Martin Bucer pre-Leithartian?

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:42:42 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Martin Bucer pre-Leithartian?

Here’s a sample:

This explains a lot

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:13:57 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: This explains a lot
We’ll see in a few moments that in fact, our works flow from God’s grace, but God’s grace is not caused by something that we do. Salvation is by grace alone and it is not caused by something in us or something that we do. When we stress salvation by grace alone we are not just engaging in a quibbling theological discussion, as far as Paul is concerned. Paul says we are right at the heart of the truth of the Christian faith when we assert that works and grace can not be mixed in the matter of our right standing before God, in the matter of our justification, in the matter of our salvation.

Why? Well, for a couple of reasons, first of all, to mix works and grace is to misunderstand the necessity of God’s divine favor. If we include works as a source of our salvation, if we include works as a means of our salvation, if we include works, even as a part of our salvation, we are robbing God of His glory and shifting the emphasis from what God has done to what we have done, and we’re suggesting that God loves us because we first loved Him, that God has shown us grace because we first reached out to Him, and of course that is the exact opposite message of the Scriptures. God, while we were yet ungodly sent His son to die, to draw us in. We love Him, John says, because He first loved us. So, mixing works and grace in salvation undercuts this consistent Biblical emphasis on the grace of God. We are going to see it tonight when we look at Exodus chapter 14 and 15, how God emphasizes that He alone saves His people.

Found here:

I’ll grant that some of this is right in that he is talking about a justified status. But, even at best he so merges justification and salvation that he ends up condemning Turretin and many others. Works must not be called a “means of salvation.”

Lig is truly at war with the Reformed heritage, including the Westminster Assembly.

And he goes on to say how he used to struggle with assurance. . . . .



Peter Lillback

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:35:10 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Peter Lillback

Hey, I just saw the Trinity festival website. Has Peter discussed the current fracas with anyone?


Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:58:49 -0800 (PST)
From: ChrisandNancy Crain
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review


I think the folks from MVP might agree with Ashbel Green’s observations on understanding doctrinal growth and the bible. The quote below is long but here’s a snippet: “I cannot believe that any great practical truth of the Bible has been hidden in such deep darkness, as to have escaped the saints of God, and all the pious and learned interpreters of his holy word, ever since the days of the apostles escaped their vision, that the clear and satisfactory development of it might be ushered on the world at the present time.” This view is nothing new in American Presbyterianism.

I wonder what Green would say about the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It wasn’t taught until Martin Luther in the 16th c.

Here’s the full quote:

garver vs. phillips?

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:32:26 -0000
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: garver vs. phillips?


What the heck is Greco talking about here???

Yes, the “irenic” discussion has already started, including a deacon at 10th Presbyterian in Philadelphia basically insulting Richard Phillip’s Christian maturity, all because he is cited favorably by the report.”