Contend Earnestly: Men of God
Showing posts with label Men of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Men of God. Show all posts

Monday, April 06, 2009

Zaccheus was a Real Dude


I was leading a study with some of the youth this past Sunday and we were reading through Luke 19 and the story of Zaccheus. Naturally, those who grew up in church started singing the song like a bunch of Pavlov's dogs. Surprisingly, one of the youth, who is a Senior in high school admitted that he didn't know that the story of Zaccheus was real. He thought it was some made up song.

A lot of people get on liberal theology because they don't believe in the literal stories of the Old Testament, but they aren't the whole problem, conservative Christians that believe in the infallible, inerrant word of God are as well. How so? Some preachers and teachers teach the Bible as though Jesus isn't present in the stories. Like Christ is some after thought and not central to the story. This is very dangerous and leads to a senior in high school clueless on the story of Zaccheus. I know what you are thinking..."I would never do that, I would never make a story in the Bible sound like a fable." Are you sure? The question comes in how you decide to teach the Old Testament and New Testament to your children and to those around you.

Take a look at this song about Zaccheus:

Zaccheus was a wee little man
And a wee little man was he
He climbed up in a sycamore tree
For the Lord he wanted to see
And as the Savior passed that way
He looked up in that tree
And He said, “Zaccheus, you come down!
For I’m going to your house today
For I’m going to your house to stay”

What a stupid song. What's the point? What is interesting is what this song leaves out of the conversion story of Zaccheus and how Christ and His salvation to sinners is the center of the story. Look at the rest of Luke 19 that isn't included in the song:

And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Luke 19:6-10


Amazing that this is left out of this (I am trying hard not to use "inappropriate" language here) stupid song that retards the salvific work of Christ. It robs Jesus as the center.

The question must come: How do you teach the Bible? When you come to stories like Jonah, David and Goliath, The Red Sea, Elijah, Joshua, Creation, etc. is Jesus at the center of the story or is he left out?

I always tell people: If a Jew can teach your same lesson with conviction, you aren't teaching Christianity and Christ crucified.

With those above stories who is the hero of them? Is Jonah the hero? Is David the hero? Moses? Elijah? Joshua? Who? If it isn't Jesus and the story of redemption, you aren't teaching the true stories of Christ, but you are telling fairy tales that don't matter. I have seen some bad teachings on this. I have seen where in the story of Daniel and Nebechudnezzar, that it was never about Jesus, but about how not to be like Nebuchadnezzar. I have seen how in Jonah, the theme of "Obey God" was the center. Obey God? That's fine, but what happens when the children find out that this is impossible to perfect? What then? 80% leave the church after high school...that's "what then".

I have had this conversation recently with others and they try and defend why they just merely teach the stories without the fullness of Christ. They have said, "Kids remember stories."

Kids remember stories? Who cares? I want my kids to remember Jesus and the redemption that he promised because of the cross. I am not a Jew and refuse to teach like one. When we merely teach stories, kids grow up not realizing that Zaccheus was real, was converted, sold his possessions, paid back 4 times what he stole and Christ said that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. The story of Zaccheus was a real redemption story that shows what happens when someone "receives Christ gladly."

If you merely teach a story, you need to repent because you are aiding children to believe in either a legalistic mentality of following mere men and their works or you are teaching them that these are just mere stories without you even realizing it.

Thomas Schreiner in his book, The Law and Its Fulfillment has this to say:

This explains, says Sanders, the emphasis in rabbinic literature on the fulfillment of commandments. Sanders' thesis on why the covenant is unmentioned may be granted in one sense. Presumably the rabbis did assume that God's covenantal mercies were the basis of all their behavior, and one must recall the nature of the literature found in the Mishnah and Gemara. Nevertheless, when one combines the failure to mention the covenant with the emphasis on obeying the detailed prescriptions of the law, one has a recipe for legalism. Such theology may not be legalistic in theory; it can always appeal to the covenant as the basis of all behavior. Theology, however, is not measured only by formal statements but also by what it stresses. Any theology that claims to stress God's grace but rarely mentions it and that elaborates human responsibility in detail inevitably becomes legalistic in practice, if not theory. This principle applies to rabbinic Judaism and to Christian churches. A church outwardly lauding grace as primary and fundamental may practice the most virulent legalism.
Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, p. 117


Here are some quick steps to follow when teaching:

1. What is the context of the story?

2. What is the practical lesson to be received? i.e. don't murder, lie, look at porn, etc.

3. Where is Christ at in the story? How is he pictured or pointed to in the story or passage?

4. In what ways can we train in righteousness and see Christ as the center of redemption because of this story?

These are just some quick things to think about as we teach, not just children, but adults. Without Christ as center, how are we different than a Jew or a story teller at the local library?

Make Jesus the center or you are helping others become Jewish or liberal in theology.

Read More......

Friday, September 05, 2008

Martin Luther and Language

It seems as though language is becoming more and more a discussion these days on what is considered vulgar and what is okay to proceed from the mouth of a true Christian. I was once told that I should never be allowed to preach if I use the word "suck" or "crap." I proceeded to ask the person if they would please give me their list of acceptable words so that I could also become a legalist to place that yoke on other's necks as well.

Whether many want to admit it or not, Martin Luther, which is a hero to a lot of protestants, used some pretty vulgar images and words to get his point across. I have written about some shocking use of terms and images a couple of times in Refuting those Who Contradict and also Playing the Whore. Some of Luther's quotes, which I will not go into all of them are the following:
Luther advised people to "tell the Devil to kiss my ____"

He repeatedly said that if the Pope should send him a command to appear before him: "I shall _____ upon his summons"

He said that the monks are "the lice placed by the devil on God Almighty's fur coat"

When trying to explain how far God is or is not the author of evil, he says: 'Semei wished to curse, and God immediately directed his curse against David. God says, "Curse him not and no one else." Just as if a man wishes to relieve himself I cannot prevent him, but should he wish to do so on the table here, then I should object and tell him to betake himself to the corner.'"

My all time favorite is his response to Rome about their use of Aristotle's thoughts on reason. Luther exclaimed, "Reason is a whore."

He also mentioned, "When I (the Pope-a--) bray, hee-haw, hee-haw, or relieve myself in the way of nature, they must take it all as articles of faith, i.e. Catholics."

So, the question comes to us today as, "Why do you use harsh language or vulgar images to get your point across?" Although I wouldn't stand behind all the ways Luther spoke or gave images I do completely agree with his outlook on it, and I do think that too many people have pussy footed around using harsh biblical language to awaken the pagan from their slumber.

Below is Luther's own words for why he used such language:

I own that I am more vehement than I ought to be; but I have to do with men who blaspheme evangelical truth; with human wolves; with those who condemn me unheard, without admonishing, without instructing me; and who utter the most atrocious slanders against myself not only, but the Word of God. Even the most phlegmatic spirit, so circumcised, might well be moved to speak thunderbolts; much more I who am choleric by nature, and possessed of a temper easily apt to exceed the bounds of moderation.

I cannot, however, but be surprised to learn whence the novel taste arose which daintily calls everything spoken against an adversary abusive and acrimonious. What think ye of Christ? Was he a reviler when he called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, a progeny of vipers, hypocrites, children of the devil?

What think you of Paul? Was he abusive when he termed the enemies of the gospel dogs and seducers? Paul who, in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, inveighs against a false prophet in this manner: "Oh, full of subtlety and all malice, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness." I pray you, good Spalatin, read me this riddle. A mind conscious of truth cannot always endure the obstinate and willfully blind enemies of truth. I see that all persons demand of me moderation, and especially those of my adversaries, who least exhibit it. If I am too warm, I am at least open and frank; in which respect I excel those who always smile, but murder.

I find this to be a great quote to back up Luther's use of language and images that make some cringe. I see some modern preachers getting this and using this kind of understanding to wake up the sleeping modern evangelical that will sleep his way in the pew all the way to the fires of hell.

I would rather be questioned from the legalist (or ultra conservative) on my usage of language than watch those under my guard run straight into hell without a bold warning of their whoring after other gods.

Read More......

Monday, August 06, 2007

Mondays, Sermons, iPods and Cancer


It's still Monday, right? (barely) So here goes a good 'ol case of plagiarism...

Dr. John Piper has made a great impact on my growth as a Pastor, and a student of the word of God. Last April I had the great privilege of attending the Children Desiring God conference. Dr. Piper was the Keynote speaker, and from a human standpoint, it was a thrill to see him preach in person. For those of you who also strive to be better preachers, you know that I am not saying that in terms of an "audience member" watching a "performer". But as a young preacher, I got to see, in the flesh, a true man of God with a powerful passion to proclaim the word of God.


