to steer away from it without saying it😂.
If St. Patrick's trinitarian shamrock is a heresy, then dispensationalism certainly is, As it radically attacks the unified nature of the people of God and makes the bride of Christ out to be a detour at best, or worse, simply 'plan B'. Even given your guy's definition of heresy as something attacking a foundational pillar of the faith, it is heresy. Or is Christ's fulfillment of the OT promises not a core pillar of the CHRISTian faith?? Is the nature of the Bride of Christ not a pillar of the CHRISTian faith?? That said, there are degrees of culpability for misunderstanding the Christian faith and falling into heretical doctrine and Christ will make that evaluation of ones culpability so I am not saying dispensationalism is a salvation issue but by any real definition of the term, it IS a heresy and its time for us to start saying that so it can go find a hole to die in.
There is so much smugness, condescension, and a lack of grace amongst those in the covenant theology camp lately towards dispensationalists, and also a lack of understanding and recognition of the simple and obvious fact that there is a spectrum of beliefs under the category, just as there is among covenant theology. It’s really disheartening to so consistently see this attitude among those in the covenant theology camp, and it’s very off putting. We’re all brothers and sisters here.
Ironically, one of the best books refuting deliverance ministries is "Truth or Territory," by a dispensationalist pastor, Jim Osman. Highly recommended
Dispensationalism was made popular from those pastors who liked the sensational writings of Ribera’s analyses of the Apostle John’s Apocalyptically writing.
Ri era the Jesuit’s intent was to divert the followers of Luther and Calvin from their direct exposure of the Vatican fraud.
The infant baptism comments are interesting I was in the RCA for a time and I heard so many ministers in a many different churches used the language “engaged to confess the faith of Christ” then they’d add this which is not in the official liturgy “and like any engagement it can be broken.”
If infant baptism is just an engagement ring, why get wet. I’m not sure all reformers ministers are true to the tradition
Hi! Thanks for your podcast! I'm very blessed to hear your everytime that I can. I have a question for you. What do you think about Mew perspective on Paul and about Within Judaism? I really problematic for a reformed faith?
I do believe in a literal interpretation to a point we cannot interpret apocalyptic literature but we can interpret the gospels and some of the gospel message that we can comprehend
This was a very helpful conversation about Edwards. His end times views on predicting the millennium troubled me when I read him. Sweeney’s Edwards the Exegete talks a lot about that.
On the Deliverance Service front, I’m thinking there was probably some intention toward what we see with the NAR/Word of Faith deliverance services that are often more about the self promotion of Apostle/Bishop/Prophet So-and-so’s traveling emotional manipulation tour. Those people tell Christians they can be possessed by demons, and there’s more to do with pagan ceremonies than anything remotely biblical. The focus of those “services” are on the man at the front, his power, his faith & the Name is used as a tool in his “capable hands” rather than Jesus being the object of faith.
If we are believers as saved do we then renounce Satan? Do we not pray to God for his protection? How can a Christian, earnestly a Christian be possessed? I don’t think this can be true. The Holy Spirit and Satan cannot coexist! How can a believer be the property of Satan? No way! How can it be within her power to renounce ownership of her soul? It cannot be in our power due to the legality of ownership. God owns his owns. If your are in Christ you belong to God!
This is maddening that she must voice each of the rules. We are not healed by rules but not by grace. This person if truly saved would be saved not withstanding her claimed driving out satan. Oh dear men. It is not our word, not our water it is his WORD! It is his word, his predestination!
WOW. Thank you guys so so so much for the response. I can’t say I’ve read all of Edwards’ works. I’ve only read The Freedom of the Will and Religious Affections (which were very impactful to my walk with and understanding of the Lord), and a good amount of his sermons and haven’t realized the panantheism if that’s how you spell it lol. I deeply appreciate you guys and i pray that the glory of God will continue to be displayed through y’all.
"Look to your baptism" would feel like a nonsense statement to me if done while I was an infant. How do I look to something I can't remember, didn't choose for hope? I had basically nothing to do with that. Yet with believers baptism, there'd be something you can remember and hopefully at that time God was doing something significant in your life that you can look back on.
On occasionalism your understanding seems to be superficial. The work on free will by Edwards is still the best on the topic which helps explaining Occasionalism.
This was a very fun episode! 😊
Justin’s baptism story put a few tears in my eyes. Praise the Lord!
I LOVED this!! Great, uplifting conversation!
