Four years ago, Christianity Today ran an article, “Young, Restless, Reformed.” In it, the author Collin Hansen covered a phenomenon that has been around for the last decade: The return of many young Christians to the Reformed doctrines. He interviewed quite a few pastors and young church members who came out of Charismatic and “seeker-sensitive” churches, who now embrace the doctrines of Calvinism. Hansen saw this return as a less-advertised, but much larger and more pervasive phenomenon than the “emergent church” or the “seeker-sensitive church.” He believed the comeback of “Calvinism” was “shaking up the church.” He pointed to the popularity of the old Puritan authors among the “new Reformed,” and especially among the young. The old-fashioned Puritanism of the 17th and the 18th centuries seemed to be the ideological fuel behind this Calvinist comeback. Many of the Puritans’ works were being reprinted because of the renewed interest in them. A professor at Gordon-Conwell even said he suspected “young evangelicals gravitate toward the Puritans looking for deeper historic roots and models for high-commitment Christianity.”
This was highly encouraging. Everything good the Western world has today – the concepts of liberty, rule of law, superior work ethic, charitable organizations, entrepreneurial spirit, thrift and long-term investment, etc. – it owes it to the Reformed theology and those who applied it in practice. When the time came for liberty to be defended throughout the Western world, and especially in America, it was Reformed and Puritan preachers who encouraged populations to defend their freedom under God, and it was Reformed and Puritan laymen who first manned the battle stations against oppression. And it was Reformed and Puritan leaders who worked to build the West to a just and prosperous society, and to spread the ideas of liberty to the rest of the world; everyone else followed their example. So, if Collin Hansen was right in his assessment of the pervasiveness of this Calvinist comeback, then we had back again the historically proven solution to America’s descent into socialism, paganism, political turmoil and economic recession.
But whatever hopes one could derive from that Calvinist comeback that Hansen saw, they would have been completely extinguished in our experience of the last two years. In a time when our society is struggling to preserve everything America once proudly stood for – everything that the Puritans handed down to us through the generations – these “new Reformed” of Hansen failed to materialize when their influence was most necessary. Since 2008, in our intense cultural wars against those who want to subvert America, the churches declared as “Reformed” by Hansen are nowhere to be seen. Whatever “fuel” they may have borrowed from the Puritans, it has failed to produce the “black regiment” of Reformed preachers responsible for the First American Revolution. We don’t see these new Reformers taking the lead in a Second American Revolution. If the First Revolution was called by King George, “The Presbyterian Rebellion,” there is not a single bit of reason today for Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or the other would-be tyrants on the left to talk about “the Reformed uprising,” or the “Calvinist Tea Party.” Far from being the spiritual or ideological heirs of the Puritans, the pastors mentioned in Hansen’s article are very careful today never to mention anything relevant to the cultural battles of our time.
Why is it so? How come such a large and pervasive movement to return to our theological Reformed roots fails to produce the proper Reformed practical response? Shouldn’t a Puritan mind produce Puritan practice, individually and socially? If the early Puritans gave us America, shouldn’t modern Puritans restore America to what it was meant to be? How do we resolve this contradiction?
The answer is this: There is no contradiction. Hansen is wrong. What he believes is a “Calvinist comeback” is not. What he sees as “Reformed” pastors and believers are not. Hansen’s definition of “Reformed” is truncated. The reason we don’t see Puritan practical response is because there is no Puritan theological influence in the churches he interviewed. He only sees the surface. The essence is not Reformed.
When looking for “Reformed” churches, Hansen uses the TULIP – the five-point acronym for Calvinism – as his measuring rod. If a church believes in the TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints), if it teaches it, if it has made it the central point of its doctrine, Hansen believes it is “Reformed.” TULIP is mentioned, directly or indirectly, more than 20 times in the article. It is the inspiration for some of the interviewed converts to Calvinism in the article. Some of the important “Reformed” churches have special courses and teachings on the TULIP. Others are preaching it boldly from the pulpits. TULIP is the beginning and the end of what Hansen defines as “Calvinism.” If a church is focused on the TULIP, it is Reformed, he thinks.
The truth that Hansen missed is that TULIP is not the essence of the Reformed theology. Of course, the doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints are an important starting step to the immense body of theological truths called “Reformed theology.” It follows directly from the greater concept of the Sovereignty of God. It correctly describes the fallen state of man and the work of God in saving the individual. When we look up to God to give thanks for what He has done for us personally, we think “TULIP,” even if we never knew the term or never understood it.
