In a recent interview, John Piper was asked:

Would there be any cautions that you would have for the New Reformed/New Calvinist Movement you referenced earlier?

In responding to this question, Piper had two remarks.  On one hand, he said:

John Piper

Yes.

My caution concerns making theology God instead of God God. Loving doing theology rather than loving God.

Sam Crabtree said to me once, “The danger of the contemporary worship awakening is that we love loving God more than we love God.” That was very profound. And you might love thinking about God more than you love God. Or arguing for God more than you love God. Or defending God more than you love God. Or writing about God more than you love God. Or preaching more than you love God. Or evangelizing more than you love God.

On the other hand, Piper goes on to say:

The danger on the other side is to say, “All that intellectual stuff, no, no, no. Doctrine, no. Intellect, no. Study, no. Experience, yes!” People who do this wind up worshipping a God of their own imagination. It feels so right, so free, and so humble because they are not getting involved in all those debates. But it isn’t. It is losing a grip on reality. So we are compelled to think hard about God and the Bible.

Hanging on with the danger I am speaking of is pride—a certain species of pride. There are many species of pride, and this is just one of them. You can call it intellectualism. There is also emotionalism, but that isn’t the danger we are talking about right now. Intellectualism is a species of pride, because we begin to prize our abilities to interpret the Bible over the God of the Bible or the Bible itself.

For the entire interview, click here.  For the audio, click here.  Finally, for the video, click here (FYI: I would have just embedded the video, but for some reason or other I did something behind the scenes to mess-up my embedding capabilities). 

[HT: Justin Taylor]

If you liked this, You may also be interested in “New” Calvinism Resources: A Collection of Articles, Audio Messages, and Books.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Is Calvinism Good for the Church?

Calvinism is biblical, so we could say, “If it is biblical, it must be good for the church”…True Calvinism is good for the church, because that which makes us know God more ought to make us love God more, and that which makes us love God more ought to make us love our neighbors more.  If your Calvinism doesn’t make you love God and neighbor more, then your Calvinism is not biblical.  It is not about wearing a badge or a T-shirt to give evidence that you really are a Calvinist.  It is about living our entire lives for God’s glory, to make Him known through our words and deeds.

After the Revolution

In his traditional keen insight, Dr. Mohler explains why Christians “must give careful consideration to our responsibility in the context of this new digital age.”  He says that this new digital age is a transformation “from dead trees to live screens, opening unprecedented opportunities for the sharing of information.”  It is this transformation, this shift that is now directing public conversation away from print, radio, and television to digital.  This shift not only presents challenges, but it also presents opportunities.  He concludes this article, saying, “Like the Reformers who seized the opportunity afforded by the Gutenberg Revolution, we must see the world of new media as an arena for Christian truth-telling. Our engagement with new media is driven by impulses that are evangelistic, missiological, and grounded in apologetics.”

Assurance, Perseverance, and the Warning Passages of Scripture

This is a link to a blurb on Tom Schreiner’s latest book – Run to Win the Prize: Perseverance in the New Testament – from Justin Taylors blog Between Two Worlds.  The primary reason I’m sharing this is to point out the great dialogue taking place.  I haven’t joined in myself, but will look to do so soon and I encourage you to do the same.   Justin’s blogs is one of the one’s I spend most of my time on.  I’ve had the opportunity to make some connections with various people and have always enjoyed the conversations.

Mark Driscoll’s Scatological Humor

Personally, I straddle the fence when it comes to humor.  I guess for me it all depends upon the context and what type of joke is being said and if it actually lends to the “Big Point” of the text.  In light of an article written by Collin Hansen on the use of humor in the pulpit, the folks at Out of Ur related an example by Mark Driscoll “employing the most elemental, and apparently biblical, of all comedic genres–potty humor.”  What are your thoughts on scatological humor in the pulpit?

