X. Cordial Exchanges with a ‘Standard Reformed’ Brother

X. Cordial Exchanges with a ‘Standard Reformed’ Brother


Here is a typical series of exchanges in a 'discussion' with a good and sincere brother named Ah Wong. It began when this kind and concerned brother wrote to inquire of the truthfulness of the 'news' he is hearing, and the so-called "new" Order of Salvation I have embraced. As usual, a genuine interest to come to term with the teaching of Scriptures summarized in the Confession is very lacking. To many, the Confessional Standard of their church is merely a historical relic for ornamental purposes. It seems they would believe what they wish to believe regardless of what their Confessional Standard has summarized what the Scriptures teach. I find the same spirit pervasive among the RBF men.
----------


Dear Brother,
How art thou? Hope all is well up north. I received news that you hold to a “new” Order of Salvation. I understand that this has caused some RBs to cut fellowship with you. Is this news true? If so, what is the Order of Salvation that you are holding to? W
----------


Dear Brother W,
Up north is scorching hot and dry. Both the ground and the church too can do with some refreshing showers from above. Pray for us. Haven't heard from you for a thousand days! You are surely risking your good reputation by keeping in touch with one who has been charged by the 'standard reformed' RBs with 'heresies' and 'fundamental and serious' errors! You are a man in wanting to hear from the horse's own mouth.

Is the news true? I don't know. You had better ask those who decided to cut fellowship. I was warned about parting of ways before, but I have not been told anything yet. Extending or withholding fellowship is the right and liberty of each man and each church. I fully respect the right and liberty of each man and each church in such matter. It seems Peter Kek is their new leader and spokesman. I may be wrong - probably he is the one from whom you heard the news of cutting fellowship.

Some folks carry too many daggers to cut here and cut there. They have to be careful, lest they cut they own throats before too long! ;-) My sword is reserved for pruning deformed branches from the gospel vine.

'New' and 'old' are very relative, don't you think? What is ancient can appear very new because it is the first time some folks are made to see that ancient stuff! Doctrine of grace can be new to so many but it is as old as the ancient Scriptures. When we meet ancient truth familiar to ancient people for the first time, those ancient truth appears painfully 'new' to us.

Please expound a simple statement and I will send you a little writing I have compiled to 'assist' the RB brothers who hold to the 'standard reformed position' to formally charge me with errors. Here is a simple statement: 'Faith is not alone in the person justified' is in found in WCF 11.2. It is a theological statement. But I am not interested in theology at the moment. I am only interested in its plain meaning in simple English. A fair non-theological equivalent would be something like: "Breath is not alone in the person resuscitated (brought back to life)."

What conclusion can be made about the statement? What is the order of breath and quickening? Is the breath to secure quickening? Is the breath one of the effects of quickening? What are some other effects of quickening?

Now the question: what does 'Faith is not alone in the person justified' tells us about justification by faith? What is the order of faith and justification? Is faith to secure justification? Is faith one of the effects of justification? What are some other effects of justification?

What is the Order of Salvation I know believe? Read WCF chapter 10-14 very carefully and the answer is there. I certainly hope the WCF is not just a historical relic (no insult intended at all) in your circle. And please read chapter 20 of the 1689 too. May the Lord grant us understanding of His grace. Your nilly brother, Sing

p/s 'Faith is not alone in the person justified' is framed and signed by no less than 100 Westminster divines in 1647, and adopted by no less than "37 leading Baptist ministers" in 1689.
---------


My dear Brother in the North,
I have not met Peter Kek for a while so he is not the person who shared this "news" to me. I wrote you the email because you are my brother in Christ... Of course I am interested in your well being and ministry. So when I heard about your "situation", it is only brotherly of me to find out from you personally what is going on. I hope my email has not made the matter more difficult for the RB brothers in Malaysia. I merely wanted to know your situation as a personal friend and brother in Christ. I will look into the WCF statement you mentioned quickly. However, I am still unclear as to what is the problem with the statement and your doctrinal conviction on this matter of the Order of Salvation.

