Cover Story: Young, Restless, Reformed
August 25, 2006 by cavman
I just finished the cover story for the September ‘06 Christianity Today, “Young, Restless, Reformed”. It was a good article that focused primarily on the ‘revival’ of Calvinism in American Christianity, and the ‘problems’ this is causing. I could identify with much of this.
This ‘revival’ began about 20 years ago when I became a follower of Jesus. I have finally spent half of my life following him. Like many, I was initially an Arminian but that didn’t last long. Early one I discovered Packer’s Knowing God. I didn’t realize it until a few years later when I re-read it, but the seeds were being sown. Soon I was reading R.C. Sproul, and his book Chosen by God drew together the many threads I was seeing in Scripture. Thru those men, and John Piper, I developed an interest in Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. My story is just like that of so many who have begun to embrace the Doctrines of Grace, and be humbled by them.
In Reformed Theology I found a deep commitment to think biblically. I mean THINK. In many ways, this new movement is a reaction (no less providential) to the dumbing down the church in previous decades. It is fascinating that much of the growth in this movement comes from charismatic circles, such as Sovereign Grace Ministries. They have found a theology that can sustain their experience. Reformed Theology is not just for stodgy old men, but can produce a vibrant love for God.
And then there are the critics. It produces church splits. Any quest for theological truth will probably result in church splits. The point is- which view is more consistent with Scripture. This too connects with my story. Begin in 1991 as a young seminary student. At a singles Bible Study one guy shared how he was sharing with his parents, and God’s Word does not return void. As the only Christian in my immediate family, and knowing the pain of wanting them to come to faith, I mentioned that in Isaiah (from which he quoted) God’s purpose was sometimes to harden (see Isaiah’s call to ministry in chapter 6). Everyone freaked, and I tried to calmly answer objections. They called the pastor (I made the mistake of mentioning that he agreed with me) to complain. I was in the pastor’s doghouse because now he had to teach a series to them. It was all odd. That young man eventually became Reformed and headed off to Southern with the hopes of becoming a professor there one day.
Pick up in 1998-99, when I was a young pastor. I filled in for the ladies Bible study teacher while she was on vacation. They were studying Romans. I fell for the ambush. I was asked about that predestination thing. I asked the ladies repeatedly, “Are you sure you want the answer to that?” Over the next hour a number of them got angry with me, some cried and I just tried to keep pointing them back to Scripture. “Yes, Paul answers that objection in Romans, let’s look.”
In fact, I talked about this just the other evening with one of the ladies who “survived” the lesson. “They said you were so mean” she told me. It was just that they didn’t agree with what I said, and wouldn’t budge. Really, no cussin’ or screaming. The doctrines of grace are offensive to the flesh- we resist them until God humbles our proud hearts.
Oh, it stifles evangelistic zeal. Tell that to Charles Spurgeon and George Whitefield. Tell that to the numerous students of Calvin who left Geneva to return to France (often to die as martyrs) to bring the Gospel back to France. Tell that to Jonathan Edwards and the Tennent brothers during the Great Awakening. Tell that to William Carey and the other fathers of the modern missionary movement. But that is all history.
Tell that to the Acts 29 Network which is planting new churches around the world. Tell that to a new generation of church planters who understands that God ordains not just the ends, but the means and they go to the nations.
Yes, many use their Calvinism to justify their disobedience to the command to make disciples. I wrestle with the fact that I just plain don’t seem to be good at making disciples. I’m better at teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded them. I’ve better at nurture than evangelism. But that is not because of my theology, it is because of who God in His sovereignty made me, and in His grace gifted me. I am glad that many of the new Calvinists reject the (false) dichotomy between mission and doctrine. Our fullest sense of mission arises out of doctrine. Our message of mission arises out of doctrine. Our method of mission arises out of doctrine.
We have much to learn from those who have gone before us. If we listen well, we’ll see that they were people of their own time. They weren’t trying to preserve some past expression of faith. They applied the doctrine of their spiritual forefathers to the circumstances of their day. They wrote new music, and used appropriate methods. And they kept going back to their Bibles to make sure they didn’t go astray.
This new movement gives me hope- for I am in an area uncomfortable with the doctrines of grace, and uncomfortable with thinking biblically. It seems more comfortable with a generic, shallow, nominal and cultural form of Christianity. But there are a growing number of people who are not. God is raising them up to bring glory to His name. And I give thanks.