Related to that, two Christmas' ago, our Senior Pastor, the College/Career group (whom I shepherd) and my incredible wife, chipped in and bought me a 30 Gig iPod (black of course. Yes, Seth followed ME in that. 'Cept he got the 80 gig - newman!) At any rate, I realized the real use of this incredible device; sermon hunting. Any and all sites that allowed mp3 downloads is where I spent my free time. I had a friend who shared with me that the church where he grew up at now offered their sermons online. Their Pastor, Tom Pennington, had been on staff at Grace Community Church when we attended in 1999. I went home that night, and saw that they had the last two and a half years of sermons on their site. The following work day my friend asked if I downloaded any sermons. My reply? "Yes, all of them". So, I have issues (not the least of which were the 300 or so AW Tozer sermons I had downloaded about a month before that incident). Perhaps my post tomorrow will be the links of where I currently get my sermons.

(Where is all this going? Wait for it!....) Then, one of the College Guys tipped me off to the wonderful world of podcasting. What a deal! One of the first podcasts that I subscribed to was Desiring God, and I got to hear Dr. Piper on a daily basis. During one of the intros it was announced that Dr. Piper had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. It was a shock to hear, as it always is. But later, he released an article that shows a true biblical response to life's severest trials. Click here to read "Don't Waste Your Cancer".

I sent this to a friend of mine who has advanced colon cancer. While I was a bit concerned that it would be received as condescending, he said it was a great encouragement. And looking back, that should not surprise me being that it was based on the word of God. May you or someone else you know be encouraged by these words as well.

Read More......

Friday, March 16, 2007

A Preachers Prayer


I have a good friend who is a Pastor in Delaware. Occasionally I am blessed with an article or quote that he sends to certain people as a means of encouragement and exhortation. I feel privileged to have "made the cut" on his distribution list, as I am always edified to see how the mind of a godly man operates. And, the stuff he sends is just great. Below is such an email.

The Preachers Prayer
My Lord, Let not my ministry be approved only by men,
or merely win the esteem and affections of people;
But do the work of grace in their hearts,
call in thy elect,
seal and edify the regenerate ones,
and command eternal blessing on their souls.
Save me from self-opinion and self-seeking;
Water the hearts of those who hear thy Word,
that seed sown in weakness may be raised in power;
Cause me and those that hear me
to behold thee here in the light of special faith,
and hereafter in the blaze of endless glory;
Make my every sermon a means of grace to myself;
and help me to experience the power of thy dying love,
for thy blood is balm,
thy presence bliss,
thy smile heaven,
thy cross the place where truth and mercy meet.
Look upon the doubts and discouragements of my ministry
and keep me from self-importance;
I beg pardon for my many sins, omissions, infirmities,
as a man, as a minister;
Command thy blessing on my weak, unworthy labours,
and on the message of salvation given;
Stay with thy people,
and may thy presence be their portion and mine.
When I preach to others let not my words by merely elegant and masterly,
my reasoning polished and refined,
my performance powerless and tasteless,
by may I exalt thee and humble sinners.
O Lord of power and grace,
all hearts are in thy hands, all events at thy disposal,
set the seal of thy almighty will upon my ministry.


Arthur Bennett - The Valley of Vision

Read More......

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Introduction to the Five Solas of the Reformation

As we start this interesting and thought provoking study, it is essential that we come to the Five Solas with some background of where they came. They do not stand alone without explanation nor are they understood without complete exegesis of the meaning behind them. Today we will look at where these Five Solas came from and glean a little from their meanings. We will look at the key men of the reformation, such as John Wyclif, John Hus and Martin Luther. We will look at the key doctrines of the reformation that made the Pope and his papacy stand on their heads.

What I will tell you is that this post is just to give us a better understanding of the forest before we look at each tree. What I mean by this is that if we are to look at the individual trees of the Solas we must first look at the overarching forest in the reformation, the men and the doctrines.

There will be some things concerning the Solas that might tear at your conscience, as they did mine the first time I looked into them about 10 years ago, and even more so as I have studied them ferociously for the past 3 years.

Key Men of the Reformation

Who is usually credited as the key to the protestant reformation? Martin Luther. The most overlooked man then must be John Wyclif, who is nicknamed as the Morning Star of the Reformation. D’Aubigne, a reformation historist, stated:

If Luther and Calvin were the fathers of the Reformation then Wyclif was its grandfather

We don’t know much of Wyclif, we don’t even know where or exactly when he was born although some think he was born in 1330. He received his doctorate from Oxford in 1372 and immediately was risen to the leading professor of Oxford.

The Key year for Wyclif was 1378, called the Great Schism, when one Pope tried to excommunicate another Pope and this led to Wyclif’s beliefs to shape the reformation that would not come for another 150 years.


In one sense Wyclif welcomed the Great Schism. The spectacle of two rival popes excommunicating each other seemed to him to be a confirmation for all to see of the spiritual bankruptcy of the office and the need to put something else in its place. As the schism continued however, Wyclif’s view hardened. He came to believe that the pope was Antichrist. He states: “Christ is truth the pope is the principle of falsehood. Christ lived in poverty, the pope labors for worldly magnificence. Christ refused temporal dominion, the pope seeks it.”


Church History in Plain Language, Pg. 226, 227



This meant that it was time for Wyclif to take action as he in turn became a protestant. Wyclif believed that the best way for the spreading of the Gospel was for it to be preached and what better way to preach than to be a priest.

Wyclif truly understood that the only way for one to be saved was through the preaching of the Word, as stated in Romans 10.

The problem, Wyclif said, was that the priests of his day were “found in taverns and hunting; and playing at their tables, instead of learning God’s law and preaching.”

So he decided to take action with what were called Lollards or “one who mumbles or mutters” as was given them the title by those who hated them, but in actuality Wyclif meant for them to be “poor priests.”

They were men trained usually by Wyclif himself to go to the villages and preach the Gospel. Instead of great robes and honor they were barefoot and dressed in robes made of wool, they went from village to village dependant on their fellow man for shelter and food. They carried with them a few pages of Wyclif’s bible and tracts that were made for their teaching. Many came to faith under this blue collar mission of Wyclif.

The word of God was brought to the lowly as Christ intended.

Wyclif ended up dying after multiple strokes at his home in Lutterworth in 1384. His followers were hunted down, were all expelled from Oxford or told to denounce their views. Wyclif’s teachings, thirty years later were dispelled as heresy and his books and papers were all burned along with his bones.

One of his biggest proponents was John Hus of Southern Bohemia (Czech Republic). He took Wyclif’s writings and continued to preach against the Pope and for the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. On the wall of Bethlehem Chapel, where Hus preached, it showed many images of the abuse of the pope. Such as:


The pope rode a horse; Christ walked barefoot. Jesus washed the disciples feet; the pope preferred to have his kissed.

Hus’ sermons were widely followed as he was very fiery in his zeal for the true church of Christ and for the true bride.

Because of this Rome rallied against him and brought false heresy charges against him for doctrines he never taught, he was thrown into prison in Constance before his day of execution he prayed this in his cell:
O most holy Christ, draw me, weak as I am, after Thyself, for if Thou dost not draw us we cannot follow Thee. Strengthen my spirit, that it may be willing. If the flesh is weak, let Thy grace precede us; come between and follow, for without Thee we cannot go for Thy sake to cruel death. Give me a fearless heart, a right faith, a firm hope, a perfect love, that for Thy sake I may lay down my life with patience and joy. Amen.
Hus refused to give in to save his life. He would not recant his actual teachings against the Pope or his false system. He stated, “I have said and I would not, for a chapel full of gold, recede from the truth.”

As he was finally taken to his burning in 1415 he knelt to pray and the marshal of the empire asked him if he would recant and save his life, this was Hus’ response:

God is my witness that the evidence against me is false. I have never thought nor preached except with the one intention of winning men, if possible, from their sins. In the truth of the gospel I have written, taught, and preached; today I will gladly die.
By the end of the 15th century the Papacy succeeded in crushing the works of Wyclif and Hus until the day of Luther: the man named the wild boar in the vineyard.

Martin Luther: born in 1483 to a miner he went to university to study to be a lawyer and finished his undergrad and master’s very quickly, but in 1505 everything changed. He was caught in a thunderstorm and a bolt of lightening knocked him to the ground and he called out to God saying, “St. Anne (God’s patroness of miners), save me! And I’ll become a monk.” He was spared and much to his parent’s discord, he kept his vow.

He quickly was risen to the chair of biblical studies at the newly opened Wittenberg University and was one that was very hard on himself and on his sin. When he was about to head his first Mass he stated:

I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, “Who am I that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine majesty? For I am dust and ashes and full of sin, and I am speaking of the living, eternal and true God.