I have included below a short article on this subject which I hope will benefit you in some ways. Forgive me if my email has caused you any pain or anger. Please be assured that my purpose is peaceful. As our Lord said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

My love to you and yours in Penang, W


ORDER OF SALVATION

When in theology we speak of the "order of salvation," we are speaking of the different parts of salvation as they are applied and given to God's people by the Holy Spirit. In other words, the "order of salvation" de-scribes the work of God's Spirit in us. The closest thing we have to an order of salvation in Scripture is Romans 8:30, but that is not an order of salvation in the strict theological sense. For instance, it speaks of predestination, which is not part of God's work in us, but something he did for us before the foundation of the world.

A typical order of salvation is that followed by the Westminster Larger Catechism: union with Christ, effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. Others would propose a different order. Many, for example, would include regeneration and faith. In any case, the purpose of such an order is to try to understand the relationship between these different parts of our salvation, all of which are described in Scripture. Several things must be remembered in speaking of such an order. We must remember that this is only an attempt to understand these biblical concepts and is in no sense to be understood mechanically, as though we first receive one blessing, then the next, and so on. The fact is that in our experience many of these blessings are received at the same time. Also, many of them are not one-time spiritual happenings. Sanctification, for example, is something that begins when a person is first saved and continues to the very moment of death. The application of salvation does not take place all at once, but is something lifelong - something finished only when we are finally with Christ in heaven. This is, of course, denied by those who believe in perfectionism and entire sanctification; they tend to see the application of salvation as a one-time thing.

In a Reformed order of salvation, there are several things that must be emphasized and cannot be changed. Regeneration and effectual calling must come before faith, or we have faith as a work of man, which is Arminianism. Faith itself must come before justification to maintain the great Protestant truth of justification by faith alone. Finally, justification must precede sanctification, or we have the Romish doctrine of justification by works. All this is only to say that the one thing any order of salvation must teach is that also in its application, salvation is entirely the work of God himself through the sovereign operations of the Holy Spirit. It is all of grace, and therefore is "of the LORD" (Jonah 2:9).
---------


Dear brother W,
I didn't misunderstand your good and brotherly intention. There is no pain or anger! In a dangerous world, there is no time for sentimentalism. There is no need for apology whatsoever - you have not wronged me. I was glad you asked to find out anyway. Thanks for the article on the Order of Salvation. It is a typical 'standard reformed' position espoused and defended by many. It sounds ('sounds' only) similar to that summarised in the WCF.

You are still unclear because you have looked at the WCF 'QUICKLY.' Look at it again, this time real SLOW... with paper and pen by your side, and mark it line by line, see whether it say what the 'standard reformed' order of salvation says. Your nilly brother, Sing
---------


Dear brother W,
Thank you for the short article on the reformed order of salvation. Please see some brief comments. Who is the author? Please forward my comments to him. Thanks. This order is as understood by the 'standard reformed' folks. The 'reformed' position is NOT the biblical position - which needs no reformation! The 'reformed' position was and still is nothing but the Romish position tinkered with a little and inadequately reformed, therefore still deficient and inconsistent. The order summarised in the WCF is consistent.

It is rightly asserted that: regeneration and effectual calling must come before faith, or we have faith as work of man, which is Arminianism. EVEN SO, I would ADD with biblical authority and confessional witnesses that justification must also come before faith, or we will have faith as work of man too, which is both Arminianism and the Popish doctrine of justification by works too. Don't you see the exact parallel? Why is faith considered as work in the former, and not in the latter? Kindly offer a 'standard reformed' explanation.

I have no use for the Protestant notion of justification by faith alone, i.e. justification is secured through faith alone. That is a Romish doctrine - no typing error. Eternal life is secured through faith is another such Romish error! Faith in Christ is the sole instrument to EVIDENCE justification. Faith in Christ is not the instrumental means to SECURE justification. Faith in Jesus Christ is the evidence of spiritual and eternal life, which the justified alone possesses.

THE WCF rightly states that effectual calling and regeneration are two separate and distinct divine acts, and effectual call (WCF.10) by the Father is logically prior to the regeneration by the Holy Spirit (WCF 12). "They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated..." WCF 13:1

The WCF rightly asserts that effectual calling and regeneration must come before faith. The WCF also asserts that justification must come before faith... because faith is not alone in the person justified, i.e. faith is one of the graces in the person justified.

