# New Calvinism



## SolaSaint

http://www.newcalvinist.com/keller-and-the-catholic-mystics/

This doesn't look like the new Calvinism as stated by the liberal document posed by some SBC pastors? So what is going on, will the New Calvinists please stand up, or better yet, sit down.


----------



## Jack K

The article in summary...

Oh, the gall of those the New Calvinists! Some of them actually find a nice thing or two to say about a few Roman Catholics... and have the nerve to say it publicly!!! Everyone knows no Catholic has even gotten _anything_ right. Guilt by association!

Others have failed to denounce their fellow New Calvinists who have said a few nice things about a Roman Catholic. Guilt by associating with association!

Those New Calvinists must be very, very evil! Up with Arminianism!


----------



## SolaSaint

But Jack don't you see a problem with all this embrasing of Catholic Myticism?


----------



## Philip

Jack K said:


> Those New Calvinists must be very, very evil! Up with Arminianism!



In fairness, the authors of the website claim to be reformed and subscribe to the LBCF and Westminster Standards. Otherwise, excellent summary. The article failed to address what specific concerns they had with these authors and their exercises other than "they're Catholic." The argument, such as it is, is fallacious. By this logic, I shouldn't recommend that Christians read and profit from Chesterton.

In reading a couple of the articles in this vein, they seem to consistently miss the point. I wonder if, for instance, they would have commented had Keller, rather than drawing on the Catholic Flannery O'Connor, had drawn an example from the deistic-moralistic-transcendentalist Charles Dickens, or from the Eastern Orthodox Fyodor Dostoevsky. Somehow I think they would have glossed over it---because in those cases they would have seen the points he was making rather than the fact that he was appropriating flawed sources to make them. The whole set of arguments seems to be based on equivocations of this kind.


----------



## Philip

SolaSaint said:


> don't you see a problem with all this embrasing of Catholic Myticism?



Can you give some examples of places in these authors that are problematic? It's fairly obvious, for instance, that Keller etal. are not embracing, for instance, transubstantiation.


----------



## Jack K

SolaSaint said:


> But Jack don't you see a problem with all this embrasing of Catholic Myticism?



The article is alarmist and unfairly critical. To cry that the Gospel Coalition "embraces Catholic Mysticism" because Tim Keller once had some positive things to say about the Catholic stream of meditation vs. the Quaker stream sounds like someone is awfully giddy about the opportunity to throw mud. And to implicate guys like Ligon Duncan and Kevin DeYoung on account of that is, indeed, guilt by associating with association.

Not everything Catholic is bad, or belief in the Trinity would be bad. If there's something in the church's history we can draw from (and reform where necessary, of course), a proper scholar gives credit where it's due. I haven't heard the Keller lectures the article refers to, but I'd bet money that he advocates the sort of Christian meditation his close mentor Ed Clowney advocated. In that case, doesn't it fit pretty well within the Reformed mainstream and confessions? 

If a discussion of the theology involved is needed, this hardly seems the way to get it off to a profitable beginning. I'd like to be charitable and assume only the best motives, but the tone of the article reads as if someone already has other beefs with these guys and went looking for new dirt.




Philip said:


> In fairness, the authors of the website claim to be reformed and subscribe to the LBCF and Westminster Standards.



Okay, I missed that. The criticism aimed so broadly that I wrongly assumed they weren't Reformed at all.


----------



## SolaSaint

Jack,

Do you think this Aprising Ministries is known for digging dirt and giving unfounded accusations? I've read a few articles by them on Contempative prayer and Emergent Pastors. At times it does look like they try to prove heresy with guilt by association. I wonder if we should just ignore this ministry or try and glean what is profitable from them?


----------



## SolaSaint

But then again after doing a short research on Keller, I think I will stay away from his teachings. He does promote this "Inner Monk" meditation. Lecto Divina and other Catholic practices referring to a Divine Office (sounds like bringing God down to the church). Did you also know he signed the Manhattan Dec. and promotes women teachers. I think my discernment ears are twitching with this guy, sounds similar to a Rick Warren to me.


----------



## Philip

SolaSaint said:


> I think my discernment ears are twitching with this guy, sounds similar to a Rick Warren to me.



Question: would you use C.S. Lewis? Because I find him much more problematic than Keller, and I regularly recommend Lewis.



SolaSaint said:


> promotes women teachers.



Haven't heard that one. I know he advocates deaconesses (then again, so does the RPCNA), but I hadn't heard that he advocated the ordination of women to teaching office. Can I see a source on this one?

My advice is to actually read Keller's work and decide for yourself whether you think it helpful. Personally, I've found him very edifying and useful, but I realize not everyone feels the same way.


----------



## Pilgrim

SolaSaint said:


> Jack,
> 
> Do you think this Aprising Ministries is known for digging dirt and giving unfounded accusations? I've read a few articles by them on Contempative prayer and Emergent Pastors. At times it does look like they try to prove heresy with guilt by association. I wonder if we should just ignore this ministry or try and glean what is profitable from them?



I don't read Ken Silva's site often (Apprising Ministries) so I can't give an opinion as to whether he is in the habit of painting with too broad of a brush, etc. But there's definitely fire amongst the smoke there. At least with regard to what I have knowledge of, he seems to usually have the goods. 

I think I first came across him with a controversy over Catholic contemplative practices being taught by at least one of the faculty members at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. This was posted and basically ridiculed on a NOBTS centered blog about 4-5 years ago. A year or two after that, I had occasion to go to NOBTS and sit in on some classes. Lo and behold if one of them wasn't a promoter of those Romish practices. We did not go into details, but he said something like "There's something we've missed" and that they've got it. At some point he had taken some classes at a local RC seminary to learn more about it, ostensibly. I didn't have a chance to ask if he had any familiarity with Reformed or Puritan (or even "old evangelical) spirituality. Well, it's possible I had the chance and just couldn't get the words out. They have a mandatory Spiritual Formation class and if memory serves this particular professor taught one of the classes. (Not everyone took his class, but his was one of several available.) Since then I've assumed that the "something that we've missed" statement is in the context of revivalistic religion i.e. Walk the aisle, 1,2,3 repeat after me--If you've prayed that prayer and really meant it you're saved and don't ever doubt it. And don't drink or smoke. There certainly is something lacking with that. 

There's a RC monastery/retreat center near here. It has come to my attention that several Southern Baptists, including staunchly Calvinistic men, periodically visit it for short retreats. That's not to say they are engaging in Romish practices while there. I have no idea. But most if not all of them would say I'm a fundamentalist for even questioning the association.


----------



## SolaSaint

Philip I will gladly take your advice and check out Kellers work. What I do is check certian web sites regularly, like Aprising Ministries, Sola Sisters, Pyromaniacs, etc. I look for Emergent articles and such and I came accross Tim Keller and some of what he is promoting, particularly the Catholic mystic claim. I don't know much about Keller but know he is reformed, so I thought I would cast out a line in here to see what the reformed community thought. I'm thinking if he advocates deconesses then he most likely advocates women teachers. in my opinion

I haven't read much of C S lewis. I've heard many who advocate his works and many who don't.


----------



## SolaSaint

Thanks for the reply Chris, that is troubling. I wonder if Tom Ascol or Al Mohler have commented on this stuff, I think I will do a little research. I know it is dangerous to take everything a web site claims as truth but it is equally or more dangerous to trust someone because of a reformed or evangelical label. We don't need to look far to see many who appear orthodox on the surface and find out they are false in some of what they dabble in. Discernment seems to be lacking these days.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The differences between the RPCNA (and the ARP) and Tim Keller on deaconnesses has been gone over here _ad nausem_. Suffice to say the differences between their reasoning, both historical and exegetical, are wildly different.