To summarize, TULIP is the acronym for the “mechanism” of our personal salvation. And that’s it. Nothing more than our personal salvation. But Reformed theology encompasses immeasurably more than just personal salvation. And when a church makes TULIP the summa of its theology, that church is not Reformed. Yes, it has taken the first step to becoming Reformed, but it is still far from the goal.
The Puritans whom the “new Reformed” like and claim to follow would be deeply surprised that someone would focus the whole of God’s Sovereignty on the salvation of individual human souls. That would seem rather selfish to them – it would look as if God’s Sovereignty is made to serve man’s needs, rather than man’s salvation serve God’s plans. The salvation of individuals has never occupied such a high status in the thinking of the Puritans; the Kingdom of God and its righteousness has. The Puritans did understand that God’s plans were top priority over the salvation of individuals; the Pharaoh and his hardened heart were a favorite sermon topic for many a Puritan preachers. They did not see God’s sovereignty only in salvation but in damnation also, and in many more things. Their evangelism did call to individual repentance and righteous walk but they understood that preaching salvation was only milk (Heb. 6:1–2). There were more “solid-food” areas of knowledge and practice that deserved much more attention.
Hansen’s article mentioned those of the young “new Reformed” who came out of “seeker-sensitive” churches and became Reformed. But how much has changed for these people? Yes, the theological justification for their faith has changed, no doubt about it. They don’t believe they earn their salvation anymore. But have their priorities, or their motivation changed? Not at all. Both in a “seeker-sensitive” and in a “new Reformed” environment the focus is on ME and MINE, what God has done for MY salvation. The beginning and the end is the personal salvation, and that’s it. In a very real sense, the “new Reformed” are simply a theologically correct version of the “seeker-sensitive” movement: the selfishness of the quest is still there, except that now it uses better theology. This focus on the self, on the needs of ME and MINE would have seem a gross misinterpretation of God’s Sovereignty to the Puritans of old, and they would hardly recognize themselves and their ideas in the “new Reformed” movement. It isn’t their legacy, and the obsession with personal spiritual welfare was not part of their mind and culture.
What was the legacy left by the Reformers to the future generations?
It was not churches full of believers who earnestly study theology only to revel in their personal salvation. In fact, with two exceptions – Scotland and Hungary – the early Reformers didn’t leave us any lasting churches at all. It was not intellectualized sermons of elaborate psychological verbiage that pick on every feeling and every emotion a believer may have. It was not courageous sermons on irrelevant topics of peripheral importance to our age and culture. And it certainly wasn’t a belief in a God who is only sovereign to save individuals, but nothing else.
Their most lasting legacy was on the cultivation of societies, whole cultures based on the practical applications of Reformed theology, from top to bottom. Geneva, Strasbourg, Holland, England, Scotland, Hungary, the Huguenot communities in France and later in North and South Carolina, the Oranje-Vrystaat and Transvaal. Societies that became light to the world, an embodiment of Christ’s liberty and justice for all. The Reformed believers of earlier centuries built a civilization that influenced the world permanently. They changed the world not by the selfishness of the focus on salvation but by the obedience of teaching the nations and building the Kingdom of God.
It was cities on a hill that they left for us as a legacy, and it is the “City on a Hill” motif that best characterizes the Reformed theology today, not TULIP. Whether Calvinist or Arminian, or Christian or non-Christian, everyone today in America – and not only America – is a witness to their success of building that “City on a Hill.” The Puritans that Hansen talks about did not arrive to these shores to find the perfect TULIP theology. They did believe in God’s Sovereignty over salvation, yes, but they believed in much more than that. They knew they were predestined to be God’s chosen vessels to manifest God’s Sovereignty over the cultures and the societies of men by building a new civilization. “The kingdoms of this world have become a Kingdom of our God” had a very specific meaning for the Puritans, and that meaning was what characterized their view of Sovereignty.
Having the vision of the City on a Hill, the Puritans were much more concerned with the legal and cultural issues of their societies than with the psychological and philosophical issues of man’s existence, as it is with the “new Reformed.” Justice and righteousness was their priority, not over spiritualization and mystic experiences. They developed law codes, economic theory and practice, social organization, education, and science. They did not worry about the minutest irrelevant details of the personal spiritual life of a Christian. They saw value in incarnating the truths of God in their culture, not in internalizing theology. Their view of the world was one whole, under the Law of God, spiritual and material, church, family, and state, mind and matter, law and grace. They wouldn’t be able to grasp the dualism of the modern “new Reformed” churches. “Covenant” was for them not a religious term. It was the building block of all relationships, spiritual and temporal, and all covenants – in the civil realm, the marketplace, church, family, or school – were to imitate that supreme covenant between God and mankind in Jesus Christ.