Excellent, interesting post. I gravitated towards the pure doctrine myself. Almost immediately once I actually got interested in doctrine. I think a key is you have to have the Bible in you from serious reading beforehand.
Dear Mr. Cavman,
Thanks for your post, and I appreciate the personal “testimonial” aspects you shared. I am a Calvinist and new to the blogworld myself, however I would offer one suggestion for your blog. The addition of an “About” or “About me” page would be helpful. I will likely not get myself attached to anonymous blogs. Peace.
The problem I have with Calvinistic faith, as I’ve seen it practiced, is that leaders, pastors, and people in the church spend time with those that THEY believe are called by God. Those they percieve as being “sheep”.
In doing that they almost shun those that they believe are the “goats” or the ones not chosen by God. How can a man really know who is chosen, and who is not?
Gomarus,
I changed my “theme” and did not realize that my pages, including my “About Me” page were not listed. I’ll correct that problem. Thanks!
Maggie,
I think the problem you mention is not a function of Reformed Theology. We surely do have no way of recognizing who the sheep and the goats are, or elect & unelect.
Undiluted Calvinism recognizes the great need to proclaim the Gospel, to be a missionary to your culture. Unfortunately, some have corrupted Calvinism. These hyper-Calvinists reject the “free offer of the Gospel” and do what you have observed. This is surely unbiblical and sinful.
Yet, I also know churches which are decidedly not Reformed that also create the “holy club” mentality and focus on nurture to the diminishment or exclusion of mission. They too are wrong.
I have gone to numerous churches over the years, of many different denominations, as we’ve moved often. I find this problem to be most glaring in the Reformed communities. They are not welcoming of anyone from the outside, who might not believe the way they believe, and are fearful of any thought processes that may differ from theirs.
On the other hand, If we know that God has chosen, and decided who is His, and who isn’t, and it has nothing to do with us, what is the point of believing, and living to please Him anyway, if there’s a chance we aren’t chosen? Why set yourself apart from the rest of the world, if it might not matter anyway?
Maggie,
In Scripture we see that election is not disconnected from faith. Arminians would say that election precedes from faith (foreseen). We say that faith precedes from election.
I am deceiving myself if I think I could possibly be elect if I do not believe the promises of God in Christ. The regenerate person cares- we cannot disconnect the doctrine of election from the doctrines of regeneration, sanctification, adoption etc. What I mean is, a converted person will have a desire to know God, glorify God and enjoy God. This is a result of the work of the Spirit in us.
Yes, many people use truth to excuse their failings. But the question is, which view is more consistent with the Bible.
Yes, many Reformed churches can be elitist, the very opposite of what we should be- humble. I can only speak of the church I pastor- where we try to bring people from where they are to where we believe God wants them to be. We understand this is a process. There is much disagreement on non-essential doctrines among us, but we all have a desire to learn what Scripture teaches us. If a church doesn’t have that desire, it is at best an unhealthy church. And I’m sorry you’ve experienced that among so many Reformed churches. We should repent.
The doctrines of grace sometimes have the opposite effect they should, they puff up rather than humble.
David,
Yes, the flesh takes truth and twists it to its own purposes. That doesn’t make it any less true.
The alternative is some form of Jesus-assisted salvation. And that creates real room to boast.
Understanding the great reformed and classic doctrines of grace (Calvinism, being one) correctly interpreted, that is, should deepen one’s love for God..It is not a repulsive doctrine but a wonderfully compulsive one. The Father draws us to Himself through His Son and shines in our hearts His Glory in the face of His Son and we are forever captured by His love. We are by nature God-rejectors! And what more powerful motivation to preach the Gospel can there be than this: That Jesus has (Acts 18:10)many in your city that are ‘His people’ and all we have to do is preach. They will come, guaranteed! That is truly amazing grace given to both the preacher of the Word and the listener!
Well done.
[...] Just realized today that, along with some other blogs (like this one by a Presbyterian Boston sports fan who wrote this piece about a recent ‘Christianity Today’ cover story on Calvinism’s comeback), this site was mentioned at CelticsBlog.com. Considering how much I enjoy the work Jeff does over at Celtics Blog (and how I’m now really wondering if he is a Christian), I feel very out of my league being mentioned by such a well-run, servicable site. Thanks to Jeff for name-dropping this corner of the web, linking to another great blog I’ll now be reading, and for running such a great site himself. [...]
