 |
|
“If we do not preach about sin and God’s judgment on it, we cannot present Christ as Saviour from sin and the wrath of God. And if we are silent about these things, and preach a Christ who saves only from self and the sorrows of this world, we are not preaching the Christ of the Bible. We are, in effect bearing false witness and preaching a false Christ. Our message is ‘another gospel, which is not another.’ Such preaching may soothe some, but it will help nobody; for a Christ who is not seen and sought as a Saviour from sin will not be found to save from self or from anything else. An imaginary Christ will not bring a real salvation; and a half-truth presented as the whole truth is a complete untruth.” –J.I. Packer, “The Puritan View of Preaching the Gospel,” in Puritan Papers, Vol 1. https://tinyurl.com/5cpxezmk [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1415392203953134&set=a.558547422970954] https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/01/universal-redemption-most-hideous.html https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/05/endorsing-narrow-path-doctrine.html |
This July 22, 2026, would have been the 100th birthday for Christian Theologian, J.I. Packer. I admire him and love his books. In remembering him on his 100th birthday, I will post quotes from him.
 |
|
J. I. Packer: “Psalms teach us how to worship; Proverbs, how to behave; Job, how to suffer; Song of Solomon, how to love; and Ecclesiastes, how to live.” [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/share/1J7oFqBvzD/...... https://se.pinterest.com/pin/675540012887862654/] https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/07/100th-birthday-remembrance-for-ji.html |
 |
"The idea that all
are children of God is not found in the Bible anywhere." [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19Hn3antAu/] |
 |
|
If one preaches the Bible biblically, one cannot help preaching the gospel all the time. - J. I. Packer [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/882035] |
 |
|
Underlying the preaching of the Puritans are three basic axioms: 1. The unique place of preaching is to convert, feed and sustain, 2. The life of the preacher must radiate the reality of what he preaches, 3. Prayer and solid Bible study are basic to effective preaching. - J. I. Packer [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/703708] |
 |
|
October is Reformation
Month Oct. 6, 1520 - Luther writes On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Oct. 7, 1555 - The Diet of Augsburg, Emperor Charles V recognizes religious freedom for the Lutherans. Oct. 7, 1546 - the Fourteen of Meaux were executed for adhering to the Protestant religion. Oct. 10, 1520 - Luther receives the papal bull—he has 60 days to respond. Oct. 11, 1531 - Death of Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli in the Battle of Kappel. Oct. 12, 1417 - Jon Hus started his trip to Constance, even though he was offered protection, he was martyred Oct. 12-14, 1518 - Luther met Cardinal Cajetan Oct. 13 - 1605 Death of Theodore Beza, a French-born theologian, who had been widely recognized as Calvin’s successor. Oct. 15, 1647 - The Larger Westminster Catechism is completed
Oct. 16,1655 - English reformers Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer are burned at
the stake under the rule of Queen Mary. Oct. 26-28. 1523 - The Second Zurich Disputation (Zwingli argued against the Roman Catholic practice of mass and image worship in Zurich). Oct. 28, 1469 - Erasmus born
Oct. 31, 1517- Martin Luther posts his 95 theses. [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CE8QrKvLR/] TEMPORARY BLOG: https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/07/100th-birthday-remembrance-for-ji.html |
 |
|
"It wasn't Luther or Calvin that reformed the church. It was the Word of God that reformed the church." – W. Robert Godfrey [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.monergism.com/authorsspeakers/w-robert-godfrey TEMPORARY BLOG: https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/07/100th-birthday-remembrance-for-ji.html |
"Calvinism does not
fundamentally have five points; rather, it has five answers to the five errors
of Arminianism." - W. Robert Godfrey Calvinism is bigger than
TULIP. [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1bvfB7AdED/] TEMPORARY BLOG: https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/07/100th-birthday-remembrance-for-ji.html
The five points were not written as a complete summary of Reformed theology.
They were five answers to five errors raised by the Remonstrants.
That matters.
The Canons of Dort were defensive answers—not the whole Reformed faith.
Total depravity answers man’s claimed ability.
