Does Dan Corner Misrepresent Charles Spurgeon and Other Questions?Written by Jacob Prasch
by David E Lister
Recently Dan Corner has attacked Jacob Prasch on his position on eternal security. I believe Mr. Corner has misrepresented Jacob with bad scholarship and bad exegesis of Jacob"s position on eternal security. Mr. Corner has also attacked Dave Hunt, John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, and others unjustly. I believe he has misrepresented their positions on various subjects. The following are open questions for Mr. Corner to answer. I believe also they will give our readers insight into the way that Mr. Corner works from his own words. While we are not wanting to give Mr. Corner any publicity, we have found it necessary to state that we do not endorse him and Moriel finds his work untrustworthy and style of attacking godly men such as Charles Spurgeon and Dave Hunt unjustified, unproven and ungodly.
Sometime back I wrote these questions after Dan Sent me his book and I examined his website. I wrote them thinking that sooner or later Mr. Corner would turn his pen and attention against Moriel since we have decided not to work with him and that I might need them. Sadly this has come true.
I could have gone on and on with many more questions about his work but again, I think this should give our readers an insight into the way Mr. Corner writes and works to make his various positions in his writings.
Dan Corner writes
Charles Spurgeon's Defense Of Calvinism:
Examined And Refuted With Holy Scripture
III. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was so convinced about the Calvinistic view of falling away that he strangely concluded that "the Bible is a lie" and he himself will become an "infidel," if he ever came to believe that even one saint of God has ever "fall[en] finally" :
"If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally" (p. 172).
COMMENT: Of course, the Bible is not a lie, but instead the proven word of the living God. All C. H. Spurgeon needed to do was accept the clear teaching of Scripture on the believer's security, as upsetting as it might be to him. Spurgeon and other once saved, always saved (OSAS) teachers are actually placing a snare before all who listen to their message of an unconditional security for the believer. Please note what the Scriptures teach about an extreme, over sense of security:
David Lister asks:
From your article here on Spurgeon's Defense of Calvinism you have made a definitive statement attributing to Spurgeon, something I believe he didn't say or believe. Here, above with your emphasis in bold that Spurgeon, "strangely concluded that " ˜the Bible is a lie' and he himself will become an " ˜infidel." I wonder if you have overlooked the conditional emphasis and nature of Mr. Spurgeon's statement? Please notice he says, " If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all" ¦ " then adding another conditional clause he further states " if one of the covenant ones be lost" ¦" and so what Mr. Spurgeon is clearly trying to get across is that if this happens (a dear saint had perished) then this becomes true (the Bible is a lie and he is an infidel). This you can see when he uses the "then" part of his sentence which includes the Bible is a lie and he is an infidel.
While you and Mr. Spurgeon hold different views as to whether a saint can "fall finally," so knowing Mr. Spurgeon's teaching that a saint of God cannot be "lost finally" he would view this argument as argumentum absurdum and therefore impossible for the Bible to be "a lie." And him "an infidel" I would say that with your view that a saint can be "finally lost" you could make the argument that this would be a true statement and then conclude that the Bible is a lie, but to attribute this to Spurgeon considering his clear teaching throughout his life that the Bible is the very Word of God, I do believe is wrong and you clearly have misrepresented his position on the Bible and its authority. How would you answer this in light of the following?
I thought I would let Mr. Spurgeon speak for himself on what he thinks of the Bible.
From Mr. Spurgeon's sermon, "The Bible"
I. First, then, concerning this book: Who is the author? The text says that it is God. "I have written to him the great things of my law." Here lies my Bible-who wrote it? I open it, and find it consists of a series of tracts. The first five tracts were written by a man called Moses; I turn on, and I find others. Sometimes I see David is the penman, at other times Solomon. Here I read Micah, then Amos, then Hosea. As I turn further on, to the more luminous pages of the New Testament, I see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Paul, Peter, James, and others; but when I shut up the book; I ask myself, who is the author of it? Do these men jointly claim the authorship? Are they the compositors of this massive volume? Do they between themselves divide the honor? Our holy religion answers, No! This volume is the writing of the living God; each letter was penned with an Almighty finger; each word in it dropped from the everlasting lips; each sentence was dictated by the Holy Spirit.
This Bible is a book of authority; it is an authorized book, for God has written it. Oh! tremble, lest any of you despise it; mark its authority, for it is the Word of God.
Then, since God wrote it, mark its truthfulness. If I had written it, there would be worms of critics who would at once swarm upon it, and would cover it with their evil spawn; Had I written it, there would be men who would pull it to pieces at once, and perhaps quite right too. But this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error. This is a vein of pure gold, unalloyed by quartz, or any earthly substance. This is a star without a speck; a sun without a blot; a light without darkness; a moon without its paleness; a glory without a dimness. O Bible! it cannot be said of any other book, that it is perfect and pure; but of thee we can declare all wisdom is gathered up in thee, without a particle of folly.
In Light of Mr. Spurgeon's own words and clear historical teaching, you, Mr. Corner have clearly misrepresented him to make your own points on OSAS.
Question 2 On the Name of Jesus from the Dan Corner article on his website:
Yeshua or Jesus,
Which is More Accurate or are They Equal?
I believe in your article you start out taking on the "Yeshua name only" people and the beginning of your article gives some of the emails from people that think that way, which I would agree with you on. You correctly defend the erroneous emails stating that the name Jesus is a translation of a translation.
Then later in the article you have a heading No Scripture Identifies Yeshua as Messiah, it is to this I would like to ask a question about two verses of Scripture. In John 19, verse 19 it says, "and Pilate wrote an inscription also, and put it on the cross. And it is written, "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS" Therefore this inscription many of the Jews read, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek."