9 Leadership Lessons from Baseball: Series Recap

Well, I usually don’t read much on leadership anymore since I’ve devoured so much of in the past.  From time-to-time I like to read some articles.  I happened onto The Resurgence and found this great series of articles by Mark Driscoll.

9 Leadership Lessons from Baseball:

1. Get a Great General Manager
2. Get Your Stats
3. Develop a Minor League System
4. Have Spring Training
5. Cut Underperforming, Overpaid Veterans
6. Always Let Young Leaders Get a Shot to Make the Team
7. Keep Some Griffey-Like Player-Coaches
8. Pay for Big-Name, Proven Free Agents As Needed
9. Play Ball

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds recently interviewed Mark Driscoll.  One of the questions he asked revolved around the hotly debated “New” Calvinism.  Justin Asked,

What is the most encouraging thing you see about the so-called “New” Calvinism?  What are some areas of caution or concern as we enter this new decade?

In response to his question, Driscoll had the following to say:

I think “New Calvinism” is possibly a myth, and I fear it may fracture before too many years are up.

There are four issues:

1. Reformed
2. Complementarian
3. Charismatic
4. Missional

I hold all four of these.

Mark Driscoll

What is touted as “New Calvinism,” though, includes those who disagree with 3 and/or 4. My fear is that cessationist and fundamentalist Calvinists will use those two issues to turn distinctions into divisions.

Many are working hard behind the scenes among various tribal leaders to keep the peace, and I pray we can hold it together and truly have a “New Calvinism” and not the same old unnecessary infighting and separation as old Calvinism.

For Justin’s entire interview, go here.

[Question: What do you think about Marks’ words on “New” Calvinism?]

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

After finishing an excellent article by Dr. Michael Horton on the meaning of Reformed (The Hallway and the Room), I was reminded that this journey of defining a movement under the vast umbrella of “New” Calvinism is ongoing and perhaps never ceasing.  Dr. Horton and his peer at Westminster Seminary, CA, Dr. R. Scott Clark, have narrowly defined Reformed by the Westminster Confession,  Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort.  Even though these documents serve as the foundation to our understanding of Reformed, I don’t believe that they are an end to our understanding.

For instance, in reviewing Dr. Clarks book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions, Dr. John Frame had the following to say about the meaning of Reformed,

I would propose understanding the Reformed community as a historical community that began as Clark describes, but which no longer follows the original pattern in detail. Even the original community was not as uniform as Clark presents it, and of course greater diversity entered later. In this respect, the Reformed community is like other religious and nonreligious communities. It should be described in all the diversity it had originally and has developed over the years, far more diversity than Clark’s approach admits. In my view, that diversity is not necessarily wrong. It is not necessarily, as Clark would propose, “non-Reformed.” In some ways the newer views and practices represent growing understanding and legitimate applications of biblical truth.

He goes on to say,

And there are some general common characteristics, a kind of “family resemblance,” among the various bodies of the last five centuries that have called themselves Reformed. The idea that “Reformed” should be defined as a changing community is not congenial to Clark’s view.  But it seems to me to be more accurate and more helpful.

Clark is not entirely opposed to change in the confessional theology. He believes that new confessions are needed from time to time (182-191), and he advocates orderly changes in the confessions when the church comes to believe it has been wrong (343). But his view of confessional subscription is so strict (153-176) that it is impossible to imagine how anyone could accomplish changes in them, except in detail. On Clark’s view, the confessions are treated for practical purposes as if they were as authoritative as Scripture; for anyone who differs with them cannot be accepted as Reformed. This is why many churches in the Reformed tradition have somewhat loosened their formulae of subscription. Clark’s complaint that such loosening is not Reformed is not taken seriously in many circles, and, in my view, it should not be (Bold Mine)

Finally,

I think it better to regard anyone as Reformed who is a member in good standing of a Reformed church. I realize there is some ambiguity here, for we must then ask, what is a really Reformed church? Different people will give different answers. But, as I said above, I don’t think that the definition has to be, or can be, absolutely precise. The concept, frankly, has “fuzzy boundaries,” as some linguists and philosophers say.