1515 is probably one of the biggest years of the protestant church for it was the year that Luther was studying Romans and came across Romans 1:17

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Luther saw that it was God’s righteousness that was given to man by and through faith alone, not by the man’s merit. Let the journey begin.

In 1517 a man named John Tetzel came through Germany selling indulgences, which was a way for the Church of Rome to raise money; in this case it was for St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel would use the phrase: “Once the coin into the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory heavenward springs.”

To Luther this was at least bad theology if not worse. He promptly wrote up his 95 theses and nailed it to the Wittenburg door on October 31st, 1517 and that day the spark that was soon to be spread called the Reformation started.

Earlier that year, in September, Luther would pen the lesser known 97 theses in which he calls for the church to return to its Augustinian theology instead of Aristotle’s. Luther states that Aristotle placed too much emphasis on reason and states that his influence caused the downfall of the Church’s theology, namely that man was good, and that man had the ability of his will to choose good, about freedom and merit.

This concept goes all the way back to Augustine’s fight against Pelagius in the early 5th century, where Pelagius contended that man was not born into sin, and therefore had a free will and could freely choose good.

Luther was quickly denounced of a man preaching “dangerous doctrines” and Luther, willing to accept a final answer from Rome, asked the Pope and the priests for Scriptural proof that he was wrong. This led Luther down the line of not only questioning the Pope’s power through indulgences and forgiving of sin but now into what we now know as Scripture alone.

In 1521 the pope declared Luther a heretic and excommunicated him and called him to the Diet (or assembly) of Worms and asked him to defend his writings, Luther explained:

My conscience is captive to the Word of God, I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither honest nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.

Luther was given 21 days until his arrest and death but was saved by the prince of Saxony and given a home at the Wartburg Castle where much of Luther’s translation of the New Testament from Latin into German.

Many of the German towns started to tear down the statues and other relics of the Roman Catholic church and Luther, in 1522, returned to Wittenburg and started the movement of Protestantism.

Luther was followed up by great men, namely Melanchthon, Zwingli and Calvin who took Luther’s thoughts of Justification by Faith alone to the next generation. In fact, Luther said of Calvin, “I might have entrusted the whole of this controversy to him from the beginning.”

Key Doctrines of the Reformation

Dominion or Lordship
The Roman Catholic church had much property and also much control during this time; Wyclif’s first book was one that called out those; not only laymen but also on the clergy of the church, that if they had sin in their lives that they too could be in contempt according to the government and should have their resources and land revoked and given back to the governing authorities. Basically this was the start of the doctrine that we are all priests in God’s eyes as stated in Rev 1, all are equal and there shall be the same ‘standards’ of the Pope and his papacy as there are to the peasants.

Two popes were serving at the same time and just added more “fuel to Wyclif’s fire”

The Church
Wyclif taught that the body of believers were Christ’s church and the only head was that of Christ and not the pope. Luther also stated that the church was not made up by those in Monastic society or one that involved the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, but was only made up of those who God chose to elect where there was no bounds to the sex or stature.

The Eucharist and Transubstantiation (Accepted by RCC in 1215)
This belief that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ was declared as a “blasphemous deceit” and a “veritable abomination of desolation in the holy places,” by John Wyclif.

In his lectures in 1381 Wyclif stated:

The consecrated host we see upon the altar, is neither Christ, nor any part of Him, but an effectual sign of Him; and that transubstantiation rests upon no scriptural ground.

Wyclif stood alone when he taught this new thought on the Eucharist. Although it took all the way to Zwingli to get the correct interpretation of the bread and the wine as mere representation, Wyclif and Luther started the pebble down the hill so to speak.


The Scriptures

Holy Scripture is the permanent authority for every Christian, and the rule of faith and of all human perfection, then it became of prime importance to have the scriptures in the language of the people. For as much as the bible contains Christ, that is all that is necessary for salvation, it is necessary for all men, nor for priests alone. It alone is the supreme law that is to rule Church, State, and Christian life, without human tradition and statutes.

John Wyclif


Wyclif and his fellow scholars translated Jerome’s Latin Vulgate in its’ entirety to the common language of the day, so that all could know Christ, not by Pope but by reading and hearing it in their language to be understood by all.

Neither the testimony of Augustine nor Jerome nor any other saint should be accepted except in so far as it was based upon Scripture. Christ’s law is best and enough, and the other laws men should not take, but as branches of God’s law.

Free Will vs Bondage of the Will (election of the saints)

Wyclif was a predestinarian, like Augustine and the early church fathers and of course the apostles themselves.

One’s election, according to Wyclif had nothing to do with whether or not they were a priest, pope or monk nor was it conditioned on whether or not they went to Mass, paid indulgences or penances or any other of the priesthood fallacies.

Wyclif anticipates Luther’s doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, God does not see classes or races of men or women, we are all equal. And we are all chosen by God’s grace and nothing to do with who we are or what we have done.

This was also led by Luther’s belief in Justification by Faith alone and in his writing of “The Bondage of the Will” Luther states this in his opening:

It is not irreligious, wasteful, or superficial, but essentially healthy and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability "free will" has, in what respect it is the subject of divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God.

Luther also states later in his life:

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “ As if indeed it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath. Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience.

He wondered how one could not hate a God who comes only with righteous demands that cannot be met. He came to a realization that when God, speaks of righteousness, he is not speaking of the righteousness that he demands, but when he speaks of righteousness in the gospel, he is speaking of the righteousness that he gives in Christ.




Read More......

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Conclusion to Refutation

For this conclusion I felt I must deal with some of Dr. Goetsch’s last attempts to defame all Calvinists as he draws a close to his article. As we showed in the start of his article the point was to obviously get the reader to “hate” Calvinists right away when he stated such things as:

Calvinism started with Augustine of the Catholic church.

Calvinism has INFILTRATED many seminaries, colleges, and churches.

It has affected good churches and colleges

Calvinism is an enemy of revival and evangelism

Calvinism has often been explained by using the acrostic TULIP to set forth the distinctives of Calvinism. Even though I have trouble finding "tulips" in the Bible.


Now, Dr. Goetsch ends his article in the same way that he started it. He takes intentional swipes at Calvinism to leave the reader with a heartfelt hatred for those who call themselves Calvinists. Here is the ending of the article, you can judge for yourselves:

I challenge you to get your answers from the Word of God. Calvinism is raising its head. I read recently where someone said it comes around about every forty years. I do not know if that is true, but it definitely is around today. The Calvinist will say it is all about God, but review what God says. I challenge you to look these verses up in the Bible. I challenge you to dig into the Scriptures. I challenge you to find out what God said about how a person gets saved. We have a responsibility as God’s people to know and to share this message.

Finally, for those of us who refute Calvinism, let us not be Calvinistic in practice. If we do not carry Gospel tracts with us, if we do not take opportunities to witness, if we do not go soulwinning this week, we may say we are not Calvinists, but we are practicing Calvinism. If we are not busy about the Lord’s work and reaching people, we are as dead in our service for Christ as those who follow the fatalistic spirit of the Calvinists!

Dr. Goetsch has crossed the line. He takes hateful swipes at many who adhere to the Doctrines of Grace and he will have to give an answer to God for why he would use such strong language against God’s elect. It is obvious that Dr. Goetsch knows very little about Christian history and very little of those he calls Calvinists. For if he did, he would know that the doctrines held so dearly by the Calvinist comes all the way, not only from the Bible itself, but from our early post apostolic fathers like Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Jerome and Augustine, from the reformation with Wycliffe, Hus, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Then from other great men of God throughout the years like Matthew Henry, Richard Baxter, Richard Sibbes, John Owen, John Bunyan, John Knox, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Asahel Nettleton and Charles Spurgeon. Not to mention men of God who have preached the word of God in the 20th and 21st century such as Schaeffer, Machen, Boice, MacArthur, Begg, Mohler, Sproul and many, many others. So to say that Calvinism, “comes about every forty years” couldn’t be further from the truth. The only time that Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace were not in the forefront was during the great apostasy of the Roman Catholic rule. So to side with history against Calvinism, is to side with the Roman Catholic.

Not only did these great men of the past and present adhere to Calvinism but these great men of God went and preached the gospel to all who would hear. I am not going to go into the great details (you can click on my sidebar for quick bios of most of these men) of all these men but they all fought for the truth of the gospel and shared this message to many nations and with many people. They believed in Calvinism but believed moreso in the proclamation of God’s word to the lost.

I find it very difficult to swallow comments that Dr. Goetsch has put forth that Calvinists don’t share the gospel. What is interesting is that history shows that those who were Calvinists shared the gospel and were the most influential in the spreading of the gospel than any other Christian “movement.” One needs only to look at the reformation and the two great awakenings. All three of these time periods were led and triumphed for the sake of Christ by strong willed Calvinists. Dr. Goestsch should be thanking the Calvinist that he is not a Roman Catholic because who knows what would have happened if God did not use these great men to bring about reformation in the Church.