In Acts 26, (where Paul is making his defense before Felix) beginning with verse 14, Paul states, "And when we had all fallen on the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, " ˜Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' Verse 15, And I said, " ˜Who are Thou, Lord?' And the Lord said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."
Now in light of these two scriptures, which state clearly the Greek Iesous (English Jesus) translated name of our Lord was one, written in Hebrew Yeshua and two, spoken from the mouth of our Lord as Yeshua. The emphasis of the Greek is on the definitive article in the Hebrew dialect. So from this would it be reasonable to conclude that Jesus Himself said His name in Hebrew as Yeshua, and that Greek being the lingua franca of the world at that time, that Luke translated the name of our Lord from both the sign written by Pilate and spoken by our Lord from Hebrew into Greek?
I believe I could reasonable conclude, along with others that the Scriptures do reveal the name Jesus as Yeshua. Again, you have misrepresented not only Mr. Spurgeon, but now the Scriptures!
I would also like to ask as it seems that the emphases of this paper was a stress on the English translation to the name Jesus. While I agree with you that, "millions of people that have been saved, healed and delivered from sin, sickness and demons because of the precious name" ¦" would you allow for someone to translate Iesous into their common language and still be saved by that translated name? Say in Japanese, Iesu. Or Russian, Ã ¸Ã ¸Ã‘ Ã‘ ƒÃ‘ ?
If you do allow for this, it does not come across in your paper as it never mentions that the Greek Iesous can be translated into Iesu (Japenese) or Ã ¸Ã ¸Ã‘ Ã‘ ƒÃ‘ (Russian) or Yeshua for Hebrew! It seems to me that I agree with you that, "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God" (Rom. 2:28-29). But by whatever proper methodology and whaterver language one translates Iesous into if that person then repents of his sin and places his faith in the one True Iesous, Jesus, Iesu, Yeshua, who came as the God-man, born of a virgin in Bethlehem, died for the sins of the world, rose on the third day and is coming back for his people then that person has placed his faith in the right God who can save him. That Yeshua, that Iesu, that Iesous can save them.
You also ask this question in the same article, "But what does Jesus' Jewish identity have to do with anything? This is never magnified in the New Testament." I would disagree with you. One of the keys to identifying the True Jesus is to make sure he is the one born in Bethlehem, of the house of David and the root of Jesse and that He is King of the Jews, the King of Israel. The reason I bring this up is that when witnessing to some of those in the cults and to Jews it has been important to establish the real Jesus (as opposed to the false one, 2 Cor. 11:4-6) and his "Jewish identity." So I would respectfully disagree with you in that the Bible does stress His Jewish identity in order that all of Scripture might be fulfilled. That the Redeemer would come from Zion and of the seed of Abraham, the Tribe of Judah, the root of Jesse, the House of David.
You write in several of your papers that men who teach eternal security or OSAS are false shepherds, false teachers, dangerous men, but you also warn those that share platforms with these men are sharing in their wicked works. Would you call Moriel who share platforms with Dave Hunt, Arnold Frutchtenbaum, and others who teach OSAS as sharing in their wicked work? Would this make Moriel a false teaching organization and it is sharing in a work sending people to hell? Then why have you agreed to work with and associate with the Moriel New Zealand Administrator?
Your words from "9 Reasons to Hate Eternal Security." Seeing the eternal security teachers, as God sees them, also shows how serious it is to support their local congregations and ministries or even just tolerate them:
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. (2 John 10,11)
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. (Rev 2:20)
You will share in the wicked work (or righteous work) of the people you support and help provide a platform for, according to Scripture. How then can those of you who know eternal security is not a Christian teaching continue to support such a deadly, Christ-dishonoring doctrine taught by godless people? How can you tolerate these teachers who are misleading others into sexual immorality and other forms of wickedness?
From your article Can Salvation Be Lost With one Sin?
In Summation you state the following:
There are various ways for a Christian to lose his salvation. Sometimes a single act of sin can do it, while at other times it won't happen as abruptly, as with being lukewarm (Rev. 3:15,16). Furthermore, one doesn't even have to sin to lose their salvation. They can lose it by believing a false gospel (1 Cor. 15:2 cf.1 John 2:24,25) or preaching a false gospel (Gal. 1:8,9). What a shock this is to those who have been deceived by those who change grace into a license for immorality by teaching David never lost his salvation or a single act of sin like adultery, suicide or drunkenness won't cause this. Jude identified all who change grace into a license for immorality as ungodly (Jude 3-4), divisive, who don't have the Spirit (v. 19) and for whom blackest darkness is reserved forever (v. 13).
I thought the Bible said it was sin that brought death, separation from God forever? (Rom. 6:23) You state here that "one doesn't even have to sin to lose their salvation. They can lose it by believing a false gospel or preaching a false gospel." I find this an interesting statement in that if one was to preach a false gospel, wouldn't that be a sin? Wouldn't this defile a man as Jesus said in Mark 7, "" ¦out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting, and wickedness" ¦" ? (There are many other verses that could be used to show preaching a different gospel to be a sin.) It seems to me that a different gospel, which would be wickedness and would kill the soul would be a sin. But even more, if a person believed a different gospel, how could he lose his salvation if he never had one in the first place to lose?
The emphasis of this article states that there are singular sins (murder, adultery, idolatry, etc.) that one can commit and this will lead to a spiritual death. When I read the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus instructs me in the way that the Mosaic law should have been taught He lays down that sins like adultery, murder begin with just a thought and the punishment is the same as the physical act.
(See Matt. 5:22-28). He clearly states one who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court of murder. On adultery, one who looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery already. So if one sin, such as these lead to spiritual death, then does by the standard of your paper say that one must be completely pure in his thought life also, least one wrong thought and he is no longer justified before God? A sudden wrong thought before a heart attack and one is spiritually lost forever? Would this be a correct interpretation of your paper here?