Wired4Truth » doctrines of grace

Why I’m Not a “New Calvinist” (1)

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:45:50 +0000

Before I go any further, I guess I need to make a few introductory comments.

I’m thankful for the revival of interest in recent years in the doctrines of grace and in sound doctrine. I became Reformed three years ago this week (tomorrow to be exact) and I can say if I could do my life all over again, I’d start where I did August 2007 when I began to embrace the truths I hold so dear. Without a doubt, the rise of Reformed theology particularly among the young has been something I’ve been hoping to see for quite a while. As Scripture implores us, “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (1 Tim 4:16)

However, as I’ve seen the last three years go by, and in the last 12 months in particular, I’ve seen some trends which have caused me to re-think my relationship to the New Calvinism. Now, lest I be seen as a harsh and unbridled critic, I want it to be known that this is not an article on individuals or churches, but just some observations I see, movement-wide, which haven’t been really discussed.

Now why would I want to discuss this? After all, aren’t I one of these New Calvinists? Well, technically, I’m an outsider to it. I came to an understanding of the doctrines of grace through reading a lot of books and studying the Scriptures. My favourite preachers weren’t Piper, MacArthur or Sproul – it was men like Dr. Alan Cairns, formerly of Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC and Dr. Albert Martin, formerly of Trinity Baptist Church, Montville, NJ. It was older, more traditional dudes who shaped my thinking in terms of doctrine and practice. My mentor was a Welsh Presbyterian minister of 67 years, who was more at home with the Puritans than with what we’d call “the young, restless and reformed”. With time, I came to be aware of guys like Piper, Driscoll and co. – but for the most part (with Driscoll being the exception – I liked him…a lot), they didn’t really shape me as a reformed Christian.

I eventually joined a Reformed Baptist fellowship of believers here in London and this further put me in the place of a spectator to the New Calvinism with occasional involvement. But in the last 12 months, and especially over this summer, I’ve had three real concerns which have come into sharp focus.

Firstly, there seems to be a weak confessional stance. Now, this is not to say that the New Calvinism is like the seeker-sensitive movement with the equator in width and a puddle in depth, but it seems that for all the theological sophistication, there is a total abandonment (for the most part) of the confessions which came out of the Reformation era. As a Reformed Baptist, that would the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, for my Presbyterian brethren, that would be the Westminster Standards, for my continental Reformed friends, such as those in the URCNA, that would be the Three Forms of Unity and for my Congregationalist friends, the Savoy Declaration. The confessions aren’t inspired or infallible, they are beneath the authority of Scripture and thankfully so. However, the New Calvinism seems content with being a-confessional – and the result? Gaps are wide open in its theology. For example, in an article discussing the merits of the New Calvinism over “Old Calvinism” (which, in all honesty, I believe to be a caricature), Mark Driscoll says the following:

Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

Putting aside the reality that his argument is terribly anachronistic (the charismata became an issue again with the rise of the Pentecostal movement in the 1900s and the Charismatic Movement in the 1960s – Reformed theologians had been around for much longer on a time level and never dealt with the issue) and that is grossly misleading (Reformed theology has a rich history of discussing the person and work of the Holy Spirit – from John Owen to George Smeaton and James Buchanan and many others), one has to wonder whether Driscoll, and many others of a reformed persuasion, who nevertheless believe in the continuation of certain spiritual gifts, have considered the conflict between a position which affirms the full sufficiency of Scripture…and yet believe in some form of continuation of revelatory gifts.

Take another area – the doctrine of the church. In a conversation with my pastor this summer, I distinctly recall him saying that one of his concerns with the New Calvinism was its lack of a strong doctrine of the church. Now, my pastor is no expert in these things, by his own admission, but he’s not alone in that sentiment. Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, in an interview with my friend Nathan Bingham, remarked the following:

What can young people attracted by this faithful presentation of a big God, with huge grace, deep truth and strong love learn from the older confessional communions? In a word, ecclesiology (how the Bible says that we are be and what we are to do together as the people of God, that is, how we are to live and minister in the Christian community and in the world). The doctrine of the church has long been a lacuna in evangelicalism, and it is no different now, even among those attracted afresh to the doctrines of grace. And without confessional commitments and a biblical theology of the church, the awakening won’t amount to much in the long run.

