Reality Sets In

The last two Shepherd’s Staff articles have revealed some disturbing realities.  First, that doctrinal error is rampant in our circle; second, that there is widespread ignorance of what the Bible text actually teaches, and finally, that there is a segment of people who are busy defending error.  It could be summed up as ignorance and apathy sprinkled with denial.  This premise has been constantly confirmed as we have tried to use social media to bring attention to God and His glory by discussing the Bible.

I definitely don’t know everything, and over my fifty-three years of ministry have learned that I know even less than I thought I did!  There are some things, though, that are clear, and years of consideration and discussion about the Bible text have left them as a solid foundation.  One of these principles is that what a person states he believes is not nearly as important as how he reached that conclusion.  How we view God and His Word will make all the difference in our conclusions.   

GOD AT THE CENTER OF ALL THINGS

The Bible begins and ends with God, and everything in between is about God's revealing himself to man.  God is the source of truth, and only He has the answers.  All man-made systems and much of man’s wisdom are flawed.  Fallen man does not have the ability to create anything perfect, despite which much of Christianity has made man the center of almost everything.  Perhaps that is why people feel free to rewrite scripture when they come to something in the text they don’t like.

I don’t get a lot of hate mail, but crude personal attacks and unacceptable language are a clear confession of man-centered thinking.  This is not about the discussion of ideas -- such exchanges are welcome -- rather, it is about personal attacks on someone’s character.  For the person who presses the discussion of content and meaning, such unkindness can be expected; but what is of greater concern is that these attacks are often against God, not against a human being.

Much of the defense of error comes from those who think it is terrible to disagree with someone, particularly if they are a popular Moderate Evangelical.

Some fly to the defense of flawed men with respect to a person, but have little concern about the offense to God.

They are unable to separate the discussion of ideas, content, and meaning from the individuals who hold those ideas.  They are so occupied with form that they tend to miss the heart of the issue.

Redemption, the person of Christ, and the failure of man are all great themes throughout scripture; but they are not the central issue.  God and His glory constitute the centerpiece of the scriptures.  The reason some men choose another subject for their focus is because of their motive: it allows them to build their own system in disregard to God…at their own peril.

POINTS OF INTEREST

The discussions I referred to at the outset of this article included the Millennium, the Rapture, the Kingdom, the New Covenant, and some practical issues such as benevolence being an obligation of the believer.  All of these had one thing in common: the various views all came from the fact that participants used different systems of interpretation.  It was these systems that allowed them to stray from the centricity of God and to put man at the center instead.

The problem here is that when man is considered central, people are no longer sensitive concerning the offence to God.  That is why error is winked at or ignored, and what is even worse is that it is defended.  The current worship systems are filled with theological abuse and error, but who seems to even notice or care?  The mainstream of publishing pushes erroneous doctrine, and hardly a murmur is heard.  If someone does challenge this disdain of God and His word, he is attacked as being anti-intellectual or a “baggy pants,” a backwoods know-nothing.

Let me dare to illustrate this.  When a major Evangelical figure [John MacArthur] states in a public forum that Christ did not die for Hitler or some other evil figure, there is silence, no matter what is the clear statement of scripture.*

The humanly devised system has to be right; no matter that it includes rewriting the text and inserting convenient wording.

So, when the ESV study notes (in reference to John 16:7 - It is to your advantage that I go away) read as follows:  “This is because while Jesus was on earth he could be in only one place at a time, but the Holy Spirit would carry on Jesus’ ministry over the entire world at all times.  In addition, in God’s sovereign plan for the unfolding of history, the Holy Spirit would not come in new covenant power and fullness until Jesus returned to heaven,” there is silence.

At best, this is misleading; but at the worst it is an attack on the person of Christ.  This is what happens when we are silent.  It is the result of pressing a humanly devised system on the text and making it say whatever the “scholars” want it to say. 

GO AHEAD, MAKE MY DAY!

I don’t even have to guess at this one.  In the next article, I will confirm that the responses to such questions will be just as they were outlined at the beginning of this article…but then, “who am I?”

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.  Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches.

Previously from Dr. Nuttall:
1) How Could it Happen?

2) How Do You Know When?

*Site Publisher’s Commentary:

This statement is attributed to Dr. John MacArthur with John Piper agreeing.