We should also accept as Reformed people those who hold to generally Reformed convictions, but are members of non-Reformed churches. Again, the phrase “generally Reformed” indicates that the concept is not precise.

With Dr. Frame I couldn’t agree more.

[Question: Should we narrowly define Reformed by the confessions or should we take the approach proposed by Dr. Frame?]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

From Josh Burek of The Christian Science Monitor:

“There is a very clear resurgence of Calvinism,” says Steven Lemke, provost and a professor at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The renewed interest arrives at a crucial inflection point for American religion. After reviewing a landmark opinion survey last year that showed a precipitous decline in the number of people who identify themselves as Christian, Newsweek declared ominously that we may be witnessing “the end of Christian America.”

In some ways, Newsweek may have understated the shift. Five hundred years after Martin Luther posted his 95 theses challenging the Roman Catholic Church, some religion watchers see not just a post-Christian America but an unraveling of the Protestant Reformation itself. Their alarm is rooted in surveys that show a watering down of Christian beliefs.

Now come the New Calvinists with their return to inviolable doctrines and talk of damnation – in essence, the Puritans, minus the breeches and powdered wigs. Is this just a moment of nostalgia or the beginning of a deeper revolt against the popular Jesus-is-our-friend approach of modern evangelicalism? Where, in other words, is Christianity going?

Josh goes on to say,

By most logic, the stern system of Calvinism shouldn’t be popular today. Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help. Epitomized by popular titles like Joel Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential,” this message of self-fulfillment through Christian commitment attracts followers in huge numbers, turning big churches into megachurches.

For the entire article, click here.

For similar articles, see New Calvinism: A Collection of Articles, Audio Messages, and Books

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

From Monergism.com:

Reformed theology…

…presupposes God’s Word alone as our ultimate authority.

…stresses the sovereignty of God, that is, His reign over all things, meticulously determining (Eph 1:11) all that comes to pass (i.e. God is never taken by surprise).

…emphasizes a Christ-Centered proclamation of the gospel, that salvation is wholly of God, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the Scripture alone to the Glory of God alone.

…views the Bible as a redemptive-historical organic unfolding of revelation which is structured by three covenants (redemption, works and grace).

It goes without saying that those in the Reformed Tradition hold to the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism), man’s helpless condition apart from Christ, the necessity of evangelism and the work of the Holy Spirit who (monergistically) quickens the dead to life through the preaching of the word as God turning their heart of stone to flesh, and opening their eyes to the excellencies of the gospel (uniting them to Christ).

In other words,  RT stresses the way the objective, written Word together with the inner, supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit work together.  For the Word without the illumination of the Holy Spirit remains a closed book. We (the church) cast forth the seed of the gospel and the Holy Spirit germinates it, so to speak, with the blood of Christ bringing forth life in people from every nation, tribe, language, and people (Rev 14:6). 

RT traces its historical and theological lineage back to the theology of Christ, Paul, Augustine and to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century.

For a plethora of resources on Reformed Theology, follow this link (Monergism.com) and scroll to the bottom of the page.

[Question: Does this help you better understand Reformed Theology in a nutshell?]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

The following is from Sam Storms at Enjoying God Ministries.

On several occasions in John’s Gospel divine election is described in terms of God the Father giving certain persons to God the Son (6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:1-2,6,9,24). In each of these cases the giving of men to Christ precedes and is the cause of their receiving eternal life. Those who are given to the Son include not only the present company of disciples who believe in Jesus but also the elect of future ages who will come to faith through the gospel. Jesus looks upon them as already his (John 17:20-21; see also John 10:16; Acts 18:10), even though they have not yet believed in his name. They are his because they were given to him by the Father in eternity past.

What is of special importance to us is what Jesus says about how those whom the Father has given to him come to him and whether or not those who come can ever lose their salvation. It will prove helpful to look at this in terms of three impossibilities.

