CarBlogging Episode 2: What’s PREACHING ? What’s EXPOSITORY preaching ?
By BlackCalvinist | July 24, 2010
Here’s the current episode of CarBlogging:
Episode 2: What’s PREACHING ? What’s Expository Preaching ?
If you missed part 1 (What’s Good Preaching ?), click this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E1AMXCHv9E
Topics: theology | 1 Comment »
The Sovereignty of God and HD Crashes
By BlackCalvinist | July 20, 2010
Day before yesterday, while using the laptop near a hard surface, I’d accidentally knocked it over. Mind you, my laptop HD had been gradually starting to click since the middle of last year. I preemptively bought a 630GB internal HD that I’d planned on transferring everything to in late May, but didn’t get around to doing so.
Well, it (my 320GB internal HD in the laptop) finally died, much to my dismay.
I bought a 1TB external for more back ups, but the old 320GB internal isn’t coming up. And I have (literally) 30-50GB of new things I’ve been doing since my last back up (which was January). While it was still in the laptop, it WAS coming up as a Firewire drive, but now as USB….nothing.
It’s another one of those “Live Your Theology” moments, as I’ve found myself having to come back to the point of realizing that even a hardware malfunction with the data arm of a hard drive is not outside of the Sovereign control of God. And once again moving back to Romans 8:28, I must remember that all things (including this) are working together for my ultimate good and His highest glory.
I must not form my theology based on my experiences, but allow my theology to dictate how my experiences should be interpreted rightly. Too many people do it the other way and end up denying that God is God. They say He is ‘Sovereign but not in control’ and other rubbish. They say that God didn’t know the future, otherwise He would’ve never allowed a tree to fall and strike someone’s car, killing them instantly or (fill in your calamity here).
Repeatedly in scripture, we’re confronted with God knowing and ordaining things as tiny as a bird falling from a tree (Matthew 10:28-29) to things as large as kingdoms coming into power and specific rulers coming to power (Cyrus in Isaiah 45, Daniel 4:29-37). It is foolishness to think that God doesn’t know the future or is simply a casual observer to it, fretting all the bad things that happen. It’s insulting to call God a chess player who reacts and ‘always has the upper hand’ after a tragedy of sorts strikes. We cannot speak out of both sides of our mouth and call God Sovereign, yet deny that He is in control of every molecule in the universe.
So while I sit here and pray with my wife, I’ll be putting in a call to MacAuthority in the morning (and a few other places) to see how many hundreds of dollars I’ll be spending to retrieve all the video and audio work I’ve built up since January. In the meantime, I’m thankful for my wonderful wife who has constantly reminded me to pray first before taking out a hammer to strike things and get them working again. 
Topics: Personal, Theological, life | No Comments »
Hilarity from Sacred Sandwich
By BlackCalvinist | July 16, 2010
HT to James White for this link:
http://sacredsandwich.com/archives/7412
Over the past 10 years, I can’t tell you how many discussions went exactly this way….
Over on Puritan Board, someone said that the author gave Arminians too much credit – they don’t quote that much scripture.
Topics: blogwatching! | No Comments »
Album Review @ LDM – Elation Foundation, TCDC Q&A….
By BlackCalvinist | July 10, 2010
My review of Elation Foundation, Evangel’s second solo project, is out and up at Life | Doctrine | Music. Enjoy and go pick up the album.
In addition, I’ll be doing an extended Q&A session over the next few months related to apologetics and theology.
So all you folks with questions on different aspects of Christianity (theology, morals and ethics, apparent bible contradictions, logic, etc…)… feel free to drop them off here: http://theologicallycorrect.com/feedback.
No questions are too hard. Truth isn’t afraid of questions.
Take care and God Bless!
KG
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Appreciating Mark Driscoll and Theo-Cultural Blindness
By BlackCalvinist | May 16, 2010
Last year, John MacArthur (whom I highly respect) blasted Mark Driscoll on some comments he’d made in a previous sermon on the Song of Solomon overseas. I also found out that in late 08 into 09, Driscoll preached a new series and also did some ’spring cleaning’ to his website for Mars Hill – including deleting the old sermons.