Note how Dr. Duncan makes the same assessment – weak confessionalism will be the undoing of the New Calvinism. Of course, there is always the danger of a cold creedalism but dear friends, hear me out. The reality that creedalism is a real danger in reformed circles doesn’t mean that we swing the pendulum against respecting and having confessions.

I also appreciate that our confessions don’t address every modern concern and issues, and that not everything in them is airtight (for instance, the Papacy is called the Antichrist in both the Westminster and London confessions), but we’d be fools to reject the great body of truth handed down to us in our present day.

Next time, I’ll pick up with another concern…

(To be continued)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Three Offices of Christ – A Primer (1)

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Thu, 13 May 2010 14:30:22 +0000

I was reading a book yesterday evening, just before I planned to go to bed and saw an amazing little section on the mediatorial offices of Christ, and so I figured I’d post it. Enjoy…

When we speak of Christ’s office, we are saying that He is our great Prophet (Acts 3:22-26), our only High Priest (Heb 7:24-28) and our eternal King (Rev 17:14).

With these three offices Christ is unique in Scripture. No one else except Melchizedek held all these offices (Heb 7). During the kingdom years it was forbidden that the kings of Israel and Judah serve both as priests and kings. One of Judah’s kings, Uzziah, was stricken with leprosy for trying, as king, to perform the functions of a priest (2 Chron 26:16-21; compare with 1 Sam 13:8-14).

Doctrine According to Godliness, Ronald Hanko, Granville, MI: RFPA, 2004

A man might be a priest and a prophet, like Samuel, or he might be a king and a prophet, like David, but he could not be both king and priest. Only Melchizedek held both offices, and he was a unique picture of Christ. There is no one like Christ.

Because there is no other like Christ, we must have no other besides him – no earthly priest or prophet, and no king but Christ. His claims put to shame the claims of all those who say today they are prophets or priests or supreme rulers in the church of Jesus Christ. The church has no head but Christ, no prophet but the living Word of God, no priest but the merciful Son of God, the one who offered himself a sacrifice for the sins of His people. Of these things we will speak later.

However, before we look at Christ’s prophetic, priestly and kingly offices, we must understand what an office is. First, it is a position of service. With his offices Christ is identified in Scripture as the Servant of Jehovah, especially in the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 52:13, Isaiah 53:11). As Servant of Jehovah He comes to do God’s will and work (Luke 2:49; John 4:34).

An office is also a position of authority. In his three offices Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18). The words he speaks as Prophet have such authority that those who do not hear him will perish. His rule as King is supreme over all. His work as Priest, both in making sacrifice and in blessing us, is a saving work, because He was given authority by God to make the one sacrifice that atones for sin and to bless with all the riches of salvation those whom God had given Him.

Finally, an office is a mediatorial position. As Prophet, Priest and King, Christ is our Mediator. He “stands between” God and us, not only to make a priestly sacrifice for sin that satisfies the demands of God’s justice, but also to bring us God’s Word as Prophet and to rule over us in God’s name as sovereign King.

His name Christ, the same name as the Old Testament name Messiah, shows us all this. That name means “anointed one” and referes to the fact that Christ is anointed and appointed by God the Father, through the Holy Spirit, to be our Prophet, Priest and King.

Truly there is none like Him. Let us listen to no other, bow to no other, and trust in no other sacrifice but His. Then we can say in truth that to us He is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

- Doctrine According to Godliness, R. Hanko, Granville, MI: RFPA, 2004, pg 145-146

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Why Reformed Theology?

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:42:58 +0000

I get asked this all the time - “Why leave Pentecostalism to become a Reformed Baptist?”

Well, allow the folks from the PuritanBoard to explain “Why Reformed?” [BTW join PuritanBoard - they're nice folks]:

The National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR) has published its first major findings in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, by Oxford University Press.