----------



## Jack K

SolaSaint said:


> Jack,
> 
> Do you think this Aprising Ministries is known for digging dirt and giving unfounded accusations? I've read a few articles by them on Contempative prayer and Emergent Pastors. At times it does look like they try to prove heresy with guilt by association. I wonder if we should just ignore this ministry or try and glean what is profitable from them?



This is the first time I've seen that site and I don't know the folks who write for it, so I want to avoid offering an assessment of them in general. I was only commenting on how that article's tone felt eager-to-condemn and how the criticisms seemed to leap to conclusions that weren't founded from the evidence offered. Even at that, I worried I was close to being too critical of people I know little about.




SolaSaint said:


> What I do is check certian web sites regularly, like Aprising Ministries, Sola Sisters, Pyromaniacs, etc. I look for Emergent articles and such and I came accross Tim Keller and some of what he is promoting, particularly the Catholic mystic claim. I don't know much about Keller but know he is reformed, so I thought I would cast out a line in here to see what the reformed community thought. I'm thinking if he advocates deconesses then he most likely advocates women teachers. in my opinion



I do know about Keller. He's on the "progressive" side of the PCA, but he's not a Catholic mystic. When I've heard him and Ed Clowney speak on Christian meditation, it's been the sort described in Psalm 1: "On his law he meditates day and night."

And it's a big mistake (and uncharitable) to assume and announce that because he's advocated for women deacons this means he must favor giving women teaching authority. He actually speaks quite strongly _against_ teaching authority for women precisely because he's trying to make clear his position that the deacon role (or certain other roles, like Scripture reading in a service) is not that sort of authority. There are plenty of points where one might disagree with him. I don't agree with him on everything. But it's good to ground disagreement in fact rather than in guesses... or in the criticisms of alarmist bloggers.


----------



## SolaSaint

Jack,

I haven't put a lot of thought into what I said about the women teaching comment, I guess I should have. I always thought an ordained woman held as must authority over a man as a teacher did, unless they are ordained for authority over women only? I've never been in a church that ordains women so I am speaking out of ignorance, so please ignore my comments until I can get up to speed on this. Thanks


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The differences between the RPCNA (and the ARP) and Tim Keller on deaconnesses has been gone over here ad nausem. Suffice to say the differences between their reasoning, both historical and exegetical, are wildly different.



Not disputing this. Merely commenting that the position in and of itself should not be taken necessarily as a danger signal.

Keller, by and large, is an apologist for "mere" Christianity in much of his work and is usually writing either to a secular or inter-denominational audience and he has an unconventional style that makes some uneasy because often he does sound like he's soft-pedalling. However, his tactic, generally, is to speak and write in a way that catches the reader off-guard with the Gospel.



Pilgrim said:


> I think I first came across him with a controversy over Catholic contemplative practices being taught by at least one of the faculty members at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.



What particular practices and why problematic?


----------



## SolaSaint

Jack K said:


> And it's a big mistake (and uncharitable) to assume and announce that because he's advocated for women deacons this means he must favor giving women teaching authority.



Do you really feel I was being unloving by stating my opinion on this. Please look at my comment, I never put words in Keller's mouth. I thought a forum of this sort was for making opinions and asking questions? If we are to come here and state facts only and have no room for opinions then it will be a boring place to be. in my opinion...lol


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well Keller does have women in places of teaching authority in his church. It is not some big secret.


----------



## Jack K

SolaSaint said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's a big mistake (and uncharitable) to assume and announce that because he's advocated for women deacons this means he must favor giving women teaching authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really feel I was being unloving by stating my opinion on this. Please look at my comment, I never put words in Keller's mouth. I thought a forum of this sort was for making opinions and asking questions? If we are to come here and state facts only and have no room for opinions then it will be a boring place to be. in my opinion...lol
Click to expand...


Rick,

I tried to avoid accusing you directly in the way I said this. Though it was in response to your comments, which did concern me, I tried to phrase it as a caution for all. I think you've handled yourself well in this discussion, inquiring honestly and listening to responses. Please don't feel accused. I should have been more clear about that.

I've spent half my life as an old-fashioned, facts vs. non-facts journalist. I get passionate when I see something in print (or on the Web) that makes accusations based on conjecture or confuses guesses with facts. It did seem to me that you were playing a bit loosely with those areas, but in my passion to step in I seem to have forgotten to be careful to write in a way that maintains kindness toward you. Please forgive me. I truly think your approach to the back-and-forth we've had here has been supurb, and I appreciate your disposition.


----------



## Jack K

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well Keller does have women in places of teaching authority in his church. It is not some big secret.



But not if you ask him. The question that must be addressed if one is going to engage his position on this issue is what constitutes teaching authority. That's really the spot where he tends to be at odds with conservatives and where, in fairness, the challenge should come if one is going to challenge him. The only people who disagree with his view on women and teaching authority, per se, are the liberals.

Again, my main point is simply that all of us (myself included) do well to make sure we read and understand someone's postition before we criticize that position.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Look Tim Keller is wrong on his position on women and teaching authority. Just because he is well liked and famous it does not place him above reproach and correction.


----------



## Jack K

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Look Tim Keller is wrong on his position on women and teaching authority. Just because he is well liked and famous it does not place him above reproach and correction.



I'm not debating the rightness or wrongness of the position. I'm just suggesting that we get to know an opponent's position and be able to state it in a way that he would agree, "Yeah, that's my position," before we launch into criticism. It makes for more fruitful and civil discussion. Plus, it means we avoid saying things about another that are not truthful.

It's equally important to remember that just because a person is disliked and rightly criticized (not implying that about any particular person) does not mean it's okay to to play loosely with the truth regarding that person or to misrepresent his positions in order to discredit him further. Again, I'm a facts vs. non-facts sort of guy, and it troubles me sometimes that folks think it's okay to assume the worse about a person and publicly speculate on such things so long as the person in question is one of the "bad" guys. As a result, I often find myself defending people who're unpopular on this board, whether or not I agree with their positions. I was always taught that when you don't agree with someone you ought to guard yourself and be particularly careful to be factually accurate and to be able to first state that fellow's position in a way he would agree with... then criticize, if you feel it's necessary.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I am not a big fan of "aprising ministries." The site probably started off with good intentions, but has become unfair theological mudslinging in many instances. If you look for a while, the site does things like criticize folks for what they wear (i.e. they look funny) and other such silliness, which causes me, at least, to take the various "theological alarms" with a grain of salt. Further, the entire site is based on guilt by association, especially any minister speaking at conferences with people on the sites "hit list." I often wonder what they would have done with Jesus teaching the Gospel in the synogogues? If they held true to form, I would expect some headline like: "Travelling Minster Endorses Works Righteousness! Speaks in Synagogue with Works Righteousness Prophets Annas and Ciaphas! As we have warned you many times here at Aprising Ministries......" I'll pass, thanks!


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Maybe I'm missing something but I do not think Keller is being treated unfairly, he quotes champion mystics of the counter reformation:

"The best thing that has been written almost are by catholics during the Counter Reformation, Ignatius Loyola, St-Francis, St-John of the cross, Saint-Theresa of Avila, Great stuff"

Even if these people would have written usefull stuff he should know better than to quote them, and somehow I kind of doubt they wrote anything usefull concerning spiritual meditation.