“John MacArthur holds to Calvinism’s five points, including limited atonement (the ‘L’ in TULIP). He departs from his generally literal hermeneutic in handling 1 John 2:2, arguing that ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου does not refer to the whole world ‘Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Judas…or Adolf Hitler.’ He actually said that. MacArthur explains that the verse is simply explaining that atonement was now available to the whole world, but that it does not mean that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world.” (Christopher Cone blog)

And what do we hear from men who want fundamental believers to be under the impression that they have not changed, that they are faithful to the Scriptures? Crickets!  Instead, they heap lavish praise on the teachers of error, turn away from fidelity to the Scriptures that mandate admonishing or withdrawing from, marking and avoiding a brother (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Romans 16:17-18). Silence for the sake of unity with the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals, their like-minded Calvinists and advocates of the false gospel, originated by John MacArthur, known as Lordship Salvation. The established pattern of men and/or sites like Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Sharper Iron and its Blogroll is to tolerate, allow for, ignore, or excuse egregious doctrinal error, cultural relativism and ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals.

Archival Series: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness: “A New Calvinism With New Calvinists”

Shortly before the July 2009 Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Annual Fellowship convened The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness by Dr. Peter Masters was published (Sword & Trowel 2009, No. 1 by Dr Peter Masters). Copies of the article were distributed to delegates at the fellowship. The articles release could not have been better timed because it dealt squarely with the subject matter of the Q&A Symposium, “Let’s Discuss Conservative Evangelicalism.”

Near the close of the symposium The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness was mentioned within the context of a question. The first responder, Kevin Bauder, immediately redirected the discussion away from the article and its implications for the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The focus was never recovered for a detailed discussion of the articles relevance to the subject for which the symposium was convened.

I contacted The Metropolitan Tabernacle with a request for permission to reprint The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness in its entirety. Shortly thereafter I received their permission. I have posted the permission as the first comment in the thread under the original article (see link below).

Read the following article as a study. Prayerfully consider this compelling polemic.

The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness:
An alarmed assessment by Dr. Masters of the ‘new Calvinism’ promoted among young people in the USA

When I was a youngster and newly saved, it seemed as if the chief goal of all zealous Christians, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, was consecration. Sermons, books and conferences stressed this in the spirit of Romans 12.1-2, where the beseeching apostle calls believers to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and not to be conformed to this world. The heart was challenged and stirred. Christ was to be Lord of one’s life, and self must be surrendered on the altar of service for him.

But now, it appears, there is a new Calvinism, with new Calvinists, which has swept the old objectives aside. A recent book, Young, Restless, Reformed, by Collin Hansen tells the story of how a so-called Calvinistic resurgence has captured the imaginations of thousands of young people in the USA, and this book has been reviewed with great enthusiasm in well-known magazines in the UK, such as Banner of Truth, Evangelical Times, and Reformation Today.

This writer, however, was very deeply saddened to read it, because it describes a seriously distorted Calvinism falling far, far short of an authentic life of obedience to a sovereign God. If this kind of Calvinism prospers, then genuine biblical piety will be under attack as never before.

The author of the book is a young man (around 26 when he wrote it) who grew up in a Christian family and trained in secular journalism. We are indebted to him for the readable and wide-reaching survey he gives of this new phenomenon, but the scene is certainly not a happy one.

The author begins by describing the Passion, conference at Atlanta in 2007, where 21,000 young people revelled in contemporary music, and listened to speakers such as John Piper proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments. And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine.

We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.

Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. As one who regularly visited American seminaries to speak from the early 1970s, I constantly met many preachers and students who loved the doctrines of grace, preaching also in churches of solid Calvinistic persuasion. But firmer evidence of the extensive presence of Calvinism is seen from the fact that very large firms of publishers sent out a stream of reformed literature post-war and through the 1980s. The mighty Eerdmans was solidly reformed in times past, not to mention Baker Book House, and Kregel and others. Where did all these books go – thousands upon thousands of them, including frequently reprinted sets of Calvin’s commentaries and a host of other classic works?

In the 1970s and 80s there were also smaller Calvinistic publishers in the USA, and at that time the phenomenon of Calvinistic discount Christian bookshops began, with bulging catalogue lists and a considerable following. The claim that Calvinism virtually disappeared is hopelessly mistaken.

