Rage On!

In his trademark wit and humor, Dr. D. G. Hart responds to Justin Taylor's newest inveighing against "angry Calvinists" here (labeling Driscoll as clairvoyant was like fly on flypaper!).

***I had to take down the Heidelblog-derived content at the request of Dr. Clark***

Dr. Carl Trueman exhorts us to rage where rage is required:

And, while it may salve the surprisingly sensitive aesthetic consciences of some to convince themselves that our critiques are simply in bad taste, nothing more than the routine rants of rabid Reformed rottweilers, this is simply not the case.....Rather, we do what we do because we simply refuse to allow to go unchallenged the received mythology concerning the evils of Reformed Orthodoxy; we do what we do because we love the Reformed faith as much as we dislike shoddy historical writing; we do what we do to make our own small contribution to criticism of the bland aesthetic tastes of modern evangelical theology; and, above all, we do what we do because to remain silent at such a time as this would be to abdicate our moral responsibility to the church. In short, we do it because it is right for us to do so. The light may well be dying, but we will rage, rage against it; and be assured, we will never go gentle into that good night. (Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light, WTJ 70 [2008]: 18)

The Muller-Meister Asks, "Was Calvin a Calvinist?"

"Abstract: Answering the perennial question, 'Was Calvin a Calvinist?,' is a rather complicated matter, given that the question itself is grounded in a series of modern misconceptions concerning the relationship of the Reformation to post-Reformation orthodoxy. The lecture examines issues lurking behind the question and works through some ways of understanding the continuities, discontinuities, and developments that took place in Reformed thought on such topics as the divine decrees, predestination, and so-called limited atonement, with specific attention to the place of Calvin in the Reformed tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" (Richard A. Muller).

Also available here

If Not Calvin, Then Who? Yourself?

I found the picture above on FB, posted by an Arminian who started an FB group about refuting Calvinism (or something to that effect).

What the picture seems to be saying is that Calvin's massive theological contribution to the Body of Christ was, and is, a source of idolatry among its adherents. What this argument fails to realize is that: if not Calvin, then who?

No one approaches Scripture tabula rasa. No one can read and understand Scripture, at least as it should be read and understood, without the aid of the understanding of those who have gone before. This is not to say that Scripture is not perspicuous, it simply is a testament to the nature of knowledge. The relationship of induction and deduction in epistemology is perichoretic. One's understanding of fact must necessarily be based on an already-established conceptual system to which that fact belongs, and conceptual systems are established based on gathered facts.

In reality, what this picture is merely saying is that "I am the source of all valid knowledge; I am autonomous and, with me and my Bible, I'm ready to go places!" It actually implicates the self as both the subject and object of idolatry in its misdirected stab at Calvinism.

The Truth Bearers

"Here then, in the last analysis, lies the significance of Dordt for today. The followers of Dordt, together with their brethren, the followers of Westminster, alone have the wherewithal with which to proclaim the gospel of the sovereign grace of God at all. Today the battle of Armageddon is on. It is up to those who prize their heritage as children of the Reformation and, more specifically, of the Reformed Reformation to lead all the true followers of the self-identifying Christ of Scripture against unbelief without and against unbelief within the church"

— Cornelius Van Til, "The Significance of Dordt for Today," in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, Peter Y. De Jong, editor, Reformed Fellowship, Inc., p. 195.

You Can't Have Both Johns

"The abandonment of liturgical forms for heartfelt experience, so characteristic of low-church Presbyterianism, is a significant departure from the genius of the Protestant Reformation, and thus puts Presbyterians in the awkward position of trying to accommodate John Calvin and John Wesley. What many contemporary Presbyterians seem to forget is that the Reformation was just that, a reformation, not a revival.

You can tell the difference between the two, according to the Belgic Confession, Article 29, by determining whether the church uses the correct forms—namely, is the Word being faithfully preached, are the Sacraments being faithfully administered, and is discipline being properly administered? The Belgic Confession, along with the rest of the Reformed creeds from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, has nothing to say about the typical way we spot a revival, that is, by a large number of new conversions and greater earnestness on the part of believers. So for Protestant Reformers, the issue was not whether a church was dead or alive.

The Evangelical concept of dead orthodoxy was virtually unknown prior to the revivals of the eighteenth century. For the Reformers, the issue was whether a church was false or true. For Luther, Calvin, and Cramner, the way to distinguish the true Church was by looking above all at the forms used in worship and the ways in which ordination took place. These were matters that were unambiguous—either a prayer, sermon, or service of ordination conformed to the teaching of Scripture or it did not (conceding that Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians read the Bible in different ways at times on these points).