In the effectual calling of a condemned dead child of wrath (WCF 10), God justifies the condemned elect and declares him righteous (WCF 11), the Holy Spirit regenerates the spiritually dead elect to be adopted - born to be son, and given the gifts of faith and repentance (WCF 12). This justified living child of God is ready for further sanctification (WCF 13) because he has been definitively sanctified from being a condemned dead child of wrath into a justified living child of God through the grace of effectual calling.

To wit, effectual call to life is a term (as used in the WCF) which embraces justification, regeneration and adoption. An elect who is effectually called to life is enabled to respond to the gospel call for further sanctification. This further sanctification is initiated and maintained by the ministry of the word (WCF 14).

Effectual call unto life enables an elect to respond to the gospel call unto repentance and faith, i.e. initial conversion and throughout life. Faith is evidence of life that was bestowed by the divine and gracious acts of justification, regeneration and adoption in the effectual call unto life. That is the teaching of the Scriptures summarised by the WCF, whatever modern 'standard reformed' people want to claim.

Please show me one place in the WCF where it says 'justification is by faith alone' - i.e. our faith is the sole instrumental means to SECURE our justification with God, and I will show you with biblical authority that faith is the effect and evidence of God justifying us when we were ungodly and were enemies, when we were utterly incapable of faith.

One of the most serious theological blunder of the 'standard reformed' position has been the confusion between the effectual call to eternal life as the gospel call blessed or 'made effectual' to the conversion of regenerated elect. The two are not the same. Effectual call (WCF 10) enables the elect to response to the gospel call (WCF 14). The two are separate and distinct. A condemned dead child of wrath effectually called, i.e. justified, regenerated and adopted - justified living child of God bestowed with gifts of faith & repentance is enabled to respond to the gospel call.

May the Lord grant us understanding. Believing is an evidence of justification by grace. Believing is evidence of regeneration. Believing is evidence of adoption. Believing is evidence of having received the graces of faith at justification. Believing is an evidence of the effectual call unto grace and salvation! By grace alone, Sing
----------


Brother, I hope the article below helps. W.

[Brother W pasted a lengthy article, 'James and Justification by Faith' by James S. Gidley. The article asked, and then proceeded to explain James 2:24, "Does James 2:24 require us to modify the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone? It reads, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."]
---------


Brother W,
Thanks for the article by James S. Gidley. You don't seem to see the point. With all due respect I have read enough articles that regurgitate the 'standard reformed' view, which is deficient and inconsistent in the light of Scriptures. Please don't send any more articles. Do some careful thinking yourself. I would love to read some thoughts you have wrestled with on your own.

Consider this biblical statement discussed in the article: "You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." I am in perfect agreement with this biblical statement. Let's consider the implication of this grand statement.

This statement in its context is declaring at least two truths:
a. The works as well as the faith of a person justifies him.
b. The way works justify a man is the same way his faith justifies him. The 'standard reformed' folks will recoil from and reject this simple truth - which explains the deficiency and inconsistency of the standard reformed view.

Now the questions you are obligated to answer are these: How does faith justify a man? How do works justify a man? In what sense do works and faith justify a man in exactly the same manner?
'Faith is not alone in the person justified.' This means among other things, that apart from faith there are other graces in the person justified. In a man justified by God, you will find among other saving graces, faith and good works.

Faith justifies a man in that his faith declares, demonstrates, evidences, proves, vindicates that he has been imputed with the righteousness of Christ, i.e. justified by God. Faith does not justify in that it does not secures the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Faith is not the instrumental means to secure the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Faith is not the instrumental means to secure our justification. Faith is the instrument to declare, demonstrate, evidence, prove, or vindicate the justified state of the person.