Indeed, a far better quality Calvinism still flourishes in very many churches, where souls are won and lives sanctified, and where Truth and practice are both under the rule of Scripture. Such churches have no sympathy at all with reporter Collin Hansen’s worldly-worship variety, who seek to build churches using exactly the same entertainment methods as most charismatics and the Arminian Calvary Chapel movement.

The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings).

But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.

Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.)

In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretised by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.

C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.

It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitude conference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord.

New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.

One of the mega-churches admired in the book is the six-thousand strong Mars Hill Church at Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll, who blends emerging church ideas (that Christians should utilise worldly culture) with Calvinistic theology [see endnote 1].

This preacher is also much admired by some reformed men in the UK, but his church has been described (by a sympathiser) as having the most ear-splitting music of any, and he has been rebuked by other preachers for the use of very ‘edgy’ language and gravely improper humour (even on television). He is to be seen in videos preaching in a Jesus teeshirt, symbolising the new compromise with culture, while at the same time propounding Calvinistic teaching. So much for the embracing of Puritan doctrine divested of Puritan lifestyle and worship.

Most of the well-known preachers who promote and encourage this ‘revival’ of Calvinism have in common the following positions that contradict a genuine Calvinistic (or Puritan) outlook:

1. They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.
2. They are soft on separation from worldliness [see endnote 2].
3. They reject the concern for the personal guidance of God in the major decisions of Christians (true sovereignty), thereby striking a death-blow to wholehearted consecration.
4. They hold anti-fourth-commandment views, taking a low view of the Lord’s Day, and so inflicting another blow at a consecrated lifestyle.

Whatever their strengths and achievements (and some of them are brilliant men by any human standard), or whatever their theoretical Calvinism, the poor stand of these preachers on these crucial issues will only encourage a fatally flawed version of Calvinism that will lead people to be increasingly wedded to the world, and to a self-seeking lifestyle.

Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world.

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism.

Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly. One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, but very many more turned aside. Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving the cause compromised and scarred.

Has this form of Calvinism come to Britain yet? Alas, yes; one only has to look at the ‘blogs’ of some younger reformed pastors who put themselves forward as mentors and advisers of others. When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts. Years ago, such brethren would not have been baptised until they were clear of the world, but now you can go to seminary, no questions asked, and take up a pastorate, with unfought and unsurrendered idols in the throne room of your life. What hope is there for churches that have under-shepherds whose loyalties are so divided and distorted?

Aside from pastors, we know some ‘new’ young Calvinists who will never settle in a dedicated, working church, because their views live only in their heads and not their hearts. We know of some whose lives are not clean. We know of others who go clubbing. The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.

These are harsh words, but they lead me to say that where biblical, evangelical Calvinism shapes conduct, and especially worship, it is a very humbling, beautiful system of Truth, but where it is confined to the head, it inflates pride and self-determination.

The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.

Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people.

A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked.

These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.

True Calvinism and worldliness are opposites. Preparation of heart is needed if we would search the wonders and plumb the depths of sovereign grace. We find it in the challenging, convicting call of Joshua:

‘Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’

Endnotes:
1) His resolution of the question of divine sovereignty versus human free will, however, is much nearer to the Arminian view.

2) A recent book entitled Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World by C J Mahaney and others, hopelessly under-equips young believers for separation from the world, especially in the area of music, where, apparently, the Lord loves every genre, and acceptability is reduced to two misleading and subjective questions.

(Italics his, bold and underline mine. Images have been added to illustrate some of that, which Masters warns of.)

The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness is a clarion call to “young people in the USA” and especially timely for young American Fundamentalists. This is a sermon in print, a “ministry of warning” that has been nearly non-existent in American IFB circles. This is a much needed “ministry of warning” to men in Fundamentalism who are rapidly moving toward increased dialogue, fellowship with and tolerance for the “new” Calvinism of “conservative” evangelicalism.

Site Publisher Addendum (9/19/13)
This article originally appeared here in July 9, 2009.
Doctrinally, I reject all five points of Calvinism and the extra-biblcial extremes that flow from it. The extremes are: 1) Regeneration occurs prior to and apart from faith, 2) Faith is the gift of God, 3) The works based, man-centered message known as Lordship Salvation.