That’s why when John Witherspoon declared that liberty to worship and economic and political liberty were inseparable, he wasn’t declaring a new doctrine. He was only proclaiming what he had learned from his spiritual fathers, from Augustine, through Calvin, to Mather and Edwards. And when Witherspoon’s disciples got together to become the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, this was a truly Reformed act, a logical outcome of the doctrines of the Reformation. And in order to make sure we understood it, they left us their admonishment and advice, to obey God in our nation-building just as we obey Him in our personal life, family, and our church-building.
And those that today want to be Reformed, cannot limit themselves to the comfortable thought that God gave them personal salvation. Reformed means the Sovereignty of God over everything—all of man’s life and thought and action, including man’s society and culture. Therefore, Hansen’s “new Reformed” are not Reformed at all. They are simply another, theologically correct version of a man-centered religion.
So next time when Christianity Today wants to look for a Calvinist comeback, the key phrase they should be looking for is not TULIP. They will know the return of Calvinism by these: City on a Hill, Comprehensive World-and-Life View, Teaching the Nations, the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ over every area of life, Christendom, Dominion under God’s Covenant. The article should be titled: “Dominion-Oriented, Historically Optimistic, Reformed.” Anything else will be only an empty imitation of the legacy of the Puritans, not true Reformed.
A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman. If you would like Bojidar to speak to your church, homeschool group or other organization, contact him through his website: http://www.bulgarianreformation.org/
I really wish people would stop telling me that our nation was founded as a Christian nation. Yes, the primary religions of the colonial Americans were Christian, but our Founding Fathers were not. So read on if you dare, and dare no more to tell me of our great Nation, founded by Christianity.
Here are some quotations:
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
“What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the ‘index expurgatorius’, the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine.”
-John Adams to John Taylor
“The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
-Abraham Lincoln
“I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works … I mean real good works … not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing … or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.”
-Benjamin Franklin
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
-James Madison
Thomas Paine:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).”
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”
“Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to ‘God’ to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator’s name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).”
“Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins…and you will have sins in abundance.”
“The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.”
I found this article very helpful as our local body is engaged in this very debate.
In His grace he has kept us exiles, not mindful of the country from whence we came, not desirous of an opportunity to return.
“But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. (Heb 11:16)
I agree with your sentiment that many are doing little with such a great salvation. I am finding more vanity in those trying to build houses on the sand, than those who are truly broken by God’s Sovereignty and are about their priestly duty: Proclaming the name of Jesus Christ to the nations!
I agree with the idea that tulip doesn’t mean reformed. I too am daily shaking off the “reformed” label the disp’ies and arminians try to label me with. He is truly gracious and merciful!
Thank you Bojidar for your response.
I see the value in pointing out that it was British colonialism that set at least the legal precedent for it.
I also appreciate the fact that other Dutch colonies did not practice it, I never thought of that.
However, we live here with the very real understanding, that D.F Malan was a Dutch Reformed Minister, and although I would naturally agree, and having understood unconditional election affirm that it was not the historic reformed tradition that led to racism, a false understanding of the doctrines of grace as well as the covenant people was used as a religious justification for it. I am just wondering if these things mitigate against the use Transvall and Oranje…. as examples?
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
I really enjoyed this post…. I often find AV artciles stimulating since it comes from a direction I do not readily think in… I do want to ask, and I hope I am not too late…. Is the Oranje-vrystaat and Transvaal good examples of reformed worldview having a beneficial effect of society.
I ask this because I live in South Africa, and one of the major issues that faces us is trying to seperate true reformed theology from the systemitised racism of the Apartheid era. So I was wondering if using the two places above as examples is really a good idea.
Perhaps this was a time when rascism as we know it was not yet practised, but if so, I think it is helpful to explain that, otherwise we may shoot ourselves in the foot by associating with that which we do not want to…
Any thoughts?
My recent post Great Departures From ‘Organised-Religion’
Your concern, Tyrell, is very valid. Racism is paganism that we need to condemn and separate from.
