Theology Matters: D. A. Carson on the Intent of the Atonement

The above is a link to an extended quotation from D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.

Carson looks at the atonement in light of the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline.

I found this discussion helpful, and am adding The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God to my "want to read" list.

Reforming the Reformed (Christianity Today) 

Calvinists, says one Calvinist, misunderstand some of their history and theology. A review of 'Ten Myths About Calvinism.' (Roger E. Olson,  posted 5/18/2011)

"We need fewer angular, sharp-elbowed Calvinists who glory in what distinguishes their stance from others," Stewart argues, "and a lot more supporters of the Reformed faith who rejoice in what they hold in common with others."

AMEN to that brother!!!!

What did John Calvin actually say? (Part 2)

I had also published my previous post "John Calvin on John 3:16" to my Facebook page and got several responses that I believe are worthy of mentioning and commenting on here.

The response I want to start with is from a long time friend who's intellect and Biblical understanding I respect. He says,

"I wonder if you may have intended to write "all men without distinction" instead of "all men without exception."

I think that "all men without distinction," that is people without racial, social, sexual distinctions, underscores the kind of universality John 3:16 is after. It seems to me that this is necessary for rightly understanding 1 John 2:2 also."

This was my response:

How do you understand Calvin's words, "And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers..."?

I see two questions here. 1) Is the primary focus of John 3:16 the free offer of the Gospel, or the scope and purpose of the atonement? 2) The other question is how do we understand John's use of "whosoever" and "world".

I understand from the quotes cited, that Calvin's answer to the first question is "the free offer of the gospel". At that point finding the meaning of "whosoever" and "world" becomes a question of usage and context apart from trying to fit the passage into a predetermined view of the scope and purpose of the atonement. And yes, the context of the Jewish religious nationalism of Nicodemus is an important part of understanding that. The meaning you cited may be what Calvin intended in his use of universal language in his John 3:16 comments, and I agree he clearly has that meaning in view in his comments on I John 2:2.

What I am struck by is how Calvin views both John 3:16 and the II Peter 3:9 passage in terms of the free offer of the Gospel in distinction from, in Calvin's own words on II Peter 3:9, "the hidden purpose of God." If I may, I fault both Armenians and Calvinists for turning those passages into statements on the purpose and scope of the atonement in such a way that the free offer of the Gospel ends up taking a backseat...

And in answer to your question, in viewing those passages as primarily focused on the free offer of the gospel, I can live with either "all men without distinction" or "all men without exception" while acknowledging context does give favor to the first.

Another friend drew my attention to Calvin's comments on Matthew 20:28, 26:28, and Romans 5:18. It is this excerpt from Calvin's comments on Romans 5:18 I found most striking:

He does not say the righteousness — δικαιοσύνην, but the justification — δικαίωμα, of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. (Commentary on Romans 5:18)

My purpose in pointing out what John Calvin has written regarding these different passages of Scripture is to highlight what he actually said in distinction from what sometimes his friends as well as his foes assume he said. Agree with Calvin or not, let us at least be accurate and honest about what he really did say. Truth and love demands we do so.

Peace...

~ The Billy Goat ~

John Calvin on John 3:16

What did Calvin actually say?

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time; for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

I included the whole of Calvin's comments on John 3:16 to provide context to the parts I underlined in the above quote. It's pretty clear in these words, that Calvin viewed John 3:16 as a declaration of the free and indiscriminate offer of the Gospel to all men, and that in contrast to understanding John 3:16 in terms of the scope of the atonement; limited vs. unlimited. In the context of the free offer of the Gospel, Calvin affirms that the term world (kosmos) is a reference to "all men without exception".

This same attention to context is found in Calvin's comments on I John 2:2. Calvin affirms the statement that in the atonement "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect", but then says that though a true statement, that statement doesn't fit the I John 2:2 passage. Instead, according to Calvin, John is using the term "world" in the context of "all who would believe" and those who were "scattered through various regions of the earth."

"Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?... They.. have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world..."

Again in his comments on II Peter 3:9, Calvin calls us to context:

"9. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."...

...Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. (A similar view was taken by Estius, Piscator, and Beza. — Ed.)"

Once again Calvin views a "universalist" passage in terms of the free offer of the Gospel, and does not try to twist and contort the passage into an affirmation of limited atonement. How often have we seen or heard or read Calvinist or Reformed brethern who try to contort or twist John 3:16 or II Peter 3:9 to make limited atonement the main purpose and teaching of those passages?