Even so, works of faith justifies a man in that his works of faith declare, demonstrate, evidence, prove, vindicate that the believing person HAS been imputed with the righteousness of Christ, i.e. justified by God. The justified man has good works. Works do not justify in that they do not secure the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Works are not the instrumental means to SECURE the imputation of Christ's righteousness [this the Papists deny but the reformed folks affirm.] Works are not the instrumental means to SECURE our justification. Works, like faith, are the instrument to declare, demonstrate, evidence, prove, or vindicate the justified state of a person. But in the purposes of God, it is 'faith is accounted to him for righteousness,' and not 'works is accounted to him for righteousness.' Please take careful note that 'faith is accounted to him for righteousness' IS NOT - IS NOT - IS NOT the same as 'the righteousness of Christ is accounted to him for justification.' Accounting of my faith for righteousness and the accounting of Christ’s righteousness for justification are two totally different matters. It is a massive theological blunder to confound the two.

The meaning of the word 'justify' must be determined by its context. It does not always mean the divine act of declaring a guilty sinner righteous.

I said before that the 'standard reformed' position was and still is nothing but the Romish position tinkered with a little and inadequately reformed, therefore still deficient and inconsistent. The order summarised in the WCF is consistent – but the ‘standard reformed’ order of salvation is not the order of the WCF.

The biblical position is, "The just shall live by faith." The reformed position seems to be, "By faith a condemned man shall be justified and receive life to live".]

Legal justification is neither by works nor by faith. Justification is by grace through the blood of Christ, evidences not only by faith alone, but also by works of faith. God justified us while we were still ungodly and were still enemies, still in rebellion against Him. The common error is that God justifies (legally) us when we believe. That is not grace. That’s work.

Experiential or evidential justification is by faith as well as good works. Abraham is the classic example. Abraham was already a justified man by grace in Gen 12-14, prior to Gen 15:1-6. His faith in Gen 15:1-6 proves, demonstrates, evidences and vindicates his justified state. 'The just shall live by faith.' By faith he experienced the blessedness of his righteous standing before God in Christ. His works, before and after Gen 15:1-6, proves, demonstrates, evidences and vindicates the SAME justified state. But faith was accounted to him for righteousness. Faith secures for him the experience of blessedness of being righteous in Christ. Both faith and works demonstrate and evidence the justified state of a man by grace. The saving grace of faith as a result of justification is a saving grace that is never alone, i.e. always accompanied by good works.

Consider the above. Start thinking for your self a little. Don't regurgitate the same old stuff. My dining table is already full of them. Give me some freshly cooked dishes with the wholesome old-fashioned ingredients. No offence intended. Your nilly brother, Sing
p/s you are free to cc the above to any for further discussion.
---------------


My dear Brother,
I believe the confusion has to do with the meaning of the word 'justification'. I think you must have been reading John Gill on this subject. On this matter, John Gill tended to use justification in its eternal sense. But WCF 11:2a--"Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification..." indicates that the Westminster divines have in mind justification in term of the temporal declaration of righteousness. I hope further thoughts and reading in this matter will help all of us. W
----------


Brother W
I am only interested in your WCF, so we will leave your speculation about Gill alone for now. I am interested in the justification of each elect at God's appointed and accepted time, i.e. when they are justified personally, when the Holy Spirit does in time due actually apply Christ unto them." (WCF.11.4). What is 'justification in the eternal sense'? Does it mean that justification took place in eternity, or does it means once justified, the justification is forever, i.e. eternal?

WCF summarises: "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification..." You would agree with the following from the above statement: Faith is the activity of a regenerated elect, i.e. the act of receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness is the activity of an elect who is regenerated with eternal and spiritual life, and bestowed with the gifts of faith and repentance.

My simple question to you and others who hold to the standard reformed position is this: is a regenerated elect with spiritual life and bestowed with the gift of faith to believe still under God's just condemnation of death, i.e. in an un-justified state? An unjustified state is a state of condemnation of death, a child of wrath. The condemnation of death must be removed before the impartation of life, the justification of life must be applied before regeneration can take place. In another word, justification must precede regeneration.

In your lovely city state, would you ever see a man under death penalty but who moves about as a free man, would the Director General of the Prison release a condemned criminal before the Supreme Court has declared him not guilty but righteous? I know it is a poor illustration, but think about it.