Oranje-Vrystaat and Transvaal haven't always had Apartheid. As a matter of fact, it was British colonialism that created the legal precedent for the Apartheid, not the Reformed Dutch tradition. There were other Dutch colonies around the world, and none of them practiced anything like Apartheid. On the other hand, under British rule, Apartheid was practiced in different legal forms in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rhodesia (before it became independent; the segregation laws were abolished in Rhodesia when it became independent, contrary to Marxist claims), Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania.
So, no, Apartheid has nothing to do with the Reformed tradition of Oranje-Vrystaat and Transvaal.
Mr. Marinov, You sir, apparently don't know what a metaphor is (yankee textbook). Your travel, whether in the north or south really has nothing to do with knowledge. Your reliance on one man, Mr Ben House to provide your understanding of one aspect of American history can be remedied easily by expanding your reading list. Mr House, a man I don't know nor have knowledge about may well live in Texarkana, Ar, he may not be a yankee, but I am begining to think you may well be from Alpha Centauri. Your conservation certianly points in that direction. You Sir would make a good yankee!
It is probably a good thing that BM didn't give the source of the citation about the "kingdoms" becoming a Kingdom of our God because the better sources are translated, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, & of His Christ." Does it make a difference whether or not it is "kingdoms" plural or "kingdom" singular? Perhaps, to some, it does not, but then, where it takes place in the prophetic time line, supposing it is a straight line, might make a significant difference. Of course, I don't know Reformed eschatology, but what follows is God's judgment, & if Reformed thinkers have been using this passage very long, then they have been waiting a long time for what follows. (Rev.11: 15 – 18) I don't see a whole lot of dominion taking type stuff going on in the following chapters, at least, not by the Kingdom of God on Earth.
I would also like to point out that not one pre-Nicene writer taught any of the tenets affirmed by the acronym "TULIP." Poor Jesus, Apostles, & Holy Spirit, they were all such pathetic teachers that not one Early Church writer taught even one of those five tenets. After hundreds of years, Augustine got the truth about salvation partly right, & then, thousands of years later, finally, Luther & Calvin got it perfectly right – Oh, thank God for those two end-time prophets! But, of course, that was only with respect to Apostolic doctrine; it wasn't until the American experiment that we finally have Apostolic practice in its purest form – thank God!
I appreciate everyone's concern for justice & righteousness in the world, but that starts with the Kingdom of God: with individuals who are living just, righteous, & merciful or loving lives as Jesus taught in word & deed. However, Paul taught us not to judge those outside the Church, but rather, we judge those inside the Church. How do we keep from judging outside the Church when we become part of the state? How do we become the light & salt, when we are the chain & axe? How can we be merciful, when our civil duty requires us to follow the letter of the law? Which laws will we choose to believe & obey, & which will we neo-Pharisaically choose to apply & enforce?
No, Christians are not permitted to use every means to preach the word. We all know what "every means" really means; it means just what Augustine, Luther, Calvin & other Evangelical & Catholic liars did in fact do: harass, persecute, torture, & murder those who did nothing more than deny their heretic doctrines, & the fact that they could do such things proves beyond a doubt that their theology was inspired by their untrue father. Anyone armed with Scripture & right reason would never condone or do what they in fact did, & those who apologize for them & seek to emulate them share in their apostasy which infected all of Europe & the world with their unrighteousness, violence, & war.
Today, the Dominionists want to do more than just preach; they want to control every part of your life, but with this proviso: you will have freedom of conscience to practice your faith as you see fit just like the founding fathers intended in a pluralistic state that celebrates equality & freedom. I'll believe they mean that when I believe Muslims mean it. People who have power have a tendency to exercise that power even in ways that they would deny that they would ever use it, but here, I think, in the above, we have a kind of Dominionist manifesto, & so, the rest of you should know what they really have in mind – you will comply; resistance is futile, & because they have God on their side, they will think they are doing God service when they oppress you.
Their City on a Hill is a city in decline. They are trying to deflect the truth about themselves on to others. If they can just control others, then they will be able to build God's Kingdom. If you look at Scripture, you will find that God was able to control the sin of others just fine without our help. He flooded the Ancient world, but preserved His faithful. He rained fire down on Sodom, but saved Lot. He delivered Israel from Egypt distinguishing between His people & the Egyptians. Somehow, God's people keep getting duped into thinking God needs their help or needs to to things man's way. God have mercy on them for they know not what they do, & they know not from whence their Help comes.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak."
