Ridiculous email regarding the "Arminians worship a false god" thread

[LadyFlynt]

There is something seriously wrong. Share your beliefs...but don't hunt them down and shove it down their throats. Sounds like someone's been taking lessons from the "evangelism quarterback".

 

[Anton Bruckner]

we should call him Mullah Bain.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by blhowes

It would seem to me that the 'best' Calvinists, even Mr. Bane himself, would have a difficult time living up to this mark of a true Christian. To doubt God when you pray, even in the slightest degree, would mean that the person could expect nothing from God (this includes salvation). What person, except Jesus himself, can honestly say that they never have doubts when they pray. We grow in grace and learn to walk by faith and not by sight, we're sanctified daily and are being transformed into the image of Christ, but its hard to believe that every true Christian (Calvinist) has reached that point where they never doubt even a little when they pray.
...

Thank you blhowes.

I'm glad someone didn't simply blow-off Bain as a nut. The typical response of "he's a nut" or "he's a wacko" is the same attitude that may non-believers take when taking about the "patently absurd beliefs of Christians". We shouldn't dismiss Bain out of hand any more than non-believers are right to dismiss Calvinists with abuse ad hominem comments.

Bain should be given the same consideration we expect others to give us. His beliefs may be flawed, but not all of his arguments are without merit. And any reasonable arguments he makes should be addressed by those who disagree, least we look like hypocrites to outsiders (and believe me, they are quick to spot any appearance of hypocrisy in Christians).

I hope Dr. McMahon will address some of Bain's points - particularly: are Arminians reprobates?

Bain deserves no respect, and no time. He is a false teacher, a well without water, one who requires obedience to the commands of men (his) instead of God's. He lies and bears false witness - culling email addresses for spam mails, ignoring polite (and then not so polite) requests to be removed; he signs up onto internet lists using false names, then proceeds to spam them; he finds emails sent to a bunch of individuals, even those whom have repeatedly requested NOT to be sent Mr. Bain's screeds, and spams them.

He has declared publicly that he knows with certainty that EVERYONE - including John Calvin himself, and the Westminster divines - are all consigned to hell because they do not believe Bain's gospel. He is the epitome of Paul's admonition in Galatians 1.

My advice is to treat him for what he is: a false teacher, a heathen and a publican, and to not have any doings with him - even greeting him (2 John 10-11) unless and until he repents.

Men like this slander Jesus Christ with their deeds. It is up to the Church to publicly and LOUDLY declare that they have nothing to do with such.

 

[Jon]

Bain took aim at me, as well. His original email concerning me:

Jon Nicholson writes,

Christianity is a religion of the mind. ... It is the knowledge that we are
God's children, the knowledge of his law, and the knowledge that we are
required to obey it that spur us on to obey it. Obviously, since the
unbeliever does not believe he is a child of God, denies the law applies to
him, and refuses to believe that he should obey it, he cannot possibly know
anything about any of these. He does not worship God in spirit (in mind),
for he does not believe in him.

My comment: Nicholson is correct in his comments above. Saving faith is
indeed simply the bare belief of the bare truth. The Apostles said that
saving faith was "abiding in ... doctrine" (2 Jn 9) and receiving God's
testimony/report (1 Jn 5:9-10). Nowhere do they hint that saving faith is
anything more or less than believing their preaching. "So we preach, and so
you believed." (1 Cor 15:11).

Nicholson is also right when he says that no unregenerate person has ever
believed the truth. The unregenerate say in their hearts "there is no God",
they "know not God", and all spiritual things are "foolishness" to them.
Fact is, all Unbelievers are by definition rank atheists. And this is good
news for believers. If no unregenerate person has ever assented to the
gospel, then everyone who has assented to the gospel is regenerate ( i.e.
quickened by the Word). Hence, believers can deduce that they are elect
from their belief. Nicholson writes,

It is written: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved (Rom. 10:13). By declaring "it is written," I assent that this
proposition is biblical. Secondly, I understand it. If it were written in
another language besides English (and if I did not already have Romans
10:13 memorized), I would not understand the proposition. Thirdly, I trust
the proposition is true. More definitely, I believe it applies to me. With
these three elements, I can construct a valid syllogism, which is a
particularized salvific proposition:

1) All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
2) I call upon the name of the Lord.
3) Therefore, I shall be saved.