For myself, I prefer Calvin's exegesis over theirs.

Solo Deo gloria!

~ The Billy Goat ~

References:

Above quotations copied from:

• Commentary on John - Volume 1; John Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  
• Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles: II Peter; John Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  
• Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles: I JohnJohn Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  

The above sources were compared to:

Calvin's New Testement Commentaries (Erdmans; 1961)

• "The Gospel According to St. John: Part One 1 - 10"; translated by T.H.L. Parker
  
• "The Gospel According to St. John: Part Two 11 - 21 & The First Epistle of John"; translated by T.H.L. Parker
  
• "Hebrews and I and II Peter"; translated by W.B. Johnston

Joylessness in Reformed Chritianity

"I wasn't born and raised in the Reformed church. In other words, I am a Reformed immigrant. Like many people in the Reformed church today, I migrated out of broad based evangelicalism and non-denominationalism. Many of my friends, both ministers and laypeople, have had similar immigration experiences.

Recently, at the funeral of my father-in-law, I had the opportunity to get reacquainted with many of my Reformed immigrant friends. Much to my surprise, I found myself having a very similar conversation with this group. They shared with me that they felt like something was missing in their Reformed experience. While they were all satisfied with the doctrine, worship and government of the church they spoke of a missing intangible element. They had trouble articulating the exact nature of this missing element. I suggested a variety of terms to give it a name and the one that seemed to come closest was "joy." These immigrants perceived the Reformed church to be suffering from a deficiency of spiritual joy."

These conversations got me thinking. I did my own assessment of my Reformed experience and, I must admit, I had to agree that "joyful" was not one of the first adjectives that came to my mind to describe it. Then I began to contemplate why the Reformed church seems to be lacking in the joy department. My contemplation yielded two main reasons.

(The Joy of the Reformed by Anthony Selvaggio December 2009.)

If it was appropriate, I'd copy the entirety of Mr. Selvaggio's article. He goes on to discuss two reasons he sees for the lack of joy in the Reformed church; the migration of Evangelical malcontents into the Reformed movement, and "...perpetually circling the theological wagons." Please also note Selvaggio's evaluation comes from his position within the Reformed movement. This is coming from one of the Reformed's own.

Selvaggio proposes a remedy, and in so far as it goes, I believe the proposed remedy has merit as it does, in its own way, call for a focus on the promises of God.

That said, what was noticeable in my mind was his lack of discussion of joy as the fruit of the Spirit, and in fact, among the very first of the fruit of the Spirit as listed by Paul in Galations 5:22. This is where my own concern for the Reformed church comes to focus.

I spent a little over 25 years in a Reformed (Baptist) church. About 7 years ago we left that church and started attending a more mainstream Evangelical Baptist church. It is on the basis of that experience that I totally understand Mr. Selvaggio's statements, "...they felt like something was missing in their Reformed experience." and "These immigrants perceived the Reformed church to be suffering from a deficiency of spiritual joy."

One of the very first things we noticed about our new church, in contrast to the Reformed church we had left, was the much greater and obvious level of honest, genuine, authentic Christian joy expressed by the people and manifest in the life of the congregation corporately.

This raised a question in my mind. If, as the Bible says, joy is a fruit of the Spirit, what does that say for the joyless Reformed church? A tree is known by its fruit. If my Reformed theology and the Reformed preaching from the pulpit of the Reformed church is not producing the fruit of the Spirit in my life, then something is not right and we need to do some VERY deep soul searching.

This becomes even more critical and vital when I look at raising my children in such a church. It was that very concern that 7 years ago drove me from the Reformed church back into the Evangelical mainstream. (I'm still a Calvinist, but I no longer call myself Reformed.) If my children were to know true Chrisitan joy, the joy that is the fruit of the Spirit, then they need to be raised in a church and thological climate that clearly demnstrates that joy in the life of individual believers and in the corporate life of the congregation, and that along with all the other fruit of the Spirit as well.

I beleive there are probably some Reformed churches out there somewhere who have managed by the grace of God to hold and nuance their theology in a way that produces a noticable level of genuine Christian joy. That said, in a sizable part of the Reformed movement there is the need to do some VERY DEEP soul seaarching at this point.