Ignatius (A.D. 110): "They that are carnal cannot do the things that are spiritual…Nor can the unbelievers do the things of belief."
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners…No good thing dwells in us…For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit…Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God…He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life…Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold…Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly."
Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace."
Origen: "Our free will…or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner."
Eusebius (A.D. 330): "The liberty of our will in choosing things that are good is destroyed."
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Clement Of Rome (A.D. 69): "Let us therefore approach Him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father because He made us an elect portion unto Himself…Seeing then that we are the special elect portion of a Holy God, let us do all things that pertain unto holiness…There was given a declaration of blessedness upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord…Jesus Christ is the hope of the elect…"
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "We are elected to hope, committed by God unto faith, appointed to salvation."
Ignatius: "To the predestined ones before all ages, that is, before the world began, united and elect in a true passion, by the eternal will of the Father…"
Justin Martyr: "In all these discourses I have brought all my proofs out of your own holy and prophetic writings, hoping that some of you may be found of the elect number which through the grace that comes from the Lord of Sabaoth, is left or reserved [set apart] for everlasting salvation."
Irenaeus (A.D. 198): "God hath completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto eternal life…Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever."
Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "Through faith the elect of God are saved. The generation of those who seek God is the elect nation, not [an earthly] place, but the congregation of the elect, which I call the Church…If every person had known the truth, they would all have leaped into the way, and there would have been no election…You are those who are chosen from among men and as those who are predestined from among men, and in His own time called, faithful, and elect, those who before the foundation of the world are known intimately by God unto faith; that is, are appointed by Him to faith, grow beyond babyhood."
Cyprian (A.D. 250): "This is therefore the predestination which we faithfully and humbly preach."
Ambrose Of Milan (A.D. 380): "In predestination the Church of God has always existed."
Augustine (A.D. 380): "Here certainly, there is no place for the vain argument of those who defend the foreknowledge of God against the grace of God, and accordingly maintain that we were elected before the foundation of the world because God foreknew that we would be good, not that He Himself would make us good. This is not the language of Him who said, 'You did not choose Me, but I chose you' (John 15:16)."
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
LIMITED ATONEMENT
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "[Christ speaking] I see that I shall thus offer My flesh for the sins of the new people."
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "He endured the sufferings for those men whose souls are [actually] purified from all iniquity…As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of carious forms, so Christ served even to the cross for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by His blood and the mystery of the cross."
Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men…Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary…promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many."
Tertullian (A.D. 200): "Christ died for the salvation of His people…for the church."
Cyprian (A.D. 250): "All the sheep which Christ hath sought up by His blood and sufferings are saved…Whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ shall only escape…He redeemed the believers with the price of His own blood…Let him be afraid to die who is not reckoned to have any part in the cross and sufferings of Christ."
Lactantius (A.D. 320): "He was to suffer and be slain for the salvation of many people…who having suffered death for us, hath made us heirs of the everlasting kingdom, having abdicated and disinherited the people of the Jews…He stretched out His hands in the passion and measured the world, that He might at the very time show that a large people, gathered out of all languages and tribes, should come under His wings, and receive the most great and sublime sign."
Eusebius (A.D. 330): "To what 'us' does he refer, unless to them that beleive in Him? For to them that do not believe in Him, He is the author of their fire and burning. The cause of Christ's coming is the redemption of those that were to be saved by Him."
Julius (A.D. 350): "The Son of God, by the pouring out of His precious blood, redeemed His set apart ones; they are delivered by the blood of Christ."
Hilarion (A.D. 363): "He shall remain in the sight of God forever, having already taken all whom He hath redeemed to be kings of heaven, and co-heirs of eternity, delivering them as the kingdom of God to the Father."
Ambrose (A.D. 380): "Before the foundation of the world, it was God's will that Christ should suffer for our salvation…Can He damn thee, whom He hath redeemed from death, for whom He offered Himself, whose life He knows is the reward of His own death?"
Pacian (A.D. 380): "Much more, He will not allow him that is redeemed to be destroyed, nor will He cast away those whom He has redeemed with a great price."
Epiphanius (A.D. 390): "If you are redeemed…If therefore ye are bought with blood, thou are not the number of them who were bought with blood, O Manes, because thou deniest the blood…He gave His life for His own sheep."
