**Repost**
There are a slew of ministries today that are promoting an enlivened Calvinism for the masses; whether that be by radio, books, pulpits, or the internet. Off the top I can think of just a few that are making quite the impact:
- John MacArthur, through his radio/preaching ministry, his church, his books, his study Bible, etc., etc.
- Michael Horton, through his radio program (White Horse Inn), books, and lectureship at Westminster Seminary.
- John Piper, also through his radio/preaching ministry, his church, books, etc., etc.
Each one of these characters has their own unique brand and emphases, relative to their articulation of Calvinism. MacArthur follows a more ‘Baptistic’ “Spurgeonized” Calvinism, with an emphasis upon good expositional preaching; and a call for holy living (he is more Fundy in approach and socio/culturally). John Piper is similar in many ways to MacArthur, although he is more steeped in the ‘history’ of Covenantal Calvinism drawing off of his background with the Puritans; in particular his appeal to many of Jonathan Edwards’ themes. And then Michael Horton, who is a full-fledged Federal Covenantalist who approaches things much more “historically” and “academically;” which is only natural given his profession as an professor.
Each one of these figures offers a different angle on Calvinism —some more consistent, historically, than others— but they also offer an certain commonality in emphasis; and that is, that they all follow the style of Calvinism codified at the Synod of Dordrecht and evinced through the Westminster Catechism. As far as communicating salvation goes, each of these fellows find their directive from the TULIP.
Instead of trying to unearth (re-invent the wheel) the history and theological (loci) focal points of Calvinism, of which there is legion; I just want to comment on this rather amazing phenomenon that seems to be sweeping large pockets of Christendom. And that is the in-roads and re-emergence that Calvinism seems to be making amongst both the young and old, Christian. Let me posit a few reasons why I think this is happening:
[B]ecause of the shallowness and decline exemplified in much of ‘Evangelical Christianity’.
[B]ecause of the lack of doctrine being promulgated within ‘Evangelical Christianity’.
[B]ecause people want some guidelines, they want some real-life structure and infrastructure for what they believe.
[B]ecause people are tired of hearing sermons about themselves, and they want to hear an emphasis upon Christ through biblical exposition.
[B]ecause there really are no other alternatives but to return to the “Old Paths” that Calvinism appears to offer.
I know there are plenty more reasons why folks seem to be turning to Calvinism (have any suggestions?), but by-and-large I think that it has something to do with the realization that ‘Evangelical’ Christianity (whether the style be: ‘Purpose/Market Driven’, ‘Emergent Driven’, or ‘Independent Fundamentalist Driven’) is becoming quite bankrupt in regards to providing a Christianity that is robust enough to answer the deep felt questions that the issues of this life throw at us every single day.
When people (and many are) get to this point where do they turn? Either they completely leave the church (and I know some are doing that, according to the “statistics”), become ‘Liberal’ and find the substance and community they are looking for in political causes and social justice issues; or maybe they see the arms of MacArthur, Piper, and Horton opened up saying: “. . . come find rest for your souls weary pilgrim.”
Do you see what I am getting at (and indeed, I am generalizing)? There has been a vacuum created through the “man-centered” approaches and [non]doctrinal forays provided by the broader portion of “Evangelicalism” for years. Calvinism offers just the opposite, by reputation and assertion. It offers doctrine, devotion, and depth for the disenfranchised ‘Evangelical’.
But what if the sparkling beacon of rest that Calvinism appears to be (for your average church person searching for depth) turns out to be just as “man-centered” as the “Evangelicalism” they are fleeing? What if “Calvinism” is promising more than it can deliver? These are questions that should be considered by the tired souls in search of the “truth” of the Gospel. But indeed, that is part of the problem, so many are ‘tired’ they just want rest; they just want someone to tell them that it is all okay, “here’s the doctrines of Grace that they have been deprived of for so many years.” People, tired people, especially, are ready to hear that! They begin to immerse themselves in this new deep culture, they read books by MacArthur —not the fickle flamboyant stuff they are used to, mind you— with titles like: The Gospel According to Jesus, or Hard to Believe. This isn’t the flimsy-flighty stuff their CEO’s, uh *#&% argh, I mean their mega-church pastors were slinging at them from their pulpits. No, oh no! This has guts, it sounds like Jesus’ kind of stuff in chapters like John 6; finally, the depth, the substance these folks have been longing for. No more of that Christless Christianity, they have finally come into a Christian situation where Desiring God is emphasized; a place where there is an opportunity for Putting Amazing Back into Grace!
