Author Archives: Dan C.

God Saves Sinners!

Posted by Dan C. on

J.I. Packer, in his introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, offers this:

“God saves sinners.

God—the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of the Father and Son by renewing.

Saves–does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies.

Sinners–men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot.

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 Savior. . . . 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.”

Food for thought. . .

What did Jesus Say About End Times?

Posted by Dan C. on

Christians have always been curious about the End Times. It’s part of our nature to be curious about such things. Even Jesus’ closest followers asked about the end of the age:

Mat 24:3  As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?”

Mar 13:3-4  And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

Luk 21:7  And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”

What is significant to note is the context around the disciples’ question. What is stated clearly in the Matthew account and inescapable in all three parallel accounts is that the question is asked in the context of the second coming of Christ. All of the accounts end with “then they will see the Son of Man coming”, followed by the gathering of ‘the elect’.

Mat 24:30-31  Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mar 13:10  And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.

Mar 13:26  And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Mar 13:32  “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.

Luk 21:13  This will be your opportunity to bear witness.

Luk 21:19  By your endurance you will gain your lives.

Luk 21:27  And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

More importantly than ‘when’ are our actions and attitude. As believers we are not to speculate:

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

We are not to be alarmed by the ‘events’ of the end times, whether they be personal persecution, drastic weather/natural phenomena, or warring nations. We are to endure by God’s power and we will be ‘gathered together’ with Christ – the ‘salvation’ spoken of in these passages.

Mat 24:6  See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.

Mat 24:13  But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Luk 21:13  This will be your opportunity to bear witness.

Luk 21:19  By your endurance you will gain your lives.

We are to ‘bear witness’. Of what? the gospel:

Mar 13:10  And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.

How can we summarize Jesus’ teachings about the end times?

  • They began before the destruction of Jerusalem, which is specific to the above passages of scripture, and will end at the Second Coming of Christ.
  • A lot of ‘bad stuff’ (according to us and not necessarily to God) will happen between the beginning of the end times and Christ’s coming.
  • Some of that ‘bad stuff’ will happen to followers of Christ, but we are to continue to spread the gospel of Christ to ‘all nations’, meaning those in our areas of influence as well as the nations of the world.
  • All of God’s elect will be gathered together with Christ – our ‘final’ redemption to God’s great Glory.

While Jesus does does provide a lot of detail concerning the ‘signs’, he forbids speculation about the ‘when’. Rather, he tells his closest followers (and us) to endure while spreading the gospel of Christ, confident of His Second Coming and the hope of our final redemption and glorification.  What should the apparent escalation of ‘stuff’ we see do to our thinking and attitudes?

This old soldier thinks it should cause within us an even greater urgency to spread the gospel of Christ!

Young, Restless, Reformed

Posted by Dan C. on

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 wit

Collin Hansen is an associate editor of CT.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

“This article first appeared in the 9/22/2006 issue of Christianity Today. Used by permission of Christianity Today International, Carol Stream, IL 60188.”

Related Elsewhere:

See also our sidebar, “It’s All About God.”

Organizations mentioned in this article include:

  1. Passion conference
  2. Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
  3. Ref 21 magazine
  4. Reformed University Fellowship
  5. Desiring God
  6. 9Marks
  7. Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University
  8. Mars Hill Church Seattle
  9. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
  10. Sovereign Grace Ministries
  11. Founders Ministries
  12. Banner of Truth

Popular blogs among the young Reformed include:

  1. Ref 21 blog
  2. Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds
  3. Mark Driscoll’s blog, TheResurgence
  4. Al Mohler
  5. Founders Ministries’ blog
  6. Reformation Theology

John Newton’s Pilot

Posted by Dan C. on

By Kenneth D. Macleod

John Newton first went to sea at the age of just 11. His godly mother had died when he was only 6 and his father was a ship’s captain. After that first voyage he kept on going to sea, and over the years he had many adventures and many difficulties, but his own foolishness lay behind most of the difficulties. It was no doubt in answer to his mother’s prayers that God at last met with him and changed his heart, bringing him to believe on Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of sinners.

