# Alarming podcast and lecture on "revivalism"



## alexandermsmith (Nov 24, 2015)

The most recent Reformed Forum Christ the Center podcast is a discussion on "revivalism" and Reformed piety. It was held at the South Austin OPC fall conference, during which there was a lecture by Glen Clary on "The Kingdom, Communion and Revival". Both of these are deeply troubling.

(N.B. This post was originally posted on the Reformed Forum website under the podcast, so it does assume familiarity with the contents of that podcast at least. I've now edited it to make it easier to follow for those who haven't heard either audio. Please accept my apologies that I did not do this when I originally posted it.)

The discussion can be found at: http://reformedforum.org/ctc412/

Glen Clary's lecture can be found at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11121521263010

Those involved in the discussion on the podcast were Jim Cassidy, D.G. Hart, Glen Clary, John Terpstra. Even knowing well the views of some of the men involved I was shocked at what I heard. Mr. Hart actually said, in relation to the idea of requiring conversion of those brought up in the church: "convert from what?" From death unto life! From the dominion of sin and of Satan to the kingdom of grace and Christ! I won't deny that the idea that regeneration is a lifelong process has some Reformed pedigree, but that doesn't make it right or helpful. Regeneration is an instantaneous act: the passing of death unto life, in an instant; the terminus point of the process of effectual calling. What is ongoing for the rest of the believer's life is sanctification, which is something quite different. A human being grows older all his life, but there was an instantaneous moment in which he came into being; became alive. One is either dead or alive: naturally and spiritually. This is clearly the majority view of the Reformed church.

Jim Cassidy at one point says that when ministerial candidates are being examined he "loves" to hear them say that they have "always" known Jesis Christ; that there isn't a moment in their experience that they have not known Him. I would say to Mr. Cassidy that, actually, if a ministerial candidate said "There was never a time when I didn't know Jesus Christ" you should be very concerned! If such a candidate said something of the substance of "from my perspective there was never a time when I didn't believe in God" then that might make sense, as those brought up in the church are told from their infancy that there is a God and that to believe in Him is normal. But that doesn't mean they truly believe in Him with faith, rather than a mere head knowledge and it certainly doesn't mean that they know Christ or are united to Him. To know Christ, savingly, requires three things: an intellectual knowledge of who He is as saviour of sinners; an assent to that knowledge, a believing it to be true and not merely an assertion; a trust in Christ that He will save me, personally and has saved me, personally- not merely that He saves sinners, but that He will save me. Consider the crossing of a river: one must know how to get across (the boat tethered to the bank); one must believe said boat will carry one over the river; and one must place his trust in the boat and actually get in it and cross over.

And I will also bring in Clary's address on revival and communion from the conference because it's referenced in the discussion and it is so egregious, so arrogant, so malicious it must be commented upon. The bulk of his lecture is a sustained attack- of his methods and character- on the 18th century minister Theodorus Frelinghuysen. He accuses Frelinghuysen of, when examining candidates for communicant membership, of not only judging their outward walk but of assuming that he can know their heart; basically that he, Frelinghuysen, can know for sure who are and aren't the elect. For someone who criticises Frelinghuysen for attempting to read the hearts of his congregants, Clary certainly has no compunction in reading Frelinghuysen's heart and slandering and condemning him. All because Frelinghuysen believed that a candidate for the Lord's Table should be able to give not only an uncontradicted profession of faith (what is necessary for admittance to Baptism for one's child) but an accredited profession of faith, i.e. a profession of saving faith, accredited by an experiential knowledge of Christ and union with Him. 

A cursory reading of Frelinghuysen's sermons will show what care he had for his people's souls; how careful he was in the duties apportioned to him; how desirous he was to honour God. His care for the eternal state of his people's souls shines from the page and that was why he was so afraid that they would go into eternity with a lie in their right hand.

Yes it's a real lark to read Frelinghuysen's sermons- jumbled up I might add, taking paragraphs from here and there and putting them together for dramatic emphasis- in an hysterical pitch, as Clary does in his lecture, and mock a man who was clearly burdened by the fact that so many in his congregation were deluding themselves. Frelinghuysen came to that congregation. The sermons Clary quotes are from his early days in the ministry. He came to a congregation that was not in a good state, where, it would seem, many professors were unconverted, being mere formalists. He had to deal with that situation. It is pointless- and irresponsible- to address a congregation comprised mostly of adherents and formalists as if they are regenerated saints growing in grace.