My comment: Nicholson is almost right. There is one problem, however, with
what he has written above. He has based the evidence of salvation on
calling, not faith. But Romans 10:14 says "How can they call on him, on
whom they have not believed?". Calling on the Lord is done by those already
assured of their salvation. This is because "calling" by definition means
crying "Abba, father" or praying "our Father in heaven". To pray these
things, a person must ALREADY know they are a child of God and that God is
their Father. This means that the evidence of salvation is belief, not
calling. Here is the correct syllogism by which believers deduce their
salvation.

1) All who believe the gospel shall be saved.
2) I believe the gospel.
3) Therefore, I shall be saved.

Nicholson also makes an excellent point on natural theology. He writes,

Any natural theological argument in favor of a Trinity will always be
invalid. .. TAG can only prove an absolute being, not the Triune God of the
Bible ... This is precisely why I advocate a Scriptural foundation for all
knowledge. All arguments of natural theology (that is, extra-biblical
theology) are invalid when one attempts to infer from one to the other.
They begin with contradictory first premises (revelatory vs.
non-revelatory), so they can never infer one another. They may have similar
or even identical concepts, but their proofs are radically different;
therefore, there is nothing but discontinuity between them.

My comment: I can't really add to what Nicholson has written above on
natural theology, other than by pointing out a few Scriptures. First of
all, Hebrews 11:3 says that it is by BELIEF that we know that the worlds
were framed by the Word of God, and not the things that were made. This
means that we CANNOT know that the worlds were created through the Son
unless we believe the Scriptures. This is a similar message to Isaiah
45:21. Here, Jehovah says that there is NO other God but the Just God and
Savior. In other words, if you wanted to prove the existence of "God", you
would have to prove the existence of the Just God and Savior, i.e., the
Trinity.

The Scripture NEVER presupposes that man naturally or innately knows the
True God. God Himself has to tell us in His Word that He exists. He has
found it necessary to tell us that "In the beginning God" and "in the
beginning was the Word". Naturally, we do NOT know of the existence of the
Sovereign, Just, Holy, Merciful, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Wise
Trinity.  Otherwise, why does He have to tell us, "truly, there is a God
judging in the earth." (Psa 58:11) ?? He has to tell us of His existence
because naturally -- without the Spirit of Truth -- we say in our hearts,
"there is no God."

Jon Nicholson has said a lot of truth in the quotes above. But so did Judas
and Balaam. So, it's now time for the most important question of all --
does Jon Nicholson preach the True Gospel of Salvation by the Imputed
Righteousness and Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ?? Does He think that this
is the ONE exclusive GOSPEL?? Are all other gospels damnable, according to
Jon Nicholson ?? Well, it saddens me to have to inform you of some of Jon
Nicholson's heresies regarding the gospel. He writes,

I believe the visible church has failed miserably to faithfully instruct
its congregations in thinking biblically. I blame the men in the pulpits,
the theologians, the ministers, the seminary professors for not rightly
teaching the word of God and instead compromising God's truth with worldly
truth.

Here, Nicholson is basically say that teachers and congregations whom have
"failed miserably ... in thinking biblically" are part of the visible
church. Wow! I thought that those who do not abide in the doctrine of
Christ have NOT God (2 John 9). And what about John 10? Doesn't Christ say
that believers will NEVER follow a false sheperd? And didn't He say in
Matthew 24 that the elect CANNOT be deceived by the false prophets? Either
Jesus Christ is a liar or Jon Nicholson is. Christ would lead us to believe
that ALL regenerate people BELIEVE the truth. Jon Nicholson would lead us
to believe that SOME regenerate people have "FAILED miserably ... in
thinking biblically". Who is the liar??

See the Scripture: those who preach a false gospel are lost (Gal 1:8-9).
Jon, I challenge you to read Acts 8. See how the Apostles judged Simon
Magnus when he denied the Sovereignty of God by thinking that he could
purchase salvation with money. They told him that he was in a "gall of
bitterness" and a "bond of iniquity" because the thought of his heart was
wrong. In other words, any one who denies the True Gospel of Imputed
Righteousness is LOST and CAPTIVATED by the Devil and the light shines
around them but they do NOT comprehend it.

The reason that Nicholson thinks that there are regenerate people out there
who have "failed miserably ... in thinking biblically" is because he
himself does not understand the gospel. If you read through his website,
you'll know what I mean. He NEVER mentions IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. Instead,
he seems to have fallen into the false gospel of conditioning (basing)
justification on belief and NOT on Imputed Righteousness. He writes,

It is certainly true that we are justified by faith alone, but that
justifying faith is never alone. I frequently find myself having to be
careful about the relationship between works and faith, however, especially
in light of recent controversies. We are justified by faith, a faith that
produces works, but works play no part in our justification.

