New Calvinism: Its Pitfalls

Most people consider Mark Driscoll the MMA fighter of the Christian world. But in truth, he is Kimbo Slice compared to Carl Trueman. Armed only with a pen, Trueman consistently obliterates those in his path (with decidedly British flair). His corrective prose is always worth reading and usually is spot on.

Such is especially the case with his newest article, "The Nameless One," as he reflects on the pitfalls of the new resurgence of Calvinism, or the "Young, Restless and Reformed," as he refers to them (YYR). If you're interested in some inside-baseball, read away. Personally, his cautions cut out my heart several times as I am a guy who consistently desires fame (that will never come) more than faithfulness.

Here are a few blurbs that burned my fingers as I read:

One striking and worrying aspect of the movement is how personality oriented it is. It is identified with certain big names, rather than creeds, confessions, denominations, or even local congregations. Such has always been the way with Christianity to some extent. Luther was a hero, both in his own time and for subsequent generations, and he is hardly alone. The names of Owen, Edwards, and Spurgeon, to list but three, also have great cachet; and, if we are honest, there are things which we all find in their writing which are scarcely unique to them but which we are inclined to take more seriously because it is these men who wrote the words on the page....

The significance of the leaders of the YRR movement, however, seems less like that of ages past and at times more akin to the broader cultural phenomenon of the modern cult of celebrity, a kind of sanctified Christian equivalent of the secular values that surround us. The world has Brad, Anjelina, Tom, Barack, and so on; the Christian world has - well, I am sure the reader is quite capable of filling in the blanks. All too often we're a bit too much like the church in Corinth, with its Christian competitive equivalents to pagan Sophists.

[...]

The supply side economics of the YRR movement is also worrying here, as it can easily foster such idolatry by building up a leader's importance out of all proportion to his talent. Let's face it: no preacher is so good that his every sermon deserves to be printed or his every thought published; but some contemporary leaders are heading fast in that direction, and this can only fuel their cultic significance for those needing someone to follow. Come on, chaps, everyone preaches a disastrous clunker once in a while; and many actually preach them with remarkable and impressive regularity. The world therefore does not need to read every word you ever utter from a pulpit; and not every electrical impulse which sparks between the synapses in your grey matter needs to be written down, turned into yet another expository commentary, and sold for 15% net royalties at the local Christian bookshop.

If leader-as-celebrity-and-oracular-source-of-all-knowledge is one potential problem in the YRR culture, then another concern is the apparent non-exportability of the models of church on offer. Everyone knows the amazing works that have been done through the ministries of men like Tim Keller in Manhattan and Mark Driscoll in Seattle; but the track record of exporting the Redeemer or Mars Hill models elsewhere is patchy at best, raising the obvious question of whether these phenomena are the result less of their general validity and more of the singular talents of the remarkable individuals. To be clear, this is in no way to suggest that these churches are not faithful; but it is to ask whether they are not more unique and unrepeatable than is often acknowledged. If the secret lies in the gifts of the individual leader, then time spent trying to replicate the models elsewhere with less talented or differently gifted leaders is doomed to failure and a waste of time.

[...]

Ultimately, only the long term will show if the YRR movement has genuinely orthodox backbone and stamina, whether it is inextricably and inseparably linked to uniquely talented leaders, and whether `Calvinism is cool' is just one more sales pitch in the religious section of the cultural department store. If the movement is more marketing than reality, then ten to fifteen years should allow us to tell. If it is still orthodox by that point, we can be reasonably sure it is genuine. Indeed, when torn jeans, or nose rings, or ministers talking about their sex lives from the pulpit become passé or so commonplace that they cease to be distinctive, we will see if it is timeless truth or marketable trendiness which has really driven the movement; and, even it proves to have been the latter, we should not panic. We will still be left with the boring, mundane and nameless people and culturally irrelevant and marginal churches - the nameless ones -- upon whose anonymous contributions, past and present, most of us actually depend.

Be Like Paul: Uphold Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

D.A. Carson, on the theological contrast of Romans 8 and 9 with Romans 10, in For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God's Word:

The point to observe is that the same Paul ho insists so strongly in Romans 8 and 9 that God is unconditionally sovereign insists no less strongly in Romans 10 that people must believe in their hearts and confess gospel truth with their mouths if they are to be saved, and lays on the conscience of believers the imperative to bring this good news to those how haven't heard. Any theology that attempts to diminish God's sovereignty by appealing to human freedom is as profoundly un-Paulie and any theology that somehow diminishes human responsibility and accountability be appealing to some crude, divine fatalism.