Maybe what I am describing sounds curiously true to your own situation. Maybe you’ve even swung this way, believing that popular Calvinism was the answer to your “Evangelical woes;” but now you are realizing that maybe, theologically, there are certain problems (along with certain pros) that didn’t ap
pear at the euphoric ‘honey-moon’ stage you were in when first introduced to this ‘new-way’.
I haven’t (in this post) really elaborated on the ‘problems’ that are inherently endemic to ‘TULIP’ style Calvinism; but maybe I don’t need to, maybe you know those all too well. Certainly you recognize an array of variable “truths” packed into the Calvinist themes; but you realize that there might be something ‘rotten in Denmark’, that Calvinism still seems to be pointing you in the direction of yourself. Sure you have found quite a bit of substance, relative to the ‘old Rick Warren’ days; but now you are wondering if the ‘substance’ measures up to the right kind of ‘substance’.
Or maybe you have found what you were looking for in the halls of ‘Dordt’, and you think that, especially by now, I am full of hot air π (indeed)!
Either way, let me know . . . what you think on this front.
P. S. By the way, I’m not an Arminian or a follower of Popular/Contemporary Free Grace Theology —- I am quite ‘Reformed’ (an Evangelical Calvinist, don’t you know)!
Hey Bobby,Just thought I'd pop in and browse through a few posts.This one is interesting, as I would most likely tend toward being "Calvinist" (HATE that term, though).I can relate well to the concept of the TULIP "honey-moon" phase that at first glance, offers peace and then (as I began taking the teachings more seriously) a total confusion and frustration because my entire focus turned inward as I constantly fretted whether "I" was of the elect and how I could be sure I wasn't just fooling myself.I began counting and measuring "fruit" (instead of testing for quality) to be sure I wasn't straying off the path of true righteousness. Really, I ended up looking more at myself than at Christ and I was trying to nail down some sort of system by which I could be sure I'm actually on the "narrow path". Everything about salvation all boiled down to my performance.I expect there are people who can adopt a pre-formed theological framework and it helps to bring clarity and a better understanding of Scripture.Sadly, I'm not one of those people.
Heather,I think you're one of the only people I've ever talked to who has admitted that trying to follow "TULIP" has led them to look at themselves, more, instead of Christ. Thanks for sharing that testimony; your's is not different from many of the Puritans who also understood the implications of TULIP or experimental predestinarianism. I'm glad that you've "seen through it."Merry Christmas,BobbyP.S. And thank you guys for your "gift!" That was amazing, we totally appreciate your thoughtfulness and giving hearts! We are still going to be sending out thank you cards in the near future.Love, Bobby
Well, I can't take any credit for being able to see that the framework is potentially flawed.God hasn't let me be comfortable with finding a nice, tidy little box in which I may stuff Him. Not that I think TULIP is totally wrong–just that it seems to be so tightly interlaced that it is somewhat constrictive and frustrating to work with. I don't think I can accurately read my Bible through that pair of glasses.It is interesting to me how many professing Calvinist/TULIP sorts appear to have equated Calvin's writings (or their understanding of them) with Scripture itself. I've seen the statement that "Calvinism is the most accurate understanding of Scripture. Therefore, I'm a Calvinist because Calvin taught what the Bible teaches" which *might* be true—but still it is an understanding based on the writings of a man who took the time to search Scripture for himself.I have an awful tendency to cling to human wisdom and anymore, I get really nervous that if I pin on the Calvinist TULIP badge, I'll be tempted to ignore what the Bible actually says in order to try to defend my new creed.On a softer note, the gift is definitely from the Lord. We can thank Him together that He provides for the members of His body and graciously allows other members to be a part of that :)God bless.