But to tell whether a church or person was spiritually alive, revived, or dead was not so certain. And unfortunately, ever since the First Great Awakening, Presbyterians have been more attentive to the invisible work of the Spirit rather than the visible work of the Church, an alertness that is doomed to frustration because of the Spirit’s mysterious movements."

— D.G. Hart, Rediscovering Mother Kirk

Truly Reformed

I came to know of the doctrines of grace around 2005, and became convinced in heart and mind that the T.U.L.I.P., collectively, is what Scripture explicitly teaches. I devoured books and articles penned by what I thought then were "Reformed" and "Calvinist" authors. I learned a lot from them and I'm thankful for their witness. So I considered myself Reformed and a Calvinist, and in my mind being a 5-pointer was all it took for me to be able to claim the labels.

However, just this year, a brother by the name of Joel De Leon, who is studying to be a Presbyterian pastor in the U.S., came into contact with me through Facebook. We struck up a rapport and he, in utter generosity, sent me books and the "Amazing Grace" DVD. One of the books was "This World is Not My Home" by Michael Williams, a study on Dispensationalism. I haven't read the book in its entirety but, through the few chapters that I have indeed read, I began realizing many things about my theological worldview in that they had quite a few holes. This started the ball rolling. Things came to a head last month or so when I began listening to and reading some of Michael Horton's stuff. I began to see the richness, robustness, and cogency of the Reformed faith and what it means to be "Truly Reformed". I also got into articles by other "Truly Reformed" scholars and the case was made that being soteriologically-Reformed does not make one "Truly Reformed".

Fully persuaded that I was of the beauty and faithfulness to Scripture of the Reformed faith, I then desired to be "Truly Reformed". I purchased Michael Horton's "Introducing Covenant Theology" from a local Christian bookstore, ordered R.S. Clark's "Recovering the Reformed Confession" and the Beveridge May 2009 edition of Calvin's "Institutes" from Amazon, and still continued to download online articles. Through the agency of Joel, I came into contact with Ptr. Nollie Malabuyo, a local pastor who shepherds a "Truly Reformed" church, and I sent him a polite Facebook message asking if I could perhaps join them (Ptr. Nollie is Westminster Theological Seminary-trained). I was overjoyed when he gave me the warmest approval.

In all this, I see God's leading hand. The Reformed faith's objectivity, grounding in history, and scholarship are the impetuses to my loving God with all my mind; its Christo-centric humility, devotion, and gratitude the foundation of my godly affection.

Thank you, my Lord, for Your grace has been, is now, and will forever be AMAZING!

The Pipermeister on Calvo

"I think this would be a fitting banner over all of John Calvin’s life and work—zeal to illustrate the glory of God. The essential meaning of John Calvin’s life and preaching is that he recovered and embodied a passion for the absolute reality and majesty of God. That is what I want us to see most clearly. Benjamin Warfield said of Calvin, 'No man ever had a profounder sense of God than he.' There’s the key to Calvin’s life and theology.

Geerhardus Vos, the Princeton New Testament scholar, asked this question in 1891: Why has Reformed theology been able to grasp the fullness of Scripture unlike any other branch of Christendom? He answered, 'Because Reformed theology took hold of the Scriptures in their deepest root idea. . . . This root idea which served as the key to unlock the rich treasuries of the Scriptures was the preeminence of God’s glory in the consideration of all that has been created.' It is this relentless orientation toward the glory of God that gives coherence to John Calvin’s life and to the Reformed tradition that followed. Vos said that the 'all-embracing slogan of the Reformed faith is this: the work of grace in the sinner is a mirror for the glory of God.' Mirroring the glory of God is the meaning of John Calvin’s life and ministry."

- John Piper, John Calvin and His Passion for the Majesty of God, ch. 2, pp. 16-17 (emphases are in italics in the original)

The Bible, Calvinism and Being Straight

The prince of preachers, Charles H. Spurgeon, had a close friend by the name of John Clifford who was a distinguished preacher in his own right. One day Clifford ribbed his friend about his theology. "You see me so often I cannot understand why you remain a Calvinist," he said. Spurgeon replied, "Well, it's like this, John. I see you only about once a month, but I read my Bible every day and that keeps me straight."

- Roy B. Zuck, The Speaker's Quote Book, Calvinism, p. 44