Unconditional election answers foreseen-faith election.
Definite atonement answers a merely possible redemption.
Effectual calling answers resistible grace.
Perseverance answers final apostasy.
Five errors.
Five answers.
One repeated truth:
“Salvation belongs to the LORD!”
— Jonah 2:9
Calvinism is not about squeezing God into five points.
It is about refusing to give man the glory that belongs to God.
The five points are answers.
Sovereign grace is the point.
-Cody Hurd
The Pilgrim’s Post
A guide to Reformed
Theology [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FZSPTpPni/] TEMPORARY BLOG: https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/07/100th-birthday-remembrance-for-ji.html
RELATED LINKS:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/40-quotes-from-j-i-packer/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Packer
 |
|
George Whitfield’s followers said to Whitfield, “We won’t see John Wesley( Arminian) in heaven, will we?” George Whitfield(Calvinist) humbly replied “Yes, you’re right, we won’t see him in heaven. He will be so close to the Throne of God and we will be so far away, that we won’t be able to see him!” [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10244056311285716&set=a.4949433896295] |
THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE LINKS:
I have often confessed that, when my spirit gets depressed, nothing will sustain it but the good old-fashioned Calvinistic doctrine. – Charles Spurgeon
https://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/god-in-nature-and-in-revelation
Prayer of TULIP
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/07/prayer-of-tulip.html
“We are all sinners by nature, therefore we are held under the yoke of sin. But if the whole man is subject to the dominion of sin, surely the will, which is its principal seat, must be bound with the closest of chains. And indeed if divine grace were preceded by any will of ours, Paul could not have said that, ‘it is God that worketh in us to will and to do'” (Phil. 2:13) –John Calvin
The Effect of Sin: "Total Depravity"
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-effect-of-sin-total-depravity.html
Thus, I say, the electing love of God in Christ (when I have been able to realize it) has often been the means of producing holiness, instead of leading me into sin. It is only the notional apprehension of such truths, the want of having them in the heart, whilst they are in the head, which is dangerous. – George Muller on the Doctrines of Grace
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/03/george-muller-on-doctrines-of-grace.html
I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be added to it. - Charles Spurgeon
UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION: THE MOST HIDEOUS DOCTRINE IN THE WORLD – SERMON BY PASTOR DON FORTNER
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/01/universal-redemption-most-hideous.html
Election is God’s decree “whereby on his own free will, he hath ordained certain men to salvation, to the praise of the glory of his grace.” Reprobation is “that part of predestination, whereby God, according to the most free and just purpose of his will, hath determined to reject certain men unto eternal destruction, and misery, and that to the praise of his justice.” – William Perkins
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2020/10/sermon-by-joel-beeke-william-perkinss.html
Erase John Calvin and his theology from church history, and I still believe in the absolute depravity of man, the unconditional election of God, the definite atonement of Christ, the efficacious grace of God, and the perseverance of all the saints. Because the Bible tells me so. – Dustin Benge
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2022/07/dustin-benge-on-erasing-john-calvin.html
PROPONENTS OF THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE LINKS:
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2026/05/endorsing-narrow-path-doctrine.html
https://findlivinghope.com/2025/03/why-i-love-the-doctrines-of-grace/
https://churcheswithoutchests.net/2025/08/21/the-doctrines-of-grace-found-me/
https://www.walkingthroughthegospel.com/2023/09/10-reasons-to-believe-doctrines-of-grace.html
https://www.oakhillspca.com/blog/post/why-i-love-the-doctrine-of-irresistible-grace
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/devastated-and-delighted
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-joy-of-calvinism--2
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-does-tulip-make-you-feel
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-beauty-of-reformed-theology
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2021/05/john-calvin-on-isaiah-41-verse-10-and-13.html
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2024/01/540th-birthday-for-zwingli-swiss.html
https://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/
https://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/why-i-am-a-calvinist-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
How I Became A Calvinist Playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjSIFDZIs-qdeGX01aYguVUstfiTFwKg1&si=JgdsQfXS-qN1uSgu
Michael Jeshurun:
https://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/biblical-election-a-truth-to-be-preached-2/
https://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com/2023/05/26/rejoicing-in-the-truth-of-sovereign-election/