And then Clary says that "Let a man examine himself" has nothing to do with looking in oneself for evidences of true experiential faith but about practical considerations in the administration of the supper. But this is just not true. 1 Corinthians 11:28 has always been understood as a personal examination as to whether one was in Christ; whether one had true faith; searching within oneself for marks of grace. Right back to Calvin that has been the understanding of that text: "By this, as I understand, he means that each individual should descend into himself; and consider, first, whether, with inward confidence of heart, he leans on the salvation obtained by Christ, and with confession of the mouth, acknowledges it; and, secondly, whether with zeal for purity and holiness he aspires to imitate Christ..." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 Edition, Book Fourth, Chapter 17:40, trd. Beveridge.) It is not an invention of "revivalism" but a consistent exposition of that text throughout the generations of the church.

And then, to finish it all off, they (in the discussion on the podcast) choose the Dutch Reformed church as the pinnacle of Reformed piety. This is beyond irony. To choose the branch of the Reformed church which lays most stress on personal experience in relation to coming to the Lord's Table; which is rife with hyper-calvinism; where there are congregation after congregation of hundreds, or even thousands, of "members" and adherents and yet only a tiny fraction will actually sit at the Table. There is much to admire about the Dutch churches, please don't misunderstand me, but this is a real problem within their ranks.

The only explanation one can think of for why they choose this period- beside the Dutch man sitting in their midst- is so they can take a potshot at the Puritans. No statement is too contorted or hypocritical or fork tongued to smear the Puritans, after all. Who, apparently, according to the men in the discussion, pitched form against experience. That is, the same Puritans who wrote the forms we still use, namely the Westminster Standards? Strange they would consider their own production antithetical to true religion.

There is a tradition which maintains a robust adherence to the Westminster Standards; which to this day, in certain pockets, catechises its children and examines prospective communicants by the Standards; which maintains the true purity of worship (i.e. absent the man made hymns, musical instruments and complicated services of OPC and PCA churches) and which also nurtures a deep, experiential piety. That is Scottish Presbyterianism and perhaps the men in this discussion should actually do a bit more research and discover for themselves that the arid desert in which they toil is not how it used to be.

This podcast was a mistake from start to finish. It was not "dying men speaking unto dying men" but dead men speaking unto dead.

P.S.

This post had a signature when I first posted it and for some reason it disappeared when I edited it. Here is my signature:

Alexander Smith
Member, Glasgow Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
(FPCoS)
Glasgow, UK


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 24, 2015)

Alexander, 

You need a signature http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_signaturereqtsfaq


----------



## kodos (Nov 24, 2015)

This post is almost impossible to follow. I'd suggest editing for clarity. Especially make clear who said what and which portions are your commentary.

This is especially important if your claim is that "dead men" were speaking. That seems to imply that you believe these are men condemned to hell.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 24, 2015)

I think I know what you are saying. One increasingly common theme in some Reformed circles is to attack "revivalism." Revivalism could either mean Finney or Iain Murray.


----------



## MW (Nov 24, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I think I know what you are saying. One increasingly common theme in some Reformed circles is to attack "revivalism."



I've noticed the same thing. The problem is that revival is often rejected under the name of revivalism, and the rejection of revival is a virtual sentence to live a Christian life without seeking the refreshing influences of the blessed Holy Spirit.


----------



## lynnie (Nov 24, 2015)

Hart and RS Clark have said some real nasty things about Jonathan Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, and anybody who smacks of "revivalism". They have a legitimate concern about modern charismatics and evangelicals questing after personal experiences with the Holy Spirit, to the neglect of scripture, and elevating the subjective over the objective. But they seem to overreact to the subjective so much that you wonder what sort of sense of the Lord's presence they have ever known, what reality of feasting on His word and having it come alive they have known, what they do with all the exhortations to joy and rejoicing.

I pray for revival all the time.

In defense of little kids being saved, there are many that truly believe at a very young age and never stop. They are right about that, although you can't presume it with an adult raised in the church. I hope you will read this about children, it is excellent: http://www.frame-poythress.org/indifferentism-and-rigorism/ 

I wouldn't get too upset about it. Many years ago I felt like I was in a superior group. God has ways to stomp down that arrogance and it can be very painful. They'll learn......


