Dr Peter Masters

Masters doesn't believe Christians should drink alcohol at all - which is a very strange position for an English minister. His group - whoever they are - bought the Met Tab - there is no lineal connection with Spurgeon. Masters has upset alot of Calvinists by allowing Robert L Reymond, a heretic and Presbyterian minister, to speak at the Met Tab.

 

Masters is the pastor of Metropolitan Tabernacle and there is a connection with Spurgeon. The church is the same church, but like all churches get new pastors over time.

http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/

But more curiously, how exactly is Reymond a heretic? He is a Presbyterian though that doesn't make him a heretic. He is a amillennialist, which makes him closer, but still not a heretic. He teaches at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, which is connected with Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.

 

I am a-mil, so I don't have a problem with that, and nor do a number of Strict Baptist churches which consider Reymond a heretic. It is his denial of the historic 'trinity' teaching we have an issue with.

 

It was my understanding there was no connection with Spurgeon. That the building had lain empty and Dr. Masters and a completely different group had bought it.

Karen

 

He has many, many, books published. This one looks interesting and might give me some answers to give to others...

Should Christians Drink? The Case for Total Abstinence

"If wine was permitted in Old Testament times, why should Christians abstain today? Here are weighty biblical reasons, showing the differences between the wine production of Bible times and today."

I found it on Amazon for $9.99 (new) and $6.90 (used). 112 pages, paperback. Readers have given it a 4.3 star rating (5 being the highest).

I just ordered a used copy this morning...

§ue

 

How is he (Reymond) denying the Biblical doctrine of the trinity?

Andy

 

OK Rich. Will do...

 

My understanding is that it is the same church. I don't think the church ever stopped existing. The history page on their website seems to indicate that.

http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Pages/HISTORY.html

As for Reymond, I have his systematic theology here and am not aware of any aberrance on the doctrine of the Trinity. To what are you referring?

 

Yes, you are correct on that accordign to their history page. But I don't think that the church ever went out of existence. In other words, the body that Masters pastors is the same body that Spurgeon pastors. It is not a different group that came in bought another church's building and now uses it. In other words, it is not just the same building; it is the same body.

From what I understand about Masters, he stands much in the same strain as Spurgeon did.

 

Reymond denies the historic teaching of the primitive and ante-nicene church, as delivered by the apostles and summarised at the Council of Nicaea. He denies that Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God, instead asserting that the Son has an existence independent of that of the Father. That is why the Huntington Press could write:

"Whilst Jesus' Sonship is not being questioned, the nature of that Sonship as set forth in the historic creeds of the Christian church has been criticised by an American Presbyterian scholar, Dr Robert Reymond."
http://www.geocities.com/radical_christianity/thesinnersaved.html

The PROTESTANT REFORMED THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL. April 2000. Volume 33, Number 2 also deals extensively with this issue, in the articles, The Holy Family, God as Truly Three:

http://www.prca.org/prtj/apr2000.html

Since much of Protestantism has gone heretical on this issue, you might not think that Reymond is a heretic, but certainly many churches and individuals in England do.

 

Just so I understand, are you saying that Reymond denies the "eternal generation" relationship between the Father and the Son? And that is what is deemed heretical?

andy

 

I thought this thread was about Dr. Peter Masters not Robert L. Reymond?

§ue

 

Dean,

Have you read Reymond's explanation of it? I just pulled his systematic theology off the shelf to see what he actually says about it. He says that the ante-nicene church was combatting the heresy of Sabellianism (monarchianism), in which essentially there were three different gods (give or take on the simplistic explanation).

Reymond brings out the problem that "eternal generation" could lead to a situation in which Christ is not self-existent (requiring generation from the Father) and therefore not God, since God is by definition self-existent. In other words, I think Reymond's points have some merit, though I don't have time to get into all of it.

However, I would add that this fars fall short of being heresy, IMO. He does not deny the deity of Christ; he instead is protecting it by saying that Christ has to be self-existent in order to be God. Whether or not he is right on that, I am not sure at the moment. But to be heresy, a doctrine would have to fly in teh face of clearly revealed truth. What the Scripture clearly reveals is that Christ is God, and that Christ is eternal. The Scriptures do not reveal the "method" by which Christ came across that deity. So while I understand the tension of the situation, Scripture does not clearly speak and thus we should not call it heresy. Reymond does not deny the scriptural doctrine of Christology.

I will have to study on this some more. It has been a while since I have thought about it.

 

I downloaded a sermon by him and hope to listen to it soon, probably the next time I go to the Y to work out. Reading the history, it said that the church was down to filling a few pews after the war (I don't know exactly when after the war).