Related Reading:
New Calvinism & the Millennial Generation: The Perfect Storm

New Calvinism’s Upside-Down Gospel

How Could It Happen? The Journey from Truth to the Liberalism of A-millennialism

Recently we discussed the tragedy of young, immature men in the ministry who have been drawn into errant theology by intellectuals who pretend to be loyal to the scripture. (The Emerging Church: How Do You Know When?) I have no obligation to protect those who are responsible for this moral crime and no obligation to protect those who allowed themselves to drawn into theological error.  I have repeatedly demonstrated how the path to liberalism is a gradual process.  Those who have chosen to abandon the one biblical hermeneutic may move along this treacherous route quite slowly, while others hasten to their fall from truth.

With a great deal of grief, I think of a young man who, by the grace of God, sat under the teaching of godly men and was shown the value of biblical text, but who later made the mistake of listening to those who have left the authority and sufficiency of scripture. Those teachers were intellectual and philosophical, and that combination often leads to an arrogance which allows folks to twist the text in such a way as to produce their own desired ends.  It is simply a rewriting of the scripture.  The end result was that the student, in a very short time, moved from a biblical context to a tragic end with the liberalism of amillennialism.

This heartache sent me on a search for an answer to the question, “How could this happen?”

ALMOST EVERY DAY

It dawned on me that almost every day I have contact with people who ought to know better, but who appear to be incapable of recognizing theological error.  Some of these individuals are well educated, with graduate and post-graduate degrees.  Some of them majored in theological disciplines, and others have spent a good part of their lives in some kind of ministry.  So what went wrong?  Why is truth not high on their list of priorities?

My pleasure, as well as my responsibility, is to read.  My computer is filled with emails, messages from blogs, and notes from people commenting on all kinds of things.  These folks talk about people, schools, missions, and ministries, but never seem to ask the question of what they believe.  The latest gossip, idea, or opinion fills the pages; but there is very seldom a question about the theology behind all that.  Don’t they know about a theology that is biblical?  I can’t imagine that they don’t care.  The crisis grows when someone does ask the question about doctrinal error.

Such a sincere discussion is seen as an attack on some person, or a lack of love.

Instead of searching the scripture to discover the truth about a subject, the person who asks a question is attacked personally. We learned a long time ago that a person who attacks the messenger instead of dealing with the message has a hidden motive.

COMING TO AN ANSWER

Jesus taught us that we are not to be respecters of persons.  The Bible is about God. Man is spoken of throughout its pages, but the Bible is a revelation about the Sovereign Creator.  That is how we are to deal with doctrine and theology - it is all about God. When someone teaches error, we should hasten to the Bible and the God of the Bible for answers.

Instead we quickly go to the defense of some contemporary evangelical figure, even if he is speaking against the clear statement of the text.

Others jump on the historical band wagon and defend some theological system or historical writer or teacher.  There is not a human living who is not flawed.  There is no movement, denomination, creed, or theological system that is not tainted with error, so why do they rush to defend everything but the scripture?  Some say the scripture needs no defense, but it is that kind of cute talk that buries professing Christianity in error.

This approach doesn’t mean that we can’t have appreciation for people, organizations, and movements.  On the other hand, though, all of these things call for us to ask questions.

We cannot please God and actively cover error, nor should we ignore error.

What kind of pride would ignore the responsibility given to every believer to compare scripture with statements and printed material?

YOU KNEW THIS WAS COMING

Going back to the journey I described at the beginning, something became very clear.  Every one of the statements that troubled me had one thing in common: those who ignored or covered error hold a flawed hermeneutic.  To the person who is committed to the authority and sufficiency of scripture, a correct system of biblical interpretation is imperative.  If there is no single system of hermeneutic, then anyone can make the Bible say what he or she wants it to say; and that is exactly why we have error.  Many have chosen a system that allows them to insert whatever they want into the biblical text.  I remind you that this is exactly what is being done with the constitution of our country.  It is the practice of liberals, a way of thinking, and a mindset. That is the reason why, when someone abandons the one biblical hermeneutic, he can come up with any kind of theology or invention to replace it.  That is how a well-intentioned student can leave the truth behind and rapidly take the journey from truth to the liberalism of a-millennialism.  Not only do I have no obligation to protect those who are following this path, but I have no reason, either, to be silent about the evil - no matter how intellectual it may be - of destroying the futures of young men.