WCF summarises: "Faith... is the alone instrument of justification..." The simple questions are: In what sense is faith the alone instrument of justification? What does faith as an instrument do? And why is faith the alone instrument of justification? Does faith as an instrument secure the justification from God for the believing person? Or does faith as an instrument demonstrate and give evidence to the justification already applied to an elect when he was ungodly and in enmity against God? Is there a third alternative about faith as the instrument? Simple questions call for simple answers.
WCF also summarises: "Faith is not alone in the person justified." You would agree, I think, with the following from the above statement: Faith is one of the saving graces found in the person whom God has justified; saving faith is one of the effects of justification. The faith of a person is proof and evidence that a believer in Christ has been justified by God, just as breath is a proof and evidence that the dead person has been resuscitated. And faith is the instrument to evidence, to make manifest that justified state by grace while ungodly and in enmity against God.

I am only interested in the plain meaning of WCF. I would appreciate your correction if I have misunderstood the meaning of your Confessional Statement. I am learning. But don't give me more reformed shibboleth. I have been given enough! I am hoping together with you that further thoughts and reading in this matter will help all of us. Don't despise the thoughts of... Your nilly brother, Sing
----------


Dear Brother,
The question seems to be over Faith. As I understand it, Regeneration precedes Faith is the clear teaching of Scripture. We have faith because we are quickened (made alive) just as a person resuscitated breaths. Faith is not alone in the person justified because along with regeneration comes good works and not just the exercise of faith.

The order of faith and justification is not implied in the WCF statement, but if justification is seen as a DECLARATION that a person is righteous for Christ's sake (or justification by faith), then logically faith precedes justification. This is the way in which justification is used in WCF. However, if we look at justification in the broader sense of being just before God, there is a sense in which we are just in eternity, in which case, justification precedes faith. Hope this makes sense. W
----------


Dear brother W
Thank you for your effort at answering my simple question! Good on you. The question is not over faith. The question is over the logical and chronological order of justification and faith. Faith is the effect and evidence of justification. Faith is the sole instrument to evidence the justified state of an elect.

Please remember that the statement says, 'faith is not alone in the person justified' and NOT 'faith is not alone in the person quickened.' 'Justified' and 'quickened' are two separate and distinct acts of divine graces. I think you would agree. Therefore it is out of context, even though not incorrect to say, "We have faith because we are quickened (made alive)." It would be contextual, and consistent and necessary to say, "We have faith because we are justified." But you would recoil from making that consistent and Scriptural statement because it would throw a big spanner into the sacred 'standard reformed' order of salvation.

You correctly observe that 'regeneration precedes faith is the clear teaching of Scripture.' But have you ever asked whether the Spirit of God regenerates an elect who is still under the just condemnation of God, or does the Spirit of God regenerate an elect whom the Father has justified, i.e. removed His just condemnation? Simply, which is logically prior: justification or regeneration? What sayest thy WCF?

You correctly observe: a resuscitated person breathes; i.e. the person breathes because he is resuscitated. You fail to conclude: a justified person believes; i.e. the person believes because he is justified. Instead you conclude wrongly that a person believes in order to be justified!
The statement, 'the just shall live by faith' is repeated several times in the Scriptures. It seems many understand or make the Scripture to say, 'by faith you shall be just and live.' Sounds the same but there is a whole world of difference, isn't there?

Does the Scripture say 'God justifies the believing' or does it say, 'God justifies the ungodly'? Does the Scripture say 'we were reconciled to God when we were believing' or does it say, 'we were reconciled to God when we were enemies.' Did God wait for you to believe to reconcile you? And can there be reconciliation without justification? Did God wait for you to believe in order to justify you? What ancient but 'new' questions! I ask to motivate study and learning. I am ready to listen and learn from you.

When you say that "faith is not alone in the person justified because along with regeneration comes good works and not just the exercise of faith," are you saying that apart from faith, regeneration and good works are also found in the person justified, i.e. regeneration and good works are also the effects of justification?