A few weeks ago, while staying up insanely late grading papers (I’m took off from work today to head to a dentist appointment in 6.5 hours of writing this…which means I got sleep for about 3-4 before I went there), I gave a listen to his sermon on Birth Control.
I think, sometimes, that some well-meaning folks have been misreading Driscoll. Someone who visited Fourth Friday Fundamentals a while back stated that ‘if you knew what he had to deal with, you’d understand why he talks the way he talks. In Seattle, this isn’t considered ‘edgy’ – it’s normal’. Listening to one of his (Driscoll’s) comments about how he went into a store and a lady confronted him and asked him why does he have five kids (at which point the lady broke into the overpopulation argument and the lack of food argument…both of which are false), hearing about how people frequently picket his church (mostly feminist groups and homosexual groups), death threats and the like, I understand the man quite a bit more now.
I *am* glad that he’s cleaned up his language over the years. Earlier in the decade, some of the things coming from his mouth made it pretty impossible for me to recommend him as anything more than a Christian shock-jock. I’m glad to say (from listening to some of his more recent sermons) that he’s matured a bit, specifically since speaking at the DG Conference on the very issue of language a couple of years ago.
Mark Driscoll isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea. If you come from a micropresbyterian denomination where you hold strictly to the RPW, don’t do much interaction on social media and/or watch anything other than FoxNews and the History Channel, Mark Driscoll *might* appear worldly to you, since he does something your church tends not to do – interact with the culture, critique it from a biblical standpoint, confront worldliness and persistent sin directly and call it what it is without selling out the gospel (versus simply cursing the darkness from inside the citadel of light you inhabit). If you are easily offended at someone actually showing passion and emotion in their preaching…. you probably don’t like John Piper. So you probably won’t like Driscoll either. You probably won’t care for the music at his church either.
That’s okay. No one’s making it mandatory for you to listen to him. But I *do* see him attacking from a pastoral perspective, a lot of tough questions and he has a tendency to nail them head on biblically.
Oh wait – now you think he’s all ‘practical’ and not doctrinal. To those folks I’ll simply say….check his sermon archive on the Mars Hill website. He does a good job of being both biblical and practical, as good preaching should be.
Anyway, that’s my present take on the issue. I can recommend Driscoll now, even while I don’t agree with everything he does at MHC. If his preaching is reflective of the life of the church, then Driscoll’s church is a healthy church.
No, they aren’t consistently confessional. No, they aren’t cessationists. No, their worship doesn’t look like 1647. At the same time, they aren’t filled with false fire (aka happy clappy), doctrinally they are within the reformed tradition and you will definitely hear the gospel every week at this church. All these things are good.
I think we forget sometimes – church men in all eras make mistakes. The thing is, we all don’t make (or aren’t prone to make) the same mistakes. Think for a moment if Edwards or Dabney were alive. Would you support their owning of slaves ? No, but a lot of ‘reformed’ folks have a tendency to show grace to these men by passing off their mistakes in these areas as blind spots, the men simply being ‘products of their time’. Their works are still recommended, read and proliferated. Yet, these men committed heinous sins by being engaged in American (key word) slavery. A black man considered 3/5 of a person (versus Lev. 19:18) ?
What will people from future generations look back at this generation’s Christians and say “What in the WORLD were they thinking about when they did that ?” People look at the RPW (at least the Exclusive Psalmody aspect of it) now and think that very same thing. People look back at Geneva and wonder what convinced the city legislature that they had the authority to execute folk for blasphemy.
Just some thoughts.
Topics: Theological, blogwatching!, oooh! stuff to read! | 6 Comments »
Tim Challies weighs in on Conferencegate 2010….
By BlackCalvinist | April 5, 2010
Tim Challies has always been a cool guy. At T4G 08, he still gave me 2 minutes on camera, even though he normally doesn’t do video.