Hello all. This is a interesting topic. I used to attend Catholic Faith, but now a member of Baptist Church. My granddaughter who is baptized in the Catholic Church now attending Baptist Church for 8 years, does she need to be baptized again in order to receive communion? Praying you'll be able to give me some clarity? Thank you for teaching 🙏 evangeline
Edwards was influenced by the developing philosophies of the Enlightenment, including that of John Locke and others, He argued that the will was necessitated in the same way as the newly developed universal laws of nature. It came to include not just certain spiritual choices of a person, but all the choices of the will and all of nature was determined as well.
What is your rating of Don Stewart ?
One must judge Dispensationalism by the lens of the Bible, specifically the Book of Hebrews. How does this book of the Bible categorize those Jews who went back to the sacrifices? The answer is obvious. Now, or for the past 200 years, we have a group professing to be Christians saying that there will be a reestablishment of O.T. sacrifices in a supposed millennium. The bottom line is that Dispensationalism is heretical. One can say what one will about Dispensationalists individually, but Dispensationalism is a departure from the faith once delivered to the saints.
The danger of "deliverance ministries" is that they were not established by the Apostles, churches were established by the Apostles. With the "deliverance ministries" comes the zaniness of the Pentecostal movement. The real danger in "deliverance ministries" is that they confuse the flesh with a demon where personal sins are not owned but blamed on a demon. If someone does not own their sin and guilt they have no part of Christ. While some in "deliverance ministries" say that Christians cannot be possessed by a demon, if you listen closely to them, it is obvious that they do believe Christians can be possessed by demons. These people are trichotomists (not dichotomists) and believe that a demon can possess the soul but not the spirit. Christian cannot be demon possessed, period.
Baptism is the sign of covenant just as circumcision. Baptism has replaced circumcision. From the beginning the sign was to believers and their children. Nowhere is it set in stone that the children, being recipients of the sign of the covenant, will necessarily be recipients of the promise. Lutherans get the idea that a person can lose their salvation because they assume that when an infant is baptized that that infant is automatically saved. If circumcision automatically saved, then most all who came out of Egypt would not have been condemned. It is absurd to believe that because God demands that the sign of the covenant be administered to children that this automatically makes them regenerate and believers, it does not.
It seems like an oversimplification when Bob lays out two camps as those grounded in the Word of God and those "always looking for something outside it." The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements would not describe themselves in these philosophical terms but rather in Biblical terms such that the Bible is sufficient for binding doctrinal revelation but the Spirit is Biblically given so that the believer has the power to live out the Bible's teaching and commands. To these movements as well as those from the Second Great Awakening, a sacerdotal answer to questions of assurance or as an alternative to the Spirit's power is a tradition foreign to the Bible.
I know there are issues in these groups (and most Evangelicals) with throwing out tradition wholesale such that one loses helpful interpretive traditions, but I'm inclined to give a lot more credit to the movements responsible for most of the evangelism of the last few centuries when they testify to the need of the Spirit's power.
Thanks Dr. Strickland for being the one true pillar of truth against the heterodox, heretical, un-Christian teaching of paedobaptist! Love all of you and what you do.
Are the Seventh-Day Adventist distinctive doctrines Hetrodox or Heresy? Thoughts?
I am fine with Jonathan Edwards being lower than a C, and his pantheism/panentheism wouldn't even be the most determining factor to me. The hyper-introspectivism intrinsic to the Edwardsian move, constitutes, in my reading, a genuine stumbling block for the eternal security and genuine confidence preached by earlier reformed theologians. See Heidelberg Catechism 1:1. For some weird reason, neo-calvinists adopted an Edwardsian psychology which to my reading, removes the type of rational sobriety Christians should be striving for. It borders being quasi-charismatic (though Edwardsian neo-calvinists will probably experience more soteriological doubts than your average pentecostal) and is far more similar and comparable to an Eastern Christian conception of theosis. People love Edwards in the same way they love Baxter, blindly, without ever questioning the consensus on these guys handed to us by this para-church neocalvinist establishment that is thankfully dying out.
Regarding Dispensationalism, it would have been great to hear a Bible based difference or view about the topic. It appears that you all have similar views and there is a way in which you all subtly affirm Belivers to steer away from it without saying it😂.
If St. Patrick's trinitarian shamrock is a heresy, then dispensationalism certainly is, As it radically attacks the unified nature of the people of God and makes the bride of Christ out to be a detour at best, or worse, simply 'plan B'. Even given your guy's definition of heresy as something attacking a foundational pillar of the faith, it is heresy. Or is Christ's fulfillment of the OT promises not a core pillar of the CHRISTian faith?? Is the nature of the Bride of Christ not a pillar of the CHRISTian faith?? That said, there are degrees of culpability for misunderstanding the Christian faith and falling into heretical doctrine and Christ will make that evaluation of ones culpability so I am not saying dispensationalism is a salvation issue but by any real definition of the term, it IS a heresy and its time for us to start saying that so it can go find a hole to die in.