----------



## OPC'n

i bet ya Calvin would smack us all for calling ourselves Calvinists lol


----------



## toddpedlar

SolaSaint said:


> Jack,
> 
> I haven't put a lot of thought into what I said about the women teaching comment, I guess I should have. I always thought an ordained woman held as must authority over a man as a teacher did, unless they are ordained for authority over women only? I've never been in a church that ordains women so I am speaking out of ignorance, so please ignore my comments until I can get up to speed on this. Thanks



You should be careful not to assume that if someone teaches (say, in Sunday School studies) then they are ordained to some office. I am quite certain that Keller is favorable to women teaching mixed Sunday School classes (a practice not unheard of by any means in the PCA) but he definitely is not a supporter of women being ordained as TE or RE.


----------



## moral necessity

I tend to look at these new calvinists with a cautious eye. I'd rather just stick with the old guys, and record a reading of Calvin's or someone else's sermons, and play them in the car, rather than be influenced by these newer people.

Blessings!


----------



## Reformed Irish Man

moral necessity said:


> I tend to look at these new calvinists with a cautious eye. I'd rather just stick with the old guys, and record a reading of Calvin's or someone else's sermons, and play them in the car, rather than be influenced by these newer people.



I agree. A Calvary Chapel pastor who I know recently quizzed me as to why a carry a confession around with me as well as saying that "the old stuff" is a waste of time since nobody can understand the archaic language used. It is so unfortunate that many who have not read the puritans or Calvin, do not do so for fear that they are too unapproachable. In fact the opposite is true! I find Calvin to be quite approachable with a little effort, and 'the Institutes' to be extremely encouraging and edifying. Page after page is filled with God glorifying material. At the moment I am reading Sibbes and am enjoying getting to know him a little better  Sometimes it is worth the effort of reading Calvin to get a few gems rather than reading or listening to a lot of Mark Driscoll to get a whole lot of nothing.


----------



## SolaSaint

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> I am not a big fan of "aprising ministries." The site probably started off with good intentions, but has become unfair theological mudslinging in many instances. If you look for a while, the site does things like criticize folks for what they wear (i.e. they look funny) and other such silliness, which causes me, at least, to take the various "theological alarms" with a grain of salt. Further, the entire site is based on guilt by association, especially any minister speaking at conferences with people on the sites "hit list." I often wonder what they would have done with Jesus teaching the Gospel in the synogogues? If they held true to form, I would expect some headline like: "Travelling Minster Endorses Works Righteousness! Speaks in Synagogue with Works Righteousness Prophets Annas and Ciaphas! As we have warned you many times here at Aprising Ministries......" I'll pass, thanks!



I'll have to disagree, I think we need to know when Pastors and theologians are heading off the cliff or associating with heretical methods and persons. Do you have a link to the making fun of what people wear? I've not heard them poke fun of people. Unless this was about wearing inappropraite clothing in church, I would agree with you, they shouldn't be doing this. But I do check with them often to see where many in Emergent circles are going wrong. I think it is a VERY important miniostry, especially today.


----------



## arapahoepark

SolaSaint said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a big fan of "aprising ministries." The site probably started off with good intentions, but has become unfair theological mudslinging in many instances. If you look for a while, the site does things like criticize folks for what they wear (i.e. they look funny) and other such silliness, which causes me, at least, to take the various "theological alarms" with a grain of salt. Further, the entire site is based on guilt by association, especially any minister speaking at conferences with people on the sites "hit list." I often wonder what they would have done with Jesus teaching the Gospel in the synogogues? If they held true to form, I would expect some headline like: "Travelling Minster Endorses Works Righteousness! Speaks in Synagogue with Works Righteousness Prophets Annas and Ciaphas! As we have warned you many times here at Aprising Ministries......" I'll pass, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to disagree, I think we need to know when Pastors and theologians are heading off the cliff or associating with heretical methods and persons. Do you have a link to the making fun of what people wear? I've not heard them poke fun of people. Unless this was about wearing inappropraite clothing in church, I would agree with you, they shouldn't be doing this. But I do check with them often to see where many in Emergent circles are going wrong. I think it is a VERY important miniostry, especially today.
Click to expand...


I take the middle ground between you two. I do realize it's there for a reason and it is quite helpful, however Silva (not just him but many, many other discernment sites) can go overboard quick and it just turns into gossip as if there is nothing else to write about. They also bad mouth some helpful people just because they don't adhere to that specific doctrinal subscription of the site. For instance at the Lighthouse Trails Blog, you're a heretic if you don't believe in a literal millennium (the Dispensational way). Lighthouse trails also just recently put up RTS as a seminary to avoid, they have nearly every accredited seminary up their list to avoid. So I have stopped reading their material.

So again to restate, they can be helpful warning believes to stay away from savvy writers like Bell, McLaren and others, but they can go overboard and become paranoid.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

SolaSaint said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a big fan of "aprising ministries." The site probably started off with good intentions, but has become unfair theological mudslinging in many instances. If you look for a while, the site does things like criticize folks for what they wear (i.e. they look funny) and other such silliness, which causes me, at least, to take the various "theological alarms" with a grain of salt. Further, the entire site is based on guilt by association, especially any minister speaking at conferences with people on the sites "hit list." I often wonder what they would have done with Jesus teaching the Gospel in the synogogues? If they held true to form, I would expect some headline like: "Travelling Minster Endorses Works Righteousness! Speaks in Synagogue with Works Righteousness Prophets Annas and Ciaphas! As we have warned you many times here at Aprising Ministries......" I'll pass, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to disagree, I think we need to know when Pastors and theologians are heading off the cliff or associating with heretical methods and persons. Do you have a link to the making fun of what people wear? I've not heard them poke fun of people. Unless this was about wearing inappropraite clothing in church, I would agree with you, they shouldn't be doing this. But I do check with them often to see where many in Emergent circles are going wrong. I think it is a VERY important miniostry, especially today.
Click to expand...


I did not find the exact post that I was referencing from some months ago, but this is along the same tenor: ED YOUNG, JR. PLAYS PASTOR FASHION : Apprising Ministries

While I agree that "we need to know when Pastors and theologians are heading off the cliff," I no longer take Silva as a very serious advisor on such issues. He cries wolf about anything and everything, often just reposting someone else's "wolf-cry." Simply look at the front page of that sight right now. He says re: Rick Warren "Basically sinfully ecumenical Southern Baptist pastor Rick Warren has been outdoing himself the past couple of days with some of his most curious tweets, to put it mildly." Warren has issues, and we are all sinners, but this is too broad a stroke to take seriously, without some specific reference to some specific "ecuminical" stance of Warren. This very BOARD is ecuminical, given the mix of paedo and credo baptists, presbyterians and congregationalists.


----------



## Sviata Nich

In the same lecture Keller also talks about, advocates and reads from George Herbert, Richard Baxter, and Jonathan Edwards. 

The lecture essentially says that 1) Meditation is the gateway to real (as in deep) prayer life. 2) It must be deliberate and disciplined. 3) You can meditate on almost anything (i.e. a flower, or providential circumstances) but primarily, you need to meditate on the law of the Lord. 4) Meditation is to delight in what God has said over what the world has said.


----------



## Philip

Fogetaboutit said:


> Even if these people would have written usefull stuff he should know better than to quote them, and somehow I kind of doubt they wrote anything usefull concerning spiritual meditation.



I was pleasantly surprised, actually, by some of the stuff I found when doing research on John of the Cross (long story). The Catholic mystical tradition actually has some helpful things: Thomas A Kempis's _The Imitation of Christ_, for instance, has been extremely helpful to me. Now maybe Keller is being overly optimistic about this stuff---but you should actually read the authors in question before making that assumption.


----------



## SolaSaint

Mark,

I think Rick Warren's middle name is Ecuminical. This isn't news to many?