https://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com/tag/calvinism-not-from-calvin/
 |
|
Examples of Reprobate mind [PHOTO SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18YZ1HYFQL/] |
Frontline Fellowship:
https://www.frontlinemissionsa.org/answers-to-critical-questions
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2023/10/470-years-ago-michael-servetus-was.html
David Kaywood:
https://www.gospelrelevance.com/2016/05/22/john-calvin-burn-michael-servetus-stake/
https://bible.org/article/what-theology-dave-hunt-s-misrepresentation-god-and-calvinism
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-beauty-of-reformed-theology
https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/im-not-reformed-admire-anyway/
 |
|
The Men I Thought Were Arminians I want to begin with a confession, because this article grew out of my own mistake. For a long time I have argued with men online who reject the doctrines of grace, and I assumed I was arguing with Arminians. I treated them as such. I answered them as such. I said publicly that I could sit across a table from a classical Arminian, disagree with him firmly, and still call him a brother, because the old Arminian and I agreed on far more than we differed on. Then I began to notice that my arguments were not landing where they should. I would quote Ephesians 2:1 on man being dead in sin, expecting a disagreement about how grace works, and instead I would get a disagreement about whether man is dead at all. I would raise prevenient grace, the very heart of the Arminian answer, and find the man on the other side had no use for it. And eventually the obvious struck me. These men are not Arminians. They do not claim to be. Many of them explicitly reject the label, and they are right to reject it, because they hold something else entirely. They are Provisionists, and their roots do not run back to Arminius. They run back much further, and much lower, to an error the church condemned fifteen hundred years ago. What Provisionism actually is The name is recent. It was popularised in the last decade largely through Leighton Flowers, a former Calvinist and Southern Baptist, through his Soteriology 101 ministry. The position itself is older than the name, since a broad non Calvinistic Baptist soteriology has been present for generations, but the label and the platform are new, and through podcasts, videos, and social media it has become the default position of a great many online opponents of Reformed theology. Many who hold it have never heard the word. They simply absorbed the arguments. The basic claim is in the name. God has provided everything necessary for salvation in the gospel itself. The message, when preached, is sufficient to enable a person to respond. Therefore no further work of God on the heart is needed beyond the sending of that message. Every person who hears the gospel has, at that moment, the genuine ability to believe or to refuse, and nothing in his nature prevents him. That is the system in a sentence, and everything else follows from it. Since no inward enabling is needed, there is no need for effectual calling. Since man is able, election cannot be God choosing individuals and giving them faith. And since ability is universal, inherited corruption cannot amount to inability. Why this is not Arminianism Here is where I went wrong for years, and where many good men are still going wrong. Arminius and the men who followed him affirmed total depravity in terms as strong as any Reformed confession. Arminius wrote that fallen man is "not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good" (Declaration of Sentiments), and that the free will of man "has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace" (Public Disputation XI). The Remonstrants said the same in the article they brought to Dort, that man "has no saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will," and that apart from being born again he "cannot think, will, or do any thing that is truly good" (The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610, Article III). Read that again and notice what it concedes. Man cannot. Not will not merely, but cannot. The Arminian answer to this problem was prevenient grace, a grace God extends before conversion which restores enough ability for a person to respond, and which can be resisted. I believe that answer is wrong and that Scripture teaches effectual grace instead. But notice what kind of disagreement that is. It is an argument about how grace operates between two men who both confess that without grace no one could move an inch toward God. The Provisionist removes that step. He does not need prevenient grace because he does not accept the inability it was invented to solve. He says the sinner already possesses the ability, and that the Word itself supplies whatever enabling is required. So Arminianism says man is dead and grace revives him enough to choose. Provisionism says man was never that dead to begin with. That is not a variation within the family. It is a different diagnosis of the patient, and as I have written before, once the diagnosis changes, everything downstream changes with it. Where the roots actually go Let me be careful and fair here, because accuracy matters more than a winning label. This is not Pelagianism. Pelagius, in the fifth century, denied original