This is his take on the issue. He doesn’t agree that Piper should’ve invited Warren, but he also sees a lot of the same things I do with regard to how people have been reacting to the issue…including stating that we shouldn’t ’separate’ from Piper has some have already claimed they’d be doing.
http://www.challies.com/church/why-john-piper-should-not-have-invited-rick-warren
We also get a bit more info from Tim – he’s known about this since September 2009 (don’t you love being early in the news ?).
I’ll admit – since blogging earlier, I’ve become less enthused with the idea of Warren as speaker at the DG conference. I still have a ‘wait and see’ attitude on the whole thing. I think Piper has enough integrity (doctrinal) to do exactly what Tim thinks he’d do if Warren gets up there and fudges it. Maybe I’m hoping for the best on it a bit too much and giving too much weight to what I think will happen with Warren.
Topics: blogwatching!, conferences and gatherings, contending for the faith, fellowship | No Comments »
On John Piper, Sabbaticals and Rick Warren
By BlackCalvinist | April 4, 2010
Okay, so reading the comments on John Piper’s video where he invites Rick Warren to speak at the 2010 DG National Conference, Piper already predicted a firestorm of controversy for his decision.
Boy was he right.
This happens to come right on the heels of him announcing a nine-month sabbatical to work on his marriage and devote more time to his family. So some people are suspecting it’s a combination of poor judgement in all areas of his life which are leading to the ’step down’ (just read the comments onthe video above).
Some, like Lane Chaplin, have expressed no further desire to support JP.
Others are simply decrying the decision as poor judgement.
Some are ready to toss Piper to the wolves, as they’ve been calling Piper things such as a ‘Trojan Horse‘ for years now.
I find it a bit interesting that Piper’s topic at Together for the Gospel 2010 (which I won’t be attending) is “Did Jesus Preach the Gospel of Evangelicalism ?“, which, in light of the theme of The Unadjusted Gospel, seems rather contradictory. Why invite a man to speak at your national conference who actually preaches the very thing that you’re going to be speaking against at T4G ?
Upon giving Piper a listen, I *think* I have a fair idea of what Piper is up to. It’s real simple.
Listen carefully to what he says to Rick Warren and what he asks Rick Warren to preach on.
When I wrote him, here’s what I said. And he’ll probably watch this video too. I said, “The conference is called ‘THINK: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. I want you to come. You are the most well-known pragmatist pastor in the world. I don’t think you are a pragmatist at root. Come and tell us why thinking biblically matters to you in your amazingly pragmatic approach to ministry.” I want him to lay his cards on the table. I want him to tell us what makes him tick, because he does come across in much of what he says and does as very results oriented and pragmatic and not theologically driven. And yet, I met him for the first time last year at Ralph Winter’s funeral in Pasadena. And we sat beside each other on the platform for three hours. I like him because he sings. And he sings badly. And anybody who’s willing to sing and sings badly — I like him. And we were talkin’ beforehand and he said to me, “I’m reading all the works of Jonathan Edwards this year. I pick a great theologian every year and I read all of his collected works. I’m on volume 17 of the Yale series of Jonathan Edward’s works.” You’ve got to be kidding me. Nothin’ you have ever said would incline me to think . . . *CROWD LAUGHTER – TEE HEE!* So, these guys are gonna go interview him tomorrow, I think. So you can quote some of these things. I do think he is deeply theological. He is a brilliant man. He wouldn’t have the church he does or the PEACE plan or, uh, all the influence he does and of course the greatest sentence in the Purpose Driven Life is the first one, isn’t it? “It’s not about you; it’s about God.” The glory of God. So, I don’t think he’s emergent. At root I believe he is theological, and doctrinal, and sound. And, what makes him tick? Actively in doing church? Uh, I intend to find out. So, I like him. And I’m frustrated by some of his stuff.”
Folks like Michael Horton have interacted with Warren in the past and share the same theological concerns that Piper does in his last sentence here.
What was Piper thinking ?