39:35 a good Baptist will raise his family as if he's a Presbyterian 😁
There is so much smugness, condescension, and a lack of grace amongst those in the covenant theology camp lately towards dispensationalists, and also a lack of understanding and recognition of the simple and obvious fact that there is a spectrum of beliefs under the category, just as there is among covenant theology. It’s really disheartening to so consistently see this attitude among those in the covenant theology camp, and it’s very off putting. We’re all brothers and sisters here.
Deliverance ministers are the new indulgence peddlers
Ironically, one of the best books refuting deliverance ministries is "Truth or Territory," by a dispensationalist pastor, Jim Osman. Highly recommended
Dispensationalism is directly responsible for the funding of war in the middle east for decades
Dispensationalism was made popular from those pastors who liked the sensational writings of Ribera’s analyses of the Apostle John’s Apocalyptically writing.
Ri era the Jesuit’s intent was to divert the followers of Luther and Calvin from their direct exposure of the Vatican fraud.
Peter describes the Church as being composed of “ living stones “ . How can someone who is not actually in a regenerate state be considered such ?
The infant baptism comments are interesting I was in the RCA for a time and I heard so many ministers in a many different churches used the language “engaged to confess the faith of Christ” then they’d add this which is not in the official liturgy “and like any engagement it can be broken.”
If infant baptism is just an engagement ring, why get wet. I’m not sure all reformers ministers are true to the tradition
Love these guys but 3 of them are just so profoundly misguided on baptism.
Hi! Thanks for your podcast! I'm very blessed to hear your everytime that I can. I have a question for you. What do you think about Mew perspective on Paul and about Within Judaism? I really problematic for a reformed faith?
I would love to see a full video on the group discussing paedo vs credo baptism!
What is your opinion on Martin Luther the 15th century monk who left the church the Roman Catholic Church can't leave but they kicked him out
I do believe in a literal interpretation to a point we cannot interpret apocalyptic literature but we can interpret the gospels and some of the gospel message that we can comprehend
I believe in covenant theology but I also believe in Martin Luther's but I also see a little bit of this from a literal interpretation
This was a very helpful conversation about Edwards. His end times views on predicting the millennium troubled me when I read him. Sweeney’s Edwards the Exegete talks a lot about that.
This was a great episode!
On the Deliverance Service front, I’m thinking there was probably some intention toward what we see with the NAR/Word of Faith deliverance services that are often more about the self promotion of Apostle/Bishop/Prophet So-and-so’s traveling emotional manipulation tour. Those people tell Christians they can be possessed by demons, and there’s more to do with pagan ceremonies than anything remotely biblical.
The focus of those “services” are on the man at the front, his power, his faith & the Name is used as a tool in his “capable hands” rather than Jesus being the object of faith.
Love these discussions, thank you!! I’m doing some book ordering to learn more, thank you for the enriching talk
You brothers should come all the way back to the faith.
If we are believers as saved do we then renounce Satan? Do we not pray to God for his protection? How can a Christian, earnestly a Christian be possessed? I don’t think this can be true. The Holy Spirit and Satan cannot coexist! How can a believer be the property of Satan? No way! How can it be within her power to renounce ownership of her soul? It cannot be in our power due to the legality of ownership. God owns his owns. If your are in Christ you belong to God!
This is maddening that she must voice each of the rules. We are not healed by rules but not by grace. This person if truly saved would be saved not withstanding her claimed driving out satan. Oh dear men. It is not our word, not our water it is his WORD! It is his word, his predestination!
I’m not sharing this, so flawed!
WOW. Thank you guys so so so much for the response. I can’t say I’ve read all of Edwards’ works. I’ve only read The Freedom of the Will and Religious Affections (which were very impactful to my walk with and understanding of the Lord), and a good amount of his sermons and haven’t realized the panantheism if that’s how you spell it lol. I deeply appreciate you guys and i pray that the glory of God will continue to be displayed through y’all.
There is a gorilla in the room, a lot of Dispensationalist are also Pelagian.
"Look to your baptism" would feel like a nonsense statement to me if done while I was an infant. How do I look to something I can't remember, didn't choose for hope? I had basically nothing to do with that. Yet with believers baptism, there'd be something you can remember and hopefully at that time God was doing something significant in your life that you can look back on.