Kyrie eleison...

My Only Hope in Life and Death

Heidelberg Catechism

Question 1. What is your only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

Calvin on External Discipline and Ceremonies

[I separated and underlined the part of this quote I wanted to focus on. I'm including all of section 30 and 31 so that part can be seen in the context in which Calvin wrote it. ~ The Billy Goat ~]

From: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Four, Chapter 10

30. But as there is here a danger, on the one hand, lest false bishops should thence derive a pretext for their impious and tyrannical laws, and, on the other, lest some, too apt to take alarm, should, from fear of the above evils, leave no place for laws, however holy, it may here be proper to declare, that I approve of those human constitutions only which are founded on the authority of God, and derived from Scripture, and are therefore altogether divine. Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee which is made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a human tradition, which any one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect? I say, that it is human, and that at the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle; and it is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general, rather than expounded. From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought of the whole class—viz. that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts of divine worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded, in his sacred oracles, so that in them he alone is the only Master to be heard.

But as in external discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every particular that we ought to observe (he foresaw that this depended on the nature of the times, and that one form would not suit all ages), in them we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the Church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.

31. Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions 2437of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided. Here, if any error is committed through imprudence or forgetfulness, no crime is perpetrated; but if this is done from contempt, such contumacy must be disapproved. In like manner, it is of no consequence what the days and hours are, what the nature of the edifices, and what psalms are sung on each day. But it is proper that there should be certain days and stated hours, and a place fit for receiving all, if any regard is had to the preservation of peace. For what a seed-bed of quarrels will confusion in such matters be, if every one is allowed at pleasure to alter what pertains to common order? All will not be satisfied with the same course if matters, placed as it were on debatable ground, are left to the determination of individuals. But if any one here becomes clamorous, and would be wiser than he ought, let him consider how he will approve his moroseness to the Lord. Paul’s answer ought to satisfy us, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”

Like an Ill-fitting Shirt

I've been pondering lately how it is some theological constructions or systems are like ill-fitting shirts. You may be able to put such a shirt on, but there is always something about it that doesn't fit that well; a certain amount of discomfort across the chest, or in the armpits, or overly long floppy sleeves that get in the way or to much shirt tail to tuck in or not enough shirt tail to remain tucked in..

I thought I might make a list of some of those "ill-fitting shirts":

Traditional Dispensationalism

Covenant Theology: Yes, both of these systems are ill-fitting.

New Covenant Theology: Doesn't really fit that much better then the other two shirts. Any theological system we construct is going to have it's weaknesses and no theological system, including Reformed theology, is equal to the Gospel Itself. Do we have the Christian humility to recognize and accept that?

Amillianalism I tried wearing this shirt for a number of years, then I figured out where that tightness across the chest was coming from.

Premillinialism: I hold a historic pre-mill position, but am not afraid to admit it doesn't answer all the questions. It does however fit somewhat better then the amill shirt does. To bad some amill folks don't realize their position doesn't answer all the questions either.

Postmillinialism This shirt is one I could never get into at all since one arm sleeve is in the middle of the collar, and the other arm sleeve is in the middle of the lower back.

By now I'm sure I probably stepped on a number of sacred cows. Sorry, but I don't feel your pain nor do I really care at all about your pontifical outrage.

To conclude I will step on a few more toes by saying that each of the theological constructs and systems named above have to some degree or another contributed positively to Evangelical understanding and thought. But with that said, though some of these shirts may be relatively more comfortable then others, none of them are a perfect fit.

~ The Billy Goat ~

I Think My Wife's a Calvinist



This satire is a real hoot. "She likes Spurgeon more then she likes me...."

Christus Victor - Looking at the Atonement

Un/limited Atonement or Multiple Intentions View (Four Point Calvinist Position)

1. Statement of the Position
God’s intentions in the death of Christ are complex not simple, multiple not single: 1) Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect. 2) Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people making it possible for all who believe to be saved. 3) Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere. 4) Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them. 5) Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father.

"Extent of the Atonement: Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments"; Bruce A. Ware, Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, page 3

About a month ago I came across the above article by Dr. Bruce Ware. I have to confess a certain sympathy for some of the points he makes regarding how we view the atonement. Please read the whole article to set what I say below in context.