The book Soul Searching accurately describes the state of American Christianity today by describing the beliefs of teens, the book:

Quote:

…vividly portrays complexity and paradox in the story of contemporary teenage religion. Though widely practiced and positively valued by teens, faith is also de-prioritized and very poorly understood by them. Nonetheless, religion remains a significant force in shaping their lives.[/left]
More broadly, Soul Searching describes what appears to be a major transformation of faith in the U.S., away from the substance of historical religious traditions and toward a new and quite different faith the book describes as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism….”1

A further description:

Quote:

Based on a nationwide telephone survey of teens and their parents, as well as in-depth face-to-face interviews with more than 250 of the survey respondents, Soul Searching shows that religion is indeed a significant factor in the lives of many American teenagers. Chock full of carefully interpreted interview data and solid survey statistics, Soul Searching reveals many surprising findings. For example, the authors find that teenagers are far more influenced by the religious beliefs and practices of their parents and other adults than is commonly thought. They challenge the conventional wisdom that many teens today are “spiritual seekers.” And they show that greater teenage religious involvement is significantly associated with more positive adolescent life outcomes.Soul Searching reveals the complexity of contemporary teenage religious life, showing that religion is widely practiced and positively valued by teens, but also de-prioritized and very poorly understood by them, yet significant nonetheless in shaping their lives. More broadly, Soul Searching describes what appears to be a major transformation of faith in the U.S., away from the substance of historical religious traditions and toward a new and quite different faith the authors call “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”2

What does this all mean? This means that Evangelicals of all stripes are raising children that essentially believe that God is far off somewhere, cannot really be described in words, and doesn’t really interfere in human affairs unless He is invoked when we can’t get things done on our own. Further, most believe that life can pretty much be managed except when we get in over our heads. At that point, God is there to help us out. Most believe men are basically good and we get to heaven as our good deeds outweigh our bad. Most shocking is that such beliefs are fairly consistent among the religious groups surveyed. Thus, a Roman Catholic might identify themselves by the title or a Baptist decry that they are not Roman Catholic, but their “creed” is identical.

This confirms a trend I have lived and that I now lament as one whose eyes have been opened to the power of the Gospel. Growing up Roman Catholic, I attended a Charismatic parish for several years. The priest emphasized the experiantial aspects. Belief in Christ was meditative and “discerned” while the creedal formulations were never discussed. I, thus, went to college in 1986 looking for experience of the same. Eventually discouraged that Catholic Churches lacked the “excitement” I had grown used to as a youth, I stopped going to Church for several years. Eventually I found my way into a broadly Evangelical Church where charismatic expression reigned again over doctrine. I was convinced that Roman Catholics and Evangelicals were divided only by a level of fervency for Christ. I suppose I imagined that Martin Luther and John Calvin were primarily interested in making Jesus an exciting thing again.

I attended Charismatic Churches for years. Expression of worship and excitement was always emphasized. Christ was said to have died for my sins but this was devoid of any meaning. I still understood that I must contribute my fervency and devotion to Him if I was to be accepted. I lived the life of the therapeutic Deist. I sought new experience week in and week out but always left flat, depressed, impoverished.

Then in 1997, I read Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul and everything changed. Suddenly the seemingly dead and confusing words of Scripture became utterly clear. The truth of the Gospel, for the first time, was unencumbered by vague speech. Somebody finally spoke clearly and said that Christ was the Just and Justifier. Somebody spoke plainly about imputed righteousness. I had experienced nearly everything that Charismatic experience has to offer. I had gone to the depths of the earth pursuing Christ and tried to climb to the heavens but it was all zeal without knowledge. I was not pursuing righteousness. I was not pursuing Christ. The awakening, excitement, and joy of that information, that News, filled me with a joy that no song or charismatic experience could ever replicate.

It is said, often, that American Evangelicals are “overfed”. That is, they get plenty of teaching but the problem is that they don’t act. We’re told today that we need less creeds and more deeds. This, of course, is reflected in the beliefs of teens today. They reflect their parents’ notion of truth – that in the end it doesn’t matter what you believe but it just matters how you live. In fact, the reason why this is perceived to be the case is that Evangelicals no longer are taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That’s right, Evangelicals are STARVED of the Gospel. They are fed deeds. They are fed purpose. They are fed experience. What they lack is the very News that can transform human hearts. What they never hear is that a Holy God is pouring out His wrath on all flesh. What they never hear is that all our works are like filthy rags before a Holy God who mankind hates because He is Holy. What they never hear is that, left to ourselves, no flesh will be found justified in His sight and He has every right to punish every man, woman, and child. Because God is Holy, He cannot overlook sin. It must be punished. But men think that God is there to serve them so they never experience the terribly bad news that their sin is worthy of condemnation.