Dr. Goetsch will not answer my emails but I must ask, “Dr. Goetsch where are you getting your facts?” or better put, “Where are you getting these fallacies?”

It is apparent that Dr. Goetsch did not do his due diligence before writing this article and either knowingly deceived others or just got some bad information. Either way, there must be some sort of recantation. This Calvinist, not to boast but to just put forth facts, is very active in sharing the gospel and I love the lost. Not because I believe that I in myself love the lost, but because God gave me a new heart to love them with the love that He has for them. If you would like to see my evangelistic website you can check it out here.

I pray that those who read the article will somehow find this refutation on the internet and read it with honesty. I am not trying to fight for a cause and leave the gospel behind. But, to take those who love the almighty Trinity and the spread of the Gospel and say that we are fatalistic and not doing the Lord’s work, is an article and statement that must be refuted.

Calvinism and Predestinarianism is not greater than the gospel nor will I ever pretend it to be, but I do believe that the Doctrines of Grace are the most pure way of describing the plan of salvation from the eyes of our Creator. I will end with two quotes from men that I greatly respect, both who are Calvinists and both who love not only the gospel but also their fellow brothers in Christ who disagree with their beliefs in the Calvinistic Doctrines of Grace.

Once one of Whitefield’s followers said to him, "We won’t see John Wesley in the heaven, will we?" To which Whitefield humbly replied, "Yes, you’re right, we won’t see him in heaven. He will be so close to the Throne of God and we will be so far away, that we won’t be able to see him!"


After almost dying and being interviewed by TIME magazine this is how Al Mohler ended his interview:

I want people to know this is not the experience of Al the Calvinist, but Al the Christian. I wasn't reciting Calvinist principles to myself in the hospital bed, but I was very much trusting in the sovereign God any Christian can know and trust.

May we all understand that to divide the kingdom using hateful slurs and downright false accusations does not bring glory to our God but reproach. May we all have the insight that Whitefield had and that is to humble ourselves to everyone we come in contact with and know that God is greater and infinite in wisdom and we are just the fools that He uses to spread His wonderful gospel to a dying world.

I pray that Dr. Goetsch would see the errors that he made against his own brothers in Christ and may he repent and recant these fallacies and remarks that he has made against us.

Until then it is my responsibility to pray the truth to conquer and the lost to be saved by the unfailing gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide

Read More......

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Young, Restless, Reformed


I got this article from Christianity Today and is a topic that I have aspirations of maybe someday writing a book about. It is a great article going into the resurgence of Reformed, or more specifically, Calvinism among young people.

Enjoy!



Young, Restless, Reformed
Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.
Collin Hansen posted 9/22/2006 01:54PM


Nothing in her evangelical upbringing prepared Laura Watkins for John Piper.

"I was used to a very conversational preaching style," said Watkins, 21. "And having someone wave his arms and talk really loudly made me a little scared."

Watkins shouldn't be embarrassed. Piper does scare some people. It's probably his unrelenting intensity, demanding discipline, and singular passion—for the glory of God. Those themes resound in Desiring God, Piper's signature book. The pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis has sold more than 275,000 copies of Desiring God since 1986. Piper has personally taken his message of "Christian hedonism" to audiences around the world, such as the Passion conferences for college-age students. Passion attracted 40,000 students outside Memphis in 2000 and 18,000 to Nashville earlier this year.

Not all of these youth know Piper's theological particulars. But plenty do, and Piper, more than anyone else, has contributed to a resurgence of Reformed theology among young people. You can't miss the trend at some of the leading evangelical seminaries, like Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, which reports a significant Reformed uptick among students over the past 20 years. Or the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, now the largest Southern Baptist seminary and a Reformed hotbed. Piper, 60, has tinged the movement with the God-exalting intensity of Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century Puritan pastor-theologian. Not since the decades after his death have evangelicals heaped such attention on Edwards.



Reformed theology often goes by the name Calvinism, after the renowned 16th-century Reformation theologian John Calvin. Yet even Edwards rejected the label, saying he neither depended on Calvin nor always agreed with him. Still, it is Calvin's followers who produced the famous acrostic TULIP to describe the "doctrines of grace" that are the hallmarks of traditional Reformed theology: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. (See "It's All About God.")

Already, this latest surge of Reformed theology has divided Southern Baptist churches and raised questions about the future of missions. Its exuberant young advocates reject generic evangelicalism and tout the benefits of in-depth biblical doctrine. They have once again brought the perennial debate about God's sovereignty and humans' free will to the forefront.

The evidence for the resurgence is partly institutional and partly anecdotal. But it's something that a variety of church leaders observe. While the Emergent "conversation" gets a lot of press for its appeal to the young, the new Reformed movement may be a larger and more pervasive phenomenon. It certainly has a much stronger institutional base. I traveled to some of the movement's leading churches and institutions and talked to theologians, pastors, and parishioners, trying to understand Calvinism's new appeal and how it is changing American churches.

God Starts the Party

A pastors' conference is the wrong place to schedule a private meeting with Joshua Harris. He didn't even speak at the conference I attended, but we still struggled to find a quiet spot to talk at his hotel. Slight and short, Harris doesn't stick out in crowds. But that doesn't stop pastors from recognizing him and introducing themselves. The unassuming 31-year-old took time to chat with each of them, even as our interview stretched late into the night.

Harris was a leader among his generation even before he published I Kissed Dating Goodbye in 1997. But the bestseller introduced him to a wider evangelical audience, earning many fans and at least as many detractors. Now he pastors Covenant Life Church, a congregation of 3,800 in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Harris grew up as a youth leader in a seeker-sensitive church and later joined a charismatic congregation. Neither place emphasized doctrine. "Even just thinking doctrinally would have been foreign to me," he explained. He knew enough to realize he didn't like Calvinism, though. "I remember some of the first encounters I had with Calvinists," Harris told another group of pastors during Mark Driscoll's Reform and Resurge conference in Seattle in May. "I'm sorry to say that they represented the doctrines of grace with a total lack of grace. They were spiteful, cliquish, and arrogant. I didn't even stick around to understand what they were teaching. I took one look at them and knew I didn't want any part of it."

Harris's response is anything but uncommon in evangelical history. Reformed theology has periodically boomed and busted. Calvinists have always inspired foils, such as Jacob Arminius. The Dutch theologian argued that God frees up human will so people can accept or reject God's offer of salvation. That debate prompted his critics to respond with TULIP. Reformed theology waned during the Second Great Awakening. Most recently, Calvinism has played second fiddle to the charismatic and seeker-sensitive/church-growth movements, all of which downplay many theological distinctives.

For Harris, things started changing when he read Piper describe God's glory and breathtaking sovereignty. Later, C. J. Mahaney, a charismatic Calvinist and founding pastor of Covenant Life, took Harris under his wing and groomed him to take over the church. Mahaney, 51, turned Harris on to his hero, Charles Spurgeon, the great 19th-century Calvinistic Baptist preacher in London. Mahaney assigned him a number of texts, such as Iain H. Murray's Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism. "I would have been reading Christian comic books if left to myself," Harris told me, flashing the characteristic self-deprecating humor he shares with Mahaney.

The theological depth attracted Harris. "Once you're exposed to [doctrine]," he said, "you see the richness in it for your own soul, and you're ruined for anything else."

He notices the same attraction among his cohorts. "I just think there's such a hunger for the transcendent and for a God who is not just sitting around waiting for us to show up so that the party can get started."

Passion conferences also inspired Harris to trust in a God who takes the initiative. Harris first attended Passion in 1999 and sought the help of conference founder Louie Giglio to plan a similar event, from which blossomed Harris's New Attitude conferences. "Someone like Louie is saying, 'You know what, it's not about us, it's about God's glory, it's about his renown.' Now I don't think most kids realize this, but that's the first step down a pathway of Reformed theology. Because if you say that it's not about you, well then you're on that road of saying it's not about your actions, your choosings, your determination."

Passion's God-exalting focus keeps Piper coming back to speak year after year. He attributes the attraction of Reformed theology to the spirit of Passion—namely, pairing demanding obedience with God's grandeur. "They're not going to embrace your theology unless it makes their hearts sing," Piper said.

More Than a 'Crazy Guy'

During the weekend when I visited Piper's church, the college group was learning TULIP. The student teacher spent about 30 minutes explaining unconditional election. "You may never feel the weight, you will never feel the wonder of grace, until you finally relinquish your claim to have any part of your salvation," he said. "It's got to be unconditional."