The one primary purpose in the atonement is the glory of God. Any other purpose, including the salvation of the elect, is secondary to that. The atonement has purpose that includes more then just individual salvation. There is a cosmic purpose relating to the whole created order. As another writer put it:

"As this story illustrates, we need both penal substitution and Christus Victor to properly understand Christ's atonement. Penal substitution explains the heart of Christus Victor--how exactly Christ defeats the Devil, and Christus Victor supplies the larger context for penal substitution.

Christus Victor informs us that salvation aims not merely at individuals but is for the entire world. God intends through Jesus "to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." Our personal salvation is part of something larger than ourselves. We belong to the church, the body of Christ that extends the Kingdom of God in the world."

"Don't Stop Believing", Dr. Michael Wittmer, (Zondervan, 2008) page 96

I also confess a certain sympathy for a view of the atonement that does not force me into performing exegetical gymnastics to defend either a particular redemption view or a universal redemption view. Both sets of passages can be allowed to say what they say.

Am I saying that now I am now a 4.0 point Calvinist? No, I'm only reiterating what I said a few years ago about calling myself a 4.95 point Calvinist in order to deliberately irritate those on both sides of that issue. What I'm finding is there is more then that at stake. In looking back, I see just how some areas of Reformed theology are actually anthropocentric in spite of the claim to be theocentric.

Jesus reigns!

~ The Billy Goat ~

From the Pew: If Iron Sharpens Iron, Then Why Is The Reformed Drawer So Full of Dull, Rusty Knives?

A good question.... My own observation is that insistence on so called "doctrinal percison" is by nature a seperatist movement sowing the seeds of it's own fragmentation. The favorite thological argument is the ad hominimn one.

Shalom, ~ The Billy Goat ~

Life After Neo-Puritanism

In recent articles, John Armstrong has commented on his journey in Biblical understanding. The first article can be found here, and the second article in the series is here. Here is a quote from the second article.

"I previously described (May 1 ACT 3 Weekly) how I have slowly moved away from my separatist and sectarian neo-Puritanism over the last twenty years. My movement has not been without profound struggles. Most of these struggles have not been within me, for there I have thrived and grown as I leaned into an assurance of faith that is still deeply rooted in Christ alone. No, my struggles have been with misunderstanding and misrepresentation in the minds of confused people who have heard all kinds of stories about me and my beliefs..."

My first acquaintance with John Armstrong goes back to his "Neo-Puritan" phase. At that time I was involved in a "Neo-Puritan" church and movement. John had come into contact with the pastor of that church, and there had been some correspondence and so forth. I may be a little foggy on some of the facts, but I have it in my head that John came to visit our church, and our pastor had visited his church in Wheaton.

It seemed like only a few years latter news came that John Armstrong had "left the fold". Like many others who did not cross all the "t"'s and dot all the "i"s of that "Neo-Puritan" church and the "Neo-Puritan" movement it was a part of, John Armstrong became "persona non grata". If his name was spoken at all, it was in that tone of voice that reminded you that the only thing worse then the devil himself is an "apostate". OK, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the tone of voice was un-mistakable.

It took me another 20 years to realize John Armstrong, along with many others, was right in his evaluation of the "Neo-Puritan" movement, at least the part of it I had been associated with. I too have found out there is life after "Neo-Puritanism".

Neo-Puritanism by definition is scholastic. The danger of a scholastic emphasis is that the scholasticism tends to get in the way of the Word of God. You have people who can quote the Puritan writers from memory, but you wonder if they give equal time to the Scriptures. Puritan confessional standards tend to be quoted in a way that sets them on an equal par with Scripture.

The original Puritan movement was far from perfect, and there was a lot more diversity in the spectrum of that movement then some of our Neo-Puritan friends acknowledge. The New England Puritan movement in particular was not able to keep itself from descending into Unitarianism and a splintered sectarianism.

I'm am NOT saying we can not learn things from the Puritans. I am saying they did not have all the answers as some in the Neo-Puritan movement would have us think. The Puritan writers were not above the Bible, and there is a whole lot the Christian Church has learned in the last 400 years since their time. Yes friends, there is life after "Neo-Puritanism".

Semper Reformanda!

~ The Billy Goat ~

PS: Another related article I wrote a while back can be found here.