----------



## SolaSaint

arap said:


> I take the middle ground between you two. I do realize it's there for a reason and it is quite helpful, however Silva (not just him but many, many other discernment sites) can go overboard quick and it just turns into gossip as if there is nothing else to write about. They also bad mouth some helpful people just because they don't adhere to that specific doctrinal subscription of the site. For instance at the Lighthouse Trails Blog, you're a heretic if you don't believe in a literal millennium (the Dispensational way). Lighthouse trails also just recently put up RTS as a seminary to avoid, they have nearly every accredited seminary up their list to avoid. So I have stopped reading their material.
> 
> So again to restate, they can be helpful warning believes to stay away from savvy writers like Bell, McLaren and others, but they can go overboard and become paranoid.



I do agree with you about Lighthouse Trails, they do seem to go overboard on some issues, they seem to like the smoking gun method a lot. But I haven't seen that from Aprising Min yet, I'll keep reading.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

There's a new calvinism...I want one.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

SolaSaint said:


> Mark,
> 
> I think Rick Warren's middle name is Ecuminical. This isn't news to many?



I think that "Ecuminical" equals "sinful" without any explanation certainly should be news to many. That's the point. If some particular ecuminical stance taken by Warren, or anyone else, is "sinful" drop a scripture reference and primary source documents RIGHT THERE, or "discernment ministry" becomes "character assasination." I continue to think Apprising Ministries needs a healthy dose of 1 John in tone, which would in turn help with content.


----------



## J. Dean

Jack K said:


> Not everything Catholic is bad.


Yeah, and we need to remember this. Just because a Catholic does something doesn't mean it's wrong. To be sure, Roman Catholics have doctrinal problems: the perversion of the gospel being chief among them. But to say one shouldn't do something "just because Catholics do it" is a bit juvenile and reactionary. 

I ran into this with the Baptist church I attended as a child. We didn't say The Lord's Prayer because "The Catholics did it." We didn't do the Apostles' Creed because "The Catholics did it." We didn't take communion more than once a year (Easter time) because to do it any more than that was "Catholic." We avoided the word "saint" like the plague because "Catholics used it." And on and on it went. 

I've read some of the stuff from this site, and unfortunately they fall into a rut that many discernment-focused ministries fall into: they become so anxious and vigilant to watch for error that they'll blow something out of proportion and scream "heresy!" when the charge in fact is unwarranted. While they do have a few good pieces, they've also got some (like this article) that smacks as a bit alarmist in some ways.

This reminds me of a few websites that put out stuff like this which makes me roll my eyes. One site criticized the three gentlemen of the Great Awakening as leading the church away from the truth (yes, Wesley, Edwards, and Whitfield) through their "emotionalism." The article was absolutely ridiculous, and sounded like it was penned by a hyper-Calvinist. Another "discernment" ministry group that threw a fit about Pat Robertson because of the way his hand happened to be positioned in a photo, because his hand position looked remarkably like the super-secret position used in some shadow occult movement (Rather odd to use a super-secret hand position on the cover of a magazine). There are things to address with Pat Robertson, but to pull things like that out of thin air does more harm than good.


You know, I was considering writing a piece about discernment ministries. This thread is making me consider it again.


----------



## VictorBravo

What is this "Ecuminical" word? It's not in any of my dictionaries. 

In any event, it sounds pretty bad to me: probably something to do with spice extracts.


----------



## Rufus

SolaSaint said:


> Did you also know he signed the Manhattan Dec.



Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration as well, would you throw him out too?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

This is an up-to-the-minute example of my frusteration with that website. These are the just posted lyrics to the "Mark Driscol Song:"


****
Blessed subtraction this church is mine!
You’d better get yourself back into line!
Don’t disagree here, don’t make a fuss,
Or I will throw you under the bus!

Chorus:This is my vision, this is my creed,
Slaughtering sheep who have disagreed
This is my mission, this is my creed,
Making up dogma, indulging my greed.

Blessed subtraction, empty your brain
What’s in your wallets, Driscoll shall gain
Bible discussions will soon be in vain
As Driscoll hits metal – and runs over saints

Grease in his hair, it stands in a point.
Dressed like a biker in a beer joint.
He cusses and gestures, his sermons can linger.
If you don’t like him, he’ll give you the finger.

Driscoll’s receiving, visions from God;
Don’t you start hating, on your dumb blog;
Blessed subtraction, bodies are stacked,
Biblical preaching’s a thing of the past.

Blessed subtraction, all is at rest
According to Driscoll, he is the best
Watching the big screen, that’s in his head
Who needs the bible, by vision we’re led

Chorus:This is my vision, this is my creed,
Slaughtering sheep who have disagreed
This is my mission, this is my creed,
Making up dogma, indulging my greed.
*********

If this is "discernment," then we need a more "mature" discernment ministry. your mileage may vary.


----------



## Zach

While I am no fan of Pastor Driscoll that song is pretty over the top and uncalled for (in addition to being pretty hilarious...).


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if these people would have written usefull stuff he should know better than to quote them, and somehow I kind of doubt they wrote anything usefull concerning spiritual meditation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised, actually, by some of the stuff I found when doing research on John of the Cross (long story). The Catholic mystical tradition actually has some helpful things: Thomas A Kempis's _The Imitation of Christ_, for instance, has been extremely helpful to me. Now maybe Keller is being overly optimistic about this stuff---but you should actually read the authors in question before making that assumption.
Click to expand...


As I said, even if they would have written anything that could be usefull I definitely would stay away from anything these people have written. Let's remember that these people are some of the worst heretics and persecutors of the true chruch known in history. They certainly do not share our faith and I think it would be presumptuous to claim we can read all of their writtings and be able to seperate truth from error. These people espeically Loyola were famous for decieving people by twisting the truth. Call me bigot if you want but I think it is ridicoulous to go to those people for any spriritual insights. Even if Aleister Crowley, Adolf Hitler or Helena Blavatsky could have written a few things that are true does not mean we should go to them on matter of faith and practice. These people are not believers therefore it wasn't the Holy Spirit enlighting their thinking. I will stick with the reformers and the puritans when it comes to spiritual meditation, I especially like Owen.


----------



## SolaSaint

I agree Etienne, I did some research on Loyola and he is way out there on spiritual matters, although he may be sincere, he is dead wrong and for these New Calvinists to try and resurrect their teachings is scary stuff.


----------



## Philip

Fogetaboutit said:


> Even if Aleister Crowley, Adolf Hitler or Helena Blavatsky could have written a few things that are true does not mean we should go to them on matter of faith and practice.



Godwins Law. Sorry, but Roman Catholicism (even Jesuitism) is not close to the level of heresy that these people have.



Fogetaboutit said:


> These people are not believers therefore it wasn't the Holy Spirit enlighting their thinking.



In my humble opinion, some Catholic mystics (Bernard of Clairveaux, Francis of Assisi, Thomas A Kempis, John of the Cross) have been genuine believers. In spite of the Catholic Church? Absolutely. But believers nonetheless.

I can't speak on Loyola as I haven't read him (though I may, eventually).


----------



## KaphLamedh

SolaSaint said:


> Keller and the Catholic mystics | The New Calvinist
> 
> This doesn't look like the new Calvinism as stated by the liberal document posed by some SBC pastors? So what is going on, will the New Calvinists please stand up, or better yet, sit down.



Has John Piper gone liberal? Somehow he has been lately disappointment to me. Other "new wave" of calvinism has been Paul Washer, Charles Leiter, Kevin Williams. Paul Washer said to be five point spurgeonist and that calvinism is not an issue. Interesting.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> Godwins Law. Sorry, but Roman Catholicism (even Jesuitism) is not close to the level of heresy that these people have.