Greetings Bobby,As a fledgling Christian I have found myself drawn (these last four interesting years)to the enrapturing "doctrines of grace"…particularly Calvin's view on election. And yet in the midst of all this I find myself most at home with the Arminian/Mennonite sort. To be sure, I find their attempts at soteriology rather pitiful, but in the end they are the ones who call me "beloved", who cook me a meal, who enjoy life, who take me into the beauty of God. I feel like a part of the family with Mennonites. One may counter and say," Ahh! You see? You've harloted yourself off to feelings rather than the truth." And yet the point of this "new movement of Calvinism" (at least according to Bobby) is its promise of "rest, peaceful consolation in the doctrines of Grace". Yet frequently I find the outworkings of the new calvinism to spawn a sort of "works-righteousness" that hides so keenly behind airtight predications of "grace". As a previous poster implied," How will I ever know that I am elect? By golly, when my life bears good fruit!" Experientially I find the division between relying on ones works to be saved and relying on ones works TO KNOW that one is saved only paper-thin. Never have I felt so restless as in reading the old Puritan calvinists and their stern tests of determining ones own salvation; their gloomy investigations into sin and its just consequences; their pious sadness… And as I read the writings of the new Calvinists I certainly never have the feeling that God is indeed "Abba…Father Dearest!" (well, perhaps he is to the privelidged few who have finally stumbled onto the infallible evidence of election) and I certainly never walk away with a sure feeling of "this is the resting place, and now I can rest". That's ok too; I cannot for a minute offer something better in its stead and finally must accept Macarthur, Horton and Piper as appointed men of God and true teachers of the Word.But in terms of where I have discovered rest (while still adamantly clinging to unconditional election, eternal security etc..) is in the writings of Martin Luther, Phillip Yancey, Henri Nouwen, Dallas Willard, Spurgeon, Tozer, C.S. Lewis, Karl Barth, Richard Foster, Martyn-Lloyd Jones etc…I would be loathe to call any of those men "gospel-light" or "Purpose/Market driven"; and that only two of the above count as being distinctly "calvinist" does not preclude the rest of being deeply and madly in love with Jesus, or of opening great doorways into the exciting things of God through the sacred scriptures. I find myself accepted by these brothers; allowed to be "calvinist" and yet fully welcomed into their celebrations of Jesus Christ.For a troubled and weary soul, I turn to see the incredible smile of Henri Nouwen, who soflty says," I know, from my own life, how diligently I have tried to be good, acceptable, likable, and a worthy example for others. There was always the conscious effort to avoid the pitfalls of sin and the constant fear of giving in to temptation. But with all of that there came a seriousness, a moralistic intensity-and even a touch of fanatacism-that made it increasingly difficult to feel at home in my Father's house. I became less free, less spontaneous, les playful…"I guess there is something to be said for a dose of eclecticism in the Kingdom of God.
Heather,I think what you've said is right on; and I think evinces discernment. We want to always test all things hold fast to what is good, and I think because of that you've seen through what many in the church continue to miss. I don't think the Spirit ever gives us comfort in dogma that points us to self and away from Christ — and the TULIP, classically construed certainly does that.Again, thank you guys for the "gift," we we're amazed and blessed by it!Hi Emerson,And welcome. Have you read any of T.F. Torrance? I think what you'll find here at the blog is a 'new/old' calvinism that draws off of a heritage (namely 'Scottish Theology') that certainly believes in unconditional election; but that grounds that in Christ's vicarious humanity (not in particular people). I think one must follow this logic, simply because it represents the 'inner-logic' of the Incarnation and Jesus' 'real humanity' (if He only died for the 'elect' then we must assume a Nestorian christology). Thank you for sharing your testimony. Your electicism actually makes you very 'Evangelical' (in the contemporary understanding of that word); I would invite you to read a bit more here at the blog, and see what you think about what we are calling 'EC'.