I’m guessing the following:
1. For all the people who say Piper’s lost it, think for a moment. The man has written the best present-day exegetical defense of Romans 9:1-23. As a single author, he’s probably devoted more work toward answering the errors of N.T. Wright regarding the New Perspective. He’s not stupid. So when John Piper says “I think he’s sound”, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and not try to disown him as some have tried to do in their talks. Piper wouldn’t invite, for example, Joel Osteen to speak at DG. Why ? Simple – Osteen wouldn’t quote from the WCF. Osteen also wouldn’t read Edwards (or any other theologian for that matter). Warren at least has degrees from Fuller (when it was still moderately biblical) and Southwestern. So he has demonstrated the very thing Piper says he suspects of him. Of course, he’s also contradicted the bulk of that in many of his talks, which brings me to point #2:
2. Piper’s question and speaking topic are HEAVILY loaded and quite blatant. If Warren answers them honestly and from the suspected ‘theological’ basis sitting underneath of what he claims to privately believe, then he will end up refuting a good 99% of what he’s written in Purpose Driven Church and at least 80% of Purpose Driven Life.
3. Piper’s opening up larger dialogue with Warren and challenging him to grow here. He’s doing what some people say they would do if they had the chance. He’s doing the opposite of simply spitting and cursing at the darkness – he’s lighting a candle here.
I think it’s a brilliant move and a brilliant gamble on Piper’s part. Having 2-3 extra days to think on it, I’m not sure it will work, as Warren has proven himself to be a bit of a chameleon (and I’ve been around some of his disciples who do the same). Part of the reason for that, of course, is that they never stop to think deeply about the implications of the doctrines of grace (or theology in general) and simply file away doctrinal truths as facts.
Piper’s invitation cuts to the heart of that sort of thinking. I’m waiting to see what the outcome will be in Warren’s speech.
Meanwhile, instead of damning Pastor John as some have done, take the time and pray for him. Ministry is a hard job and many armchair theologians are a bit too quick to hit the ’submit’ button on their blogs, but not submit their thinking to a theology of grace regarding others. At worst, treat him as a brother caught in sin and pray for his repentance. At best, pray that his intentions for inviting Warren have the desired effect and help to bring Warren face to face with bankruptcy of his own pragmatism.
Topics: Theological, blogwatching!, conferences and gatherings, contending for the faith, fellowship, heresy and screwy teaching.... | 7 Comments »
Front page of TCDC: Vintage ME, circa 1998, on the issue of the KJV.
By BlackCalvinist | March 25, 2010
Okay, so like the site says, I’ve been doing apologetics and theology on the net since 1994 in AOL chat rooms, expanding out to the rest of the internet in 1996.
Digging for some information for a friend on my board, I ran across an old post from me on my apologetics list (thank you Yahoo Groups, for archiving EVERYTHING from 1997 to the present) regarding the KJV-Only issue.
My argumentation has gotten a lot more refined since then (that and I tend to have less tpyos…er…a…typos). I’ve also gotten a lot less harsh.
So without further ado, I introduce you to **vintage** Kerry Gilliard:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apologetics/message/81
Enjoy.
Topics: heresy and screwy teaching...., the Word of God | No Comments »
Calvinists attacked… what else is new ?
By BlackCalvinist | February 16, 2010
Over on LDM, someone posted a blogpost from someone who has decided to openly ’speak out’ against and ‘warn’ folks regarding Reformed theology in Christian hip hop. The writer says that because of his convictions against RT and the doctrines of grace, he actually went and deleted folk from his friends list on facebook. More on this in a bit.