Please demonstrate from the WCF itself that faith is logically prior to justification. I will throw a 'standard reformed' dinner in a 'standard reformed' restaurant in a posh 'standard reformed' district for you and all your kinsmen. ;-)

On what ground do you conclude that the order of faith and justification is not implied in the WCF statement, 'faith is not alone in the person justified'? Is it language, logic, common sense, fear, etc. Please explain. Kindly ask your lawyer wife whether this simple statement "breath is not alone in the person resuscitated" necessarily imply a logical and chronological order between breathing and resuscitation. Then ask whether there is a logical and chronological order between faith and justification in the statement, 'faith is not alone in the person justified.'

Please give the above a slow and careful reading... God bless you brother. Your nilly brother, Sing
---------------


Dear Brother,
I am still reading into this subject. Do you think the following article addresses your concerns? W.
[A long article by James Buchanan is pasted]
-----------


Brother W,
My concerns? What are my concerns? Continue reading and ascertain them, and then send some answers to address my concerns. No more articles please, unless you are prepared to answer questions raised by the article. Thank you for the article by Buchanan. Your nilly brother, Sing
----------


Brother,
As I read your replies, I find that you are clearly holding to the view of John Gill and his modern followers in the Primitive Baptists in America. I am sure there are others elsewhere who would hold to this view of Calvinism. Well, I see "faith" as the gift of God and the means by which He gathers His Church on earth. I believe God uses means of grace, such as, preaching to call His people to faith in Christ. Salvation is all of God and so the means He uses is also a gift from Him. W
----------


Dear Brother W,
What I have written is simply showing you what your WCF says. I have only quoted and took the natural and consistent meaning concerning statements found in your venerable Westminster Confession of Faith. If you disagree, you ought to have the courtesy to demonstrate that what I am saying is NOT what your WCF is saying. I will listen to you patiently. Surely this is reasonable. Even those who might be wrong deserve the right to be kindly shown why they are wrong, and not just be dismissed with contempt.

Why associate me with John Gill or the Primitive Baptists? I have not even mentioned them or quoted them. Is that the best you can do? Is that the way you conduct a discussion. A little pathetic, and a little disrespectful, don't you think? I hope that's not typical of you. It is like I saying, 'Ah, you are a Singaporean' to dismiss what you have said! That would be very unkind, wouldn't it? [May be Gill’s teaching on justification is the same as that summarized in the WCF!! Perhaps you are saying that!]

"Salvation is all of God and so the means He uses is also a gift from Him." That's a true statement. However people interpret it very differently. The 'standard reformed' folks conclude these from the statement: 'faith is the means to obtain eternal life,' i.e. believe to have eternal life; and 'faith is the means to secure justification,' i.e. believe to be justified

The Scriptures say: "whoever believes has eternal life," i.e. believing is evidence of eternal life already bestowed; and "the just shall live by faith," i.e. believing is the evidence that a man is already justified. Scriptures say 'the just shall live by faith.' Standard reformed people say, 'by faith you shall be justified and live.' The WCF says, 'faith is not alone in the person justified.' Standard reformed people say, 'you must have faith to be justified.' Common sense tell us that 'breath is not alone in the person resuscitated' means breath is one of the effects and evidences of life resuscitated' but the standard reformed people conclude that breath is the means to have a resuscitated life.

I believe there is more honour to disagree with the WCF than to misrepresent it, or to impose our own idea upon it, don't you think. Your nilly brother, Sing.
-------------


Dear Brother,
I don’t see anything wrong to use historic names to describe a doctrinal teaching. Your view on justification and faith are not new but were held by those who were associated with the names I used. Another label used today to describe this teaching is hyper-Calvinism. But I have refrained from using it because there are many “hyper Calvinisms” today. It would be rather confusing.

I am sorry that this is all I can do. I am not very good academically. I am quite clear that the “standard Reformed” view is the view of the Church of Christ. I hope you will not allow pride or anger to keep yourself away from the “standard Reformed” view. From your emails, I could sense anger against others. Do calm down. As you said, fellowship cannot be forced but must be mutual. If you cannot agree with those who hold to the “standard Reformed” view, it is only proper that they will become careful of you.