Moreover, men never hear that God sent His only begotten Son into the world to bear the wrath that His people deserve. They don’t hear about the initiating love of God that gives spiritual eyes to see as the Gospel goes forth that brings dead men to life. They don’t hear that Christ bore the full penalty of wrath from His own Father that we deserve. Because they never hear it, they don’t look to Christ and believe the Gospel – a simple faith that says that Christ is God and bore the penalty of sin in His flesh and rose again to declare Himself God.

Because men, women, and children don’t hear this Good News anymore they are left STARVED in the Churches. You see, it is the Gospel that is the creed. It is the data of who Christ is, what He accomplished, and the nature of His Church that men, women, and children are not taught about. They have nobody to trust in except themselves. They have no News to embrace. Sadly, it is this very news that is the thing that transforms and saves but people don’t hear it, they’re not taught it, and they know nothing more about God than their Roman Catholic friends.

Thus, because I am a man transformed by the Evangel – the Good News of Christ – it breaks my heart to see men and women and children who have a mighty heritage in the Gospel impoverished. Many believe Grace is less powerful than the Roman Catholic Church did at the time of the Reformation. They’re asked to commit themselves fully to Christ so He will bless them. Gone is what Christ has done and it’s replaced with what we must do to draw near to Him.

In the end, it is the Creed that is more important than the Deeds. It’s not that deeds are unimportant but the deeds don’t save. It is the Creed that saves. It is the Creed that takes a dead man, running with all his might toward hell, and knocks him down and makes him alive that He might see and embrace the Gospel. As his heart reflects upon the wonderous salvation, constantly fed the Good News of how God is for those whom He has redeemed and how God has purposed to save His own to the uttermost, his heart superabounds with joy. His heart sings praises of doxology to the God he now loves, to the God he is now reconciled to. His will is now empowered by the Gospel toward love and good works – a fruit of a heart transformed!

Thus, I am convinced that those who emphasize deeds over creeds will not only lose all creeds but they will lose the deeds as well. There is nothing left, after the creeds have disappeared to empower or inform what is good. Every man does what is right in his own eyes. Sure, religion is convenient and fun for a season but as soon as it is tested in the fire of life, a life that most suburban kids are sheltered from, the phony religion is burned away. Like the “burned over” generations of the 19th century, American Evangelicalism is burning out and many are turning to rank atheism.

And so, this board embraces the Reformation and it embraces the Reformation’s historic confessions because they proclaim Christ and Him crucified. They unabashedly express the full nature of God and the wonder of the great salvation He has brought to His enemies that He loved beforehand.

The Reformed Confessions also take God seriously for He is not only our Justifier but He is a consuming fire. He is worthy of worship and adoration. He is not some mere transcendant clockmaker but is very near to us and has covenanted with man through human history. He has made promises to save that He Himself kept in the person of Jesus Christ.

Thus, theology is not a dry and boring thing but neither is it a joke or a youth game. Rather, it is an encounter with a living and Holy God who we love because He first loved us. It is because we love Him that we love to sing His praises and hate all those things that rebel against Him.

And so, we welcome you to the PuritanBoard if you are of like mind. If you are not yet a believer in the person and work of Christ and don’t know much about His person and work then we pray that our interactions on this board will demonstrate how deadly serious we are about the Truth. We pray that this seriousness about doctrine will, in some measure, be a means to the salvation of some as well as an edification to God’s Saints.

Soli Deo Gloria!