After giving it a read (which was a bit painful), I’ve come to the conclusion that this guy is simply another ignorant believer. Ignorant simply because he doesn’t really have a solid clue as to what reformed theology is – either that, or he doesn’t choose to have a clue. In the case of the former, it’s cool. We can sit down like brethren and discuss these issues without the need for anyone to come off (as he comes off in his article) confrontational, divisive and ‘heated’. Humility works both ways. [side note: ever notice how most of the time, the people complaining about RT are usually the ones typing in all caps with exclamation points, yet they call reformed folks divisive and argumentative ?] Humility is especially useful when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If the latter is the case, then dude simply needs to reserve his comments. God doesn’t tell people to speak up about things they aren’t equipped to speak on and aren’t able to represent properly. Remember – we are (according to scripture) to speak the TRUTH in love (Eph. 4:15). Speaking the truth also means properly speaking what is true about what others believe, even when you disagree with it. To personally and purposefully misrepresent brethren and what they believe is a 9th Commandment violation. I appreciate men like Pricilli and Oden because although they aren’t Calvinists, they do go to great lengths to explain what reformed theology is correctly. Unforutnately, most of them are set in the shade by people like Ergun Caner, Vance, Dave Hunt and others who spend tons of time attacking Calvinists and Calvinism, but refuse to represent reformed theology accurately. It’s much easier (for them) to tear down a lie than to deal with biblical truth.
And that brings us back to Mynista’s post. He writes:
I believe that man has a free will. Throughout the bible people are directed by God to make CHOICES. Starting with Adam and Eve.
Where’s the disagreement ? Reformed theology teaches that folk do have a free will and that they do make choices. Reformed theology also teaches that those choices are not forced nor coerced, but the person freely makes them according to his/her nature. Human nature, after the fall, is not the same as it was with Adam and Eve before the fall. Scripture bears this out repeatedly (Romans 5, Jeremiah 17:9, Eccl. 7:20, Ephesians 2:1-3). Fallen men, according to scripture, cannot and will not choose God of their own ‘free will’. Their will is enslaved to sin, so their choices – FREELY – are limited. As an example, if I drop a marble in a box, the marble is free to roll around the box according to the shape of the box. It can roll to the corners, along the top, bottom and sides. The marble, however, is entrapped by the box (there’s a lid on it with no hole). The marble is not free to leave the box. The marble has freedom to roll around in the box, but does not have liberty (the marble’s options are constrained).
I think what he’s aiming for is trying to say that man has liberty to choose good and evil – something the bible explicitly does not teach with regard to the unregenerate person (Romans 8:6-9).
His problem with the concept appears to run along the lines of: “God tells us to make choices, therefore, we MUST be able to do what he asks us to do, otherwise, that wouldn’t be fair.” I’ve seen many a non-Calvinist trip over this question in attempting to understand reformed theology (and/or argue against it). Truthfully, it’s the same question that tripped up Pelagius in the early 400’s. The assumption that underlies this question is command means ability to carry it out.
The major question, of course, is this: is this assumption a biblically accurate one ?
The usual answer to this, of course, is that God bases His commands on responsibility, not ability. No one loves God perfectly (Deut. 6:5), something that we are indeed commanded to do. What people have done (especially in the Weslyan tradition) is modify what being ‘perfect’ means to include a progressive sanctification that can eventually end in extended periods of sinlessness. Such a modification, however, doesn’t find a root in the biblical text, but in human assumptions. The question of God’s fairness will be addressed a few paragraphs down.
Another quote:
Yes, I believe that God is sovereign, and I believe (according to His Word) that in His sovereignty He will not violate His Word…this is a partnership, not a dictatorship. It’s possible to grieve and quench The Holy Ghost.
This statement’s a bit complex to deal with. Sovereign, by definition, implies dictatorship – at least it did back in ancient times. Folk in Babylon hearing Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:29-37 wouldn’t have understood any part of that to mean ‘partnership’. In fact, anyone reading Daniel 4:29-37 NOW would have to seriously strain and read foreign elements into the text to get anything of a ‘partnership’ from:
29At the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30and the king answered and said, ”Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” 31 While the words were still in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, “O King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, 32 and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. And you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.” 33Immediately the word was fulfilled against Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven from among men and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws.
34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,
for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”36At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me. 37Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.
A few more quotes:
I don’t believe that His grace is irresistible, Man CAN resist God’s grace.