Jon says that works play no part in justification, but he seems to think
that belief does. What he's failed to understand is that when the Scripture
says justification by faith it means justification by the OBJECT of the
faith but not by the faith itself.

Now, I obviously agree that the Bible say men are "justified by faith
alone". However, what does the Scripture mean when it says justified by
faith? Well, the Scripture says that "Abraham believed God and His faith
was imputed to him unto righteousness". Abraham was justified by the One he
believed in, Christ. It was the OBJECT of Abraham's faith -- Christ's
righteousness -- that CAUSED His justification. Abraham's belief was merely
EVIDENCE to himself that he was saved, NOT the reason for his
justification.

The Bible often refers to Christ as "The faith", so God is saying "Christ
was imputed" to Abraham "unto righteousness".

This is why elsewhere the Bible says believers are justified "by grace" and
"by his blood". It's Christ's OBEDIENCE to the Law that accounts a sinner
righteous. Faith plays NO part whatsoever in justification other than being
sole evidence to the sinner that he is justified.

But it shouldn't be surprising that Nicholson does not understand imputed
righteousness. After all, he subscribes to the Westminster Confession of
Faith. He writes,

I am a confessional Presbyterian, holding to the 33 articles of the
Westminster Confession of Faith to be the right and proper definition and
exposition of biblical Christianity and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms,
which answers are rightly in accord with the Scriptures, from which they
derive all authority.

My comment: The Westminster Standards are packed full of heresy:

Q85 of the Shorter Catechism teaches justification by works
see http://www.Godnoliar.com/kinnaird.htm
and http://www.Godnoliar.com/lies.htm

Q172 of the Larger Catechism teaches that doubting your salvation is a good
work
see http://www.Godnoliar.com/antinomian.htm

Chapter 31 of the Westminster Confession denies Sola Scriptura
see http://www.Godnoliar.com/pope.htm

Now back to the gospel. Abraham was justified -- declared righteous --
based on the obedience of Christ in His account. But this righteousness was
NOT IN Abraham. It was wholly EXTERNAL. Isaiah refers to being "clothed
with the garments of salvation" and "covered with the robe of
righteousness" (Isaiah 61:10). What saved Isaiah was outside him. He was
covered and clothed with righteousness, NOT infused with it (like the
wedding guests in the parable). Similarly, the sins of sheep were imputed
to Christ on the cross. Intellectually and judicially the sins of the Elect
became Christ's (like a debt of $50 can be charged to someone else's
account, and the debt becomes theirs intellectually and judicially, even
though they never contracted the debt - so Christ never sinned himself). In
Psalm 38:4 Christ calls the Elect's sins "my iniquities". We know that
Psalm 34 is talking about Christ and NOT David, because v20 of it is
applied to Christ in John 19:36. (In fact, the New Testament NEVER says the
Psalms are about David at all!). So there are two imputations. Christ took
the Elect's sin (#1) and gives Him their righteousness (#2). And they're
completely passive in earning Heaven. Instead, "this is My beloved Son in
whom I am well pleased." Only the finished work of Christ can satisfy God's
demand for absolute obedience to the Eternal Law. And that's the gospel.

It's time to define our terms further. What is the gospel that Paul and the
Apostles preached? What do we mean by the "true gospel" in opposition to
all false gospels? To begin with, Romans 1:16-17 states that the
righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel. Now, what is the
"righteousness of God" ? Answer: "Christ is the end of Law for
righteousness to everyone that believes." (Rom 10:4). The heart of the
gospel is the teaching that Christ was "made under the Law" "to redeem
those under the Law". The Law which Christ obeyed demands PERFECT PERPETUAL
obedience from ALL men, and pronounces a CURSE of damnation on all who fail
to keep it flawlessly. Indeed, "the soul that sins shall die." Anyone who
worships the Just God and Savior of the Scriptures will HAVE to know about
imputed righteousness. It's OBVIOUS from the Scripture that man must be
PERFECT to worship God, and since all men everywhere are sinners, it MUST
be the work of SOMEONE ELSE (Christ) that constitutes the elect sinner
right before God. You would have to be completely IGNORANT of God's UTTER
DISGUST with the smallest disobedience, to deny imputed righteousness. God
says, "cursed is everyone who does not obey all these statues," and "not
the hearer of the Law, but the doer of the Law shall live,". Clearly, if
you are not perfect in the sight of God you will NOT enter heaven -- you
are under the wrath of God. You need Christ's righteousness. Because ONLY
His obedience to the Law can meet the demands of the Law. In fact Romans 3
says that the FAITHFULNESS of Christ to the Law is the way God DEMONSTRATES
His righteousness. "God set forth a propitiation through faith in His
blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of
the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God, (26) for a
demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just
and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus." Anyone ignorant of
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS does NOT understand God's righteousness. They do not
believe the gospel.