Luke,
Jeff is a professing Christian, though I’m not sure what particular heritage of Christianity he’s in. He and I haven’t talked about beyond a question concerning the DaVinci Code. Though he would appear to be influenced by dispensational teaching. He seems like a very likeable guy.
That’s awesome that he’s a professing Christian.
Hi! I enjoyed your reflection; I found a link to this page from a Catholic blog that I frequent.
I find studying the theological systems of Christian groups/churches other than my own to be fascinating. For my part, I cannot wrap my head around the Calvinist notion of “limited atonement.” In Catholic systematic theology this matter is tackled by separating notions of the objective Redemption (i.e. the saving life, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ) and subjective redemption (i.e. the application of that Redemption to an individiual in terms of his/her participation in the life of grace).
You might find the following helpful in order to better appreciate the Catholic viewpoint:
Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions
A Biblical Theology of Redemption in a Covenant Framework
The Three Ages of the Interior Life
Doctrine of the Atonement
Supernatural Adoption, Sanctifying Grace, Actual Grace, Controversies on Grace
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Whosebob,
Having grown up Catholic, I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of Catholic theology.
Calvinistic theology isn’t that difficult to grasp pertaining to the atonement. In much of John’s Gospel (the world statements) John is saying that God is concerned with more than Israel- He’s going to save Gentiles too! But in John 10, Jesus says He lays His life down for the sheep (Jew & Gentile as stated within that discourse, sheep of another flock). Paul said that Jesus died for the church.
So, Calvinism teaches that the atonement is limited in its scope, but not its efficacy or effectiveness. Arminianism & other forms of semi-Pelagianism teach it is not limited in terms of its scope, however it is limited in terms of its efficacy or effectiveness.
The Puritan pastor-theologian John Owen put it this way: Either Jesus died
a. for all the sins of all men, and therefore all are saved (universalism)
b. for most of the sins of all men (unbelief must be considered a sin, and most Arminians say we perish for unbelief not our sins), and therefore none are saved, or
c. all of the sins of some men, therefore they are saved.
Hi, cavman, thanks for your response. I grew up Catholic too, but I didn’t know squat — even though I thought I knew a lot — until I started studying the Catholic Faith. There were three principal reasons for my shallow knowledge: [1] the Faith as taught me and my peers was in general “watered down” due to very human limitations of the teachers and their own poor formation (these were mainly volunteer moms and dads who taught CCD (i.e. “sunday school”
and spent more time trying to babysit thant actually teach); [2] in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, homiletics/sermons went way down in quality as there was general confusion among many clerics as to how and on what to preach (which wasn’t really the fault of the Council); [3] there was great and general confusion among many laity, seminarians, priests, bishops, etc. as to what the Church “still taught after Vat. II” (as if it could change fundamentally), and so some wackiness and nuttiness became present in many quarters of the church, which made for some particular goofiness with regards to instruction in private prayer, in the celebration of liturgy, and the way the doctrines of the Church were communicated. By the way, I am 29 y.o., and so what I’m relating pertains primarily to the 80s and 90s, but the 60s and 70s saw similar problems in the immediate wake of the Council. I don’t know during what decades you “grew up Catholic,” so that’s why I’m pointing out all of this.
What I’ve written above isn’t intended to be the heart of my reply — my point though is that it’s by going to primary sources that the Catholic Faith (or almost any subject) can be genuinely learned or evaluated. [content edited by Cavman due to a series of hyperlinks]
Now … your paraphrase of Owen is interesting. I think the big disconnect there between Catholics and Protestants (particularly Calvinists) is in our models of the Atonement. When I read those bullet points, I see behind them an assumption that the Redemption operated principally or strictly by way of substitutionary punishment. In other words, all of the punishment that was due the elect was suffered instead by Christ. In other words, the debt against justice was satisfied by God the Father pouring out His wrath on the Word Incarnate that otherwise would have been directed at the elect per their suffering post mortem eternal damnation. Is that correct? It would be hard to continue the dialogue in earnest without my clearly understanding your perspective. Suffice it to say that the Western Catholic doctrine of the Atonement is not formulated in that manner.
By the way, we could continue this discussion in a new thread on CAF or some other message board, if you so desired.
Prayerfully and with respect,
Michael Bradley
Michael,
I have studied plenty of original documents.
Yes… we believe in a substitutionary penal substitution. As did Anselm in Cur Deus Homo.
I have a strong feeling we are not going to agree on these matters. From the perspective of Vatican II, I am not a brother in ignorance, but am considered an apostate. Since Scripture is my final authority, on a higher level than church tradition, I reject many of the doctrines of Rome and stand condemned by the Council of Trent. So, I’m not really sure dialogue would be profitable. Neither of us seems likely to change our minds- which are worlds apart.
Cavman wrote:
“The Puritan pastor-theologian John Owen put it this way: Either Jesus died
a. for all the sins of all men, and therefore all are saved (universalism)
b. for most of the sins of all men (unbelief must be considered a sin, and most Arminians say we perish for unbelief not our sins), and therefore none are saved, or
c. all of the sins of some men, therefore they are saved.”
What about:
d. for all the sins of all men, and therefore some are saved by grace, through faith.
John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
Belief. Now that’s the million dollar topic, isn’t it? Can man choose to believe, or does God make man believe?
John 3:18 - “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” Does God condemn a lion for killing? Put another way - can a lion sin? No. Of course not. It is simply doing what God created it to do - acting according to its nature.
If we, as human beings created in the image and likeness of God, were not truly gifted with the free will to choose, could we sin? Did Adam sin? Did he freely choose to eat from the tree that God had commanded him to stay away from, or did God create an imperfect being with a nature that rejected God? Genesis 1:31 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”
Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.” Is faith also “the gift of God” referred to here? Is it a work? Hebrews 11:1 states “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Romans 3:27 – “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? (works) No, but on that of faith.” Romans 4:5 – “…to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” It is by grace alone that we have been saved.
Romans 9:30-33 – What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’ As it is written: ‘See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’”
Praying for a revival of mission and glad worship of God amongst the nations
I posted some thots on this revival in the asian context
http://hedonese1.blogspot.com
Jschroter,
Sadly the discussion is about the extent of the atonement. How one receives the benefits of the atonement is a different question. Both Reformed and Arminian would say faith.
Where they differ is why is man able to believe? Did Jesus purchase all our graces, including saving faith & repentance (as the Reformed view understands Scripture) or did He purchase some form of prevenient grace, freeing all men from the bondage to sin (Arminianism)?
I believe in a real atonement, a real salvation. Jesus gives the faith He commands. YOu are talking about a potential salvation- only made potent by faith.
Sorry you didn’t understand the context. But you still have not sufficiently answered Owen’s vise from an Arminian perspective.
The love of the Father as demonstrated through the Son may defy man’s logic! Dr. Owen’s propositions can only be true if his underlying (and unstated) assumptions on the nature of God are true. that is, Dr. Owen conceives of God in Aristotelean terms, unmoved mover, pure actuality, no potentiality. Aristotle’s categories are true enough if you’re talking about the mechanical design of gears, but has little relevance in discussing the mystery of the Father’s love. Aristotle’s categories are not Biblical categories. For Dr. Owen love is not God’s nature!!! rather, “by love is meant an act of his will”. God wills to love some, wills to hate others. I affirm rather that the Father is pure love in his innermost being. And what he is in his innermost being, he is in all his works and ways.
Never heard anyone call John Owen Aristotelean. Most Protestants are influenced by Augustine, and rejected the influence of Aristotle that marked Roman Catholic theology, particularly Aquinas.
So are you saying all those passages in the Bible about those people God hates are incorrect?
No, God’s holiness results in a passion for righteousness, which can be described as his hatred or wrath of sin. Amos 5:21 certainly comes to mind. My comments on God as love in his innermost being were meant to contrast with Dr. Owen’s assertion (as I understand him) that love is an act of the will, in other words, love is derivative from the will of God (and therefore he is not love in his innermost being!). Owen states that “We, on the contrary, say that by love here is not meant an inclination or propensity of his nature, but an act of his will” (Quote may be found with Acrobat if you have a PDF version of Owen’s “Death of Death in the Death of Christ”) In the same context Owen argues that “a natural affection in God to the good and salvation of all, being never completed or perfected, carrieth along with it a great deal of imperfection” The ideas that Dr. Owen expresses are very similar to Aristotle who taught (as I understand him) that there are no unrealized potentialities in God the Unmoved Mover who is pure actuality. Thus an Unmoved Mover does not love because love would involve potentiality. On this basis I see Dr. Owen as reading Aristotelean ideas of God back into the Bible. Of course, for me, the most important critique of Dr. Owen’s logic is that it does not accord with the plain, straightforward meaning of such Scriptures as John 3:16; 1 John 2:1-2; 2 Cor. 5:19: 1 Tim. 2:4-6; Heb 2:9 and so forth; however, I know it would not be a profitable use of time for either of us to go *there*. Well, I came into work to do some O.T. on Saturday, and am writing over lunch. I gotta get back to work. I do affirm the mirifica commutatio, the wonderful exchange, that Christ takes to himself our sin, enmity, death to give us what is his, his righteousness, love and eternal life.