I hope my desire to find out what has happened to my brother in Penang has not caused any further damage or harm to you. I had written to you on a friend-to-friend basis. But your reply came with cc to a list of people, some of whom I do not even know. I hope I have not harmed any of them too. If I have, I deeply apologise to them. I don’t think I can debate any further with you on this matter as I am not a capable man. I do pray that you will find someone who can work with you on this matter in the providence of God soon. Do keep in touch. You are still my brother. W
----------


Dear good brother W,
Let me explain. You mentioned about some RB cutting of fellowship with me... so my reply was cc to those who are involved that they may be aware of what is going on. You asked about my 'new' understanding of the order of salvation, and I attempted to explain my understanding from your 'ancient' WCF. You concluded that those are John Gill and his modern followers' view! I am astounded! Is what I said about the WCF wrong? Then be kind enough to correct me. That's all I asked for. What has John Gill and his followers to do with me? I am puzzled. After all John Gill was not around when the WCF was written. I think you know that piece of historical fact.

I think you are a poor mind reader. So I suggest you stop practicing it. Really, I am not angry. I am a little grieved that the 'standard reformed view' has replaced Scriptures as the final authority. Pride or anger? You are wrong again. I hope you are not given to speculation too easily. No, it is simply some irreconcilable inconsistencies and contradictions that led me to abandon the 'standard reformed' view of the order of salvation. It is deficient.

Bear with me a little and I will be done. Think about these few inconsistencies of the 'standard reformed position': it believes that a regenerated person is still under condemnation, i.e. since one must believe to be legally justified. It believes that the gift of faith is given to those still under condemnation, i.e. since one must believe to be legally justified. It believes that the gift of faith is given to those who are still spiritually dead, since its mantra is 'believe to have eternal life.' Many more could be brought to your attention. [See the next section.]

I am glad you are quite clear about the 'standard reformed' view. I am still learning the Scriptures' view. Standard reformed view says, by faith you shall be justified and live; Scriptures say the just shall live by faith. Standard reformed view says, God justifies the believing; Scriptures say God justifies the ungodly. Standard reformed view says, we were reconciled to God when we were believers; Scriptures says we were reconciled to God when we were enemies.

I believe the 'standard reformed' view is NOT the view of the WCF. Simply, the WCF has this order in the application of redemption: Effectual calling (WCF 10) to grace and salvation embraces justification (WCF 11), regeneration and adoption (WCF 12). Effectual call transforms a condemned dead child of wrath into a justified living child of God bestowed with the gift of the Spirit - which includes the gifts of repentance and faith. That explains for the statement, 'Faith is not alone in the person justified.' An effectually called person is ready to be further sanctified (WCF 13) through the gospel call (WCF 14). Faith, which is ordinarily brought forth by the ministry of the word, is the sole instrument to declare and evidence the justified state of the person. Faith is the means, not to secure our justification, but to evidence that we are justified by grace while we were still ungodly and enemies. Breath is evidence and demonstration that we have been resuscitated to life. May the Lord give you to see the distinction! WCF faithfully summarizes the Scriptures on this point: effectual calling to grace and salvation ENABLES the elect to answer to the gospel call. Standard reformed position declares: gospel call blessed becomes effectual call... then regeneration... then faith... then justification... etc.

I am done. Thanks for your time. May the Lord bless us to walk in the Scriptures' view. Your nilly brother by grace, Sing.
----

Dear brother W,
I thought you might like to know a little history. Briefly, the early particular Baptists who went to America were almost all solidly 1689 people. In the 19th century there was a big division over certain doctrines of salvation. One became known as the new school Baptists and eventually became Arminians, and Unitarians by the late 19th century. The other group who carried on the faith and practice of the early particular Baptists became known as the Regular or Old School Baptists. By God's providence, some new school Baptists began to discover their doctrinal root in the 1960's. Some of these people eventually became known as the Reformed Baptists. The Reformed Baptists is a small group among the Baptists who holds the 1689CoF (or its equivalents) as their doctrinal standard. I suspect that they did not move right back to the faith of their fathers as expressed in the 1689 CoF. If they did, then there won't be all these glaring inconsistencies and deficiencies that I have wrestled with and trying to square the 'standard reformed' view of the ‘modern’ Reformed Baptists with the Scriptures as summarized in the 1689. I am given to understand that the Primitive Baptists are direct descendants from the Old School Baptists, and claim themselves the true descendants of the early particular Baptists and still have the ancient 1689CoF as their church doctrinal standard. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

A recognized Reformed Baptist historian Thomas J. Nettles gave a fair and adequate defense of John Gill from the shameless and ignorant slanders of ‘hyper-calvinsim’ in his well-known book "By His Grace, For His Glory." I think he did a good job at stating the historical facts.