Newton became a captain, but later God called him to be a preacher of the gospel. He became a minister in the little town of Olney before moving to London. But perhaps the most useful work he ever did was to write letters, lots of them, containing much helpful advice which was based firmly on the Bible. Many of these letters were later printed in magazines and books and so they have been useful to many people, not just those to whom they were originally sent. During more than 30 years, Newton wrote a series of letters to a younger man, John Ryland, who also became a minister; these have recently been published in a book with the title, Wise Counsel.

Ryland would not have been surprised to find the ex-captain thinking in ways which reflected his seagoing experience. Several times Newton referred to the work of a pilot, the man at the helm of the ship, who steered her in the right direction. But in his mind was a series of pictures. The ship was himself or Ryland or anyone else sailing on the sea of time, and the sea may get very rough because of difficulties or troubles. All the more reason then for a skilful pilot, someone who can guide people safely through all the difficulties of life.

In 1785 Newton looked back on the time, 35 years earlier, when he married his wife Mary. He compared their setting out on married life to a sailor ‘who should put to sea without either pilot or compass’. A successful voyage would look very unlikely if there was no one on board with the skill to steer the ship and if there was no compass to indicate the direction in which they should sail. So Newton confessed that, back in 1750, ‘we knew and thought but little of the Lord’. God is the pilot we need to steer us safely through life, with all its difficulties and temptations and hardships. And the Bible is the compass we need so that we would know the direction to take through life so that we may reach the harbour of heaven at last.

Before long, we might say, a perfect Pilot came on board. In Newton’s language: ‘The Lord . . . thought of us . . . and hitherto he has helped us’. God came to Newton and his wife; he showed them that they were sinners and that Jesus Christ is a glorious Saviour; he made them willing to believe in Christ. They became willing to submit to the Lord to guide them through the whole stretch of ocean – some of it rougher and some of it smoother – that lay before them in this life. They not only became willing to have the Lord as their pilot but also to take the Bible as their compass – to receive direction from God’s Book and live holy lives. And God did take care of them as they sailed towards heaven.

Whatever stage of life we may be at, we need this Pilot. Without him we will drift through life and in the end be dashed on the rocks of God’s wrath and swept away into a lost eternity. We should be perfectly clear in our minds that, if we are left to ourselves, that is how our lives will end. Without Newton’s pilot we cannot possibly find the harbour; we will miss the way into heaven. It is the Lord alone who can guide us safely through this world and bring us at last to the harbour where we can rest in perfect blessedness for ever.

In 1782 Ryland was experiencing some difficulties. Newton pictured him as sailing through stormy seas. But the ex-captain knew that the Lord could help, even in a time of trouble. He wrote to encourage his friend: ‘Cheer up. The skill of the pilot is best evidenced in a storm; so is the Lord’s wisdom and faithfulness towards his children.’ He knew that God will never forsake those who trust in him. He knew too that when times are difficult and God fulfils his promise to help his children, then it is most obvious that God has acted wisely and that he remains faithful.

But it is also at such times, Newton pointed out, that ‘the sincerity of their hearts towards him’ is most obvious. Times of trouble may make those who are not sincere give up their religion. But when God’s true children keep following him in such times of difficulty, it helps to show that they are sincere, that they really do trust in him, that they are not hypocrites.

Do you sometimes get the feeling that everything happening around you is out of control? Yes, it may well be out of your control, but you can be sure that God is in control of everything, even when the storms of life are at their fiercest. Then, says Newton, ‘many a poor sailor is shipwrecked’. He has no pilot; he has no compass. But Newton was sure that ‘the poor believer’ will reach the port to which he is sailing. He went on: ‘It is good sailing with an infallible Pilot at the helm, who has the wind and weather at his command’. A human pilot may steer his ship skilfully through tremendous storms but he cannot possibly have any control over the weather. But because God is in control of everything, we will be perfectly safe if we trust him. And he will guide us safely to the port of heaven at last, no matter how difficult some parts of the voyage may be.

In another letter, Newton was thinking of himself and other believers as passengers in a ship. Indeed the Church of God was in the ship too. It should be obvious that the Church often has to sail through difficult storms, sometimes through severe persecution. But will the ship sink? No, says Newton, ‘we need not fear sinking’. Why? Because ‘the infallible Pilot will guide us safely through the storm’. God can make no mistake; he knows everything; he is aware of every danger; and he can steer the ship safely past them all – even the dangers that are hidden from everyone else. This ship will never sink, no matter how severe the storm.