Jerome (A.D. 390): "Christ is sacrificed for the salvation of believers…Not all are redeemed, for not all shall be saved, but the remnant…All those who are redeemed and delivered by Thy blood return to Zion, which Thou hast prepared for Thyself by Thine own blood…Christ came to redeem Zion with His blood. But lest we should think that all are Zion or every one is Zion is truly redeemed of the Lord, who are redeemed by the blood of Christ form the Church…He did not give His life for every man, but for many, that is, for those who would believe."
Remigius (A.D. 850): "Since only the elect are saved, it may be accepted that Christ did not come to save all and did not die on the cross for all."
Anselm: "If you die in unbelief, Christ did not die for you."
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
IRRESISTBLE GRACE
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "God gives repentance to us, introducing us into the incorruptible temple."
Ignatius: "Pray for them, if so by they may repent, which is very difficult; but Jesus Christ, our true life, has the power of this."
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "Having sometime before convinced us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life, hath now shown us the Savior, who is able to save them which otherwise were impossible to be saved…Free will has destroyed us; we are sold into sin."
Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "Not of ourselves, but of God, is the blessing of our salvation…Man, who was before led captive, is taken out of the power of the possessor, according to the mercy of God the Father, and restoring it, gives salvation to it by the Word; that is, by Christ; that many may experimentally learn that not of himself, but by the gift of God, he receives immortality."
Tertullian (A.D. 200): "Do you think, O men, that we should ever have been able to have understood these things in the Scriptures unless by the will of Him that wills all things, we had received grace to understand them?…But by this it is plain, that [faith] is not given to thee by God, because thou dost not ascribe it to Him alone."
Cyprian (A.D. 250): "Whatsoever is grateful is to be ascribed not to man's power, but to God's gift. It is God's, I say, all is God's that we can do. Yea, that in nothing must we glory, since nothing is ours."
Arnobius (A.D. 303): "You place the salvation of your souls in yourselves, and trust that you may be made gods by your inward endeavor, yet it is not our own power to reach things above."
Lactantius (A.D. 320): "The vistory lies in the will of God, not in thine own. To overcome is not in our power."
Athanasius (A.D. 350): "To believe is not ours, or in our power, but the Spirit's who is in us, and abides in us."
Jerome (A.D. 390): "This is the chief righteousness of man, to reckon that whatsoever power he can have, is not his own, but the Lord's who gives it…See how great is the help of God, and how frail the condition of man that we cannot by any means fulfill this, that we repent, unless the Lord first convert us…When [Jesus] says, 'No man can come to Me,' He breaks the proud liberty of free will; for man can desire nothing, and in vain he endeavors…Where is the proud boasting of free will?…We pray in vain if it is in our own will. Why should men pray for that from the Lord which they have in the power of their own free will?"
Augustine (A.D. 370): "Faith itself is to be attributed to God…Faith is made a gift. These men, however, attribute faith to free will, so grace is rendered to faith not as a gratuitous gift, but as a debt…They must cease from saying this."
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
Clement Of Rome (A.D. 69): "It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?"
Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "Such a soul [of a Christian] shall never at any time be separated from God…Faith, I say, is something divine, which cannot be pulled asunder by any other worldly friendship, nor be dissolved by present fear."
Tertullian: "God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…For what is of God is never extinguished."
Augustine: "Of these believers no one perishes, because they were all elected. And they were elected because they were called according to the purpose–the purpose, however, not their own, but God's…Obedience then is God's gift…To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God."
Source: Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Grand Rapids, MI Baker, 2002), Appendix.
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
Mr. Marinov, contrary to the belief of some; puritans did not create America. You Sir, have read to many yankee textbooks. If I may suggest follow the example of the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11. Otherwise very clear thinking.
I don't even know what a "yankee textbook" is, let alone read it. I have been north of the Mason-Dixon line only a few times, and never read or picked up a textbook while there. 95% of my time in the US was spent in the South, between Texas and Virginia. I strongly rely for my understanding of the Reformed influence on American history on my friend and historian Ben House, and especially his book, Punic Wars and Cultural Wars. Ben House lives in Texarkana AR, and if he is a Yankee, I am from Alpha Centauri.
What a remarkable writer and thinker is Mr. Marinov. It is hard to pick out any three paragraphs within his essays without hearing the kind of sermon you'd long to hear in your own church. But forwarding his writings to friends who are looking to find His way in this world is the next best thing. And all of American Vision is a treasure in that regard.