Expectations: What You Should Expect From My Obervations of ‘The Young, Restless, Reformed’

Posted on by

I just wanted to do a little ground clearing on what you all can expect in regards to some future posts I am going to be doing on Matt Chandler’s and John Piper’s & the whole gang’s Calvinism:

  1. My intended audience is the lay and pastoral thinking person (academics can read and respond too, but I suspect you will be already aware of most things I will be highlighting).
  2. I don’t have any silver bullets, so I don’t want you to be underwhelmed by my observations. Most of what I will say is not original to me, and is already available elsewhere if you know where to look (of course that’s why some might be interested in what I have to say, because you might not know where to look).
  3. My tone will be to be as charitable as possible. I never have looked at this ‘divide’ (doctrinally) as one that questions anyone’s salvation or ultimate Christianity; my concern, while deathly serious, has to do with folk’s Christian spirituality and daily walk with Jesus. So I don’t want anyone to think that I am questioning any of these guys’ salvation—that notwithstanding, I am questioning the Christian moorings that 5 point Calvinism (esp. North American flavor) in the church/pulpit culture actually provides (or does not!).
  4. With the latter point noted, I will be passionate about what I write; I don’t believe in dispassionate scholarship or teaching, and so this passion of mine ought to be evident (even now!). That said, I do believe that we can and should be sober-passionate; meaning that I will seek to be fair and Christian in my characterizations and observations (that’s the benefit, for me, from doing this online … I have you all to keep me honest … of course I reserve the right to keep you honest too πŸ˜‰ ).
  5. I will end this with a fifth point πŸ˜‰ … The need I see for doing an observational project like this on the blog; is that there are still much needed voices who will sound off about what in fact is wrong in Evangelicalism, in general, and the impact that movements (within Evangelicalism) like The Gospel Coalition and Together For the Gospel (and to a lesser extent The Shepherd’s Conferences) are having upon my brethren and sistren in relation to the doctrinal trajectory that these movements are charting for all who are participating (whether directly or indirectly). This is my motivation, to simply notice the impact; and then to identify an alternative way to consider how we ought to think about God and the Church and Salvation for Evangelicalism in particular—and to do all of this in accessible, churchy level ways.

6 thoughts on “Expectations: What You Should Expect From My Obervations of ‘The Young, Restless, Reformed’”

  1. I look forward to your observations Bobby. I also take note and thank you that you don’t use it to question ones mark of salvation. It’s an area I have struggled with in the past myself, while working along side other denominations and people of differing Christian belief systems.

  3. If this branch of Christianity has the God of the philosophers/theologians (C.T.) which is wrong, why can’t you say they are following a false God and therefore their salvation isn’t secured, since false Gods can’t save. It seems that if C.T. is damaging to the spirituality of millions, we who believe that C.T. is wrong, should call a spade a spade and do evangelism to them, much like we would to a Mormon or J.W. How can it be damaging to the spirituality of it adherents and not be dangerous for their ultimate Salvation? I can’t really see such a clean division between ones practice and ones doctrine – if the doctrine is off the practice is off.

  4. Hey Kenny,

    But I think Mormons and JWs are different from Calvinists and classical theists in general; that is, because, of course they deny that God is Triune and then of course believe that Jesus is a creation. Their metaphysics and self-conscious rhetoric correlate in this belief. Calvinists affirm the tenets of historic Christian orthodoxy, but they have accepted a grammar and metaphysics that betrays what they seek to affirm. So I see them as confused in ‘second order’ things, which they need to be helped to see as faulty; and thus repent of, and receive the more accurate way of understanding things. But I do see the logic of your question.

  5. How is the Doctrine of God ‘second order’ ? Their ( C.T) grammar and metaphysics shape who their God is (once you push them on what they are saying they resort to substance ontology birthed in the middle ages), and they really think God is how they talk about him! You are saying the Classic Calvinists have a wrong concept of God, and that God is damaging people. Your project seems to be to inform people on the right way to think, and speak about God. You start from the incarnation, not from medieval philosophical categories. They speak of Christ in the constrained framework of substance ontology, you speak about him in terms of revealed relationship between father and son. Am I wrong here?

  6. No, Doctrine of God is not second order; maybe the way I see this Kenny is that CT provides a heterodox position and not heretical; the latter would be damning, if followed, the former represents serious and hurtful confusion, but not damnation or anathema. I will have to flesh that out more later.

Comments are closed.