Unashamed of Grace

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Who is Phil Johnson?

A good article from the Miles J Stanford memorial site.

16 Comments:

There were several piquant comments which I thoroughly enjoyed!

"Phil is to John MacArthur what Ragin-Cajun James Carville was to impeached Bill Clinton."

"Rather than thoughtful commentary and clarity, his comments resemble a drive-by shooting from hoodlum punks cruising in a low-rider."

It was surprising to see the term "vicious" applied to Phil, but then, he can dish it out but he sure can't take it.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:44:00 AM
Yeah.

By Matthew Celestine, at Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:26:00 PM
Matthew, How would Miles Stanford, who wrote this, and I quote -
""The old things have [positionally] passed away"; this is indispensable, for it is not possible that we should have at the same time a standing in Adam to answer for ourselves, and a standing in Christ who has answered for us. It is the total relegation, morally, for faith, of the former and abrogated creation, now no longer acknowledged, and carrying with it a final repudiation of the flesh and its activities, so that it has no longer a recognized existence, and even "Christ after the flesh" is not known.

With what vigor and pungency does Paul write to the Galatians: "God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal. 6:14,15). In what a superb manner are the world, and the flesh, and its righteousness brushed out of the way, that the new creation may stand prominently forth in a supremely salient style!" and Zane Hodges get along?

By mark pierson, at Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:13:00 PM
Miles Stanford does not like some aspects of Zane Hodges theology. And I do not believe Hodges would necessarilly support Stanford's Kewswick/ Classic Dispensational approach to sanctification.

However, Miles Stanford has even less liking for the theology of John F MacArthur and repudiates Lordship Salvation as a Calvinistic aberration.

I think there are very positive aspects in the theology of both men. I do not think there is necessarilly a conflict between the Free Grace theology of Hodges and Wilkin and the Identification Truths advocated by Stanford.

It is important to recognise the distinction between positional and conditional truth. In the quotation, Stanford is talking about the position a believer has in Christ, as oposed to the condition that she may find herself in through the leadings of the flesh.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:01:00 PM
Stanford used 2Cor. 5:17 - the new creation - throughout this article as often as a any reformed writer would, attaching the newness of life aspects in much the same way. The fruit of the Spirit shinning through was seems something Stanford expected as well, Keswick or not.

By mark pierson, at Monday, February 26, 2007 3:36:00 AM
Any way you cut it, Matthew,based on what I saw in this article I believe there is a chasm, and a very wide one at that, wider than I think you would admit to, between Stanford's theology as seen here, and Hodges.

By mark pierson, at Monday, February 26, 2007 7:36:00 AM
Yes I would agree with you there Bluecollar. I think Joseph from Triumph of the crucified truly represents Miles Stanfords postion and he himself has clearly not been comfortable with this position as well. I must say it does appear that this is a clever twist in the works again. Also I think it unfair to class Spurgeon in such a light as not understanding postitional truth. Quiet frankly I don't know why I just commented as sometimes I wonder how much the debate is worth it. Take care for now guys. Just visiting and looking to land on park place one day:-)

By Bhedr, at Monday, February 26, 2007 6:01:00 PM
Mark, Stanford is talking about positional truth.

The Christian is positionall a new Creation, who is sanctified in Christ. She is dead to sin and risen with Christ. She is indwellt with the Hol Spirit and able to walk in His ways.

However, her sinful nature remains and so her condition of walking may not reflect her privileged position in Christ.

Zane Hodges has not written any books directly addressing sancification, so I cannot say exactly how he would disagree with Stanford.

I suspect Zane Hodges would affirm the distinction between position and condition (a distinction not fully brought out in Reformed theology) and I suspect Hodges would largely affirm Stanford's understanding of the Christian position.

Disagreement would largely be over the means of sanctification. Stanford took the view that sanctification is the passive appropriation of the Christian's position in Christ. The Christian does not struggle against sin, but simply acknowledges God's provision of sanctification in Christ.

Hodges is probably closer to the Reformed view in holding that the believer is active in her sanctification.

Disagreements between Hodges and Stanford (and Ryrie) are far less fundamental than disagreements between Stanford and MacArthur, John Piper, C.H. Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd Jones and co.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, February 26, 2007 7:04:00 PM
"There is yet a fifth set of seven prerogatives that are ours in Christ:

We have a fruit, the fruit of the Spirit, that can never be destroyed.
We have a hunger that can never be unsatisfied.
We have an approach, an access, that can never be blocked.
We have a blessing that can never be interrupted.
We have an attraction--Christ--that can never be surpassed.
We have a food that can never be adulterated.
We have a comfort that can never be absent."
------------
I am paying attention to the mention of "fruit" here. It seems to me that Stanford expects it from the Christian. I have also seen Ryrie's notes on James 2:14-26. He seems to expect a changed life to result in the Christian too.