But are you in this ship? You might want to keep away from the ship where the Church of God is. You might see things in the Church that are not as you think they should be – perhaps things that in fact are not at all what they should be. But can you find a better ship? Can you find one that is guaranteed to take you safely into the port of heaven? Can you find any other ship that has a compass – at least one that works properly, that points in the right direction? No, you can be perfectly sure that if you drift away from the Bible and the Church, you will be shipwrecked at last on the rocks of God’s wrath and sink into a lost eternity. Newton had sailed for many years under the care of the infallible Pilot when he said this: ‘I am not what I ought to be – ah, how imperfect and deficient! I am not what I wish to be – I abhor what is evil, and I would cleave to what is good!’ He was painfully conscious of sin, but he could see in himself something which showed him that he was indeed sailing towards heaven – he hated sin, especially his own sins.

We have thought of the Bible as a compass showing us the direction in which we should sail through life. But let us think of the Bible also as a telescope and let us picture Newton putting this telescope to his eye and looking into the future. As he did so, he said, ‘I am not what I hope to be – soon, soon shall I put off mortality [the part of him that would die], and with mortality [I shall put off] all sin and imperfection’. And he summed up:

Yet, though I am not what I ought to be, nor what I wish to be, nor what I hope to be, I can truly say, I am not what I once was; a slave to sin and Satan; and I can heartily join with the Apostle, and acknowledge, ‘By the grace of God I am what I am’.

Yes, John Newton was on the way to heaven.

Taken with permission from the April 2010 Young People’s Magazine issued by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
www.fpchurch.org.uk

The Clear Call of the Trumpet

Posted by Dan C. on

In a passage specifically referring to the use of the gift of tongues in the Corinthian church, Paul had this to say:

“Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?” – 1 Co 14:8 (NIV)

Barnes’ commentary provides further insight:

For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound – The trumpet was used commonly in war. It is a well-known wind instrument, and was made of brass, silver, etc. It was used for various purposes in war – to summon the soldiers; to animate them in their march; to call them forth to battle; to sound a retreat; and to signify to them what they were to do in battle, whether to charge, advance, or retreat, etc. It therefore employed a “language” which was intelligible to an army. An uncertain sound was one in which none of these things were indicated, or in which it could not be determined what was required.

Who shall prepare himself … – The apostle selects a single instance of what was indicated by the trumpet, as an illustration of what he meant. The idea is, that foreign tongues spoken in their assembly would be just as useless in regard to their duty, their comfort, and edification, as would be the sound of a trumpet when it gave one of the usual and intelligible sounds by which it was known what the soldiers were required to do. Just as we would say, that the mere beating on a drum would he useless, unless some tune was played by which it was known that the soldiers were summoned to the parade, to advance, or to retreat.

Looking around at the many ‘trumpets’ of evangelicalism today, one can no longer ‘hear’ a clear call to Christ. To what or to whom do we modern evangelicals call the lost and dying – those living apart from the saving grace of Christ? Do we call them to a better life down here – their ‘best life now’? Do we call them to have better marriages, success in their careers, great relationships, positive thinking, and social action? Or, like the Apostle Paul, do we simply call then to Christ who died for their sins.  

“. . .but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” – 1 Cor 1:23

Perhaps our faith would be less confusing to the masses of the lost and dying all around us, if all across the evangelical spectrum there would be a return to the clear call of the simple gospel that the Apostle Paul preached, so that the ‘foolishness’ of that simple gospel would save those for whom Christ died.

Is God His own Biggest Fan?

Posted by Dan C. on

The second Commandment:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” – Exo 20:4 -6

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Q. 52. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment?
A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment are, God’s sovereignty over us,[130] his propriety in us,[131] and the zeal he hath to his own worship.[132]

[130] Psalm 95:2-3, 6-7. Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms. For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods…. O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker. For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, Psalm 96:9-10. O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

[131] Exodus 19:5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: Psalm 45:11. So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. Isaiah 54:5. For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

[132] Exodus 34:14. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 1 Corinthians 10:22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

It would appear that the answer to the question is a resounding YES, and rightly so. After all, God is GOD.