It's now time to look at the other half of the gospel: IMPUTED SIN. "He who
knew no sin was made sin," and "the chastisement of our peace was upon
Him." Now, you would have to be a hardened heretic to deny that The
Atonement is PLAINLY LIMITED in the Scriptures to believers. "I lay down my
life for the sheep", Christ said, not the goats who will perish. "I pray
not for the world," He said, and Ephesians 5:25 says that husbands are to
love their wives like Christ loves the Church. Obviously, LOVE is ALWAYS
limited to SOMEONE ( e.g. your wife, if you are a married man), or a GROUP
of people in the case of Christ. To say that Christ died for some people
who will perish is to deny His work was 100% sufficient to save from hell.
"The gospel" which Paul preached, included the truth "that Christ died for
our sins according to the Scriptures". Thus, the man will know that all the
sins of believers are completely atoned for. This is the whole meaning
behind the Resurrection of Christ -- God the Father is perfectly satisfied
with the work of the Son, "to save His people from their sins."

The gospel, therefore, is God's promise to save His people based on the
atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. God has
testified that everyone who believes the gospel, "IS justified", "IS born
of God," "IS saved," and "shall NOT come into judgment". Now, if it was
possible for someone to believe the gospel, but doubt their salvation, then
that would mean a believer could CALL GOD A LIAR. Because if a believer
doubts their salvation, they are denying God's promise to save ALL
believers.

This is why John says, believers do not call God a liar. Instead, "The one
believing in the Son of God has the witness in himself ... And this is the
witness: that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son."
So, all believers HAVE THE WITNESS in their consciences. And what is "the
witness"? "God gave us everlasting life." To believe the witness,
therefore, is to KNOW that God gives eternal life to believers. It is to
have a BARE BELIEF OF THE BARE TRUTH. It's to credit the testimony of God,
and to be convicted that God's promises are sure and certain. In other
words, receiving or coming to Christ is MERELY to believe the gospel. "As
many as RECEIVED Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God,
to the ones BELIEVING into His name"(John 1:12).

It's not like an elect sinner rationalizes their way into the gospel. They
don't gradually "find out" about the True God's character. Conversion is a
SUDDEN, totally UNEXPECTED change of mind to the DOCTRINE OF Christ.
"Isaiah is very bold and says, "I was found by those not seeking Me; I
became known to those not inquiring after Me." ... And your ears shall hear
a word BEHIND you, saying, This is the way, walk in it."

Thus, the elders obtained the good report by their faith, not their works
(Heb 11:2).

Sadly, most Protestants do NOT base their evidence of salvation on a bare
belief of the bare truth. They look to their own works. In doing so, they
show a complete failure to understand sanctification. God commands us to
"walk worth as children of God." Now, how can you walk as a Son of God,
unless you are already fully persuaded in your mind you are a child of God?
And can someone pray, "Abba, Father" without the knowledge that God is
their Father? Could someone even pray "Our Father in heaven" without
knowing first they are His children? Doesn't every good work come out of
gratitude for salvation? And if so, how can we even begin to do good works
without full assurance of salvation first?

It's not like you do good works in order to "find out" whether or not
you're saved. In order for a work to be good, it must be out of love. And
can some love God, unless they know He has loved them with everlasting
love? No. John says believers "love him because he first" love them. It's
the INFALLIBLE ASSURANCE that God has justified me by Christ's righteous
and redeemed me by His blood that brings forth all my obedience. "For as
much as YOU KNOW, that you were redeemed not with corruptible things ...
but with the blood of Christ, pass the time of your sojourning in fear." I
pass the time sojourning, because I KNOW I am REDEEMED by Christ'S BLOOD.