Shepherd's Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.  Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches.

Site Publisher Addendum:

Dr. Mark Dever, one of the star personalities of the so-called conservative evangelicals, believes, preaches and defends amillennialism. Therefore, be mindful of the danger ahead when men like Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran work in cooperative ministry with and heap lavish praise on Mark Dever apart from any serious warning about Dever's aberrant amillennial theology.

New Calvinism & the Millennial Generation: The Perfect Storm

In recent years there has been a great deal of attention focused on the New Calvinism. “New Calvinism” is a serious threat to the Church of Jesus Christ. Among others many of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals have been at the forefront of advocating this movement and its devastating effects.

For the most comprehensive review and analysis of, and the answer to the New Calvinism you must read the works by Dr. Rob Congdon. You can find them at his website, Congdon Ministries International in the bookstore. Previously he wrote and we featured here New Calvinism’s Upside-Down Gospel.1

For those who are genuinely saved but have fallen under the teaching of New Calvinism, there is also concern. They, along with unsaved New Calvinists, are being led down a path that quite possibly is leading to a re-unification of Protestant churches with Roman Catholicism. Eventually, this union will spawn the worldwide religion described in Revelation…. John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, and other New Calvinist leaders influence these young adults through their speaking, writing, and Internet blogs. They also encourage their followers to read the writings of past authority figures such as Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, and John Owens, as well as other influential Reformers or Puritans. While some of these writings provide useful spiritual insight, they also contain false biblical teaching. It is these and other writings that encourage mysticism, signs and wonders, and a continual looking back to the cross. Instead of complacent Christianity, New Calvinism seems to offer a sense of passion that is experienced through meditation on the majesty of God and the cross.

Rob Congdon’s new book is titled, New Calvinism & the Millennial Generation: The Perfect Storm.2

New Calvinism is a system of theology that combines: Reformed, Covenant, Puritan, and Augustinian theologies with present day, Post-Modern culture in an attempt to make Christianity seem more relevant to today’s Christian. Recognizing that churches are declining in numbers, fewer people are being saved, and that many Christians are carnal, not leading holy lives, concerned Christian leaders are looking back to the earlier days of the church for a solution. One solution they are turning to is New Calvinism. They are re-thinking and re-invigorating their teachings in order to make it relevant to our generation of Christianity. 1) Relevant is a key goal of New Calvinism.2) Adherents to New Calvinism believe that the answer lies in reaching out and building bridges between all segments of Christianity.3) According to the teachings of New Calvinism, the spiritual gifts of signs and wonders are valid for the church today.4) New Calvinism seeks to create and redeem culture.5) New Calvinism unites with Worldliness.

Related reading from 2009 by Dr. Peter Masters, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness.3

The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian. 

C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views. 

The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world. 

Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people. 

A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.

If you cannot recognize error you, your church and your family are at risk of being unwittingly swept into this anti-biblical movement. New Calvinism is introduced with great subtlety by certain star personalities in evangelicalism. The unsuspecting could easily be deceived into believing that New Calvinism is God’s plan for the New Testament church. I can think of no current resources that will better equip to you recognize, reject and refute the egregious errors of the New Calvinism than that of Dr. Rob Congdon’s works on this subject.

Yours faithfully,

Lou Martuneac

Site Publisher Addendum:
I reject all 5 points of Calvinism and the extra-biblical theology (regeneration before faith; faith is the gift of God) that flows from it. Recognizing Dr. Masters is a Calvinist I feel his voice is much needed in this debate over the new threat from his Calvinistic brethren.

Footnotes:

1) New Calvinism’s Upside-Down Gospel

2) New Calvinism & the Millennial Generation: The Perfect Storm

3) The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness

The Emerging Church: How Do You Know When?

A recent communication from a long-time friend in my home state has once again brought to the surface a very serious issue.  The church where he had been a member for most of his life called a new pastor, who failed to inform the church of his intent to remake the church into the emerging-church model.  While only God knows his motive, the result became very public.  When those who had sacrificed, given, and served for years to create a healthy local assembly began asking questions, they were stiff armed.  As time passed, people who had comprised the heart of that church ministry were told to either fall in line with the new plan or leave.  In the end, yet another previously healthy congregation moved into the emerging-church tragedy.