God sent Jesus to earth to reveal to man His true character and who He really is. Man writes a book, with God's help, called the bible. Man takes bible and makes dogma. Man proceeds to equal man-made dogma with thruth of scripture itself. Man starts worship dogma, not Jesus or the Father. Man creates an idol called dogma. Man takes himself a bit too serious. Man is narrow minded and stupid.- Leo
Leo,There's "good dogma" and "bad dogma." You seem to be talking about the latter.
PIPED PIPER JOHN INVITES RICK WARREN HERETIC TO DG 2010 !
FIRST THE CLOSE WORK WITH EMERGENT CHURCH MARK DRISCOLL FOLLOWED BY A 8 MONTH LEAVE FROM MINISTRY DUE TO β UNNAMED PRIDE ..? β NOW HIS DESIRING GOD CONFERENCE HAS NOTED HERETIC PROSPERITY GOSPEL MONEY HUNGRY MEGACHURCH AUTHOR RICK WARREN AS A SPEAKER. WHATβS SAD IS SO MANY YOUTH OF TODAY PASTORS OF TOMORROW FOLLOW PIPERβS HEDONIST DOCTRINE OF PREACHING TEACHING & WRITINGS ! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH JOHN, COME BACK TO YOUR FIRST LOVE !!
MRWBBIII
This is no place for slander! To say someone is a heretic is a heavy charge; how is Warren a heretic according to doctrinal norms provided by scripture and the historic Christian church?
I think that folks throw this word around way too casually, and remember what Jesus said, “we will all give an account for the words that we speak,” so be careful!
Oh man!
When I first fell into blogland, I ran across a couple of sites that proclaimed several well-known pastors (including two of the featured men on your OP) as well as all Calvinists and Arminians and/or non king James users, to be heretics. Then, the blog authors went on to condemn those who sinfully taint themselves by associating with them or listening to or reading their stuff.
I was messed up for months–scared to death that I’d go to hell because I’d apparently been fooled and actually had benefited from some of the things they teach.
Glad you’ve gotten beyond this, Heather. There are all kinds of quacks out there, as you know by now; the thing is, anyone can make assertions, the issue is that assertions are just that. And the blogosphere is typically based upon assertions. Substantiation is hard to come by, because it takes time and development; which the blog format is not set up for. So I would take anything I read on blogs with a grain of salt.
remember about the false teacher that “1Ti 6:4-5 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, (5) and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”
Everytime my mind starts heresy hunting I try to remember this verse about craving controversy. If the Corinthians and Galatians were “real” Christians than we need to have a bit more grace too.
Great points, Matt; thanks for the comment.
Bobby,
I just got to know your blog and I’ve found it interesting because you touch on one of the issues that I’m passionate about. I am a bit familiar with the Reformed tradition, though not as much as you. However, it was Michael Horton that actually made me aware that there were different views in the Reformed tradition as it relates to Salvation (assurance, Lordship Salvation, etc.). I see him and the White Horse Inn as very passionate about making sure people get the gospel right and find their assurance in Christ – staying very clear from any hints of legalism. They definitely differ from John MacArthur in this respect (and also from Piper too). Maybe in other ares, they are all similar, but I think Horton writes passionately for the gospel and against any forms of hybridism in this aspect. What do you think?
Hi Jonathan,
Really glad to have you comment here, welcome!
I think you’re right, in a sense. Of the 3 here, Horton is definitely the scholar/professor. So his vocation calls for him to be somewhat “critical” in the way he identifies contours within the Reformed faith in particular and Christianity in general. Having said that, he is part of the “Reformed” tradition that believes “they’re it!” That they really and only represent the historic thread of the true Westminster style Reformed tradition. In fact the place where he profs WTS California is known for this kind of attitude. Having said this, I’m not saying Horton doesn’t have informative or good critical things to say; but I remain wary, in particular, of the kind of Calvinism that he stands for (which is its classical TULIP/Federal kind of version).
Where would you place yourself on the theological spectrum? Reformed, Arminian, Anabaptist . . . still trying to figure it out etc π ?