The first impossibility. Jesus says that it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to come to Christ apart from the “drawing” of that person by God the Father (6:44,65). May I strongly emphasize the words morally and spiritually. The reason people do not come to Christ is not because they lack a will, or a mind, or feelings, or even lack opportunity and occasion. Their not coming to Christ is due to their moral and spiritual refusal to do so, a refusal in which they willingly and freely delight. If they cannot come it is not because God will not let them. It is because it is their nature not to want to come.

The second impossibility. Jesus also says that it is impossible for someone whom the Father “draws” not to come to him. He says in verse 37, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me”‘ In other words, just as it is impossible for a person to come to Christ apart from the Father drawing him/her, so also is it impossible for a person not to come to Christ if the Father does draw him/her. Two crucial elements are involved here. On the one hand, if a man is to be saved he must come to Christ. An active, willing embrace of Jesus Christ in faith is essential. On the other hand, this active, willing embrace of Jesus Christ is guaranteed by virtue of the Father having given certain people to Jesus Christ. John Murray explains it this way:

“Jesus does not say: all that the Father giveth me are brought to me. He uses the term that denotes motion on the part of the person – ‘will come to me.’ Coming to Christ is the movement of commitment to Christ, coming that engages the whole-souled activity of the person coming. It is not that he may come, not that he has the opportunity to come, not that he will in all probability come, and not simply that he is empowered to come, but that he will come. There is absolute certainty; There is a divine necessity; the order of heaven insures the sequence.’

John Murray, ‘Irresistible Grace’, in Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology, Festschrift for John H. Gerstner, ed. R. C. Sproul (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), p. 59. The Greek word translated ‘draw’ (John 6:44) is found elsewhere in the NT only in John 12:32; 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19. Some believe that the use of the term in 12:32 indicates that the ‘drawing’ is not necessarily efficacious in all. But, as D. A. Carson (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension [Atlanta: John Knox, 1981]) has noted, ‘the all’ whom Jesus will draw, and the drawing itself, cannot both be taken absolutely, because in the succeeding verses it becomes clear that not all are saved (12:35-41). In the context of the arrival of the Greeks (12:20-22), to whose request for an audience Jesus has not so far responded, the ‘all’ appears to mean ‘all’ as opposed to Jews only: Jesus does not talk to the Greeks because that which will draw all men is the climactic event of his own death/exaltation’ (p. 174).

Therefore, it is impossible that an elect person, a “given-by-the-Father-to-the-Son” person, might fail to come to faith in Christ. Or to put it positively, all the elect shall come to faith in Christ. God’s drawing of them is efficacious. The Father will never fail in drawing to salvation those whom he has given to the Son.

Before we move to the third impossibility, observe one more crucial fact. Since this drawing of people by the Father to the Son is always efficacious, it cannot refer to the so-called enabling grace of Arminianism. Do you recall what the Arminian believes? He believes that God restores in all men a power or an ability sufficient to enable them to come to Christ. Clearly this “universal enablement” cannot be the drawing that Jesus describes, Why not? Because millions and millions of men and women do not, in fact, come to Christ! And yet Jesus says that all who are given by the Father are drawn by the Father and shall come to Christ. There is no escaping the clear and unequivocal language of our Lord Jesus Christ: no one can come unless drawn by the Father; but if one is drawn by the Father he shall come.

Some may want to argue that there is significance in what Jesus does not say: He does not say that others have not been given to him by the Father. However, if in fact all are given, then all shall be saved, for Jesus does say that all whom the Father gives him shall come to him. In other words, if election/giving is universal, so is salvation.

The third impossibility. To the previous two impossibilities Jesus adds a third. He has already said it is impossible to come to him unless the Father draws. He has also said it is impossible not to come if the Father does draw. Now he says that when a man does come through the drawing of the Father it is impossible for him to be cast out. Look again at verse 37: “and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out.” The point is that those whom the Father gives to the Son, who therefore come to the Son, will be received by the Son and shall never perish.