I’ve been thinking further … I hope my last comment about the inadvisability of discussing scriptures did not come across sarcastic. Not meant to be.
Well, I think Owen sufficiently handles the various uses of “world” in The Death of Death. So I shall not exegete them. I believe I did mention the different contexts in an earlier comment in this thread.
To say that God chooses to love some and not love others does not make him the unmoved mover. Something is moving him, it just isn’t us.
We must reckon with Exodus 33, which Paul quotes in handling the issue of predestination, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion.”
His attributes cannot be separated out and prioritized (as supralapsarians do with his power). That He is love also means that His is an infinite, holy, sovereign, gracious, almighty…. love.
One of my points was that Dr. Owen *does* appear to prioritize will before love. Dr. Owen is asserting that love and hate proceed from and are derived from a prior act of will. My comment on unmoved mover was in regard to potentiality. For Dr. Owen it is a defect of God for him to experience potentiality. It is this idea which stems from Aristotle. Well, I will sign off now. This is your web site and you can have the last say. Regarding the scriptures, we are looking at the same data, but coming to very different conclusions. This is illustrative of the general issues between your school of thought and the rest of Christianity.
Mike,
Well, there are lots of groups in Christianity. It is not as if you have Reformed folks on one side, and the rest on another. This is particularly true due to the advent of Open Theism.
Yes, I believe in a God who accomplishes all that He wishes. Yes, I believe in a God who does not “wish” He could have done more, or that I’d made a different choice.
I do know my heart, and when I’m honest with myself the only reason I love Him is that He chose me and regenerated me. Apart from that, I am dead in sins and trespasses and serve my sinful nature, the fallen world and the Evil One (Ephesians 2). If God only provides potential salvation- we are all hell-bound, because of the realities Paul labors over in Romans 1-3. There is none that seeks God.
Thanks for visiting.
Oh, agreed. There are many groups across “this fruited plain” We are all various “fruits”, some of us perhaps, fruitcakes. Okay, I said I was signing off, but one last question. Your comments above immediately evoked in my mind the scripture regarding Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. Is he just weeping over the elect? Or does weeping not mean weeping? It certainly sounds as if he is grieving over a situation that he would desire to have a different outcome.
One of the beauties of the Westminster Confession of Faith is that it states that though God is sovereign, and all He decrees shall come to pass, He does no violence to the will of the creature (that would be you and me).
So, God is not preventing people from coming to faith. And Jesus is honestly sad that the majority of Israel chose to reject Messiah and invite wrath. As we also see in Ezekiel, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He rejoices in justice, but not that image bearers have rebelled, refused to repent and are not condemned.
The WCF lives within (most of) the tensions of Scripture. God is sovereign & we are responsible. Most of us try to play these off against one another, but we can’t. If we let go of the tension, we go right off the track. Yup, there is tons of mystery here. But we must affirm that which is clear. I think Reformed Theology does a good job of that (living within the tensions. You would disagree, I’m sure. But are you living in the tensions, or going off course with one extreme or the other?
Thanks for your response and that is a helpful clarification. For all of us, we must seek to live within the tensions, this is something I am very conscious of. Time constraints are catching up with me (family and 5 kids) and busy work schedule. So, am signing off again. I will now be able to discuss such issues as these directly with a PCA pastor who lives in town here and with whom I have a good repoire. This will be a more fruitful venue.
Hi friend,
I enjoyed your response to the CT treatment of Calvinism. I’m a former Vermonter and Celtic fan and transplanted to Wisconsin. You would find many a kindred spirit over at http://www.puritanboard.com/
Come and check us out, you would have much to contribute to our community.
Blessings sir and have a great day,
Bob Vigneault