Why do Evangelicals Convert to Roman Catholicism?

Posted by Dan C. on

Why a person would convert from one religion to another is always an interesting question, and the answers to the question quite insightful on several levels. This post presents four common reasons given for conversions from Protestant Evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism. These reasons were presented in a larger article here, and are based on reasons given by Evangelicals who have actually converted to Roman Catholicism (ERC’s). Direct excerpts from the aforementioned article are presented, with particular points deserving discussion emphasized.

1) Certainty

First, the desire for certainty and a full knowledge of truth spurs many ERC’s (Evangelicals who converted to Roman Catholicism) to reject what they consider to be the “doctrinal mayhem” and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” of Protestantism. ERC’s often have a desire for certain knowledge, something they believe is possible within Catholicism but not within Protestantism.  For . . . ERC’s, when Rome speaks on an issue, that’s it. There is absolute certainty.

The desire for certainty and full knowledge of truth is, I think, a characteristic of human nature, and an admirable desire. The belief that full knowledge of the truth resides within Catholicism but not within Protestantism deserves further investigation and discussion. First of all, orthodox Protestantism claims that full knowledge of all truth resides in the mind of God, and what truth God has chosen to reveals to us resides within scripture and its explicit teachings, not within Protestantism itself.

Secondly, we must ask , “From whence comes the thought that real truth resides only in Catholicism?” Well, it comes from the Roman Catholic Church, not from the explicit teaching of scripture (Deut 32:4, John 14:6, 2 Tim 3:16-17). That scripture is the ‘gold standard’ of truth is not questioned by the RCC. That the RCC, with the Papacy and Magisterium, is God’s representative on earth and God’s interpreter/teacher of scriptural truth, is the claim of the RCC.

(2) History

Second, ERC’s often feel a “historical disenfranchisement” with Protestantism. They have a desire to be connected to the entire history of the Christian church and not just the period since the Reformation. In addition, ERC’s often see the early church Fathers as “the aristocrats of the Church, the elite thinkers, and the inner circle who knew best.” This desire to be connected with church history leads many ERC’s to Rome.

This is an interesting argument with Catholic and Protestant roots.  That Catholic education/teaching forums will provide church history that includes all things post-apostolic is without question. At the same time, Protestant history traces it’s origin to the 16th Century Reformation. For the average layman, it can certainly appear that Protestant doctrine originated with the ‘Reformers’, and that the existing church at that time had always believed differently. At least that is what is presented by many RC apologists.

What Protestants are not told by Catholics who would convert them, is that orthodox Protestant doctrine was believed in, and articulated by some of their own beloved Church Fathers! For example, with regard to the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone taught by Paul, there was a divergence from it early in the post-apostolic era, a return to it principally due to St. Augustine, but it was lost again, only to be regained by the Reformers. They were called reformers, because they sought to return the existing church to it’s apostolic roots.

Thankfully, the access every layman has to volumes upon volumes of objective church history texts, just via the Internet, is phenomenal! If you want to discover what was believed and taught by whom all the way back to the Apostles, you don’t have to leave the comfort of your own home or office.

(3) Unity

Third, ERC’s emphasize unity and are disturbed by the divisions and countless denominations within Protestantism. McKnight quotes Peter Cram who describes Protestantism as “one long, continuous line of protesters protesting against their fellow protesters, generating thousands of denominations, para-churches, and ‘free churches,’ which are simply one-church denominations.” ERC’s try to transcend this disunity by seeking refuge in the perceived unity of the Roman Catholic Church.

Typically, Catholic apologists overstate (I’m being kind) the number of denominations and usually forget that the vast majority of Protestant ‘denominations’ agree on the essentials of the Christian faith and that it’s the non-essentials, things in which there is some liberty, that there is disagreement leading to lack of complete unity in all things. Granted, it is wrong to be divided, rather than ‘agreeing to disagree’ on non-essential matters, but is also wrong to overstate the issue.