That is a matter of opinion I would actually say that Jesuitism is worst since it is more subtle and deceptive and have the specific objective to destroy protestanism and bring all under the authority of the Pope, Crowley and Blavatsky were open about their faith and easier to discern.


----------



## Philip

Fogetaboutit said:


> That is a matter of opinion I would actually say that Jesuitism is worst since it is more subtle and deceptive and have the specific objective to destroy protestanism and bring all under the authority of the Pope



Nevertheless, equating it with occultism and out-and-out paganism is unfair and lacks perspective. Further, reading any author with this kind of hermaneutic of suspicion means that you will end up failing to understand them at all.


----------



## Rufus

Philip said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Aleister Crowley, Adolf Hitler or Helena Blavatsky could have written a few things that are true does not mean we should go to them on matter of faith and practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godwins Law. Sorry, but Roman Catholicism (even Jesuitism) is not close to the level of heresy that these people have.
> 
> 
> 
> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are not believers therefore it wasn't the Holy Spirit enlighting their thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion, some Catholic mystics (Bernard of Clairveaux, Francis of Assisi, Thomas A Kempis, John of the Cross) have been genuine believers. In spite of the Catholic Church? Absolutely. But believers nonetheless.
> 
> I can't speak on Loyola as I haven't read him (though I may, eventually).
Click to expand...


Calvin himself said that Bernard of Clairveaux was his second largest influence on Grace after Augustine.


----------



## Supersillymanable

I find often people are much quicker to throw the baby and the bath water out at the same time. Keller doesn't preach a different Gospel. Keller, generally is very doctrinally sound as far as I was aware. My understanding was that doctrinally, he was pretty close to someone say, Piper. He's definitely Soteriologically reformed, passionate about it also. I'm also unaware that Keller had women pastors and preachers. In fact, I was under the impression he was anti that as well as women exercising teaching authority. I'm also certian he does not advocate Catholic mysticism, as pointed out earlier.

I feel some people jump to conclusions about Keller, as well as others way too quickly, as well as assuming what he believes without actually hearing him espouse it. Also, what is the objection about the Manhattan Dec? I don't know much about it, but I was sure it declared Homosexuality, abortion etc. as wrong and contrary to the Gospel? Is there something I don't know about this document?


----------



## Supersillymanable

KaphLamedh said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keller and the Catholic mystics | The New Calvinist
> 
> This doesn't look like the new Calvinism as stated by the liberal document posed by some SBC pastors? So what is going on, will the New Calvinists please stand up, or better yet, sit down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has John Piper gone liberal? Somehow he has been lately disappointment to me. Other "new wave" of calvinism has been Paul Washer, Charles Leiter, Kevin Williams. Paul Washer said to be five point spurgeonist and that calvinism is not an issue. Interesting.
Click to expand...


Piper? Gone Liberal? What makes you ask that...? He's the last person I'd think would go Liberal... 

Also, what is the context of Paul Washer's comment? Was he referring to be saved? If so, he's completely correct. Washer I generally like. Though, I haven't heard loads from him.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a matter of opinion I would actually say that Jesuitism is worst since it is more subtle and deceptive and have the specific objective to destroy protestanism and bring all under the authority of the Pope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, equating it with occultism and out-and-out paganism is unfair and lacks perspective. Further, reading any author with this kind of hermaneutic of suspicion means that you will end up failing to understand them at all.
Click to expand...


I think you should research Jesuitism and it's deeds for the past few hundreds of years, I would also recommend you lookup what the reformers and the puritans had to say about them, Charles Spurgeons did not stutter when he rebuked them openly same goes for Calvin and many others. Occultism and open-paganism is less of a treath to true christianity since it is easily discerned. Roman Catholicism and especially Jesuitism (in its many forms) is trying to make the same occultic and pagan principles acceptable by masquarading them in christian terminology.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Comptemplative meditation (as example Loyola's Spiritual Exercises) is not different than hindu (and other pagan) meditations. Creating a picture of God in your mind and meditating on it is called idolatry.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Supersillymanable said:


> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keller and the Catholic mystics | The New Calvinist
> 
> This doesn't look like the new Calvinism as stated by the liberal document posed by some SBC pastors? So what is going on, will the New Calvinists please stand up, or better yet, sit down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has John Piper gone liberal? Somehow he has been lately disappointment to me. Other "new wave" of calvinism has been Paul Washer, Charles Leiter, Kevin Williams. Paul Washer said to be five point spurgeonist and that calvinism is not an issue. Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piper? Gone Liberal? What makes you ask that...? He's the last person I'd think would go Liberal...
> 
> Also, what is the context of Paul Washer's comment? Was he referring to be saved? If so, he's completely correct. Washer I generally like. Though, I haven't heard loads from him.
Click to expand...


Actually that comment came from a sermon he gave and what he said was that Calvinism wasn't the issue, regeneration was the issue. What he was referring to were all these churches and pastors who have people pray a prayer and then tell them that they are absolutely saved because of it despite any evidence of regeneration in their life. He simply meant that he could relate to Arminians like Ravenhill and Tozer because they did preach repentance and regeneration, even though they weren't Calvinist.


----------



## Jack K

Fogetaboutit said:


> Comptemplative meditation (as example Loyola's Spiritual Exercies) is not different than hindu (and other pagan) meditations. Creating a picture of God in your mind and meditating on it is called idolatry.



The problem with saying this here is we have NO EVIDENCE that the guys accused in the article in the OP have ever advocated such a thing. All we have is: They speak at the same conferences with guys who have occasionally said some good things about other guys who have at times advocated something similar.

Follow that kind of reasoning and I'm guilty, too.


----------



## Philip

Fogetaboutit said:


> Creating a picture of God in your mind and meditating on it is called idolatry.



True, you should meditate on the image of God given to us in Jesus Christ.



Fogetaboutit said:


> Occultism and open-paganism is less of a treath to true christianity since it is easily discerned. Roman Catholicism and especially Jesuitism (in its many forms) is trying to make the same occultic and pagan principles acceptable by masquarading them in christian terminology.



Except that one can be a Roman Catholic and be saved in spite of it. The same cannot be said for occultism and paganism.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Jack K said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comptemplative meditation (as example Loyola's Spiritual Exercies) is not different than hindu (and other pagan) meditations. Creating a picture of God in your mind and meditating on it is called idolatry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with saying this here is we have NO EVIDENCE that the guys accused in the article in the OP have ever advocated such a thing. All we have is: They speak at the same conferences with guys who have occasionally said some good things about other guys who have at times advocated something similar.
> 
> Follow that kind of reasoning and I'm guilty, too.
Click to expand...



I understand what you are trying to say, if you quote somebody who is unorthodox on certain point but sound on others I could understand that you quote them in regards to where they are sound. This is another thing when dealing with Loyola, especially on meditative practices. I don't know enough about the others ones he quoted to comment on them, but Loyola I do know enough about him to keep away from him and certainly not recommend him to a fellow christian. Keller specifically noted that those people wrote their material as part of the Counter Reformation so which side are we on here?


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> Except that one can be a Roman Catholic and be saved in spite of it. The same cannot be said for occultism and paganism.



One cannot be saved and hold to Roman Catholic heretical doctrines.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> True, you should meditate on the image of God given to us in Jesus Christ.



Yes but not an image of Christ created in your mind, that would also be idolatry, only the image of Christ given to us in scriptures, which is contrary to comtemplative meditation since they themself admit to meditate on God without the use of scriptures.


----------



## Jack K

Fogetaboutit said:


> Keller specifically noted that those people wrote their material as part of the Counter Reformation so which side are we on here?



We're on the side of truth, I hope.