Following that talk, I met with a group that included Laura Watkins, a recent graduate of the University of Minnesota. Like Harris, Watkins grew up in an evangelical church that downplayed doctrine. Calvinism certainly wasn't much of a draw for Watkins as she searched for a church in college. "The only exposure I had was high-school textbooks that teach about John Calvin as this crazy guy who burned people," she said.

Yet she stayed for the spiritual maturity and depth she noticed in the church. Now she's as articulate an advocate of Calvinism as I met. She unwittingly paraphrased Spurgeon as she explained her move toward Reformed theology. "When you first become a believer, almost everyone is an Arminian, because you feel like you made a decision," Watkins said.

Watkins didn't stop with election. An enlarged view of God's authority changed the way she viewed evangelism, worship, and relationships. Watkins articulated how complementary roles for men and women go hand in hand with this type of Calvinism. "I believe God is sovereign and has ordered things in a particular way," she explained. Just as "he's chosen those who are going to know him before the foundations of the earth," she said, "I don't want to be rebelling against the way God ordered men and women to relate to one another."

Piper no longer scares Watkins. He's more like a father in the faith, though she says they have never spoken. Privately, Piper contrasts sharply with his authoritative pulpit persona. I dare say he's even a little meek, if relentlessly serious. We mused on Reformed theology in his home in February following one of the last sermons he delivered before undergoing surgery for prostate cancer. He reflected on the rebellion he has unrepentantly fomented.

"One of the most common things I deal with in younger pastors is conflict with their senior pastors," Piper said. "They're a youth pastor, and they've gone to Trinity or read something [R. C.] Sproul or I wrote, and they say, 'We're really out of step. What should we do?'"

He tells them to be totally candid and ask permission to teach according to their newfound convictions, even if they are in Wesleyan-Arminian churches. Of course, he tells the young pastors to pray that their bosses would come to share their vision.

Baptist and Reformed

Starting in 1993, the largest Protestant denomination's flagship seminary quickly lost at least 96 percent of its faculty. SBC inerrantists had tapped 33-year-old Al Mohler to head the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which until then had remained open to moderate and liberal professors. Mohler addressed the faculty and re-enforced the school's confession of faith, derived from the landmark Reformed document, the Westminster Confession.

"I said, in sum, if this is what you believe, then we want you to stay. If not, then you have come here under false pretenses, and you must go," Mohler, now 45, said. "As they would say, the battle was joined."

Indeed, television cameras and news helicopters made it difficult for Mohler to work for a while. He still isn't welcome in some Louisville churches. That's not surprising, since no more than 4 faculty members—from more than 100—stayed with Southern after Mohler arrived.

Now it's hard to believe that less than 15 years ago, Southern merited a reputation as a liberal seminary. Mohler has attracted a strong faculty and spurred enrollment to more than 4,300 students—which makes it the largest Southern Baptist seminary. But SBC conservatives may have gotten more than they bargained for in Mohler. The tireless public intellectual freely criticizes perceived SBC shortcomings, especially what he considers misguided doctrine. Oh, and Mohler is an unabashed Calvinist. His seminary now attracts and turns out a steady flow of young Reformed pastors.

"This generation of young Christians is more committed, more theologically intense, more theologically curious, more self-aware and self-conscious as believers because they were not raised in an environment of cultural Christianity," Mohler said. "Or if they were, as soon as they arrived on a university campus, they found themselves in a hostile environment." Mohler explained that Calvinism offers young people a countercultural alternative with deep roots.

Mohler's analysis brought to mind one Southern seminarian I met in Louisville. Bradley Cochran grew up attending a mainline church with his family in rural Kentucky. He hated Sunday mornings, and by age 15 he had racked up a police rap sheet and developed a drug problem. But Cochran's troubles softened his heart to the gospel, and he fled his hometown to enroll at Liberty University. While there, he eagerly shared the Good News and earned an award for his evangelistic enthusiasm. A classmate loaned him some Sproul books, where he learned about predestination. He grew to accept this doctrine, but he said other students criticized his Calvinism before he even understood what the term meant. They couldn't understand how he squared God's sovereign choice with evangelism. Those challenges only intensified his study of Reformed theology. He became emboldened to persuade others.

"I felt like Calvinism was more than abstract points of theology," said Cochran, 25. "I felt you would get a much bigger view of God if you accepted these things, an understanding of justice and grace that would so deepen your affections for God, that would make you so much more grateful for his grace."

Cochran bolstered his arguments by boasting that he had never even read Calvin. Indeed, the renowned reformer appears not to be a major figure among the latest generation to claim the theology he made famous. Centuries ago, George Whitefield, the Calvinistic Methodist evangelist of the First Great Awakening, similarly argued: "Alas, I never read anything that Calvin wrote; my doctrines I had from Christ and his apostles; I was taught them of God."

The relationship of theology to evangelism has become a flash point among Southern Baptists. SBC Life, the journal of the SBC's executive committee, published two articles on Calvinism in April. In one, Malcolm Yarnell, associate professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued that Southern Baptists generally reject any notion that God "arbitrarily chooses individuals to be damned before they are born."

"[T]he greatest tragedy is when adherence to TULIP leads to division in churches and prevents them from cooperation in, and urgency for, a passion toward fulfilling the Great Commission," Yarnell wrote. He concluded, "Southern Baptists are first, last, and always followers of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin."

The most provocative comments in the SBC may belong to Steve Lemke, provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In April 2005, he presented a paper on "The Future of Southern Baptists as Evangelicals." Lemke warned, "I believe that [Calvinism] is potentially the most explosive and divisive issue facing us in the near future. It has already been an issue that has split literally dozens of churches, and it holds the potential to split the entire convention."

Lemke noted that Calvinism has periodically waxed and waned among Southern Baptists. "However, the number of Calvinist faculty dramatically increased [starting in the 1980s and] over the next 20 years." Lemke and many others explained to me that Calvinists like Mohler earned leadership roles during the SBC's inerrancy battles due to their reliably conservative theology. Their academic and biblical rigor suited them for seminary positions. Now, Lemke said, their influence has made the "newest generation of Southern Baptist ministers … the most Calvinist we have had in several generations."

Lemke doubts that Calvinism has yet reached its high-water mark in the SBC. But he is no fan of this trend. Baptism and membership figures, he said, show that the Calvinist churches of the SBC's Founders Ministries lack commitment to evangelism. According to Lemke, the problem only makes sense, given their emphasis on God's sovereign election.

"For many people, if they're convinced that God has already elected those who will be elect … I don't see how humanly speaking that can't temper your passion, because you know you're not that crucial to the process," Lemke explained.

Evangelicals who adhere to Reformed theology have long chafed at such charges. They remind their critics that Whitefield, one of history's most effective evangelists, believed God elects his church. In addition, Edwards defended the First Great Awakening's revivals with Religious Affections. More recently, J. I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (1961) showed persuasively that there is no contradiction between those two ideas.

"I think the criticism of Reformed theology is being silenced by the mission and justice and evangelism and worship and counseling—the whole range of pastoral life," Piper said. "We're not the kind who are off in a Grand Rapids ghetto crossing our t's and dotting our i's and telling the world to get their act together. We're in the New Orleans slums with groups like Desire Street Ministries, raising up black elders through Reformed theology from 9-year-old boys who had no chance."

Deep into Doctrine

Calvinistic Baptists often told me they have less of a problem with churches that don't teach election than with churches that downplay doctrine in general. An SBC Life piece published in April by Daniel Akin, a former Southern professor and current president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, presented this perspective. "Let us be known for being rigorously biblical, searching the Scriptures to determine what God really says on [God's sovereignty] and other key doctrinal issues," Akin wrote. "For the most part, we are not doing this, and our theological shallowness is an indictment of our current state and an embarrassment to our history!"

The young people I talked to want churches to risk disagreement so they can benefit from the deeper challenges of doctrine. Joshua Harris said years after he graduated from high school, he bumped into his old youth pastor in the grocery store. The pastor seemed apologetic as they reminisced about the youth group's party atmosphere, focused more on music and skits than Bible teaching, Harris said. But the youth pastor told Harris his students now read through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.

"I think there's an expectation that teens can't handle that, or they'll be repulsed by that," Harris told me. "[My youth pastor] is saying the exact opposite. That's a dramatic change in philosophy in youth ministry."

Pastor Kent Hughes senses the same draw for students who cross the street from Wheaton College to attend College Church. "If there's an appeal to students, it's that we're not playing around," Hughes said. "We're not entertaining them. This is life and death. My sense is that's what they're interested in, even from an old man."