Also, the alleged unity throughout Catholicism is, as stated, perceived only. those who might be drawn to the RC because of the ‘unity’ there, need to do some homework.

(4) Authority

Fourth, many ERC’s reject the “interpretive diversity” found within Protestantism, opting for the authority of the Catholic Church. Instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of Protestant pastors and theologians, ERC’s believe they have found their authority in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium. For them, “The [doctrinal] issues are now settled: the Church can tell us what to believe. And it does so infallibly.”

This point is closely related to point one, above, but deserves it’s own category. The ‘interpretative diversity’ that resides within Protestantism is not however, due to scripture being so unclear to the average layman that an outside source must be consulted to ascertain what is true. The same Holy Spirit resides as an ’embedded teacher’ within every true believer. However, since the truth to be obtained from scripture sometimes takes personal study and somewhat developed interpretative ‘skills’, we would rather just take someone else’s word for things. Sadly, false teachers and ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ with their own agendas abound. Having a sole-source authority is very comforting, especially for the lazy among us who trust in what men say and do not apply the aforementioned ‘gold standard’ to what they tell us.

When the trade off is between ‘multiple’ self-proclaimed authorities and a ‘single’ self-proclaimed authority, and the ‘single’ authority brings to the table a gospel that is not the gospel of Christ found in scripture, all we have is self-deception with greater ‘conviction’. Adherents to Catholicism are taught to rely on their works for ‘merit’ before God; works that complement God’s grace (synergism) for their justification. The Apostle Paul gave a rather dire warning to those who rely on their works (See Gal 3:10).

In summary:

The reasons given above for Evangelical Protestant to Catholic conversion are by no means exhaustive, but only provide main categories in which can be found much greater detail.

The Great Cloud of Witnesses – Who are they?

Posted by Dan C. on

Heb 12:1  “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,.”

John Gill’s Commentary:

with so great a cloud of witnesses; or “martyrs”, as the Old Testament saints, the instances of whose faith and patience are produced in the preceding chapter: these, some of them, were martyrs in the sense in which that word is commonly used; they suffered in the cause, and for the sake of true religion; and they all bore a noble testimony of God, and for him; and they received a testimony from him; and will be hereafter witnesses for, or against us, to whom they are examples of the above graces: and these may be compared to a “cloud”, for the comfortable and reviving doctrines which they dropped; and for their refreshing examples in the heat of persecution; and for their guidance and direction in the ways of God; and more especially for their number, being like a thick cloud, and so many, that they compass about on every side, and are instructive every way. Hence the following things are inferred and urged,

Vincent’s Word Studies:

Witnesses (μαρτύρων) does not mean spectators, but those who have born witness to the truth, as those enumerated in ch. 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer’s picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having born witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rests watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid. How striking the contrast of this conception with that of Kaulbach’s familiar “Battle of the Huns,” in which the slain warriors are depicted rising from the field and renewing the fight in the upper air with aggravated fury.

Barnes:

Seeing we also are encompassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses – The apostle represents those to whom he had referred in the previous chapter, as looking on to witness the efforts which Christians make, and the manner in which they live. There is allusion here, doubtless, to the ancient games. A great multitude of spectators usually occupied the circular seats in the amphitheater, from which they could easily behold the combatants; see the notes on 1Co_9:24-27. In like manner, the apostle represents Christians as encompassed with the multitude of worthies to whom he had referred in the previous chapter. It cannot be fairly inferred from this that he means to say that all those ancient worthies were actually looking at the conduct of Christians, and saw their conflicts. It is a figurative representation, such as is common, and means that we ought to act as if they were in sight, and cheered us on. How far the spirits of the just who are departed from this world are permitted to behold what is done on earth – if at all – is not revealed in the Scriptures. The phrase, “a cloud of witnesses,” means many witnesses, or a number so great that they seem to be a cloud. The comparison of a multitude of persons to a cloud is common in the classic writers; see Homer II. 4:274, 23:133; Statius 1:340, and other instances adduced in Wetstein, in loc.; compare notes on 1Th_4:17.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

The image is from a “race,” an image common even in Palestine from the time of the Greco-Macedonian empire, which introduced such Greek usages as national games. The “witnesses” answer to the spectators pressing round to see the competitors in their contest for the prize (Phi_3:14). Those “witnessed of” (Greek, Heb_11:5, Heb_11:39) become in their turn “witnesses” in a twofold way: (1) attesting by their own case the faithfulness of God to His people [Alford] (Heb_6:12), some of them martyrs in the modern sense; (2) witnessing our struggle of faith; however, this second sense of “witnesses,” though agreeing with the image here if it is to be pressed, is not positively, unequivocally, and directly sustained by Scripture.