Do you have any evidence that any of the guys attacked in that post oppose the Reformation? NO, because that isn't true.
Do you have any evidence that any of them any of them advocate creating a picture of God in your mind and meditating on it? NO again. It isn't true, either.

Yet by speaking the way you do, you create the impression that these accusations might be true or, at least, that it's good for us to be suspicious.

The reason we take "sides" in the Reformation is because truth matters. The Reformation stands for truth. We lose that when we start fudging on the truth in order to throw mud at people we think have gotten too cozy with the wrong side. Maybe they have. But if we start stretching the truth to discredit them, we lose all we stand for.


----------



## Philip

Fogetaboutit said:


> One cannot be saved and hold to Roman Catholic heretical doctrines.



If heretics cannot be saved, then there I go. On the last day, we will all have some bit of heresy to repent of.



Fogetaboutit said:


> Yes but not an image of Christ created in your mind, that would also be idolatry, only the image of Christ given to us in scriptures, which is contrary to comtemplative meditation



How so? To me, meditating on some bit of Scripture seems very contemplative. Dietrich Bonhoeffer used to give his students a verse of Scripture and ask them to spend thirty minutes each day meditating on it. If that's not a contemplative practice, I don't know what is.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Fogetaboutit said:


> Keller specifically noted that those people wrote their material as part of the Counter Reformation so which side are we on here?



Just so we have our history straight here, the counter reformation was not a movement that was against the reformation neccesarily, but rather was a movement within the Catholic church in response to the reformation that recognized a need for some measure of reform, just not to the level that the reformers did.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Jack K said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keller specifically noted that those people wrote their material as part of the Counter Reformation so which side are we on here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're on the side of truth, I hope.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that any of the guys attacked in that post oppose the Reformation? NO, because that isn't true.
> Do you have any evidence that any of them any of them advocate creating a picture of God in your mind and meditating on it? NO again. It isn't true, either.
> 
> Yet by speaking the way you do, you create the impression that these accusations might be true or, at least, that it's good for us to be suspicious.
> 
> The reason we take "sides" in the Reformation is because truth matters. The Reformation stands for truth. We lose that when we start fudging on the truth in order to throw mud at people we think have gotten too cozy with the wrong side. Maybe they have. But if we start stretching the truth to discredit them, we lose all we stand for.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that Keller opposed the reformation, but Ignatius Loyola is the founder of the Jesuit and father of the Counter Reformation, by quoting such people, especially on on the subject of Spiritual Meditation you associate yourself with mysticism since that is what Loyola is famously known for in his Spiritual Exercises. Keller himself says:

"we have 2 stream which are full of good helpfull material on meditation, the Catholic stream and the Quaker stream, *that are not primarily base on meditating on the scriptures*"

Also Quoting Richard Foster:

"If you want to meditate and find God there's 3 steps: first of all, *center, behold and listen*"

Then he goes on and say:

"There all great but the order is maybe not the best, center means, and we'll talk about this next month, collect yourself, realise you're in God's presence, spend some time collection your attention, now behold him, now what does he mean behold him, well *imagine him*, think of him smiling on you think of him in all these ways"

Unless I'm missing something this is explaining how to create a perception of God in your mind "outside of scripture" and meditating on your thoughts, I call that idolatry. This is also what Loyola basically explain in his "Spiritual Exercises" therefore this is good reason to believe this is what Keller was refering to when he mentioned Loyola. I don't think I have misrepresented what Keller was saying. My goal is not attack Keller or to misrepresent him but I certainly do not agree with what he is advocating here and I actually believe that it would be extremely dangerous to participate in such practices.


----------



## J. Dean

Question: has anybody here emailed, commented to, or messaged Keller himself about this?


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> One cannot be saved and hold to Roman Catholic heretical doctrines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If heretics cannot be saved, then there I go. On the last day, we will all have some bit of heresy to repent of.
> 
> 
> 
> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but not an image of Christ created in your mind, that would also be idolatry, only the image of Christ given to us in scriptures, which is contrary to comtemplative meditation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so? To me, meditating on some bit of Scripture seems very contemplative. Dietrich Bonhoeffer used to give his students a verse of Scripture and ask them to spend thirty minutes each day meditating on it. If that's not a contemplative practice, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...


What I was refering to is that Roman Catholicism deny that salvation is attain through faith in Christ alone, therefore if you are truly Roman Catholic and believe such thing your are not saved.

There a difference between meditating on scripture by repeating mindlessly verses and meditating on what scriptures says and what it means. I'm not familiar with Bonhoeffer but hopefully he didn't mean meditating mindlessly on a verse without proper context and application.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Bill The Baptist said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keller specifically noted that those people wrote their material as part of the Counter Reformation so which side are we on here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we have our history straight here, the counter reformation was not a movement that was against the reformation neccesarily, but rather was a movement within the Catholic church in response to the reformation that recognized a need for some measure of reform, just not to the level that the reformers did.
Click to expand...


So you believe that all the anathemas of the Council of Trent were not directly aimed at the reformation?


----------



## Philip

Fogetaboutit said:


> What I was refering to is that Roman Catholicism deny that salvation is attain through faith in Christ alone



I know Catholics who would affirm that Salvation is by faith in _Christ_ alone, just not by _faith_ in Christ alone. And as I recall, salvation is by having said faith, not by affirming said doctrine.



Fogetaboutit said:


> There a difference between meditating on scripture by repeating mindlessly verses and meditating on what scriptures says and what it means.



There have been times where what I needed most was Scripture itself, not my own thoughts and deductions about Scripture. I needed to meditate, not cogitate.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> I know Catholics who would affirm that Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, just not by faith in Christ alone. And as I recall, salvation is by having said faith, not by affirming said doctrine.



By affirming such thing they would deny the Roman Catholic faith. I never said that affirming a doctrine was the way to salvation, but "believing" such bad doctrine makes a difference.




Philip said:


> There have been times where what I needed most was Scripture itself, not my own thoughts and deductions about Scripture. I needed to meditate, not cogitate.



You can meditate on scripture without the specific intent to increase your theology, you can go to scripture for a reminder of its promises to appease your soul and to fill your mind with the precepts of God. I do that often, this is not the same as mindlessly repeating scriptures, and it's certainly not "imagining" God outside of scripture, it's actually the opposite. I'm not trying to split hairs here, I just want to clarify what I believe proper meditation according to scripture is.


----------



## Jack K

Fogetaboutit said:


> Unless I'm missing something this is explaining how to create a perception of God in your mind "outside of scripture" and meditating on your thoughts, I call that idolatry. This is also what Loyola basically explain in his "Spiritual Exercises" therefore this is good reason to believe this is what Keller was refering to when he mentioned Loyola. I don't think I have misrepresented what Keller was saying.



Yeah, I strongly suspect Keller would not generally advocate Catholic mysticism. Having heard him speak a little on the topic of Christian meditation (not much, because it is not a big interest to him), I only recall him echoing what Clowney said about meditating on what the Scripture teaches. Are you basing your criticism on a talk or some writing of his that you've actually seen? Or are you basing your criticism on a guess?