Perhaps an attraction to serious doctrine brought about 3,000 ministry leaders to Louisville in April for a Together for the Gospel conference. The conference's sponsors included Mohler and Mahaney, and Piper also spoke. Most of the audience were in their 20s and 30s. Each of the seven speakers holds to the five points of TULIP. Yet none of them spoke of Calvinism unless I asked about it. They did express worry about perceived evangelical accommodation to postmodernism and criticized churches for applying business models to ministry. They mostly joked about their many differences on such historically difficult issues as baptism, church government, eschatology, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They drew unity as Calvinist evangelicals from their concerns: with seeker churches, church-growth marketing, and manipulative revival techniques.

Roger Olson, professor of theology at Truett Seminary, Baylor University, said more than just Calvinists worry about these problems. "A lot of us evangelical Arminians agree with them in their criticisms of popular folk religion," Olson said. "I agree with their basic theological underpinnings—that doctrine is important, that grace is the decisive factor in salvation, not a decision we make."

If Olson is right, co-belligerency on these concerns could forestall further conflict, at least on the Calvinist-Arminian debate.

A Passion for Puritans

Mark Dever hasn't sold books to the degree Piper has. And he doesn't head a flagship institution like his longtime friend Mohler. He doesn't even pastor a megachurch. But oh, how strategic his church is. Hop off Washington, D.C.'s Metro on the Capitol South stop. Head north past the Library of Congress and the Capitol. Turn right and bear east before you reach the Supreme Court. A couple blocks later you'll see Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which Dever has led for 12 years, beginning when he was 33.

Yet location isn't what makes Dever's church so strategic. Maybe it's all the political maneuvering in the air, but Dever networks effectively. He conceived Together for the Gospel and otherwise works to connect conservative evangelicals who worry about the same things. Dever's church also trains six interns at a time, imprinting his beliefs about how a local church should run through a related ministry, 9 Marks.

I visited Capitol Hill Baptist in January. The church kicked off with Sunday school, which really should have been called Sunday seminary. Class options included a survey of the New Testament, spiritual disciplines, and a systematic theology lesson on theories of the Atonement.

Such rigor can be expected from a church led by Dever, who earned a Ph.D. from Cambridge studying the Puritans. He embodies the pastoral theologians who are leading young people toward Reformed theology. He has cultivated a church community in the Puritan mold—unquestionably demanding and disciplined. And the church attracts a very young crowd. Its 525 members average 29 years old. Dever mockingly rejected my suggestion that they aim to attract an under-30 crowd. "Yes, that's why we sing those hymns and have a [55-minute] sermon." Dever smiled. "We're seriously calibrated for the 18th century."

Dever and others have turned a young generation onto some old teachers. He organizes his study around a canon of renowned church leaders that includes Augustine, Luther, Calvin, John Owen, John Bunyan, B. B. Warfield, Martin Lloyd-Jones, and Carl Henry. It's mostly Puritans who have fueled this latest resurgence of Calvinism. Leaders like R. C. Sproul and J. I. Packer have for decades told evangelicals they have something to learn from this post-Reformation movement. During the late 1950s, Banner of Truth starting reprinting classic Reformed works, including many from Puritans.

Among the Puritans, Edwards is most popular. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor and Edwards scholar Douglas Sweeney said his seminary includes many more Calvinists than 20 years ago. Not unrelated, he said among evangelicals "there is more interest in Edwards today than there has been since the first half of the 19th century."

Garth Rosell, church history professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has noticed his students' increased interest in Puritan studies, especially Edwards. He suspects young evangelicals gravitate toward the Puritans looking for deeper historic roots and models for high-commitment Christianity.

That's at least what Jordan Thomas, a 28-year-old church planter, told me about the Puritans. "I don't read them to find out what these guys say about Calvinism," Thomas told me in Piper's church. "It's their big-hearted love for Christ. They say things about their devotion to him that I'm just like, I wonder if I know the same Jesus these guys love."

Scripture Trumps Systems

Evangelicals have long disagreed on election and free will. The debate may never be settled, given the apparent tension between biblical statements and the limits of our interpretive skills. In addition, some will always see more benefit in doctrinal depth than others.

Those fearing a new pitched battle can rest easy. That's not because the debate will go away—for the foreseeable future, the spread of Calvinism will force many evangelicals to pick sides. And it's not because mission will trump doctrine—young people seem to reject this dichotomy.

It's because the young Calvinists value theological systems far less than God and his Word. Whatever the cultural factors, many Calvinist converts respond to hallmark passages like Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. "I really don't like to raise any banner of Calvinism or Reformed theology," said Eric Lonergan, a 23-year-old University of Minnesota graduate. "Those are just terms. I just like to look at the Word and let it speak for itself."

That's the essence of what Joshua Harris calls "humble orthodoxy." He reluctantly debates doctrine, but he passionately studies Scripture and seeks to apply all its truth.

"If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, 'It's unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?'" Harris said. "You are so amazed by grace, you're not picking a fight with anyone, you're just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn't have to save anybody."

Collin Hansen is an associate editor of CT.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today


Read More......

Thursday, February 01, 2007

A Calvinist Faces Death


I first learned about this story from Irish Calvinist and got this from TIME Magazine. Enjoy!

After roughly 200 years of decline, Calvinism, the faith of the Puritans, has made a modest comeback among younger Evangelical Christians. One of the movement's potent mentors is Albert Mohler, the influential, telegenic head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who made waves last June when he critiqued the religious claims of presidential contender Barack Obama in an essay called Secularism With A Smile.

Mohler, a Calvinist, went into the hospital in December for a fairly routine stomach operation and suddenly developed pulmonary embolisms, a frequently fatal form of clotting, in both lungs. After emergency surgery and four days in the Intensive Care unit, he made a complete recovery. David Van Biema asked him whether his crisis could illuminate his brand of faith.

I'm happy to be talking to you!

And I'm happy to be talking to you! And thankful.

A few years ago you claimed that "everyone is a Calvinist in praying before surgery." Can you explain that?



Yeah. Absolutely. In this sort of crisis we all want God to be sovereign, all powerful — to be able to intervene decisively, to rule over every atom and molecule of the universe. My point was that lots of believers are more dependent on a Calvinist-style sovereign God than they realize when they make their theological claims.

Like who, for example?

The God of liberal theology — He's a linguistic symbol, or a vague kind of spirituality. I've heard liberal theologians who have said that in situations like mine God is basically active in helping you find our own inner resources. It was very apparent to me in the ICU that I had no inner resources. My trust was in the unlimited sovereignty of the God of the Bible. I shudder to think of going through that experience believing that there is no one in control.

Can you explain the nature of your prayer at that point?

I prayed to survive — but I think like most Christians, I prayed, "if it be Your will."

This may be rude, but what response would you expect from Calvinist friends in the event that you had died?

I'm human enough to hope they would grieve my loss, but praise God's mercy in allowing me to live as long as I had and to know that God's plan for me — and them — includes what we wouldn't have chosen, but that we know to be perfect and best.

At the most extreme moments, did you experience any unusual recognitions that reflected your theology?

Yes. In the ICU I couldn't make my brain work in the way I was accustomed to. I couldn't get the words and thoughts to work. But [somehow] I remembered Chapter eight, Verse 26, from the Book of Romans, that says that when we can't pray for ourselves the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with "groaning too deep for words."

Are you saying that that idea was meaningful, or that this was an example — that God placed that verse in your mind when you would not have been able to?

Maybe both. I had memorized it, but God provided it.

A keystone of Calvinism is predestination, and what most non-Calvinists may find odd is how you could be so sure that you were predestined for heaven if you didn't pull through. Or were you?

Yes. I do not see predestination as either a blind force. We have the assurance that "God chose us before we chose Him."

But what gives you that assurance? Isn't it possible for people to think that they believed, and be mistaken and not be saved?

It's not some kind of game. I believe it is possible for a person to wrongly believe they are saved, but it's because they don't really believe in Christ or otherwise confused the Gospel.

How do you know you're not one of them?

We are supposed to look for the signs in our lives, of regeneration and authentic faith, but we should not live in continual fear that we are somehow not assured of our salvation, because that too is a form of doubting God.

One misconception people may have about Calvinism is that it holds that Christians act as though they had free will — when God has orchestrated everything. Can you address that?

Calvinists believe that the human will is instrumental in the experience of salvation. We would take issue with the idea of absolute free will, where people are talking about the priority of the human will in salvation. The big question is whether it is possible for the divine and human wills to operate in absolute harmony. I believe it is.

How would a Calvinist have viewed your successful recovery versus a non-Calvinist?

Some non-Calvinists might say, I'm glad he survived, but I'm so sorry this accident happened to him. A Calvinist would say "God had something for him to learn through this that will be important for his formation for eternity."

And you've learned...

A lot of things. I've blogged about it. One of the things I was really struck by was an empathy, recognizing that even as I was in the ICU, I may have been the healthiest person there.

Anything else?