The Extent of the Atonement

Or, for whom did Christ die? Michael Bird posts responses to this question from three different theologians from three different camps. Of course, I side with Paul Helm, the Calvinist:

‘Definite atonement’ is an improvement on ‘Limited atonement’, but neither phrase clearly captures and expresses the idea, which is not exclusively to do with the atonement. The view is that the Triune God ensures the salvation of men and women, boys and girls. He does not merely make possible their salvation, leaving it to the sinner to make up his own mind. Rather, whom he intends to save, he saves, through the distinct but inseparable work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As Augustine puts it in his letter to Simplicianus in AD 396, God’s grace is effectual, effective, actually ensuring that those ordained to eternal life believe, secured by the golden chain of Romans 8.

What is at issue is an estimate of divine grace. The biblical basis for the view does not rest upon a single proof verse, or a few of these, (though verses such as John 6.37 and Acts 13.48 and of course Romans 8 28f should be borne in mind). Rather it is founded on the implications of Scripture’s overall witness to God’s powerful love, to the spiritual death of fallen mankind, and to the actual salvation of countless people.

By contrast, the Arminius-inspired view leaves the outcome of the work of redemption uncertainly suspended upon human choice, even though valiant efforts are made to link it to the divine foreknowledge, though in a weaker-than-biblical sense. And the Amyraldian view is in danger of upsetting the unity of the Trinity, and confounding the work of the preacher, heralding the grace of God indiscriminately to all, with the work of God. Through such means as preaching, God brings his elect to be justified, and to be sanctified, and to be glorified, calling them all out of darkness into his marvellous light.

For BenWitherington's Arminian view, click here.

For Michael Jensen's Amyraldian View, click here.

HT: JT

Can't Stand the Reformed Community

Matt Chandler:

I'm unapologetically Reformed, but nine times out of ten I cannot stand the Reformed community. I don't want to be around them. I don't want to read their blogs. They can be cannibalistic, self-indulgent, non-missional, and angry. It's silly and sad at the same time. Reformed doctrine should lead to a deep sense of humility and patience with others. How it produces such arrogance baffles me.

HT: OOU

Dead Men Don't Come to Life On Their Own

Calvin, in the Institutes, on the fact that ritgheousness comes not from good works from from free grace, 3.12.5:

But the proof will shine even clearer if we set the grace of God directly against the natural condition of man. For Scripture everywhere proclaims that God finds nothing in man to arouse him to do good to him but that he comes first to man in his free generosity. For what can a dead man do to attain life?

What is the Reformed Understanding of the Gospel?

JP:

Free Will and Grace

Tim Keller defends the doctrine of election most unusually. But for him, it is not unusual at all. Hear him defend this particular doctrine presuppositionally:

What the Reformers Have Done

Inside baseball alert.

It is becoming clear that, as least as far as those in the New Perspective camp are concerned, the opinion of those who are Reformed is that their theology is too narrow. Too much about Justification by faith, too much about Imputation. There is, they say, a bigger picture that the Reformed camp misses entirely (the trees for the forest, as it were). Craig Blomberg wrote recently:

Fixate on the Reformer's (understandable) preoccupation with how an individual becomes right with God (crucial in its day against medieval Catholicism) and one may miss the bigger picture, in which the fulfillment of God's covenant with Abraham through the children of Israel as progenitor of the Messiah looms even larger.

Well...Doug Wilson, in response to Blomberg:

Notice what is being juxtaposed here. The Reformers had a individualistic fixation on getting individuals into heaven when they die. But we, upon whom the new perspective has shone, now understand that there is a "bigger picture." I see. And what did the Reformers do with their narrow vision? Well, they toppled kings, transformed laws, overhauled cultures, settled a continent, built nations, founded schools and colleges, inspired musicians and painters, and we could continue in this vein for quite a while. And what do we do, entranced as we are by the new perspective? We write academic papers, download podcasts of academic lectures that we can listen to in the privacy of our ear buds, and we go white in the face if conservative Christians suggest that Jesus might have an opinion about the ongoing slaughter of the unborn. John Piper, with his preaching on the pro-life issue, challenges the principalities and powers. The soft statism that goes with trendy theology these days does nothing of the kind -- it simply suggests (but not too loudly) that we need kinder, gentler principalities and powers.

The New Calvinism

Time Magazine says that "Neo-Calvinism" is the third idea that is changing the world right now. Let's hope it sticks, 'cause it's biblical. Amorality is #5, by the way.

The Meaning of Reformed

Kevin DeYoung has an insightful, helpful post today on what it means to be a Reformed Christian. He writes:

I don't view the Reformed faith as simply one branch on the Christian tree. I believe the Reformed understanding of the Bible is Christianity in full bloom.

Here is what he means by "Reformed":

I marvel at God's holiness, that he is independent, pure, good, and utterly beyond me.

I glory in God's goodness, that he should save a wretch like me, totally undeserving, bent toward evil in all my faculties.

I rejoice in God's sovereignty, that he chose to save me for the praise of his glory, not owing to anything I did or would do or any potential in me.