Frankly, I don't really know what John Gill or the Primitives Baptists believe. I believe I do know a little about what the early Particular Baptists who framed the 1689 CoF did believe. I have given the Confession some extensive study - by necessity because it is the church's confessional standard. Do you remember of words of a BP brother at the conference in Klang - the WCF is only a historical relic in many churches! Something good came out of that truthful but scathing statement. I left with a determination that the church I pastor must know what the forefathers had understood and summarised in the 1689 CoF. And the order of salvation that I read there is quite different from what the 'standard reformed position' is saying! So after careful and lengthy study, I changed course, and follow the ancient fathers instead of the modern espousers and defenders of the 'standard reformed' faith.

Now, you know a little story. May the Lord bless you with a good day tomorrow. Your nilly brother, Sing.
---------------


After more than a month's silence, brother W wrote again on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:47:23 +0800
Subject: Feedback on your article

My dear Brother,
I forwarded your article [Chapter 11 of 'A Pruning...' sing] to one of my respected teachers in America. I just received his reply. I am sure it will not be easy on your eyes. But I am sending to you nonetheless because I want you to know what others are thinking about your purpose... The Lord be with you. W
----


Dear W,

With respect to "Order of Salvation - Scriptures and 'Standard Reformed' View Compared," I'm sorry, but I really don't have time to work through this document, which strikes me as confused in a number of ways.

It is especially confusing in that what he says is the 'Standard Reformed" view is actually not. He says "faith precedes grace" in the 'Standard Reformed' view. But of course the Westminster Confession makes it clear that grace (justification) precedes faith.

In other words, what he often calls the "Scripture" view is actually the "Reformed" view. He is arguing against a straw man--or else, [He is arguing] against people who call themselves Reformed but are really not.

So, my dear W..., whatever this fellow's reason for this comparative exercise, he is making mischief (see 1 Tim 1:6-7). No doubt he means well, and I commend him for his zeal.

Busy pastors like yourself have more and better things to do than wrangle with this particular man's notions, which strike me as confused and sometimes ill-informed (of course he also says many true things). If you clearly expound the Scriptures and call sinners to faith in Christ crucified and risen, no one will be able to quarrel much with what you say.

Regards,
Robert Yarbrough [Please check with Googles for his credentials]
-----------------


Re: Feedback on your article

Dear Brother W,
Hey, I am comforted that you have not abandoned me! You are a brother in deed. Thank you very much for your kindness in forwarding the reply of Robert Yarbrough. I must say that it appears very easy on my eyes and I am delighted to read what he says.

Let me explain. In the comparison I have made, the view represented as 'standard reformed' is the view espoused and defended by Peter Kek and others as the teaching of Scriptures. Peter Kek and others insist on 'faith precede grace' and call that 'standard reformed' view. I thought you insisted on the same thing too - "no faith, no justification," "no faith, no life," "no preaching, no regeneration," etc.

I am not arguing against a straw man. I am exposing as deformed what Peter Kek and others espouse and defend and insist as the 'standard reformed' position.

I am arguing against these people whom your esteemed teacher Robert rightly describes as those, "who call themselves Reformed but are really NOT." Robert said it very well - that was the whole purpose of the comparison - to expose the deformed claims of some misguided 'reformed' people. HE SAID IT WELL. I now have a wonderful confirmation from an impartial reformed man of your choosing.

Robert said I meant well, and commended me for my zeal. I am not the least flattered. I am making no mischief. I am calling these misguided brethren to rightly divide the word of truth. But instead they charged me with 'fundamental and serious' errors, and have severed fellowship with me and the church here!!!

Thank you for your kindness in forwarding this feedback to me. Thanks.
by free grace, sing