I want people to know this is not the experience of Al the Calvinist, but Al the Christian. I wasn't reciting Calvinist principles to myself in the hospital bed, but I was very much trusting in the sovereign God any Christian can know and trust.


Read More......

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Luther's 97 Theses: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology


I have taken this from the book: Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings edited by Timothy F. Lull


In this crucial document from the early fall of 1517, Luther offers a number of theses for debate that are sharply critical of the currently reigning method of scholastic theology, with its high confidence in human reason and free will. The philosophical dependence of theology on Aristotle, going back two hundred and fifty years to St. Thomas Aquinas, may initially have been a creative and worthwhile experiment. But now as Luther views the scholastic theology of his own time, this approach has blunted the distinctiveness of the gospel.
The reader may well find the thesis-form forbidding and find some of the issues that Luther is addressing difficult to understand. These theses were written for a student to defend in an academic exercise at the University of Wittenberg and therefore were designed only to provide initial clues about these positions. Their very pointed, exaggerated nature is part of the intellectual challenge of the disputation for those who must develop and defend them.
But the reader who perseveres will find in them many of the major themes of Luther’s own theology as they had been emerging in his biblical lectures of the preceding years. One can at least see that Luther already had strong convictions on a number of issues, especially the relations between sin, grace, free will, and good works, even before the debate about indulgences began.
Luther’s language is sharp, but his official posture is still deferential. He concludes the attack on scholastic theology with the claim that we believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church. But within weeks Luther had launched a debate about the selling of indulgences that brought him and his theology to the attention of the highest church authorities.

Translated by Harold J. Grimm

1. To say that Augustine exaggerates in speaking against heretics is to say that Augustine tells lies almost everywhere. This is contrary to common knowledge.
2. This is the same as permitting Pelagians1 and all heretics to triumph, indeed, the same as conceding victory to them.
3. It is the same as making sport of the authority of all doctors of theology.
4. It is therefore true that man, being a bad tree, can only will and do evil [Cf. Matt. 7:17–18].
5. It is false to state that man’s inclination is free to choose between either of two opposites. Indeed, the inclination is not free, but captive. Tiffs is said in opposition to common opinion.

6. It is false to state that the will can by nature conform to correct precept. This is said in opposition to Scotus2 and Gabriel.3
7. As a matter of fact, without the grace of God the will produces an act that is perverse and evil.
8. It does not, however, follow that the will is by nature evil, that is, essentially evil, as the Manichaeans4 maintain.
9. It is nevertheless innately and inevitably evil and corrupt.
10. One must concede that the will is not free to strive toward whatever is declared good. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
11. Nor is it able to will or not to will whatever is prescribed.
12. Nor does one contradict St. Augustine when one says that nothing is so much in the power of the will as the will itself.
13. It is absurd to conclude that erring man can love the creature above all things, therefore also God. This in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.
14. Nor is it surprising that the will can conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
15. Indeed, it is peculiar to it that it can only conform to erroneous and not to correct precept.
16. One ought rather to conclude: since erring man is able to love the creature it is impossible for him to love God.
17. Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.
18. To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious term, a chimera, as it were. This is contrary to common teaching.
19. Nor can we apply the reasoning of Scotus concerning the brave citizen who loves his country more than himself.
20. An act of friendship is done, not according to nature, but according to prevenient grace. This in opposition to Gabriel.
21. No act is done according to nature that is not an act of concupiscence against God.
22. Every act of concupiscence against God is evil and a fornication of the spirit.
23. Nor is it true that an act of concupiscence can be set aright by the virtue of hope. This in opposition to Gabriel.
24. For hope is not contrary to charity, which seeks and desires only that which is of God.
25. Hope does not grow out of merits, but out of suffering which destroys merits. This in opposition to the opinion of many.
26. An act of friendship is not the most perfect means for accomplishing that which is in one.5 Nor is it the most perfect means for obtaining the grace of God or turning toward and approaching God.
27. But it is an act of conversion already perfected, following grace both in time and by nature.
28. If it is said of the Scripture passages, “Return to me,…and I will return to you” [Zech. 1:3.], “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you” [Jas. 4:8], “Seek and you will find” [Matt. 7:7], “You will seek me and find me” [Jer. 29:13], and the like, that one is by nature, the other by grace, this is no different from asserting what the Pelagians have said.
29. The best and infallible preparation for grace and the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election and predestination of God.
30. On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.
31. It is said with the idlest demonstrations that the predestined can be damned individually but not collectively. This in opposition to the scholastics.
32. Moreover, nothing is achieved by the following saying: Predestination is necessary by virtue of the consequence of God’s willing, but not of what actually followed, namely, that God had to elect a certain person.
33. And this is false, that doing all that one is able to do can remove the obstacles to grace. This in opposition to several authorities.
34. In brief, man by nature has neither correct precept nor good will.
35. It is not true that an invincible ignorance excuses one completely (all scholastics notwithstanding);
36. For ignorance of God and oneself and good work is always invincible to nature.
37. Nature, moreover, inwardly and necessarily glories and takes pride in every work which is apparently and outwardly good.
38. There is no moral virtue without either pride or sorrow, that is, without sin.
39. We are not masters of our actions, from beginning to end, but servants. This in opposition to the philosophers.
40. We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. This in opposition to the philosophers.
41. Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. This in opposition to the scholastics.
42. It is an error to maintain that Aristotle’s statement concerning happiness does not contradict Catholic doctrine. This in opposition to the doctrine on morals.
43. It is an error to say that no man can become a theologian without Aristotle. This in opposition to common opinion.
44. Indeed, no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle.
45. To state that a theologian who is not a logician is a monstrous heretic—this is a monstrous and heretical statement. This in opposition to common opinion.
46. In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure. This in opposition to the new dialecticians.
47. No syllogistic form is valid when applied to divine terms. This in opposition to the Cardinal.6
48. Nevertheless it does not for that reason follow that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts syllogistic forms. This in opposition to the same new dialecticians and to the Cardinal.
49. If a syllogistic form of reasoning holds in divine matters, then the doctrine of the Trinity is demonstrable and not the object of faith.
50. Briefly, the whole Aristotle7 is to theology as darkness is to light. This in opposition to the scholastics.
51. It is very doubtful whether the Latins comprehended the correct meaning of Aristotle.
52. It would have been better for the church if Porphyry8 with his universals had not been born for the use of theologians.
53. Even the more useful definitions of Aristotle seem to beg the question.
54. For an act to be meritorious, either the presence of grace is sufficient, or its presence means nothing. This in opposition to Gabriel.
55. The grace of God is never present in such a way that it is inactive, but it is a living, active, and operative spirit; nor can it happen that through the absolute power of God an act of friendship may be present without the presence of the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
56. It is not true that God can accept man without his justifying grace. This in opposition to Ockham.9
57. It is dangerous to say that the law commands that an act of obeying the commandment be done in the grace of God. This in opposition to the Cardinal and Gabriel.
58. From this it would follow that “to have the grace of God” is actually a new demand going beyond the law.
59. It would also follow that fulfilling the law can take place without the grace of God.
60. Likewise it follows that the grace of God would be more hateful than the law itself.
61. It does not follow that the law should be complied with and fulfilled in the grace of God. This in opposition to Gabriel.
62. And that therefore he who is outside the grace of God sins incessantly, even when he does not kill, commit adultery, or become angry.
63. But it follows that he sins because he does not spiritually fulfill the law.
64. Spiritually that person does not kill, does not do evil, does not become enraged when he neither becomes angry nor lusts.
65. Outside the grace of God it is indeed impossible not to become angry or lust, so that not even in grace is it possible to fulfill the law perfectly.
66. It is the righteousness of the hypocrite actually and outwardly not to kill, do evil, etc.
67. It is by the grace of God that one does not lust or become enraged.
68. Therefore it is impossible to fulfill the law in any way without the grace of God.
69. As a matter of fact, it is more accurate to say that the law is destroyed by nature without the grace of God.
70. A good law will of necessity be bad for the natural will.
71. Law and will are two implacable foes without the grace of God.
72. What the law wants, the will never wants, unless it pretends to want it out of fear or love.
73. The law, as taskmaster of the will, will not be overcome except by the “child, who has been born to us” [Isa. 9:6].
74. The law makes sin abound because it irritates and repels the will [Rom. 7:13].
75. The grace of God, however, makes justice abound through Jesus Christ because it causes one to be pleased with the law.
76. Every deed of the law without the grace of God appears good outwardly, but inwardly it is sin. This in opposition to the scholastics.
77. The will is always averse to, and the hands inclined toward, the law of the Lord without the grace of God.
78. The will which is inclined toward the law without the grace of God is so inclined by reason of its own advantage.
79. Condemned are all those who do the works of the law.
80. Blessed are all those who do the works of the grace of God.
81. Chapter Falsas concerning penance, dist. 5, 10 confirms the fact that works outside the realm of grace are not good, if this is not understood falsely.
82. Not only are the religious ceremonials not the good law and the precepts in which one does not live (in opposition to many teachers);
83. But even the Decalogue itself and all that can be taught and prescribed inwardly and outwardly is not good law either.
84. The good law and that in which one lives is the love of God, spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
85. Anyone’s will would prefer, if it were possible, that there would be no law and to be entirely free.
86. Anyone’s will hates it that the law should be imposed upon it; if, however, the will desires imposition of the law it does so out of love of self.
87. Since the law is good, the will, which is hostile to it, cannot be good.
88. And from this it is clear that everyone’s natural will is iniquitous and bad.
89. Grace as a mediator is necessary to reconcile the law with the will.
90. The grace of God is given for the purpose of directing the will, lest it err even in loving God. In opposition to Gabriel.
91. It is not given so that good deeds might be induced more frequently and readily, but because without it no act of love is performed. In opposition to Gabriel.
92. It cannot be denied that love is superfluous if man is by nature able to do an act of friendship. In opposition to Gabriel.
93. There is a kind of subtle evil in the argument that an act is at the same time the fruit and the use of the fruit. In opposition to Ockham, the Cardinal, Gabriel.
94. This holds true also of the saying that the love of God may continue alongside an intense love of the creature.
95. To love God is at the same time to hate oneself and to know nothing but God.
96. We must make our will conform in every respect to the will of God (in opposition to the Cardinal);
97. So that we not only will what God wills, but also ought to will whatever God wills.
In these statements we wanted to say and believe we have said nothing that is not in agreement with the Catholic church and the teachers of the church.
1517