sin altogether and taught that man can keep God's commands and attain righteousness by his natural powers. No Provisionist teaches that. They preach the cross, the necessity of the gospel, and faith in Christ, and they should not be accused of what they do not hold. Pelagius was condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418. But there was a second error, milder and far more durable, which appeared in the aftermath. It admitted that man is fallen and that grace is necessary for salvation, while insisting that the movement toward God begins with man himself, before any work of grace upon his heart. God, on this view, provides everything around the man and then waits on the man's own capacity. And the church dealt with it. At the Second Council of Orange in 529 it was condemned, though not under the name we now use, since the term semi Pelagian was coined centuries later. What Orange condemned was the substance of the error, and the canons read as if written for our present argument. "If anyone says that the increase of faith, and the beginning of faith, and the very desire of believing... is in us naturally and not by a gift of grace, that is, by an inspiration of the Holy Spirit... he shows himself opposed to apostolic teaching" (Canons of Orange, Canon 5). The beginning of faith. The very desire of believing. Both declared to be gifts of grace and not natural capacities. And Canon 7 reaches even closer to the position as it is held today. It condemns anyone who says that "by the strength of nature he can think as is required or choose anything good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life, or assent to the saving preaching of the gospel without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit" (Canons of Orange, Canon 7). Assent to the preaching of the gospel without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. That is precisely the claim under discussion, since the answer given is that God has initiated by sending the message and the hearer is able to respond to it. Rome and the Reformers agreed on this for once, which tells you how basic it is. And our generation has revived what the ancient church buried, given it a modern name, and marketed it as the plain reading of Scripture. I say this without pleasure, and I say it as a man who spent a long time not noticing. If you are debating someone who denies that fallen man is unable, you are not debating an Arminian. You are debating a position the church rejected in 529, and you should say so plainly rather than granting it a respectability it has not earned. Now let Scripture speak Let me be clear that I do not rest this case on any council. Orange appears above as history rather than authority, because a man holding a position ought to know where it has stood before. If Carthage or Orange contradicted Scripture I would side with Scripture against both without hesitation. So let us go to the text, which is where the matter is actually decided. Everything in this system rests on one claim, that the unregenerate man possesses the ability to believe. Remove that claim and the whole structure collapses. Scripture does not say fallen man is weakened. It says he is dead. "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins" Ephesians 2:1. Then comes the remedy, and notice who acts. "But God, being rich in mercy... even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ" Ephesians 2:4 and 5. Made us alive. A corpse does not cooperate in its own resurrection. Scripture does not say he is neutral. It says he is hostile, and then removes the escape route in the same breath. "Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so" Romans 8:7. Not even able. Then verse 8, "and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." If a man can believe without any prior work of God in him, then Paul has overstated his case badly, because faith surely pleases God. Scripture does not say he lacks information. It says he lacks capacity. "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" 1 Corinthians 2:14. This is the verse that dismantles the claim most directly, because the whole system rests on the sufficiency of the message to enable the hearer, and Paul says the natural man cannot receive that message as anything but foolishness. The problem is not the clarity of the gospel. It is the condition of the ears. Our Lord said it as plainly as it can be said, twice in one chapter. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" John 6:44. And again, "for this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" John 6:65. Can. That word concerns ability, not permission, and He was speaking to men who had just heard the message and walked away from it. Jeremiah asks the question rhetorically and expects the obvious answer. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil" Jeremiah 13:23. And the new birth itself is described in language that excludes human initiative completely. "Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" John 1:13. Not of the will of man. If the first movement belonged to us, John has written the exact opposite of the truth. And our Lord told Nicodemus, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" John 3:3, placing the new birth before the seeing rather than after it. John states the order in a single verse that is difficult to evade. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" 1 John 5:1. The believing is in the present tense and the being born is in the perfect, a completed act standing behind it. Believing is the evidence that the birth has occurred, not the cause of it. Then there is Lydia, and I keep returning to her because she is the whole debate in one sentence of narrative. Paul preached at the riverside, and a group of women listened to the same words in the same air. "A woman named Lydia... was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul" Acts 16:14. The message was preached to all of them. The Lord opened one heart. And she responded freely and gladly, without the slightest coercion, which is exactly what we have always said happens. And Paul settles where faith comes from. "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" Philippians 1:29. It is objected that granted means merely permitted, but apply that consistently to the second half of the verse and it becomes absurd, since Paul is not telling the Philippians they have been permitted to suffer if they fancy it. The word means given. Even repentance is described as a gift rather than an achievement, "if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" 2 Timothy 2:25, and so is the new birth itself, "in the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth" James 1:18. In the exercise of His will. Not ours. Answering the strongest objection The objection will be that all this makes men robots, and that God commands what men cannot do, which would be unjust. Take the second part first, because it is the serious one. God's commands have never been limited by our ability, and Scripture never treats inability as an excuse. The law commands perfect love for God, and no fallen man has ever managed it for an hour, yet the command stands and the guilt is real. That is the whole argument of Romans 3, which ends "so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God" Romans 3:19. Our inability is not a misfortune that befell us. It is moral, it is our own, and it consists precisely in our unwillingness, which is why Christ could say to men reading their Bibles, "you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life" John 5:40. And nobody is a robot. Every man does exactly what he most wants at every moment, which is why he is responsible. What we are saying is that his wanting is governed by his nature, as our Lord taught, "for there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit" Luke 6:43. Change the tree and the fruit changes. That is what God promised to do, "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you" Ezekiel 36:26, and the result is a man who comes willingly, "Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power" Psalm 110:3. Why this matters enough to write about Someone will ask why I am spending an article on a label. Because a wrong view of man produces a wrong view of grace, and a wrong view of grace eventually produces a different gospel. If the sinner supplies the decisive movement, then grace is God's response to something in us, and the deciding factor in salvation is finally human. That is precisely the thing Paul writes to exclude, "so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" Romans 9:16. And it leaves the question of 1 Corinthians 4:7 with an answer it must never have, "what do you have that you did not receive?" It also matters for how we argue. If I answer a Provisionist as though he were an Arminian, I will keep offering him solutions to a problem he does not believe exists, and we will talk past each other for years. Name the actual position and the conversation becomes honest. So let me say it once more, and then leave it. Many of the men we are debating today are not Arminians and do not claim to be. Their position denies the inability that both Calvinists and Arminians have always confessed, and its roots run to an error the church condemned at Orange in 529. I did not see it for a long time, and I was arguing badly because of it. We were dead. God made us alive. He gets all of it, and every soul He has raised will be saying so for eternity. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19SPaYSiac/ [PHOTO SOURCE: https://share.google/pskJJiys61nGC3oHG..... https://www.facebook.com/groups/1502302933336360/posts/3659160480983917/] Arminians disagree with Provisionist links: https://soteriology101.com/2016/02/24/why-i-am-not-an-arminian/ https://evangelicalarminians.org/thoughts-on-a-conversation-with-dr-leighton-flowers/ https://evangelicalarminians.org/dear-dr-flowers/ https://puritanboard.com/threads/countering-provisionism.106713/ https://theparticularbaptist.net/2020/05/29/leightons-ministry-of-selfishness/ https://puritanboard.com/threads/countering-provisionism.106713/ Comparison - https://share.google/aimode/TXPRbdjoUj6cmCmYR |
Refuting Provisionist:
https://theparticularbaptist.net/2020/05/29/leightons-ministry-of-selfishness/
https://puritanboard.com/threads/countering-provisionism.106713/
If you believe that salvation is all your choosing, have the courage and conviction to stand before God and tell Him you would like to pause from thanking Him, and thank yourself. — Derek Thomas
Response to Dave Hunt’s book: What Love is This? subtitled, “Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God.”
https://lutherandcalvinbrigade914.blogspot.com/2025/05/response-to-dave-hunts-book-what-love.html