1 http://www.youthandreligion.org/
2 Ibid.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

An Introduction to Reformed Theology (James White)

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:54:56 +0000

The uber-man that is Lane Chaplin has done it again, and just as I finished my paper too. Ever wanted a good introduction to the dreadly C-word [Calvinism...I like the word ]? Well here it is:

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can check out the simply excellent website of Dr. White by hitting up www.aomin.org or just scrolling down and clicking the link in my sidebar. [I like James White...he's smart LOL]

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

TULIP Seminar – Part 7

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:48:37 +0000

It’s been a while now, but here is Part 7 of Dr. John Piper’s seminar on the Doctrines of Grace:

Click here to view the embedded video.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

TULIP Seminar Part 6 – Pastor John Piper

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:54:44 +0000

Here is the long overdue 6th session from the Bethlehem Institute study on the Doctrines of Grace:

Click here to view the embedded video.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

James White on Why The Doctrines of Grace Matter

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:10:24 +0000

I need to stop visiting Lane Chaplin’s new blog, I really do. Each and every time I go there, there is something good [my question at the moment is where does he find it all?].

He got in touch with Dr. James White, and before you know it, Dr. White placed up one of the best cuts from one of his debates I have ever seen, and I’ve seen plenty of them, since I subscribe to his YouTube channel. He did a debate with Calvary Chapel pastor, George Bryson, and here is the closing statement.

Mr. Chaplin says this of the video:

The claims that Calvinism causes people to lose zeal for the proclamation of the Gospel is refuted by the content of this video alone not to mention the abundance of other Calvinistic teachers and preachers who become more concerned with the proclamation as a result of their adherence to Reformed doctrine.

[I wish I could write like that.] Enough talk…except to add, that if you have $5, get the MP3 of the whole debate. It is really, really good – as a James White fan [and a Reformed Baptist], I thoroughly recommend every thing he puts out [including his twice-weekly webcast, The Dividing Line]. Alright, enough talk [for real this time], brace yourself…

Click here to view the embedded video.

HT: Lane Chaplin

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Puritans Want You to Have a TULIP Part 3 – LIMITED ATONEMENT

Douglas K. Adu-Boahen — Sat, 10 May 2008 15:29:07 +0000

A little late, I know, but in concurrence with the video series by Dr. Piper, here is Part 3 of the series on the Puritans and the Doctrines of Grace, courtesy of Dr. C. Matthew McMahon:

Limited Atonement
The Atonement of Jesus Christ is not limited in its power to save, but in the extent to which it reaches and will save.

Limited atonement is that fundamental Christian doctrine which states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people. He did not die, or redeem, every individual for all of time, but for some individuals, i.e. His sheep. This does not mean that the power of His death could not have saved all men. The power and efficacy of His death through one drop of His blood could have saved a million-billion worlds. But the Scripture does not dabble in “possibilities.” It does, though, state that the scope of His death is limited. He died for some people, and secured the salvation of those people through his death which took away their sin and imputed His own righteousness to them. This is something Christ accomplished on the cross alone. It is true, as the Scriptures state, that he died for “all men” (defined) and that God loves “the whole world” (defined). In these cases “all men” does not mean every individual inclusively. Nor does it necessarily follow that Christ died for the whole world because God loves the whole world inclusively. (For a study of these passages see “the all and world passages” in Owen’s Death of Death or in Calvin’s the “all” passages.) Jesus secured the salvation of those for whom He gave his life, and for those God imputes His righteousness upon them. Jesus does not infallibly secure the salvation of all men, for thence, all men would be saved.

As the Maxim goes:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:
1) All of the sins of all men – which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men – which means men are still in their sins.
3) All of the sin of some men – which is the biblical position.

Arminians must grapple with the fact that Jesus does His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by god.

John 6:37-40, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Matthew 1:21, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

John 10:15, “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

John 15:13, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Acts 20:28, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”

Puritan Quotations on Limited Atonement:

“Election is ascribed to God the Father, sanctification to the Spirit and reconciliation to Jesus Christ. This is the chain of salvation and never a link of this chain must be broken. The Son cannot die for them the Father never elected, and the Spirit will never sanctify them whom the Father has not elected nor the Son redeemed.”
Thomas Manton

“Application is the making effectual, in certain men, all those things which Christ has done and does as mediator.”
William Ames

“As for the intention of application, it is rightly said that Christ made satisfaction only for those whom he saved.”
William Ames

“[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But his unbelief, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be sin, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it; If this is so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.”
John Owen

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if…” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ’s death; we say, “no my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
Charles Spurgeon

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.