Matthew, I believe that your Stanford post, due to his theology, runs counter to your Zane Hodges advocasy. IOW, with this post you just shot yourself in the foot.

By mark pierson, at Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:19:00 AM
IOW, with this post you just shot yourself in the foot.

Mark, you sound like you think Matthew is holding a loaded gun. Contrarily, I believe we Christians are all learning how this great salvation works. Matthew is not Zane Hodges and even if he was, he could still appreciate other teachers, even if they had nuances of difference in doctrinal positions. For example, the post I have up on my blog by J. Vernon McGee ... I do not agree with every jot and tittle there, either.

Nice try, Mark. ;~)

By Rose~, at Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:21:00 AM
Mark, you may or may not be aware that both Zane Hodges and Antonio DaRosa insist that a Christian will produce some fruit, even if that fruit is not necessarilly visible.

You are quoting Miles Stanford out of his own theological context.

Stanford believed that a Christian has two natures, the flesh and the new nature. Growth and fruitbearing in the new nature was not automatic, but depended upon a Christian's appropriating her identiy as a new creation in Christ.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6:14:00 PM
>For example, the post I have up on my blog by J. Vernon McGee ... I do not agree with every jot and tittle there, either.<

Hey Rose. Wasn't this the point Mark was making?

I guess some of us have just been a little puzzled about you alls dividing line then. The critique was given that Mcgees article was too Calvinistic and then Phil is being spliced from MacArthur and He from Spurgeon it seems while Spurgeon is being tied back in with Phil. Then there is the repentance issue. It just seems like that the angle everyone seems to be taking on this blog is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So it is repentance you all have a problem with but then its Calvinism unless the Calvinist is against repentance. But if he is for repentance and against the Doctrines of Grace then you all post for him. This is just my observation. It seems that team blogs pressure one anther to conform while they don't hold to each others postion either. Ah well, I am just a steering wheel holder, but at what point do you say this far and no further. It would seem that each of you would list a differant barometer. Maybe I just confused myself. Ah well, you all take care. I do think Calvinist recognize the variety in how we are created but see positional truth as unchanging and God bringing us from differing backgrounds to see the same truth.

By Bhedr, at Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:01:00 PM
>Mark, you may or may not be aware that both Zane Hodges and Antonio DaRosa insist that a Christian will produce some fruit, even if that fruit is not necessarilly visible.<
----------
Isn't that like speaking out of both sides of your mouth? How can you have fruit and it not necessarilly be visible?
----------

>You are quoting Miles Stanford out of his own theological context.

Stanford believed that a Christian has two natures, the flesh and the new nature. Growth and fruitbearing in the new nature was not automatic, but depended upon a Christian's appropriating her identiy as a new creation in Christ.<
-----------
Reformed believe that the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; they are contrary, every day war is wagged. See 2 Peter 1:3-11.

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:04:00 AM
Wow, Rose still talks to me.
;-)

By mark pierson, at Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:06:00 AM
Brian, pressure to conform?

When we started this blog, we had Nate on the team who took a different position from Hodges on repentance.

Rose has never been willing to accept some of the implications of the Hodges/ Wilkin position on saving faith. Antonio, Jodie and I have not given her a hard time about it. And she did not leave the blog because of it.

Antonio probably does not like Miles Stanford's theology, but he has not come to me and complained about it.

The article linked here makes some good points that anyone who disagrees with Lorship Salvation will agree with. That one of favorite theologians is a fellow target of the website is no big deal.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:28:00 PM
Here was Marks point>wider than I think you would admit to<

You ask the question Who is Phil Johnson.

My question back to you was basically "Who are you?"

Its a free country. If you feel you are endeavoring to help others see things then perhaps a willingness to admit would be helpful. Until others see we are willing to be honest with ourselves then its going to be hard for you to convince others. It looking more and more like there may be personal issues with some people here. Personally I am myself rethinking this whole blogging philosophy that everyone is encouraging right now. I think for a time I am going to remove my own links and pray over this matter. We say we are interested in loving everyone and welcoming the discussion and we say we wish to endeavor to call men to grace and the focus on Christ but essentially in so many ways it is kind of like that Sprint commercial where that cowboy is twirling his gun out of his holster and then slapping the cowboy in front of him and then getting him to look at him and then slapping him. I am not meaning to sound sanctimonious myself but we have to ask ourselves what is at the heart of all of this.

By Bhedr, at Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:42:00 PM