It's always good to base our criticism on facts, not guesses. If you're interested in the topic, could you research the guy's position and what he's said, _in context_, and then give appropriate criticism that you know is deserved because you know it's based on the facts? One sentence used out of context, chosen to make a guy look bad on a blog that seems to delight in criticizing just about everyone, is not something you want to have guide your opinions of others. Better to be above that sort of thing.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Jack K said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I'm missing something this is explaining how to create a perception of God in your mind "outside of scripture" and meditating on your thoughts, I call that idolatry. This is also what Loyola basically explain in his "Spiritual Exercises" therefore this is good reason to believe this is what Keller was refering to when he mentioned Loyola. I don't think I have misrepresented what Keller was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I strongly suspect Keller would not generally advocate Catholic mysticism. Having heard him speak a little on the topic of Christian meditation (not much, because it is not a big interest to him), I only recall him echoing what Clowney said about meditating on what the Scripture teaches. Are you basing your criticism on a talk or some writing of his that you've actually seen? Or are you basing your criticism on a guess?
> 
> It's always good to base our criticism on facts, not guesses. If you're interested in the topic, could you research the guy's position and what he's said, _in context_, and then give appropriate criticism that you know is deserved because you know it's based on the facts? One sentence used out of context, chosen to make a guy look bad on a blog that seems to delight in criticizing just about everyone, is not something you want to have guide your opinions of others. Better to be above that sort of thing.
Click to expand...


I realize that you have a lot of respect for Mr. Keller and I know he generally profess sound doctrine, but when he's quoting Quakers and Catholic mystics when discussing the subject of meditation I believe it is hard to explain away. Maybe I completely missed the context but in my opinion there's absolutely no reason to use Loyola as a source for any subjects when it come to discuss any matters of christian faith especially not spiritual meditation. If you listen to the video in the OP I would like for you to explain to me what was the context of what he was saying and how could it be interpreted as sound teaching concerning meditation.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Fogetaboutit said:


> Maybe I completely missed the context but in my opinion there's absolutely no reason to use Loyola as a source for any subjects when it come to discuss any matters of christian faith especially not spiritual meditation. If you listen to the video in the OP I would like for you to explain to me what was the context of what he was saying and how could it be interpreted as sound teaching concerning meditation.


If you missed the context then the onus is on you to find out the context since you are the one who is publicly accusing him. Since he is our brother you ought not be so hasty to condemn him. Furthermore if you are unfamiliar with the actual content of the writings (not just who wrote them) that he is referencing you should not be as quick to condemn them.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Unoriginalname said:


> If you missed the context then the onus is on you to find out the context since you are the one who is publicly accusing him. Since he is our brother you ought not be so hasty to condemn him. Furthermore if you are unfamiliar with the actual content of the writings (not just who wrote them) that he is referencing you should not be as quick to condemn them.



Obviously I have hit a nerve with my comments, I have quoted what Mr. Keller has actually himself quoted and noted what I disagreed with and why. If you believe that I have misrepresented Mr. Keller I have no objection in reviewing your comments about my remarks as to why I would have misrepresented what was said. If I have indeed misunderstood what was being said I would recognise my error. But so far I have seen no argument as to what I have misunderstood about what was being said. I'm not attacking Mr Keller personnaly but showing my disagreement with what he said.


----------



## CuriousNdenver

Fogetaboutit said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but I do not think Keller is being treated unfairly, he quotes champion mystics of the counter reformation:
> 
> "The best thing that has been written almost are by catholics during the Counter Reformation, Ignatius Loyola, St-Francis, St-John of the cross, Saint-Theresa of Avila, Great stuff"
> 
> Even if these people would have written usefull stuff he should know better than to quote them, and somehow I kind of doubt they wrote anything usefull concerning spiritual meditation.



The video clip featuring Tim Keller that I watched on Apprising Ministries website appears to have been spliced together and shows the same statement repeated by Keller, back to back. The visuals were inserted by the creator of the clip, and seem designed to elicit a response from the viewers. I have to agree with others who have commented that this clip seems a bit alarmist, and does not appear to present Keller's comments in a continuous format. It leaves me wondering what they left out, and what Keller truly said in context.

That said, the very fact that Keller quotes the people you mentioned would seem to indicate that he has read their works (to some extent) and is making his point based on primary documents rather than what he thinks they may have said. Quoting them may subject him to friendly fire from those passionately contending for the faith, yet there is nothing innately wrong about quoting them. I have quoted Marx in papers I have written for school, and actually used one of his quotes to aid my argument, which I presented from a Christian worldview. 

Statements that cast doubt on these individuals (Loyola etc.) without actually referencing the specific things in their work that are problematic seem to be weak arguments that would discredit them without providing facts to back up the reason to discredit their work. It seems wise that we be discerning, even when consuming content from well-meaning brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't believe there is enough evidence in the piece on Apprising Ministries for us to have the whole picture of what Keller's intent was in the discussion presented. Keller may indeed be treading on thin ice, and we may do well to avoid the teachings of Loyola and the others, but we should base these conclusions on specific facts rather than guilt by association.


----------



## CuriousNdenver

deleted duplicate post


----------



## Fogetaboutit

CuriousNdenver said:


> The video clip featuring Tim Keller that I watched on Apprising Ministries website appears to have been spliced together and shows the same statement repeated by Keller, back to back. The visuals were inserted by the creator of the clip, and seem designed to elicit a response from the viewers. I have to agree with others who have commented that this clip seems a bit alarmist, and does not appear to present Keller's comments in a continuous format



I did notice that as well but the portion where he quotes Richard Foster and then explain what it means is continuous and from what is being said it is describing contemplative meditation which I certainly disagree with. I would also have like to hear the entire sermon but that portion alone was enough to raise red flags for me. 




CuriousNdenver said:


> Statements that cast doubt on these individuals (Loyola etc.) without actually referencing the specific things in their work that are problematic seem to be weak arguments that would discredit them without providing facts to back up the reason to discredit their work



If I quoted everything that is wrong in "The Spirutal Exercises" of Loyola it would fill pages, search it online there are many free versions of it. Compare his way of meditating and mortifying sin with John Owen for example ( On the mortification of Sin) and see the difference. I would also suggest you read the 4th chapter of the 3rd book of the Institute of the Christian Religion by John Calvin and compare it with what Loyola teach in his exercise. Loyola do not use scripture but his own version on how to attain spiritual control etc. It sound like eastern mysticism.


----------



## CuriousNdenver

Fogetaboutit said:


> CuriousNdenver said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video clip featuring Tim Keller that I watched on Apprising Ministries website appears to have been spliced together and shows the same statement repeated by Keller, back to back. The visuals were inserted by the creator of the clip, and seem designed to elicit a response from the viewers. I have to agree with others who have commented that this clip seems a bit alarmist, and does not appear to present Keller's comments in a continuous format
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did notice that as well but the portion where he quotes Richard Foster and then explain what it means is continuous and from what is being said it is describing contemplative meditation which I certainly disagree with. I would also have like to hear the entire sermon but that portion alone was enough to raise red flags for me.
Click to expand...


I encourage you to re-watch the video clip on Apprising Ministries and take note of how it was put together. It is choppy, contains two different instances where the author of the clip spliced Keller's same words in back-to-back, presumably to emphasize the author's point, and has clearly extracted part of Keller's words from one or more larger works. According to what I have read, the statement at the end of the clip regarding Loyola's intent in founding the Jesuits is partially true. What the author left out was that it also appears to have been motivated by a sincere attempt on the part of the Catholic's to expunge corruption from their ranks and return to a more authentic faith and teach their leaders from the Bible. 

Please don't misunderstand: I am not defending either Loyola or the counter-reformation. The point I make is that this video clip is suspect and it would be wise to consult the full source from which they extracted the clips of Keller before making a decision on whether Keller is right or wrong in his seeming endorsement of mystic practices. This clip was clearly crafted with a specific intent in mind, and does not pass the test of good scholarship. 

It is sad that sometimes in zeal to expose error some believers may cut corners and present "evidence" that does not adequately address the issues they are hoping to expose. We would be wise to avoid this practice and to use discernment when we encounter presentations such as the one on Apprising Ministries, particularly if they cast a brother in the faith in a bad light.