The Difficulty of Being Always Reforming
by The Jolly Blogger

"The principle of being always reforming is not stated explicitly in Scripture, rather it is one of those theological propositions that is deduced by good and necessary consequence. It is deduced from the Scriptural considerations that only the Scripture is infallible and that man is sinful. Thus, sinful man can study the Scriptures and summarize the Scriptures into everything from formal theological statements, to informal expressions of personal conviction, to guidelines for Christian living.

But, those human summaries, guidelines, and other assorted whatnot can never carry Scriptural authority. Because such things are formulated by men we always have to assume that, even though we're really very sure we're right about the things of which we speak, we could be wrong. "Always reforming" gives us a kind of safety valve or escape clause by which we ourselves, or later generations, can revisit or rethink what we said back in the day. "Always reforming" also honors the pre-eminent authority of Scripture and relativizes all other expressions of faith."

Thank you Jolly Blogger for articulating more clearly things I've tried to say. This article sets forth the principles leading to the concerns expressed in my post on Confessional Scholasticism Versus Biblical Theology.

Semper Reformanda,

~ The Billy Goat ~

What kind of "Reformed" are you?
(Post-Reformed Redux)
Are you...

• a Reformed catholic? (emphasis on small "c" for our purposes.)


• a Reformed Evangelical?


• a Reformed Puritan?


• Reformed? What's "Reformed"... Somebody who went to reform school?
  

The above question and the options offered come from two strands.

The first strand goes back a month or so to Tim Etherington's attempt to put some definition to the term "Post-Reformed", a term for which he was taken rather severely to task, and which term he recanted, though not recanting the ideas he was seeking to label. The new label became Compassionate Calvinism which did catch at least the spirit of Tim's concerns; concerns that I also share and enter in to.

The second strand came into play when I came across an old e-mail from an old friend, the friend who was used of God years ago to introduce me to the Doctrines of Grace and Reformed theology in general. In that Christmas e-mail of several years ago is the following:

"You are probably wondering if I've reverted back to a Puritan Scrooge?? Nah. Never happen. I am a very contented confirmed Reformed Catholic. In fact, I'm almost a confirmed Reformed Orthodox..."

By the way, the friend who made this statement is a Presbyterian Pastor in the PCA.

So there is the multiple choice question, and the answers that I believe get down to some of the issues that were of concern and discussion in the "Post-Reformed" debacle. I now better understand why I never really fit in at our former church. It was Reformed Puritan in perspective, and this round Reformed Evangelical never could really fit, nor wanted to fit, that square hole.

What kind of "Reformed" are you? It is my thesis that how you answer this question has direct bearing on how you view and understand semper reformanda...

Sola Deo Gloria,

~ The Billy Goat ~

More on being "Post-Reformed"

Cartee Bales has joined in on the Post-Reformed discussion with an article entitled That is SO 1516!, posted at his One Denarius blog. Here are some excerpts.

"...When we think we have it all figured out, when we have God in a "box" where we can understand Him and have thick systematics and long histories that enable our perfectly-fitted knowledge of God, it is we who are in the box. Whether it is 1517 or 2004, or 790BC, this attitude ignores God's active presence in our lives, transforming us into the image of Christ (2 Co 3:18). It can also lead us into some really goofy logical deductions that become accepted theological formulations (i.e., if God wants to save people in Nepal, He can do it Himself). In other words, this attitude drives us right out of the arms of God and back to our own self-sufficiency, and our own errors, which is idolatry.

Post-reformed -- to my mind -- is a heart that gets "out of the box" and into the fresh wind of God's Spirit and the truth of His word. It is a heart that says, "I cannot know God fully here, and am therefore open to understanding my faith in the light of Scripture (Sola Scriptura), with the help of the Spirit, in conversation on the way with others on the way." It does not ignore the Reformation by any means, but it takes its best understanding and its earnest desire to return to the living God. It is a heart that gets me over myself, my biases, my presuppositions, my recalcitrant positions, my own sinfulness, and brings me square into the "...light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Co 4:6). Nothing less. It is a heart that is willing to say -- and to listen to -- "let's talk."..." (Complete article found here. )

This article echos and expresses a number of my own thoughts. I have long come to the conclusion that if being "Reformed" means what some so called "Reformed" people say it means, then I am not "Reformed", nor do not want to be "Reformed". In getting "out of the box", I've found the fresh wind to be spiritually invigorating. Sola Deo Gloria!

~ The Billy Goat ~