A common mistake that non-Calvinists make when they run into the term ‘irresistible grace’. Arthur Custance corrects this error:
If a man by nature always resists the grace of God, then in order for that grace to be effectual it must in some sense be irresistible; for if the grace of God were ineffectual none would be saved, and this we know is not the case.
We know by experience that “the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him; neither indeed can he know them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). On the other hand we also know that “to them that received Him gave He the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12).
Thus to speak of the grace of God as irresistible is not to say that man cannot resist it, for he does. It is only to say that human resistance is allowed to proceed so far and no further than God pleases. The Jewish authorities were allowed to resist the Holy Spirit to the very last (Acts 7:51), but Paul was allowed to resist only to a point when his resistance was suddenly brought to an end (Acts 9:5, 6). The grace of God is sovereign; but it cannot be said to be irresistible, for men do resist it. Loraine Boettner suggested that it might indeed be better to employ the term Efficacious Grace instead, for this is really what the saving grace of God is. This would spoil a widely accepted mnemonic aid, the acronym T U L I P, beloved of catechists for many generations, but in the interests of greater doctrinal precision it might be well to abandon it.
Arthur Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace, Chapter 9: http://custance.org/Library/SOG/Part_II/Chapter9.html
Again, this is simple reformed theology that anyone could ‘get right’ if they actually took the time to read it.
His next statement is one that most people who disagree with reformed theology get ‘hung up’ over:
I believe that Salvation is for ALL, and not only for an elect few. The elect & chosen are simply those who believe on Jesus (John 3:16). He chose to have mercy on ALL! The called are those who hear the Gospel period. ManyARE CALLED, few are chosen (believe).
Aside from turning words on their head (any ENGLISH dictionary shows that ‘chosen’ and ‘believe’ do not mean the same thing). A poster on HCR made this very wise observation which served to answer Mynista’s objection months before he wrote it:
Well this doesn’t help you. YHWH did not warn any of the Egyptians to put Blood on their door post. Thus the symbolic atonement there was completely limited to the House of Israel only. Thus that is an exact picture of LA. So it was a picture of Salvation.
This is also why, in Jesus’ high priestly prayer, He does not pray for the world, but only for those who were given to Him (the elect) by His Father (John 17:9). Romans 9 is a very helpful passage in discussing this issue. First, it directly contradicts what Mynista says – God does NOT choose to have mercy on all. He has mercy on some. This is what He tells Moses and what Paul references in Romans 9. It isn’t an issue of injustice with God (which is really what Mynista is objecting to) – God owes no man anything (another hidden assumption). God didn’t choose to redeem fallen angels when they sinned. He provided no substitutionary atonement for them. Does that make God less good ? Of course not! God is not obligated to provide a way of salvation for ANY of His creatures that violate His law. His choosing to do so for humans (and not for angels) is a function of His mercy. Mercy is not obligatory, but voluntary. Why God chooses to have mercy on any is a mystery!
Over the past 10 years of me being reformed, I’ve witness non-Calvinistic folk make horrendous statements against RT, to the point of treating it like a cult. Some of Mynista’s comments are definitely divisive and downright destructive – much like a child with a nuclear weapon who thinks he knows what ‘the enemy’ looks like.
My personal assessment based on interactions with folk over this time period (especially on Holy Culture Radio during my years as moderator and then head admin there) have equipped me well to answer these same questions as well as give me a ‘heads up’ on things that people usually assume (unspoken assumptions) when it comes to the doctrines of grace. Brother Mynista is no exception here – just another ignorant non-Calvinist who has problems (huge ones) with the doctrines of grace and isn’t very precise in his theology (or his understanding of others’ for that matter). He’s also sloppy with his handling of the bible.
But let’s trek back in time, shall we ? How many of you current Calvinists had ’sharp ears’ and ‘huge amounts of discernment’ so you could spot truth and error immediately, even after a few years as a believer ? How ‘theologically correct’ were all of us who are now Calvinists when we first heard (and in many cases, heavily disagreed) with the doctrines of grace ? How many of us reacted to them exactly or worse than this brother is now doing ? How many of us actually understood what we were arguing against ? How many of us simply THOUGHT we understood (and arrogantly told people ‘you’re just saying that because I disagree with you’ when, looking back NOW, you really DIDN’T understand ) ?