We need to begin by agreeing that it is clearly dishonest for any man to accept the leadership of a church without being upfront about his intentions.  Even if it is a theological issue that needs to be corrected, he must be transparent.

The question is often asked, “How do you know when the emerging church is emerging in your church?”  It has happened to some of you and very soon is about to happen to others.  That is what this article is about.

A CLEAR VIEW OF THE EMERGING CHURCH

In reality, the emerging church is simply the road to the emergent church.  In the latter, because that movement is at home with heresy, a theology that is biblical is almost destroyed.  The emerging church is a façade.  It looks good to those who are not settled in their theology, but it is fraught with doctrinal error.

No church has ever entered its clutches without having its theology compromised.

That cancer is covered by defenders of the movement by “complicating to confuse.”  What is needed instead is an approach that “simplifies to clarify.”

To avoid revealing the theological weaknesses of the emerging church, a liberal tool is used:  all conversation about it is steered toward culture and methodology rather than the dangers of doctrinal deviation.  Although many of their methods are not inherently evil, some are dangerous.  Methods, however, are not at the center of this problem; theology is.  The emerging church uses its methods, and the ensuing debate about them, to turn from truth.

Every church that has headed down the road of the emerging church has been lulled by the siren song of “methods.”

When the doctrinal compromise which has occurred is finally realized, by then it’s too late; it is but one more step to the emergent church where at first doctrine doesn’t matter, and finally it is hated.  It all begins with the mantra that “the Bible doesn’t speak to that.”  Methods do matter, and the Bible records the death of some who were not careful about this.  

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION

If a church is leaning toward the emerging model, don’t expect to see much of a doctrinal shift from the pulpit; it is more subtle than that.  The attitude about the content of sermons, and even their length, may create some valid questions.  When the pulpit is removed from the “worship center,” members should begin to ask, “What is central here?”  Many churches helpfully place Bibles in the pews for anyone who may not have one, but that is, of course, no longer necessary if the Bible has become merely a fetish in man-centered worship.  Don’t waste your time judging any individual churches about each of these things; one single issue will only serve to create a question and not necessarily an answer.

A majority of the churches which are moving left have had a major shift in their style of worship.  I have pledged not to get in the middle of the “worship wars,” so I will be brief with this.  The concern with this topic is that much of the move in worship styles has left the true meaning of worship behind, a telltale sign of the emerging church.  Jesus made this plain to the Samaritan woman: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”  (John 4:24).  How can we worship God when truth is left behind and when we sing lies?  How can we worship God when man, rather than God, is the center of a side show misnamed “worship?”

Music is one of the best indicators of the emerging church infection.  Some say that the Bible does not speak to this subject, but that is more of a confession than an observation.

If you walk blindfolded into a “worship” service and can’t tell whether you’re in a church or a nightclub or a rock concert or a bar, something is definitely wrong.

Showmanship and low-talented performances where you have no idea what the words even are that are being sung should leave you with questions.  Even over-used phrases that border on "vain repetition" should make us begin to ask some questions.

FINE TUNING

Any one of these things by itself might not be a condemnation, but taken as a whole they should set off the warning lights.  It is clear that every church which has made this transition gave the warning early on in the form of culture, methods, and worship changes.  One could not say that the leaders in every case knew what they were doing, but in the end they had to give up something theologically.  So…if you are asking, “Is this emerging in my church?” you’d better spend some time thinking about what is going on and asking some Bible questions.  If there is no one in your church who has the ability to understand a theology that is biblical, then ask someone who does. 

I wasn’t born yesterday, and I have already heard time and again the defense of the emerging church arguments, so if you have input, please make it theological - not philosophical.

Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D. Min

A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care, for those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible.  Shepherd's Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches.  Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com

Closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary: Predictable and Repeatable

In October 2012 I published, What Does Pillsbury, Tennessee Temple and Northland International University Have in Common?

“Tennessee Temple and its leadership pursued a path of ‘relevance.’ accommodated carnality, and today even secular media can’t help but notice that there is a parallel between the institution’s decline and its accommodation of the world at the sacrifice of Biblical, Christian distinctives. Let those pastors, churches and institutions who abandon their fundamental heritage, have disdain for those who have gone before, and pursue a path towards ‘Conservative Evangelicalism’ be forewarned…their end is tragically predictable.”