Editor, T. F. L., & Second Edition Editor, W. R. R. (2005; 2005). Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Fortress Press.

Read More......

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Calvin vs Servetus


Thought this was a good small article on the execution of a heretic named Servetus, which has caused many to hate Calvin and to believe him to also be at fault as an heretic.

by J. Steven Wilkins

In the year 1553 an event occurred which would forever blacken the reputation of Calvin in the eyes of an ungodly world. In that year a heretic named Michael Servetus entered Geneva after fleeing from France after being condemned for his heresy there and escaping from prison in Vienna. He was seen in the streets of Geneva and arrested on August 13. This trouble he had brought upon himself by his book which denied the existence of the Trinity as well as the practice of infant baptism. Though the former is clearly a more serious error than the latter, the latter position identified Servetus with the hated Anabaptists who had spread the revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism. Why Servetus came to Geneva is not clear though the Reformer Wolfgang Musculus wrote that he apparently thought that Geneva might be favorable to him since there was so much opposition to Calvin.


On August 21, the authorities in Geneva wrote to Vienna asking further information on Servetus. The authorities in Vienna immediately demanded his extradition to face charges there. At this the Genevan city council offered Servetus a choice: he could either be returned to Vienna or stay in Geneva and face the charges against him. Servetus, significantly, chose to remain in Geneva.

The trial began and as it progressed, it became evident that the authorities had two choices: banish Servetus or execute him. They sent to their sister cities Berne, Zurich, Schaffhausen and Basle for their counsel. The counsel from each city was the same: execute the heretic. The method of burning alive was chosen. Calvin intervened to appeal for the more quick and merciful beheading as the method of execution but the council refused and on October 26, 1553, Michael Servetus was executed.

It is strange that this incident should bring such odium upon Calvin and another example of the hatred of orthodox Christianity that it has. The facts are that mass executions were carried out in other places throughout this time. After the Peasants' War in Germany, after the siege of Munster, during the ruthless period of Roman Catholic dominance in Elizabethan England. Even as late as 1612 the authorities in England burned two men who held views like those of Servetus at the behest of the bishops of London and Lichfield. Thirty-nine people were burned at the stake for heresy between May of 1547 and March of 1550. The 16th century was not a time of great tolerance of heresy in any place in Europe.

If one contends that Calvin was in error in agreeing with the execution of heretics then why is there not equal indignation against all the other leaders who supported and carried out and supported these measures elsewhere. None less than the honored Thomas Aquinas explicitly supported the burning of heretics saying, "If the heretic still remains pertinacious the church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by separating him from the church by the sentence of excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to be exterminated from the world by death." (Summa Theologiae, IIaIIae q. 11 a. 3)

Furthermore, Servetus was the only individual put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime. Strange indignation it is that men focus upon this one and virtually ignore the hundreds executed in other parts of the world.

Further still, it must be remembered that Calvin's role in this entire matter was only that of expert witness at the trial. The idea that Calvin was "the dictator of Geneva" is utterly unfounded in fact. Calvin was never allowed to become a citizen of Geneva. He was technically among the habitants — resident legal aliens who had no right to vote, no right to carry weapons, and no right to hold public office. A habitant might be a pastor or teacher if there was no Genevan citizen who was qualified for the position. This is why Calvin was allowed to be pastor of the church there. But he was always denied access to the decision-making machinery.

The only place where Calvin could have exerted significant influence was in the Consistory. But the Consistory was completely bypassed in this entire matter by the council apparently in an effort to demonstrate that they were far more concerned for holiness and purity than Calvin (and some of the people) had thought. They sought thus to shut Calvin out of this matter as much as possible.

Why then all the outrage at Calvin? Simply because of who he was and what he taught. The world can live with Romanism and Arminianism, it cannot abide the truth of the Reformed faith. For this reason Calvin and Calvinism have been the enemies of the world and will be till the world ends.



Copyright 1998, J. Steven Wilkins

Read More......

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Valley of Vision

I took this from the Valley of Vision which is a collection of prayers from the Puritans. If you do not have this book please go and buy it now as it will inspire you and also sharpen you from other brothers from another time. I thought I would share one called:

"Longings After God"

My dear Lord, I can but tell Thee that Thou knowest I long for nothing but Thyself, nothing but holiness, nothing but union with Thy will. Thou hast given me these desires, and thou alone canst give me the thing desired. My soul longs for communion with Thee, for mortification of indwelling corruption, especially spiritual pride. How precious it is to have a tender sense and clear apprehension of the mystery of godliness, of true holiness! What a blessedness to be like Thee as much as it is possible for a creature to be like its creator! Lord, give me more of Thy likeness; enlarge my soul to contain fullness of holiness; engage me to live more for Thee. Help me to be less pleased with my spiritual experiences, and when I feel at ease after sweet communings, teach me it is far too little I know and do. Blessed Lord, let me climb up near to Thee, and love, and long, and plead, and wrestle with Thee, and pant for deliverance from the body of sin, for my heart is wandering and lifeless, and my soul mourns to think it should ever lose sight of its beloved. Wrap my life in divine love, and keep me ever desiring Thee, always humble and resigned to Thy will, more fixed on Thyself, that I may be more fitted for doing and-suffering.

Read More......

Friday, November 24, 2006

Lutherans and Luther


I am currently reading "Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings" and I came across a quote that I want to share. I will tell you first of all, that I do believe, for the most part, that the widespread Lutheran church has departed grossly from the teachings of Luther. But, I also know that I am no historian of Luther or the Lutheran church, so feel free to correct me. I come across the quote below and wonder how those in the Lutheran church would respond. I will also tell you that I am a Calvinist but would never say that I am a follower of Calvin, nor would I respect a church that called themselves, "First Church of Calvin" or something of that same title. I only use the term Calvinist to show my convictions in soteriology. Maybe that is the same response that I would get from a Lutheran following this quote, but it would seem that they would follow more closely Luther's convictions on Scripture than they currently do.

So here is the quote and wouldn't mind a discussion on "Should Lutherans be calling themselves Lutherans, and/or should we ever name a church after a man?"


A Sincere Admonition by Martin Luther to All Christians to Guard Against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522)

After the Diet of Worms, Luther went into hiding at the Wartburg Castle. While there, he received reports of increasing popular unrest, precipitated by attempts to reform church and society by violent means. In December 1521, Luther wrote this document, urging restraint in the institution of reform measures. In the context of his arguments for his followers to move slowly, surely, and without violence, he included these oft-quoted words.

…In the first place, I ask that men make no reference to my name; let them call themselves Christians, not Lutherans. What is Luther? After all, the teaching is not mine [John 7:16]. Neither was I crucified for anyone [I Cor. 1:13]. St. Paul, in I Corinthians 3, would not allow the Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then should I—poor stinking maggot-fodder15 that I am—come to have men call the children of Christ by my wretched name? Not so, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names and call ourselves Christians, after him whose teaching we hold. I neither am nor want to be anyone’s master. I hold, together with the universal church, the one universal teaching of Christ, who is our only master [Matt. 23:8].

Read More......
Related Posts with Thumbnails