So this brother’s rant has to be viewed also from the position of grace and graciousness. It takes some people years to get out of the muddle of messed up theology they become entrenched in and along the way, they are going to say some stupid things. Indeed, even afterward, there are many ‘new Calvinists’ who say plenty of stupid things that end up turning non-Calvinists off to any discussion, but that’s another blogpost series.
After reading, I felt a little sorry for dude. He’s fighting against stuff that’s pretty clear in scripture and he’s mixed up. I’ve learned to deal a bit gentler with folks over time because just like a kid who swears up and down that they know everything when they really know very little, when that emotional rant gets moving, the person cannot be reasoned with from scripture or otherwise. Further could be pointed out about his post - the cluelessness at the fact that most of the REAL (not imagined) ’Holy Ghost Fire’ he’s talking about has come as a result of believing (not rejecting) the doctrines of grace (from William Carey, the father of every modern missionary movement) to men like Wilberforce (abolitionist), Spurgeon and Whitefield (powerful evangelists who preached to thousands at a time) and these names could be multiplied a thousand times…. but it’s a small thing for now. The usual response is to accuse the other person of wanting to ‘debate’ and then running away from the discussion. The reformed person in this equation should be the first person to show grace and graciousness in handling personal shots (and they will come). The reformed person should also be sure to keep the discussion on the Word and not get drawn off-topic into discussions on Calvin himself, the Institutes, Spurgeon, Piper or anyone else for that matter. I think it’s probably part of the reason why dude said he was dumping people from his friends list – he really doesn’t want to hear biblical truth because he’s comfortable where he is and doesn’t want to be challenged. And it can be a very difficult thing to re-evaluate one’s beliefs or have them constantly challenged….unfortunately, his reaction, instead of actually ‘defending’ what he thinks is the faith, is akin to turning, sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears, and running away while screaming (much like the Pharisees did when they rushed Stephen in Acts 7).
A lot of his post was a lot of zeal with very little knowledge and a boatload of emotion. I can’t say it should be a surprise. It’s a bit of the normal reaction….seen it before and it won’t be the last time it happens. Newly reformed folk should be aware of what to expect.
My advice to someone over on my board was pretty simple….
Let him be. If you run across people like him (or those of you reading who run across him)…..if they bring up the topic, ask them first and foremost are they willing to discuss the issue from scripture and not divert over to talking about Calvin, Servetus, Slavery, Jonathan Edwards or anything else…but scripture. Ask them if they are willing to discuss biblical teaching and not simply talk ‘about Calvinism and Calvinists’ (which is what a lot of discussions break down to). If they divert, ask them again and tell them you aren’t willing to talk about anything else than scripture and whether or not these beliefs are taught in scripture. If the usual advance accusations of ‘debate’ and ‘argumentative’ come to mind, remind them that right now, all you’ve done is ask them to discuss scripture as brothers (or sisters). If they are unwilling to do this, tell them you’ll pray for them to one day be open to discussing scripture and not be so ‘defensive’ and willing to divert to other topics.
And walk away. God will deal with them.
Sometimes, it takes God bringing folks to a point of crisis before they humble themselves.
As an additional resource, if you run into folks who constantly spend time spewing misconceptions on the doctrines of grace and you find yourself having to constantly correct them, refer them to this VERY helpful article on the subject:
http://www.corkfpc.com/criticisingcalvinism.html
Topics: theology | 4 Comments »
Blogwatching: Everyone’s a Minister ? Really ?
By BlackCalvinist | February 12, 2010
R. Scott Clark of WTS-California thinks not. Here’s why:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/ministers-all/
This can even kinda make me rethink the existence of this website (and others like it).
Topics: blogwatching! | No Comments »
« Previous Entries