Last week, Calvary Baptist Seminary (CBS) in Lansdale, PA announced that it would be closing its doors at the conclusion of the current academic year.  At the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI)* I have read how the members there lament the news of CBS closing.  What we read, however, is primarily what I see as a blame shift. They seem to think that not keeping up with the times in Internet offerings killed off the school. While having an aggressive Internet program for off-site learning may have been helpful, there is IMO a more reasonable explanation for the closing of CBS.

A reason for the closure of CBS that is not being discussed by the new wave of new evangelicals at SI is that CBS drifted far from its foundational roots.  Tim Jordan and Sam Harbin charted a course far from the school’s fundamental, Baptistic, separatist heritage.

In recent years Jordan/Harbin have opened the school to new evangelicals.  Drs. Mark Dever and Haddon Robinson most notably. For the Mark Dever event both Dr. Kevin Bauder and Dr. Dave Doran eagerly participated in the conference.

What Calvary Baptist Seminary once was under the leadership of Tim Jordan’s father, “Chief” Jordan, will be missed. What CBS became under Tim Jordan and Sam Harbin will not.

Finally, it is my belief that the closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary was predictable and will be repeated. Calvary joins Pillsbury Baptist Bible College and Tennessee Temple in their demise. I also believe we will see the closure of Northland International University (NIU) and Central Baptist Seminary (Minneapolis, MN). For drifting far from their original markers as fundamental Baptist separatist schools NIU and Central will not survive. NIU and Central will not survive having become non-separatist, evangelical schools. They will not survive having alienated their base and alumni! NIU and Central cannot compete for students with the star personalities of and/or high-profile schools in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

Northland and Central will not survive having abandoned their fundamental heritage, disdain for those who have gone before, and pursuing a path toward “conservative” evangelicalism.

LM

Update: June 15, 2014
For an important continuation on the closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary please refer to, “They are Accountable for Failure and Won’t Own Up to It.”

Related Reading:

Dr. Ernest Pickering: The Separatist Cause is Not Advanced by Featuring Non-Separatists

Kevin Bauder & Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism

*Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet

What Does John Piper & Al Mohler Have in Common? Rick Warren!

In March 2010 I broke the news that John Piper had invited Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at that years Desiring God conference.1

In subsequent articles I questioned what the reaction and/or pattern might be of Piper’s fellow so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

“What will be the reaction of the T4G men: MacArthur, Dever, Sproul, et. al.? Will there be some public negative reaction from the other T4G men? Will, for the sake of T4G/TGC fellowships, all be forgotten? At T4G will all embrace one another as if nothing is amiss?”2

Today we have Al Mohler’s reaction to Piper’s embrace of Rick Warren. From recent personal Twitter accounts of Al Mohler and Rick Warren we learned that Al Mohler brought the SBTS executive committee to visit with Rick Warren at Saddleback.  Al Mohler has followed John Piper’s lead and himself now embraces Rick Warren in Christian ministry.

Rick Warren @albertmohler Thanks for bringing your SBTS Executive Team to visit. I enjoyed our time. Albert Mohler Thanks so much for your time, hospitality and open conversation, Rick. @ Rick Warren.

The 5PT.SALT blog posted the details of the Mohler/Warren convergence.  I encourage each of you to read the story at 5PT.SALT.3 From this point I have a related issue to address.

In 2009 Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD).4  With that Mohler compromised the gospel and gave Christian recognition to the deadly enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18).

In their reactions Drs. Kevin Bauder and David Doran excused Al Mohler for having signed the MD.  Bauder dismissed the issue by stating that Mohler singing the MD was, “an occasional inconsistency…single episode.”5 Dave Doran said it was merely a “wrong decision based on bad judgment.”6 These men knew that signing the MD was no “single episode” of “bad judgment.” When Al Mohler signed the MD I said then that that would not be the end of his ecumenical compromises. There has been a series of high-profile compromises in the ministry of Al Mohler.  Among them was his sitting as chairman for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville.

In reference to the Mohler/Graham cooperative ministry Dave Doran said, “…he [Mohler] does not…embrace the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham.”7 In light of Al Mohler embracing Rick Warren isn’t it reasonable to assume that Al Mohler can no longer be given benefit of the doubt on ecumenical evangelism?