I find my hope in the second Adam who gives me life and imputed blessing triumphing over the first Adam's imputed death and curse.

I am grateful for God's power by which he caused me, without my cooperation, to be born again and enabled me to believe his promises.

I take comfort in God's all-encompassing providence, that nothing happens to me by chance, but all things--prosperity or poverty, health or sickness, giving or taking away--are sent to me by my loving heavenly Father.

I praise God for his mercy, shown to me chiefly on the cross where his Son died, not just to make a way for me to come to him, but died effectually in my place such that my sins, my guilt, and my punishment all died in the death of Christ.

I find assurance in God's preserving grace believing with all my might that nothing--not even myself--can separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord which he began in me and will see through to completion.

I rest secure in God's covenant love, depicted in both the Old and the New Testament, showing me the incomparable blessings of knowing that the Lord is my God and I am his beloved son, that God is a God to me and my children after me.

I stand amazed in the justifying grace of God whereby I am acquitted of all my sins and clothed with new garments in the presence of my King and Judge, not because of anything I have done but only because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in which I trust.

I delight in the glory of God and in God's delight for his own glory which brings me, on my best days, unspeakable joy, and on all my other days, still gives purpose and order to an otherwise confusing and seemingly random world.

I cherish the word of God because it is all true, because I Christ in it, and because its rules and precepts are for my good,

I rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to illumine my mind, convict me of sin, and make me holy as God is holy.

When I say I am Reformed I mean that God is the center of the universe and I am not. I mean that I am a worse sinner than I imagine and God is a greater Savior than I ever thought possible. I mean that Lord is my righteousness and the Lord alone is my boast. By Reformed I mean all this and most of all that my only comfort in life and in death is that I am not my own but belong, in body and in soul, to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever, amen.

On Passive Regeneration

John Murray, in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied (Eerdman's. 1955, 99-100):

It has often been said that we are passive in regeneration. This is a true and proper statement. For it is simply the precipitate of what our Lord has taught us here. We may not like it. We may recoil against it. It may not fit into our way of thinking and it may not accord with the time-worn expressions which are the coin of our evangelism. But if we recoil against it, we do well to remember that this recoil is recoil against Christ. And what shall we answer when we appear before him whose truth we rejected and with whose gospel we tampered? But blessed be God that the gospel of Christ is one of sovereign, efficacious, irresistible regeneration. If it were not the case that in regeneration we are passive, the subjects of an action which God alone is the agent, there would be no gospel at all. For unless God by sovereign, operative grace had turned out enmity to love and our disbelief to faith we would never yield the response of faith and love.

Mark Driscoll and the New Calvinists

The New York Times might be biased, but their writers are still some of the best in the world. Case in point, a new article on Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church and the "New Calvinists." Read it here.

Driscoll and his church have gotten a lot of attention over the last few years. Some good, plenty bad. This piece is by far the best. Whoever Molly Worthen is, she knows her stuff. She is able to outline well both Driscoll, the resurgence of Calvinism in the church and, if you can believe it, Calvinism itself. Her treatment of the theology and ecclesiology did not have me, as is usually the case, offended or rolling my eyes due to ignorance. Rather, she did her homework.

Anyway, it is a long article, but brilliant. And Driscoll, for all his faults, is changing the world. Read the whole thing.

Arminian Gift

For those of you who have Arminians in your life (they are everywhere!), TBNN has a special gift you can give them. Read about it here.

Calvinism is Irrational

Or so says Michael Patton, cleverly. He writes,

...the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s predestination. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. Therefore, there is a tension that is created between human responsibility and God’s election. This tension is left in tact since, according to the Calvinist, it is best understood this way in Scripture. To redefine predestination to suit one’s need to alleviate tension seems to be a very rationalistic approach to doctrine. While there is nothing wrong with using one’s reason to understand truth, there are problems when reason takes priority over revelation.

This is one of the mistakes that I believe the Arminian system of conditional election/predestination makes. There is no need to solve all tensions, especially when the solution comes at the expense of one’s interpretive integrity. There are many tensions in Scripture. There are many things that, while not irrational, just don’t make sense. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, creation out of nothing all fit this category. So does human responsibility and unconditional election. God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction. We may not know how to reconcile these two issues, but that does not mean God does not know how. Their co-existence does not take away from their collective truthfulness.

I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of intelligibility and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to remain for the sake of Biblical fidelity.

I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think that it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human intelligibility.

Read the whole thing.

It looks like this post is an indirect rebuttal to a similar, contrary piece by Ben Witherington on Piper and the supposed "negative Calvinists." Worth a read.

Calvinism is Really One Point

J. I. Packer, in his “Introductory Essay” to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ:

God saves sinners—and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedaling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.

This can also be found in Packer's work with Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood, p. 118.

HT: AW