John Kennedy of Dingwall

John Kennedy (1819-1884) of Dingwall, was a Scottish preacher and theologian. He was also a staunch defender of the Reformed Faith who was, as his friend Charles Spurgeon described him, true as steel and firm as a rock.

He was educated in the parish school of Killearnan, and in 1836 went to Aberdeen University. He graduated M.A. at King’s College in 1840, and in the same year entered the theological hall of the established church in Scotland. Kennedy was licensed by the established church in September 1843, but joined the free church and was inducted into a free church newly formed at Dingwall, Rosshire, February 1844. He was pastor of Dingwall Free Church from 1844 until his death in 1884 at the age of 65.

Kennedy was a stalwart opponent of the drift in Scottish Presbyterianism away from the Westminster Confession.  I found two significant works of Kennedy available online:  The first is Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel Part 1, with links to parts 2 thru 5.  This was published in 1874 in the wake of, and in response to, an evangelistic campaign by Dwight L. Moody.  The features of modern American revivalism brought to Scotland by Moody, and in Kennedy’s mind offensive to the biblical gospel, are traceable to the evangelistic practice of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875).

The second work I would mention is Man’s Relations to God, (at Google Books) published 1869.  Within the broader context implied by the title, this treatise includes an impressive effort to resist erosion of the doctrine of the particular design in Christ’s atoning work.  Specifically, Kennedy takes on what he terms the “double reference” view of the atonement, which he sees as thoroughly defective.  This view may be traced to John Davenant (1576-1641), found in James Ussher (1581-1656), and continuing today in what might be called Low or Moderate Calvinism.  Some see it as middle ground between the French Hypothetical Universalism of Moise Amyraut (1596-1644) and the High Calvinist limited atonement views of John Owen and Francis Turretin.  Kennedy sees it as incompatible with the WCF and unbiblical at its core.  An excerpt is found in the subsequent post HERE.

Other information on Kennedy and his writings may be found HERE.

Another Gospel by John Cheeseman

This article is by John Cheeseman, Vicar of Holy Trinity Parish Church, Eastbourne.  It is a chapter from his Saving Grace (Banner of Truth, 2000).

---

It is my contention that there is a real and basic difference between the biblical gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and the prevailing manmade substitute. To substantiate this claim, I must examine the modern gospel and compare it with Scripture, for our final authority must be Scripture alone, where we find many warnings against false gospels (for example Gal. 1:6—9, 1 Tim. 6:3, 20, 2 Tim. 1:13—14). If we are to be true to our duty to `Test all things; hold fast what is good’ (1 Thess. 5:21), we must test all formulations of the gospel against the one true gospel revealed in the Word of God.

If the gospel commonly preached today is indeed found to be unscriptural, it follows that much of modern evangelicalism has gone astray on doctrines which are not just of secondary importance, but are at the heart of the Christian faith. This is not a welcome conclusion, but we must not avoid it for that reason. In the last few years the Lord has laid a desire for the revival of true, deep, vital and powerful Christianity on the hearts of many. It may well be that the recovery of the purity of the gospel will, by the grace of God, lead to a healing of the many ills and weaknesses of the evangelical churches and to a demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s power amongst us both in the growth in grace of believers and in the salvation of the lost.

I am convinced that much modern preaching which purports to be evangelical falls short of scriptural teaching and has little in common with the example of the Master Evangelist, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. How would much modern evangelistic preaching and writing answer the question of the rich young ruler, `What must I do to inherit life?’? The following answer is probably typical: `If I am to benefit from Christ’s death I must take three simple steps, of which the first two are preliminary, and the third so final that it will make me a Christian: I must believe that I am, in God’s sight, a sinner, that is, I must admit my need; I must believe that Christ died for me; I must come to him, and claim my personal share in what He did for everybody.’ Under the third and final step is explained how the willing sinner must `open the door of his heart to Christ’, the Christ who waits patiently outside the door until we open it to Him.

It is undeniable that such an answer, or something like it, is frequently presented today, and those who use this method probably justify it by claiming that it includes the central doctrines of the gospel — repentance, faith, conversion, substitutionary atonement, the sinfulness of man, and so on. If someone `takes the step’ but later questions the validity of his conversion, he is assured, `You took a simple step, you committed yourself to Jesus Christ, but then God performed a stupendous miracle. He gave you new life; you were born again.’ The concluding advice is often given: `Tell somebody today what you have done.’ This answer bears little resemblance to Jesus’ reply to the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17—22).

The following is a summary of some of the basic doctrines or presuppositions of this modern gospel:

Unregenerate men can repent and believe.

Christ died for the sins of every man individually.

Committing oneself to Christ, or deciding for Him, or coming to Him, is an act which the sinner can do as he wills at any time; that is, it is an act of free will.

Although God may be said to have taken the initiative in a general sense by sending Christ to die to make salvation possible, in any particular conversion it is the sinner who takes the initiative by coming to Christ, and it is God who responds.

Now let us compare these doctrines with the teaching of scripture:

Another Gospel – Unity Instead of Truth

The following was posted Monday by Ingrid at Slice of Laodicea.  It bears repeating:

A.W. Pink wrote of another gospel and what it often looks like. We can identify this in any number of false teachings today where a Global Peace Plan is substituted for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, where we are told to find our Best Life Now instead of laying it down for the Lord, and where emerging church leaders tell us to find God in a new social gospel instead of His Word. Here’s what Pink said:

The gospel of Satan is not a system of revolutionary principles, nor yet a program of anarchy. It does not promote strife and war, but aims at peace and unity. It seeks not to set the mother against her daughter nor the father against his son, but fosters the fraternal spirit whereby the human race is regarded as one great ‘brotherhood.’ It does not seek to drag down the natural man, but to improve and uplift him. It advocates education and cultivation and appeals to ‘the best that is within us.’ It aims to make this world such a comfortable and congenial habitat that Christ’s absence from it will not be felt and God will not be needed. 

–A.W. Pink

Packer on recovering the Gospel

The following is an extract from J. I. Packer’s Introduction to a 1958 reprint of John Owen’s, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.  Although penned over 35 years ago, Packer’s words ring truer than ever when he says “One of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today is the recovery of the gospel.”  He follows with these words:

This last remark may cause some raising of eyebrows, but it seems to be warranted by the facts.
 
There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do.