Al Mohler, furthermore, has never publicly, biblically repented for having signed the MD. In the obscure Four Views book, co-authored by Kevin Bauder, nowhere in the brief paragraph, in which Dr. Mohler gives glowing praise for the MD, does he apologize or repent for having signed it.  Yet, Kevin Bauder said that that single sentence shows that Mohler “reverse[d] course entirely” on the MD.

In March 2010, at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron,* Dr. Gerald Priest posted an extended comment that including the following excerpt. “Kevin Bauder has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals….”8

For several years Dr. Kevin Bauder, and to a lesser extent, Dr. David Doran, et. al., has been heaping lavish praise on high profile “conservative” evangelicals, including Al Mohler. With the latest revelation- isn’t it high time for these men to rethink and retract their praise for Al Mohler? Isn’t it about time that Drs. Bauder and Doran begin to warn those in their sphere of influence about Al Mohler. Shouldn’t Drs. Bauder and Doran recognize that Al Mohler is irretrievably bent on ecumenical compromise and is a man to be marked and avoided (Romans 16:17-18)?

There is a Trojan horse being allowed access to IFB circles and seminaries.

“Kevin [Bauder]…has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism…. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.”9

Dr. Doran identified as the “biblical obligations” (2 Thess. 3:15; Phil. 3:15-17; Rom. 16:17) for Gospel-Driven Separation. He wrote,

“For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6-15).”10

In his subsequent article Dr. Doran wrote, “If they’ve denied or compromised the gospel, then we say no to cooperation and fellowship.”11 Only days later it was learned that Al Mohler signed the MD.  Today, we see Al Mohler in partnership with Rick Warren, whose New Evangelical compromises of Scripture and the Gospel are many.  Just as Kevin Bauder did, Dave Doran’s reaction was to excuse Al Mohler signing the MD. Today’s question is: Will they ignore or excuse Al Mohler ecumenism again?

Based on a long time pattern of tolerating, allowing for, ignoring or excusing the aberrant theology, ecumenical compromises and worldliness of the evangelicals can we reasonably expect Dr. Bauder or Dr. Doran to say something by way of warning about the Al Mohler/Rick Warren convergence? 

To what extent, if any at all, will Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran publicly disassociate themselves from Al Mohler? 

Will Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran obey the Scriptures? Will they be doers of the Word they have expounded? Or, just as they responded to Al Mohler when he signed the MD will they make yet another exception and excuse (or possibly ignore all-together) Al Mohler partnering with Rick Warren?

I’ll close with a short series of questions to Dr. Bauder and Dr. Doran:

1) Is Al Mohler’s embrace of Rick Warren an evidence of “fidelity to the gospel?”

2) Will you retract previously given and cease from any future lavish praise for Al Mohler?

3) Will you vigorously warn believers to avoid Al Mohler as enthusiastically as you have been praising him and his fellow “conservative” evangelicals?

We hope that both Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran have seen enough.  Believers are obligated to obey the Scriptures! Al Mohler’s latest excursion into ecumenical compromise is an excellent opportunity for Dr. Bauder and Dr. Doran to demonstrate fidelity to the Scriptures by openly rejecting the brand of “conservative” evangelicalism exemplified by Dr. Al Mohler.

LM

Foot Notes:
1) John Piper to Feature Rick Warren at DesiringGod

2) John Piper to Feature Rick Warren: What arethe T4G Men For to Do?

3) Brothers in Arms: Al Mohler & Rick Warren, 5PT. SALT blog (hyper-link removed)

4) Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-DrivenSeparation?”

5) Kevin Bauder Discussing Al Mohler’s “Occasional Inconsistency?”

6) Dr. Dave Doran: A Bronx Declaration, Glory & Grace.

7) Dr. Dave Doran: All Over Manhattan, Glory & Grace, 11/25/2009.

8) Dr. Gerald Priest, Full Comment at SI.

9) Ibid.

10) Dr. Dave Doran: Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1. Glory & Grace, 11/23/2009

11) Dr. Dave Doran: Starting at the Right Spot, Part 2. Glory & Grace, 11/24/2009

* Sharper Iron: The Facade & Veneer is Stripped Away