The verb translated “cast out” in verse 37 is used several times in John (2:15; 6:37; 9:34f.; 10:4; 12:31) and always means to cast out someone or something already in. Thus the emphasis here is not so much on receiving the one who comes (although that is true enough in itself) but on preserving him. In other words, “6:37 argues not only that the ones given to Jesus will inevitably come to him, but that Jesus will keep them individually . . . once there.’(Murray, ‘Irresistible Grace’, 184).

Who would dare suggest that Jesus Christ would refuse to accept what his Father has given him? If the Father was pleased to make a gift of certain sinners to his most blessed Son, you may rest assured that the Son will neither despise nor deny his Father’s gracious generosity. The certainty of ultimate and absolute salvation for those who come to the Son is reaffirmed in verses 38-40. Their life in Christ is eternal and irrevocable because that is the will of the Father; a will or a purpose that the whole of Christ’s person and work was designed to secure. What did Jesus come to do? He came to do the Father’s will (v.38). What is the Father’s will? The Father’s will is that all those he has given to the Son be fully and finally saved (v. 39). Oh, what a glorious thought it is, that

“My name from the palms of His hands

Eternity will not erase;

Impress’d on His heart it remains,

In marks of indelible grace.”

And still again we sing:

“Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,

For I am thy God, I will still give thee aid;

I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,

Upheld by my gracious, omnipotent hand.”

“The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose,

I will not, I will not desert to his foes;

That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,

I’ll never, no never, no never forsake!”

So I ask you, have you experienced the invincible attraction of the Redeemer? Have you been entranced by His beauty? Have you been so drawn to him that you invest your all in Him?? (John Murray, ‘The Father’s Donation’, in Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 3:207). If so, you may be assured that the Father has given you to the Son and that the Son has given himself for you. Therefore, he has drawn you with an everlasting and efficacious love. Therefore, you have abandoned yourself to him in faith. ‘This is why his attraction has become irresistible and you have fallen in love with the Savior of your soul’ (ibid.).

My conclusion: Yes, Jesus was a Calvinist!

[Question: In your opinion, do Calvinist get their theological positions from Jesus Christ?]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

Reformed

Came across Fundamentally Reformed for the first time and really enjoyed Bob Hayton’s explanation of the five-points of Calvinism.  For those of you interested in a clear and succinct explanation, then look no further than this great article.

Reforming

God is a God that is concerned for justice.  Even though this is the case, there is a right and wrong way to go about justice as Christians.  In light of this Skye Jethani from Out of Ur wrote on How Not to Talk about Justice.

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds asks if the Tea Party Organizers are Ignoring Abortion?

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

Reformed

For a nearly exhaustive site for resources on Reformed Theology, check-out what resources Monergism has put together here.

Reforming

(Free) The Necessity of Reforming the Church by John Calvin

If you’re involved in any facet of ministry, have you been more concerned with building your own empire or the Kingdom of God?  Either way you should read Glenn Lucke’s Empire vs. Kingdom at Resurgence.

Is Christian Democracy an oxymoron?  Have you ever struggled with the concept of Christians involved within the Political Process here in the United States?  If so, you may find Dr. James Skillen work on “Christian Democracy” – An Oxymoron helpful in Reforming the Christian mentality in the Public Square (Also see my work on Christianity and Democracy)

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

The following is from Jonathan Dodson, Acts29 Pastor, on The Message of the Resurging Calvinism.  In this article Dodson believes there are 5 important distinctions driving the New Calvinist:

1. The Gospel is not Religion

2. The Gospel does not produce an Us vs. Them mentality in evangelism

3. The Gospel is bigger than a Fire Insurance Policy and encompasses all of life

4. The Gospel is not correlated with a particular Political Party.

5. The Gospel is driving people back to the city.

For an elaboration on all five of these points, you can find the rest of this article here at The Resurgence.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post