Now don't get me wrong. Believers DO have wicked thoughts and do wicked
things. And God tells believers that they will sin. But He doesn't stop
there, does He? He also says that all believers are JUSTIFIED from all sin,
so believers never doubt that God saves sinful people, including
themselves. Therefore, God can and does convince justified people that they
are actually justified, and there are no believers walking around ignorant
of their justification. People who doubt they are justified are not
justified. Believers have the infallible testimony of the Holy Spirit
witnessing to the infallible Word, and this is always 100% sufficient to
convince them that God will save ALL His people based on the atoning blood
and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

After all, how do we know there is a Law? Sin? Death by sin? We hear of
these things by the Word. But the Word also says, "Christ is the end of the
Law for righteousness for everyone that believes." (Romans 10). So the Word
is sufficient to convict my conscience of sin and death. And at the same
time, the Word is sufficient to acquit (remove all concern) of
condemnation.

Christ says, that "the one receiving His testimony has SEALED that God is
true" and the Apostles only wrote to those of "equally precious faith" to
themselves (2 Pet 1:1). And since the Apostles never doubted their
salvation, to have "equally precious faith" to them, would mean to have the
full assurance of salvation they possessed. Therefore, if you do not have
the full assurance of the Apostles, the epistles are not addressed to you.
You are a child of the devil. You cannot say with Paul, "He will guard my
deposit" and with John, "He has regenerated us." You do not have the
equally precious faith of the Apostles. Unless you repent (have a change of
mind), you will perish eternally.

Believers never thirst for the knowledge of their salvation. Christ said,
"Whoever may drink of the water which I will give him will not thirst,
NEVER! But the water which I will give to him will become a fountain of
water in him, springing up into everlasting life." But those that are
doubting their salvation are very thirsty indeed. They are still under the
curse of the Law. And James tells them they can expect nothing from God.
James wrote, "For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being
driven by wind and being tossed; for do NOT let that man suppose that he
will receive anything from the Lord."

Full assurance is the privilege of every believer.

Andrew Bain

 

[Jon]

The original email was sent to Vincent Cheung (of RMI), James White (Alpha/Omega), Alan Kurschner (Calvinist Gadfly), my friends Evan, Brian, and Mickey, and a handful of other people I did not recognize. The email was sent out of the blue with not so much as a preemptive word from Bain. Needless to say, I thought this approach left something to be desired, and considering the charge, I responded:

Hello Mr. Bain and Reformed brethren,

Well, I must admit surprise at this recent email. I thank Mr. Bain for his
ardent defense of the gospel and his zealousy for defending the church
against false teachers, a pursuit I view as an obligation of all believers.
However, I do think there may be some misunderstandings concerning what I
have written thus far. If I may be permitted a few clarifications, I would
be indebted to you all.

I find no fault with Mr. Bain's proposed alternative syllogism concerning
Romans 10:13. I think this might be a matter of semantics, as my original
argument was constructed to explicitly fit the form of the language used in
the King James Version of the verse (necessary for strict logical validity).
Indeed, his argument is precisely what I believe is meant by Romans 10:13,
that calling is the inward work of the Holy Spirit effecting faith in the
man, and not a volitional response on the part of the man.

On another subject, I think Mr. Bain may have misunderstood my comment
regarding the poor content of biblical instruction in the _visible_ church.
His comments were:

"Here, Nicholson is basically say that teachers and congregations whom have
"failed miserably ... in thinking biblically" are part of the visible
church. Wow! I thought that those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ
have NOT God (2 John 9). And what about John 10? Doesn't Christ say that
believers will NEVER follow a false sheperd? And didn't He say in Matthew 24
that the elect CANNOT be deceived by the false prophets? Either Jesus Christ
is a liar or Jon Nicholson is. Christ would lead us to believe that ALL
regenerate people BELIEVE the truth. Jon Nicholson would lead us to believe
that SOME regenerate people have "FAILED miserably ... in thinking
biblically". Who is the liar??"

I would encourage Mr. Bain to carefully consider the meaning of the term
"visible church," especially as it applies to the Westminster Confession, my
peer acknowledging that by my own words I affirm the truth of the
Confession. To quote Mr. Bain, "After all, he subscribes to the Westminster
Confession of Faith." The Confession says this concerning the division of
the visible and invisible church:

(25:1) The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the
whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into
one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness
of Him that filleth all in all (Eph. 1:10, 22, 23; 5:23, 27, 32; Col. 1:18).

(25:2) The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the
Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all
those throughout the world that profess the true religion (Psa. 2:8; Rom.
15:9-12; 1 Co. 1:2; 12:12, 13; Rev. 7:9); and of their children (Gen. 3:15;
17:7; Eze. 16:20, 21; Acts 2:39; Rom. 11:16; 1 Co. 7:14): and is the kingdom
of the Lord Jesus Christ (Is. 9:7; Matt. 13:47), the house and family of God
(Eph. 2:19; Eph. 3:15), out of which there is no ordinary possibility of
salvation (Acts 2:47).