The “witnesses” in “the great cloud” are specifically those Paul specifically referred to in Chapter 11. Since the implications of “great cloud” can allude to a great number, some commentators tell us that the “witnesses” include all of those who have died in the faith and, in the sense of a sports stadium, “watch” us running our race, and “cheer” us on.

There is absolutely no scriptural support for the thought that we are to pray to dead “saints”, or that we must go through/with them to the throne of grace. Neither are the “prayers of the saints” mentioned in Rev 5 and 8 prayers of dead believers. rather they refer to prayers of living saints here on earth, mo matter what the time in history.

Children of a Lesser God?

Posted by Dan C. on

No, I am not referring to the 1986 film that earned several prestigious awards from the film industry. The film’s title had no question mark. I am actually just asking a question:

“Are many of today’s professing believers, for all practical purposes, children of a lesser God?”

First of all, let me calm any fears that I have become a heretic and somehow think that God could ever become ‘less’ than he always has been, is now, and ever will be. Again, this is a question; one that I cannot get out of my head. I ask it for several reasons based on a combination of study of evangelicalism, examining the depth of doctrine and theology taught in the church over the last century, and into this one, as well as personal observation.

Evangelicalism. Today’s brand seems to have taken on much of the character of the ‘social gospel’  that placed social action/concerns on a higher level of importance than the gospel of Christ. That tendency seemed to have taken hold around the turn of the twentieth century and gave birth to the National Association of Evangelicals, in order to combat creeping liberalism in the church.

Theology and Doctrine. They are both disappearing from not only the substance of what is taught and preached in churches throughout the land, but from many seminaries that are called (by God) to prepare men for ministry!

Observations. Of the churches I have visited and in which I have had the privilege of serving in some capacity, as well as those I have studied via other means, both of the above comments ring true. And while there does seem to be a ‘remnant’ of older believers that still clings to “The Old Rugged Cross”, as well as a growing number of younger believers who are returning to the doctrines of the Reformation and the Five Solas.

Secondly, let me assure you that I am in no way passing any sort of judgment on anyone. This post is not about any specific individual(s), except for yours truly. I can look backward in time with the 20/20 hindsight we all seem to have and see more than a couple of years of worshipping a ‘lesser’ God, not the mighty and awesome God of Scripture.

Everyone is in many ways a product of his/her upbringing, including Christians. Unless they are in the habit of applying the gold standard of Scripture to what they listen to from pulpits, are taught in their small groups, read in books ‘about’ Scripture, and/or are fed from the world of televangelism, they will become to large measure what they feed upon.

At the core of the matter, I believe,  is a man-centered Christianity that has replaced the God-centric faith of years gone by. It is not something that one morning just ‘happened’ to the church, but it took years to develop. Perhaps a significant milestone in the development of self-centered, humanistic Christianity was the entrance of all of the ‘self-esteem’ driven popular psychology that seemed to take root in the mid-fifties. However, the ‘why/how’ are not what we need to be dwelling upon as of first importance.

This old soldier is convinced that we have a generation or so of Christ followers who have been exposed to, and taught, a ‘lesser God’ than the God of Holy Scripture, and they don’t even know it!

The best way to discover if we are sailing along in that boat is to read The Book. That is my encouragement to everyone who reads these ramblings of an old soldier, including this one.

Creed and Scripture

Posted by Dan C. on

“If there is a text of scripture you dare not meet, humble yourself till you can. If your creed and the Bible do not agree, cut your creed to pieces, but make it agree with this book. If there is anything in the church to which you belong which is contrary to the inspired Word, leave that church.” – Charles Spurgeon

 Found online here.