----------



## Jack K

Well, it's crazy to suggest that the men attacked in that post—Keller, DeYoung and Ligon Duncan (really?!)—are more influenced by Catholic mysticism than they are by Owen or Calvin. Anyone who's actually heard more than a few isolated clips from their sermons or an out-of-context quote could tell you that. And we _have_ told you that.

There are "Reformed" people with websites who get their kicks from deciding who the bad guys are (often defined as anyone who acknowledges, in the least, any good contributions from folks outside the pure Reformed stream, whatever that is), and then take whatever means necessary to try to skewer such men. It's a obsession with specks in others' eyes. They call it "discernment." Well, I agree we need to be on guard against doctrinal error. But the us-against-them attutude seems to be pushing aside fairness, and the group that qualifies as "us" seems to be very small.

Yes, I appreciate some things about Keller... including the way he quotes all sorts of people in order to gain an audience with skeptical New Yorkers, and then, having done so, turns them to the God of the Bible and to faith in Christ. Someone needs to be doing that. Someone needs to be out there enlarging the camp. Sadly, for people whose goal is to keep the camp small and keep the gang that's counted as "us" as narrow as possible, preachers who bring many new faces into the Reformed camp will always be unpopular and viewed as dangerous.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Jack K said:


> Well, it's crazy to suggest that the men attacked in that post—Keller, DeYoung and Ligon Duncan (really?!)—are more influenced by Catholic mysticism than they are by Owen or Calvin. Anyone who's actually heard more than a few isolated clips from their sermons or an out-of-context quote could tell you that. And we have told you that.



You accuse me of misquoting people and falsly accusing them, where have I said this? I did contrast Loyola with Owen and Calvin, as for Keller and company I do not know enough about those guys to know what is their greatest influence. I just pointed out that he quoted Loyola on the subject of spiritual meditation. Then I pointed to the difference between Loyola and Owen and Calvin. I nowhere said that Keller was getting all of his influence from Catholic mystics nor that he wasn't influenced by Owen or Calvin.

I understand your concern for not falsly accusing brethrens and I do agree that some site go overboard, but we have to be carefull not to go at the other extreme where we can't say anything without being accused of being crazy heresy hunters. We should not have respect of persons and even if somebody is highly esteemed in our eyes, it doesn't mean they are above reproach.

Maybe we disagree on this but I for one believe it is important to have our guards up especially in this time of political correctness and compromise.


----------



## Jack K

Fogetaboutit said:


> You accuse my of misquoting people and falsly accusing them



Not really. My critique was aimed primarily at the article that was linked to in the OP. It is good, though, for all of us here to be careful as well. In particular, I think your statement that Keller is "advocating" practices that are "extrememly dangerous" went too far. You can't really know what he's advocating without more context.


----------



## Sviata Nich

If anyone wants to listen to the lecture in its entirety, it is posted on Redeemer's Website: Meditation - What it is


----------



## CuriousNdenver

Sviata Nich said:


> If anyone wants to listen to the lecture in its entirety, it is posted on Redeemer's Website: Meditation - What it is



Thanks for posting the link! It seems we can all learn from each other in discussions such as this one. It is easy to let emotion carry us when we read something that seems to resonate with a belief we already hold. For example, if I believe "A" to be heresy and a source I am unfamiliar with presents something that indicates Pastor "Y" (whom I am only somewhat familiar with) believes "A", it is easy to be carried by my already held belief and not take the time to validate the source of information. I know I am guilty of this sometimes, and am thankful for this board that allows us to discuss things and come to a better understanding of the issues.

When sources like the one referenced in the OP also don't adhere to sound practices in presenting information in a straightforward way but slant their presentation intending to hook readers, it sets the scene for misunderstanding at the very least, and discredits them and their argument. The things they are saying may well be true, but if the evidence the source presents does not support it, they may be laying tinder for a witch hunt.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Jack K said:


> Not really. My critique was aimed primarily at the article that was linked to in the OP. It is good, though, for all of us here to be careful as well. In particular, I think your statement that Keller is "advocating" practices that are "extrememly dangerous" went too far. You can't really know what he's advocating without more context.



Thanks, I appreciate this acknowledgement. Since the OP makes no mention of Owen or Calvin I assume that your comment was directed towards my comments. I'm not on a crusade against Keller, but this isn't the first time that I hear that he is favorable to contemplative prayer. It appears that he had seminars called "The Way of the Monk" at his church which is to teach how to practice contemplative prayer (which in my opinions is very dangerous).

http://d3e4298tco5ouh.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Keller-Monk.jpg 
Surph's Side: Tim Keller's Redeemer Presbyterian Church Goes Emergent: Contemplative Spirituality/Eastery Mysticism Now Taught

If all this is falsified information and it can demonstrated that Keller is not favorable to such thing I would actually like to see it, but as somebody mentioned in and earlier post, when there is smoke there is usually fire somewhere.





Sviata Nich said:


> If anyone wants to listen to the lecture in its entirety, it is posted on Redeemer's Website: Meditation - What it is



Thanks, although he says that medating on scripture is better he still advocate works by people who meditated without the Word of God. He speaks as if the works of Loyola and company were a sufficient substitute for catholics who didn't have the word of God available to them.


----------



## J. Dean

Where truth is uttered, it is truth, even if the speaker of that truth is off on other matters.

If one speaks a quote from a questionable source, one ought to preface that quote with a qualification. For example, I would say "G.K. Chesterton, though incorrect in his embracing of Roman Catholic soteriology, nevertheless was right when he said that the doctrine of Original Sin is the only philosophy that has been vindicated by human history."

I believe the saying is "Eat the meat, spit out the bones." Just make sure you advise others what bones there are to be spit out.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

J. Dean said:


> Where truth is uttered, it is truth, even if the speaker of that truth is off on other matters.
> If one speaks a quote from a questionable source, one ought to preface that quote with a qualification. For example, I would say "G.K. Chesterton, though incorrect in his embracing of Roman Catholic soteriology, nevertheless was right when he said that the doctrine of Original Sin is the only philosophy that has been vindicated by human history."
> I believe the saying is "Eat the meat, spit out the bones." Just make sure you advise others what bones there are to be spit out.



I agree with this, the problem with Keller's sermon is that he does not quote specifically a portion of a text, he generally promote the works (without being specific) of Loyola and others. Since the topic is meditation, the listenter is left to believe he is refering to Loyola's Spiritual Exercise which is absolute poison.


----------



## J. Dean

Fogetaboutit said:


> I agree with this, the problem with Keller's sermon is that he does not quote specifically a portion of a text, he generally promote the works (without being specific) of Loyola and others. Since the topic is meditation, the listenter is left to believe he is refering to Loyola's Spiritual Exercise which is absolute poison.


In that case Keller is not being judicious with his reference to Loyola.

I admire Thomas Aquinas, and he has some very good written items, but at the same time I wouldn't endorse him _carte blanche_ for two reasons: 1.) Perverted understanding of the gospel, and 2.) perverted understanding of the fall of man (that man's will fell but his intellect had not).


----------



## Philip

J. Dean said:


> If one speaks a quote from a questionable source, one ought to preface that quote with a qualification. For example, I would say "G.K. Chesterton, though incorrect in his embracing of Roman Catholic soteriology, nevertheless was right when he said that the doctrine of Original Sin is the only philosophy that has been vindicated by human history."



I disagree simply because as a matter of style, it's cumbersome, and it's understood by one's audience that a quote isn't necessarily an endorsement. If I'm a Protestant and I quote Chesterton, it's fairly obvious that I have a couple of bones to pick with aspects of his theology, I would think.


----------