(25:4) This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible
(Rom. 11:3, 4; Rev. 12:6, 14). And particular Churches, which are members
thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is
taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed
more or less purely in them (1 Co. 5:6, 7; Rev. 2:1-3:22).

Here the Divines assert the invisible church consists of the elect, which no
man may know or number. The invisible church consists of them God has
justified and made perfect in his sight solely upon the atoning blood and
imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. The visible churches are the many
congregations professing faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; however, among
the lambs are found wolves (Acts 20:29, 1 Co. 11:19, 2 Peter 2:1). For this
reason, the Divines wrote that these congregations "may be more or less
pure." Not only that, but we yet retain our human nature, so we will sin and
make blunders in instruction on occasion. In the assertion that I put forth,
I meant to infer that many congregations are substantially "less pure"
because of their lack of instruction. This is a result of impurity. It is
especially a result of the admixture of secular thought with religious
thought, which I believe to be the cause for the deferrential treatment of
sound biblical instruction existent in some nominal churches today.
Apparently, Mr. Bain decries this distinction and the whole of the
Confession and its Catechisms as well. Very well, he is free to do so. But
in recognizing many names in the address of this email, Dr. White, Mr.
Cheung, Mickey, Evan, Mr. Kurschner, Mr. Downs, I have little doubt these
men will question the orthodoxy (barring baptismal matters) of adherring to
the historic Confession formulated by the Westminster Assembly of 1646/1647.

Mr. Bain continues by asserting--I would imagine, otherwise there is no
reason to point it out--that I deny the imputed righteousness of Christ to
regenerated men. To quote, "If you read through his website, you'll know
what I mean. He NEVER mentions IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. Instead, he seems to
have fallen into the false gospel of conditioning (basing) justification on
belief and NOT on Imputed Righteousness." He also quotes a post I made on
the Puritan Board, which I recently joined, especially so I could
participate in a thread concerning Dr. Gordon H. Clark's definition of faith
and its application to the traditional Protestant/Reformed formula of
assensus, notitia, and fiducia. I supply the URL here in hopes that the full
context will shed proper light on this point:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15809 .

Mr. Bain quotes me as saying the following in that thread:

"It is certainly true that we are justified by faith alone, but that
justifying faith is never alone. I frequently find myself having to be
careful about the relationship between works and faith, however, especially
in light of recent controversies. We are justified by faith, a faith that
produces works, but works play no part in our justification."

Concerning which he asserts: "Jon says that works play no part in
justification, but he seems to think that belief does. What he's failed to
understand is that when the Scripture says justification by faith it means
justification by the OBJECT of the faith but not by the faith itself."

If he had read the thread more critically he would have identified my
agreement with his argument when I said: "I am convinced that saving faith
is entirely intellectual, any other sort of extra-propositional volition
being extraneous to the sole instrument of justification (faith), thus
adding to the transaction something that cannot possibly be justifiable." If
I may be permitted another syllogism, I would like to point out that:

1) If faith is a gift of God.
2) If faith is the sole instrument of justification.
C) Justification is a gift of God.

I cannot imagine that Mr. Bain would object to this syllogism, but then, I
could not have imagined that I would have been perceived to be adding an
element of works or anthropic volition to justification, either.

I should also point out that my website, my blog, is not intended to entreat
theology on a systematic level. That I have not yet discussed the imputed
righteousness of Christ is not evidence that I do not believe in it. Indeed,
it is a logical blunder to infer that. Rather, it simply means I have not
discussed the topic, yet. Why? Well, my readers will tell you that the
primary focus thus far has been epistemology. If one cannot answer the
charge, "How do you _know_ you are justified by the imputed righteousness of
Christ?" then one does not have a sound argument. Therefore, we must start
with the infallible and inerrant Scriptures and with those alone. God
willing, I hope to be able to discuss more properly theological issues in
the future, and I invite Mr. Bain to read and critique those as well. As
yet, however, I have not touched upon the issue. May this then serve as my
affirmation of orthodoxy.

Mr. Bain then goes on to discuss justification by faith alone by the imputed
righteousness of Christ alone and most of what he says is excellent. I do
not see a need to review what he has said, instead, I will trust the Holy
Spirit to provide the readers with guidance and discernment concerning what
Mr. Bain has said, and would encourage them to seek the Scriptures to see if
what he says is so.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon