Thanks for the comment and the call. I’m sorry I haven’t returned the call as of yet but I saved your number. I appreciate the commentary even if it’s in variance to my primary position. One thing to keep in mind in these type of discussions is that people who are Christians and disagree with you are not the enemy. Calvinism and Reformed Theology is a systematic approach to many difficult biblical problems but it is not the ONLY approach and does address some problems that many Reformed theologians are aware of and try to address frequently. I think researching doctrines are a good thing and does not automatically lend itself disintegration of the scripture but helps open a more full dimension of it that will help all of us who only “know in part” and “prophesy in part” (1 Cor.13:9) In modern times no one system can claim superiority before an endless and timeless God. I thank God for that because we are creatues who soon forget who we are worshipping at times. Thank God that we all have an opportunity to know the ultimate and complete plan of God for us and we’ll know if we follow on to know (Hos. 6:3).
So thanks and hopefully we’ll speak soon. If not have a very Merry Christmas!

In the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereby referred to as WCF) The larger catechism in Q. 76 asks, “What is repentance unto life?” A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace wrought in the heart of the sinner by the Spirit and the Word of God, whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins…purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.” See II Cor. 7:11

When you ask are works and faith inseperable, I believe you are contemplating the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification. See WCF Q.77 Wherin do justification and sanctification differ? A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former sin is pardoned in the other it is subdued….”

Machen in What is Faith pg. 204 wrote “But if the faith regarded insufficient by James is different from the faith commended by Paul, so also the works commended by James are different from the works commended by James are different from the works regarded as inefficacious by Paul. Paul is speaking of the works of the law, he is speaking of works that are intended to acquire merit in order that God’s favor may be earned; James on the other hand is speaking of works like Abraham’s sacrifice of Issac that are the real result of faith and show that faith is real faith.”

The difference of works in reformed thinking is that they establish nor gain any merit in salvation. (This includes initial saving faith.) Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian thought emphasizes works as the basis for salvation. Consequently many falsely assume that the reformers tossed works altogether. Martin Luther flies in the face of this kind of thinking in his commentary of Romans in his introduction pg. 17
“Faith, however is a divine work in us…Oh it is a living busy, active, mighty thing, this faith and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises, it has already done them. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are….it is impossible to seperate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light fires. Beware therefore of your own false notions and of the idle talkers who would be wise enough to make decisions about faith and good works, and yet are the greatest fools. Pray God to work faith in yo; else you will remain forever without faith, whatever you think or do.”

Calvin discussing James 2:21-22 (see MacArthur Faith Works pg. 92) wrote this “It appears that he is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by ture faith prove their justification by obedience and good works…And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. Due attention to the scope will thus disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly in this, that they think James is defining the mode of justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for the contempt of good works.Therefore let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and taht the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification with good works.”

In addition it is absolutely essential to understand that justification is by faith alone. Works merely illustrate that truth. The WCF mentions that justification and sanctification are inseperable. I urge you kindly not to say this topic has been discarded by people of the Reformed Faith. This is a gross misunderstanding on your part. In response to it needing additional research, I can kindly assure you that a multitude of articles in Theological Journals like JETS, WTJ and practically every Puritan wrote on this topic. I hope you find this helpful.

Respectfully Tom Michnay

[PHB~ Tom, Thanks for posting once again, I've placed your response in the comments section of the post I mentioned (Are Faith & Works Inseperable?)and it is a good read...shaky, but a good read. What I see is a desire to have it both ways. On one hand works can't save (a sentiment to which I agree) however they also can't be discarded or minimized because eternal bliss or reward may just depend upon them to a certain degree. Now the debate is over who the "Goats" are in Mt. 25 as a "sinner" isn't expected to do or have any good works so why and how would they be judged according to their works? Secondly they would have already been separated not because they didn't do "Christian" things but because they didn't follow the Lord. But what I see in Reformed Theology is an equivocation on the issue to make faith and works have some sort of systemmatic appeal. There is much lacking however, which cannot be simplified by reading a few reformed theologians mental exercises and simply saying, "now take our word for it". That may well be what they say, but none of it squares with the rest of their doctrine and IF the teaching is effectual it is only effectual for them who are elect and predestined according to your view. So in essence, this is much greater than a pelagian/neopelagian argument (which NONE of my arguments resemble in the least bit) and I don't believe my any of my statements misrepresent what is traditionally and openly espoused and taught within reformed circles. So labeling doesn't help the argument, but an honest look at scripture might depending upon what you're willing to rethink and pray about.

So I know this may seem a little shocking and certainly does not fit reformed dogmas or systematic theological structures, BUT if our aim is to value the word of God and make it our only authority, we can't arbitrarily accept what we wish while discarding other parts that offer an equally as intense and clear message. I'll respond to further inquiry on this particular subject (faith and works) at the aforementioned blog.]

This is not determinism, According to the Westminster Confession under God’s Eternal Decree Point 1. “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” It is my sincere hope that this addresses your concern.

Respectfully yours, Tom Michnay

As for your question Eze. 18:23 you quoted, in v.30 reads “Therefore, I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways declares the Lord GOD, Repent and turn from all your transgressions,lest iniquity be your ruin. v.32 so turn and live.”

Reformed believers don’t try to “get around” this verse. These verses are a call to repentance. Reformed theology is clear. God is Sovereign in Salvation and man is dead in sin. The Scriptures also teach that man is responsible for his sin. Calvinism affirms that sinners perish for one reason and only one reason, refusing to repent.

[PHB~ Tom, Thanks for stopping by and thanks for reading and giving a critique on the article. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we clearly disagree on some pretty significant points regarding this issue and the basis and wielding of the soveriegnty of God about which we both agree. The problem I have is this, what you say in the preceeding statement is inconsistent. You say there is a "call to repentance" (once again we agree), that man is "responsible for his sin" (once again we agree) and that sinners will perish for "refusing to repent" (once again, we agree)...but on your site you clearly say this:"Many individuals falsely assume that ALL are called to be saved. While this is true in one sense (the General call of the Gospel that goes out to everyone,) it is quite the opposite in another as this text bears out. This “call” that Paul is speaking of here is a special one. Theologians draw a distinction between general revelation and special revelation."There we totally disagree and that total disagreement is the whole deal in my opinion, because under your theological system fatalism to damnation exists. We're not talking about mere quality of life as in saying that not all men will be rich or something of the sort, what you hold to is that God has decided to ultimately and completely withhold his goodness and salvation from certain of his creatures while simultaneously and as far as we know arbitrarily provide that goodness to others. I contend that your approach IS NOT biblical and is further ungodly and is a twisting of scripture and an unwarrented interpretation of scripture. Under your system, the call to repentance is false and is only mechanical in nature and not done to save the whole world even though the whole world is preached to. Under your construct God acts within the world as a deceiver, even if his intent is to only save those that have been "predestined" he 'acts' as if he has a sincere call to all only to limit the actual appeal to them that are elect. So although the "elect" may be lost at the time of the call, noone outside of that group will be saved or is really being preached to. So that is a fault of the theology as promoted by most reformed apologists, teachers and promoters such as yourself.]

Peter taught this in his sermon in Acts. Jesus was delivered over by the predetermined plan of God, but was crucified by the hands of evil men. You have Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Scripture affirms BOTH of these concepts. See Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer for a more detailed explanation.

[PHB~ These things are not in dispute, however your obtuse teaching of it is. Jesus had a WILL that he subjugated to the WILL of God. This is a crucial distinction. It is one of the basis upon which the "Person" of God the son or the second person of the Trinity is determined. To merely claim that Jesus was fatalistically assigned to his actions without the acknowledgement of his free-will decision to do so is yet another fault and one with significant theological implications and considerations. Although that's certainly not an easy one, man, having been given the same or similar type of free will enjoins a similar decision making process that certainly is constructed or shaped by God but not fatalistically predetermined by God. there is a sharp and poignant distinction that you fail to make or address.]

[PHB~ I know that is what you claim, however this is the point of the argument in general. I don't believe there is adequate scriptural support of that claim when the nuance of scripture is considered. See my response to your other commentary to get more detail on at least one criticism that reformed apologists work with and struggle to answer currently regarding the reformed thesis.]

Your questions. As for point 1. Scripture Alone affirms that Scripture is ALL that is necessary for us today, period. God has spoken and His word is contained within the 66 books. (It seems to me you have questions lie more with textual criticism.) Sola Scriptura doesn’t address this, it wasn’t an issue historicaly when it was addressed. Evangelicals affirm that Scripture is infallible and inerrant in its’ original autographs. Furthermore, thus the need to continually compare various texts to ensure accurate translation i.e. various codices, UBS Text, Nestle Aland, et cetera.

PHB~ Absolutely correct. What is transferred in the text? what Jesus said word for word or what jesus meant by what he said? For example, how long does it take to read through teh Sermon On The Mount? If this is one of his greatest messages, do you think that there may have been more actual content? Granted i affirm with you that what we have is from the Lord. so that’s not in question. The question I raise is that since we know that Jesus more than likely said a more abundance of actual words, it sounds more like “alphabetic worship” to say that each letter was what Jesus specifically spoke. God has specifically and expressly spoken it by his Spirit and we have teh letter taht we do according to the will and word of God, but to set forth a dogmatism based on the physical letters and words themselves I believe is more than we are called to do. Is what we have infallible in the original? Yes I believe so. Is what we have the revealed word of God? Yes! Should we limit our complete understanding to God by the letters written on the page? NO. To do so will reduce the scripture itself to “spiritless” rendering which is not supported by scripture itself. John 6:63~ It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] ARE SPIRIT, and [they] are life. Now when you can tell me how you can confine “spirit” to a mathematical equation or letters on a page you can let me know.]

Point 2. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to say that the 66 books known as canon are ALL inclusive. To say anything to the contrary immediately calls into question what actually is and is not the Word of God.

Point 3. It is wrong to assume that many who affirm Sola Scriptura are cessationists (denying the spiritual gifts/charismata). Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress, both of whom are reformed do not fall into this category. Also as a former Assembly of God member now Reformed, I had several Professors who attended Reformed Seminaries that definitely affirmed Sola Scriptura and believed the gifts were in operation today. Dr Douglas Oss, Dr. Dale Brueggeman, and Dr. Waverly Nunnally just to name a few.

[PHB~ That is good to note and maybe I can reword that section because I didn't mean to broadbrush. So thanks for looking out.]

Point 4. I believe you misunderstand the closing of the canon. This wasn’t singlehandly done by Athanasius. Nor was canonicity decided by a group of men in smoke filled rooms forcing people to accept/reject what was canon and what wasn’t. Most of canonicity had already been determined by what was being accepted by the local churches. F.F. Bruce has done some great work on the subject along with Norman Geisler’s work How We Got our Bible (even though Norm isn’t Reformed).

[PHB~ I haven't really set forth and accounting of this issue. so statements toward this are incidental, however onnce again, I'll review and see the context in which I make certain conclusions. Sawyer, Wallace and Komoszewski have also set forth a good and detailed account in Reinventing Jesus also. Thanks again.]

Point 5. Your last point is ambiguous to say the least. Salvation in the Old Testament was accomplished the same way it was in the New Testament. By Faith Alone. In the O.T. they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, In the N.T. they had to Repent and Believe the Gospel, Today, We look back. Lastly we account for Paul’s salvation and James salvation the same way we do for anyone’s, solely on Christs Righteousness, plus or minus nothing.

[PHB~ Yes, ultimately you're correct, but in practice there's a lot to be said here. In the NT all judgement is based on works whether that was for reward or for eternal destiny. I take a look at that in my article, "Are Works & Faith Inseperable?" This is a hot topic and one deserving of additional research and study in my opinion and one that should not be merely discarded as many withyin reform circles have done.]

I think you might need to do a word search and replace “recount” instead of “recant”.

(PHB~ Michael, I think you may want to actually study instead fo make unscriptural assertions as we’ll see through your rhetoric)

Incidentally, I disagree with your conclusion on synergism. Just because Cornelius did what he was told in the belief he was following God’s direction doesn’t mean he contributed to his salvation in the sense that it diminishes the work of the Holy Spirit in the act of salvation.

(PHB~OK, maybe you should define synergism especially as it pertains to monergism or the work of one. Youdisagree because it never occurred to you that was the case here.)

Cornelius was a God-fearer, meaning he devoutly followed the Jewish rites and customs, believing in them for his salvation.

(PHB~ That’s not in dispute. So you obviously hold to the thought that if Cornelius followed Jewish rites and customs for religious beliefs he obviously was introduced to the concepts of Messiahship through the same scriptures he honored. Since he was in close proximity to the events, he would either have to be dumb or disinterested not to know what was happening in his religion. Since scripture introduces Cornelius as a man who was not only devout but also smart it’s a streatch of the imagination to believe that he either didn’t know about or was never introduced to either Jesus or the events of Jesus life. The proof of the unnamed “Centurion” in the gospels, you just gloss over…why? because that little bit of “what if” places your lame theological construct (at least as you apply it) on its ear. Address the elements of scripture instead of trying to make it fit to your belief system)

Unfortunately, just like all the Jews in Jerusalem who were not only devout but also circumcised and therefore under OT law, he and they were as much in need of salvation as each other. Being acceptABLE does not mean acceptED.

(PHB~ What is the word used in Acts 10:35? looks like accept E D to me. You may want to RECANT or maybe you need a RECOUNT too.)

We can adduce that God’s sovereign plan was to have Peter go and preach the gospel, whereby Cornelius would be saved.

(PHB~ You can “adduce” that but as i point out it was much MORE than that.)

Yes, he had heard of Jesus and what had been going on in Judea, but this is quite reasonable given that he was a God-fearer and therefore a frequenter of the synagogue.

(PHB~Well, put 2 and 2 together and what do ya know?)

It was probably a hot topic on everyone’s lips at that time, but we read that at the key moment where Peter talks about believing in him for forgiveness of sins, that is when the Holy Spirit falls. I think it’s reasonable to read into this that until that very moment, God had not granted him the gift of repentance, and in that moment he TRULY believed, solely through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

(PHB~ OK, you at least attempt to make a good biblical argument here and one worth considering. The problem is that if this is your flow, you have a a sinner receiving revelations from God, and in close and strong communication with God. Is this even a characteristic of sin, that one can establish, have and maintain a close relationship with God and still live in it? Not according to Isaiah 59:2. If Cornelius was in sin, he could have verily received a dream according to God’s will to save him or something along those lines, but he LIVED daily in relationship with God. Why dimish the presence of God and promote that he establishes relationship even with unrepentant sinners? unless your THEOLOGY says he was saved even though he was unrepentant…that’s not bible, that’s a construct of men. I’ll follow the word.)

To say Cornelius was saved already flies in the face of Romans 10:14, doesn’t it?

(PHB~No, obviously he had already heard and been preached to…did you read the article? i lay ths out clearly.)

PHB~Well sandra, welcome and I hope you return and feel free to post comments often. Don’t forget our primary site at The Dunamis Word. Thanks and God bless.

(PHB ~ Listen you WITCH/WARLOCK…The power of the Lord is against you! Cast your spell elsewhere. I believe you NEED to get saved. My relationship with ANY church IS NOT your business and certainly not cursed by God. I believe that you should get saved first, get a bible and study it until your mind is renewed! Rom. 12:1-2)