Cutting through the Confusion about What to Call “the New Calvinism”

The mention of Calvinism may provoke revulsion or comfort—but it rarely produces apathy. 

“Calvinism,” journalist H.L. Mencken opined in 1937, “occupies a place in my cabinet of private horrors but little removed from that of cannibalism.” Mencken included these words in his obituary for J. Gresham Machen, a Presbyterian theologian who whispered on his deathbed, “Isn’t the Reformed faith grand?” The same doctrines that elicited exultations from the lips of one man incited comparisons to sautéing your next-door neighbor in another. Perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us, then, that the most recent surge of interest in Reformed theology has ignited joy in some hearts and panic in others.

Over the past several years, an overabundance of possible names for this movement has also sparked no small measure of confusion. “Young, restless, Reformed” was the nomenclature that Collin Hansen selected for an article and book about his journey with “the new Calvinists”—a group that’s also been dubbed “neo-Reformed,” “neo-Calvinist,” and even “neo-Puritan."

Continue at  Timothy Paul Jones

What’s the Christian Life About?

By the number of books you find under the subject-header “Christian Living,” we can either assume that there’s a lot to say on the topic or that Christians still have no idea what their life is really all about. This confusion is nothing new. 

Many Christians in the 3rd and 4th centuries thought that moving to monasteries in the desert was a step forward in the Christian life and ministry.

But what would today’s evangelicals say is the the point of the Christian life?

Confusion on Christian Life and Ministry

Some would say the Christian life is about spiritual disciplines. Read your Bible daily and through the year, subscribe to a devotional magazine, keep a current prayer journal, and ensure that it’s all consistent and organized. You observe this among Christians who measure spiritual maturity by the consistency of their “quiet time” and who’ll address any sin or spiritual malady with “You need to read your Bible more.” Often, you’ll notice a discrete ambivalence to the public services of the local church – even forsaking it for “quiet time.”    Continue at Steve Meister

Misconceptions about Justification and Sanctification

I have benefited from reading the comments on the wide variety of blogs that have picked up the discussion between Tullian Tchividjian and me on the subject of total depravity, the Christian, and the doctrine of sanctification.  In some respects, these conversations are most valuable in terms of the interplay that takes place in the comments.  I have been helped by reading what people are thinking and want to thank those who have commented, whether positively or negatively about me.  I have found, however, a number of misconceptions that it may help to have cleared up.  Here are five points that I hope will clarify this discussion:

      1. Total depravity is not proved by arguing for the on-going presence of sin in the believer.  The point of total depravity is the spiritual inability of the sinner so that he or she will not and cannot respond positively to God through faith (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3).  To say that Christians cannot be totally depraved is not to argue that they do not continue to wrestle with sin, sometimes profoundly.  The point that I am making is that while Christians will continue to sin, it is not because we must do so.  We have been freed from the reign of sin (Rom. 6:6-12), though not from sin's presence (1 Jn. 1:8).  As Augustine put it, whereas before our conversion we were not able not to sin, in Christ we now are able not to sin.

2.  Luther's wonderful formula, simil justus et peccator (simultaneously just and a sinner), is the Reformation doctrine of justification, not sanctification.  To use this response to questions of sanctification is simply to change the subject.  With respect to sanctification, Christians are saints (1 Cor. 1:2).  To deny being a saint, as well as a justified sinner, is simply to deny being a Christian.   Continue at Rick Phillips    See also: We are Sanctified in Christ, but not Perfect Yet

 

Shallow Evangelicals are Suceptible to Charismatic Frauds

Some of the most popular and dangerous evangelical fads of the past fifteen years have involved waves of charismatic fervor that have sown confusion and discord in every culture where they have been embraced. I'm talking about the Toronto Blessing (where "holy laughter" and other forms of pseudo-drunkenness were declared to be signs the Holy Spirit was moving); the Kansas City Prophets (a movement led by a group of self-appointed seers whose prognostications were usually false and whose private morals were even worse); the Pensacola outpouring (whose major features were gold dust and gold tooth fillings that supposedly appeared miraculously, but the revival disbanded amid charges of fraud and embezzled funds). Then (most recently) those movements were all eclipsed by a supposed revival in Lakeland, Florida whose leader embodied all those errors and turned out to be twice as much a son of hell as all the religious scoundrels he imitated (cf. Matthew 23:15).

Here's how Charisma magazine summed up that debacle: Keep Reading...

Confused about Catholicism, Part 4

Beyond the general contradiction between the Bible and Catholic teaching on justification are the specifics along the way. In Catholicism, water baptism (usually of infants) takes away original sin on the soul.4 Yet the Bible is clear that the gospel which saves the soul (1 Cor 15:1-4) does not include water baptism (1 Cor 1:17). Thus, to participate in the practice in the Roman Church is to depart from biblical teaching. In Catholicism, penance is practiced as a precondition to communion. Simply understood, penance is doing something good to make up for something bad, usually in the form of repetitious prayers using a rosary. Certainly, restitution is a good thing. If a man steals from his neighbor, he needs to make things right by his neighbor. The idea of penance in the Catholic Church, however, is not the same and is sometimes substituted for the concept of repentance. Read the rest HERE

Confused about Catholicism, Part 3

The biblical evangelical does not dismiss church tradition and church authority as if they have no role to play in life. Paul told the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thess 2:15). Here the idea of tradition in the sense of apostolic teaching is clear. From the vantage point of our historical moment, we are talking about biblical teaching. It just does not include the concept of “Roman” authority and centrality. In addition, Paul commands Titus, who apparently serves as a church emissary from the apostle, to “rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). Elders are to be obeyed according to the author of Hebrews as they minister the Word of God to their flocks (Heb 13:7, 17). However, there is no passage of Scripture which actually conveys the notion of a global network of bishops headed up by one man who mediates the interpretation of this word. Read the rest HERE

Confused about Catholicism, Part 2

Roman Catholics and evangelicals agree on the nature of God. At the most basic level, both view God in the sense of classical theism. What is meant by classical theism is that there is one Creator God2 who is personal, transcendent, and immanent. Note the following declaration from the Vatican I council (1869-70) which is still official church dogma:

The holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one true and living God, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. He is almighty, eternal, beyond measure, incomprehensible, and infinite in intellect, will and in every perfection. Since he is one unique spiritual substance, entirely simple and unchangeable, he must be declared really and essentially distinct from the world, perfectly happy in himself and by his very nature, and inexpressibly exalted over all things that exist or can be conceived other than himself. read the rest HERE

Confused about Catholicism, Part 1

One of the greatest shocks in the history of the Evangelical Theological Society occurred in May 2007 when the president of the organization, the respected Francis Beckwith, resigned his position and membership because he had become a Roman Catholic.1 Beckwith, currently Associate Professor of Philosophy and Church-Studies at Baylor University (traditionally a Baptist school), had left the Catholic church when he was fourteen years old and was now returning to his roots after many years in evangelical churches.

The official response from the ETS Executive Committee was cordial, thanking Beckwith for his past work for the society, but highlighting the necessity of a parting of the ways largely because “we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the ‘Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety’ as ‘the Word of God written and…inerrant.’” Read the rest HERE