Hi Bobby, I used to call myself Reformed, but I probably wouldn’t do so anymore, probably because of the kind of Calvinism/Reformed tradition I’ve learned. So I’m keen to find out more this evangelical calvinism thing π
What I like about Horton is his passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was instrumental in helping me understand the centrality of the gospel – and he made me aware that a lot of Puritans were quite legalistic! The centrality of the gospel is something I’m passionate about. The focus on Christ and His finished work. The focus on God’s grace and love for us. I’m also passionate about social justice. I’m charismatic too and recently I’ve been very interested in the teachings and practice of healing and prophecy.
I’m not sure if you’re actually based in South Africa (your Seminary seems so!) but I love Kobus Van Rensberg’s ministry (Spirit Word). Am also interested in John G. Lake’s ministry. You mentioned RT Kendall. I like his and Michael Eaton’s non-legalistic brand of Calvinism (or whatever you call it) and their openness to charismatism. One thing I notice about a lot of the charismatic leaders and ministries I follow (e.g. Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church) is the focus on God’s grace and love – the Fatherhood of God, the love of the Father, etc. That’s the foundation for Christian living – that empowers us to live lives for God. Charismatics are definitely not so good at handling the Word, but I think there’s a lot of good stuff being taught in many charismatic churches that are transforming lives.
My interest nowadays is very much on charismatic issues like healing and prophecy – especially healing. I love good theology and so I will follow your blog and others that are more theological/academic and try to work out the implications of all I learn on the charismatic issues I’m interested in.
I have a question for you. I’ve read a bit into the Marrow of Modern Divinity. They seem to present a less legalistic side. What are your thoughts on all this?
Jonathan,
I am glad that the Lord used Horton to open your eyes to some things about Calvinism and its history.
I’m going to be doing that PhD by distance, so no, I’m an American located in the State of Washington (sometimes in the state of confusion π ). RT Kendall is okay, he has some helpful points (albeit controversial) on part of John Calvin. I was a part of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa CA and even attended their Bible College for a year (quite awhile ago now). They are considered “semi-charismatic.” I have no problems with the idea that God heals (I know he did, recently, from cancer); I would think of prophecy as forthtelling and proclaiming the Gospel instead of foretelling new revelation and future events. But I’m not a “cessationist” per se.
I’m glad you’re at the blog, comment whenever you feel like it, Jonathan; and hopefully you’ll find something here at “EC” that is edifying for your formation and walk with Christ!
I think the Marrow Men fit, in many ways, with EC; in fact some of them fit right into the Scottish strain that Evangelical Calvinism flows from.
God Bless
I know this post is deader than February, but after reading all the blogin’,I just wanted to remark.
I came here from the ‘lead in’ on the Evang.Calvin. site; where the Piper/Macaurther/Horton trio was indicated as having feet of clay, Where “their” brand of Calvinism is remarked as being somewhat ‘if-y’. While I find Horton being thrown in with those other gents somewhat objectionable, I am nevertheless curious as to what was intended by the insinuations that certain unnamed critiques of- particularly, ‘federal calvinism’ existed. Why not say more? I am certainly curious as to the whos and the whats.
Regarding some of the above posts, I was moderately surprised at the internalist direction some people attributed to their ‘going TULIP’. On the one hand Ican sympathize; while I was still evangelical (calvery chapel style), Our group got our hands on a 5 points book. I was persuaded; indeed had believed these things to a small degree, while the group had its inevitable break up over predestination.
But this was before I became ‘reformed’. Once I came into contact with White Horse Inn and Horton et al, Those days of proving my election were long gone. Indeed that kind of attitude would have seemed slightly infantile at the pre-URC CRC I was attending. I am interested in whether the above posters were referring to similar experiences had in Evangelical camps,or if they had those experiences in reformed environments. The only places I can think of where it might have happened would be either a PRC or uber-OPC congregation. Sometimes an appreciation for those blessed Puritans can have undesireable side effects…
I would want to know why/how Horton and crew get lumped into either the evangelicals who flirt with Calvin group, or the neo-Puritan body.