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 24, 2015)

Here are my comments on Clark's analysis of Revivalism, taken from _Recovering the Reformed Confessions_

Clark's larger argument is that we should be suspicious of those who claim that we should have spiritual experiences outside the divinely-established means of grace and preaching of the Word. Admittedly, this is a fair point. Clark's antagonist is Martyn Lloyd-Jones (MLJ). MLJ repeatedly urged for a “revival” to come, understanding revival as an experimental outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Clark, 79). Clark rebuts him, noting that MLJ is advocating Calvin's doctrine without Calvin's sacramental piety. Clark does admit, though, that MLJ never used “revival” to manipulate his own people (81).

Clark takes issue with Iain Murray's distinction between “revival” and “revivalism.” In the first category would be Reformed evangelists like Edwards and Whitefield. In the latter category we have the horror of today's evangelicalism. Clark accuses Murray of using providence to justify revivals he likes but ignoring providence on revivals he doesn't like (81-82). Clark concludes his critique of Murray by asserting on Murray's gloss what unites true Christianity is “experience, not doctrine” (82). 

Clark does a good job in pointing out some weaknesses in individual Reformed evangelists and in some of the more inane happenings in the First Great Awakening. He also points out what many are now beginning to realize: Jonathan Edwards departed from the Reformed confession on a number of key philosophical points. Clark also establishes that Harry Stout's narrative of Whitefield cannot be so easily dismissed. 

There are some inconsistencies and factual errors in Clark's analysis, though. Murray does not simply lump the Arminian and Calvinistic revivals in the same category. He is very critical of the Second Great Awakening towards its end. Further, Murray does not promote experience over doctrine as the basis of unity. Murray is specifically arguing, however, that the communions in North America shared a common, if somewhat broad, doctrinal agreement on soteriological concerns. I would probably side with Clark on this one, since Murray's account downplays important ecclesial issues, but it is not the case that Murray simply compromised doctrinal agreement. Most importantly, however, is that Clark does not come to grips with Iain Murray's distinction between revival and revivalism. The latter is not merely hoping for the Spirit of God to be poured out as an alternative to the means of grace. It is more properly seen as “whooping and hollering” until the decisions come. Revival, on the other hand, is when God sovereignly displays his power among his people in an unusual way. Further, Clark seems to grant that distinction with regard to MLJ (Clark, 81) but not with Murray.

I suspect MLJ overplayed his hand on the importance of revival. Clark is correct on one point: the church's sanctification is through the means of grace and discipline. That is the established norm. I think I can also argue, though, that MLJ's views can be modified and accommodate some of Clark's concerns on this point. MLJ strongly argued “that the New Testament appeal to sanctification is always an appeal to the reason of the believing man” (Murray, The Fight of Faith, 173). Of course, one would need to supplement this statement with a discussion on the Lord's Supper, but it is a good start.

While Clark is correct that MLJ probably doesn't represent good Reformed ecclesiology, MLJ's exegesis is not so easily dismissed. In any case, MLJ does encourage his congregation to delight in the day of small things and to be careful in seeking “phenomena.” That at least must be granted. I agree with Clark that MLJ was perhaps a bit too dismissive of anyone who disagreed with him. That was not helpful on the latter's part.

I fear that Clark's model of QIRE, while valuable, can be overused to filter out any contrary evidence. Further, it does not account for a lot of the Puritans' experiences where they were in fact met with much of the Spirit of God. At this point if Clark dismisses them and uses Calvin's praxis against them, then it is hard to see how he is not adopting some form of the Calvin vs. Calvinists scheme.


----------



## MW (Nov 24, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Here are my comments on Clark's analysis of Revivalism, taken from _Recovering the Reformed Confessions_



Thankyou, Jacob; helpful analysis.

I would just add that the means of grace are of prime importance, and it is always a shame to see a disinterest in them from those who profess to be witnessing for Christ; but the means of grace should also be nurturing a broader piety in which Christians are able to live out their faith and witness in the world, and to seek the work and power of the Holy Spirit beyond the church worship service. For all their faults, men like Edwards and Whitefield remind us that our Christian faith is not confined to the church because it is exercised in the God of the whole earth who is calling all nations to come and bow down before Him.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 24, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Here are my comments on Clark's analysis of Revivalism, taken from _Recovering the Reformed Confessions_
> ...



This subject has been on my mind for the last few weeks and what has been evident in my life is that the means of saving grace comes from within the institution of the church where our elders work, and the revivalism that is so widespread today practically dispels any need for an Ordained Minister. What has "freed" me from this revivalism is knowing what my vocation is in being a husband, father, and good neighbor to all men, and that it is not being a Minister. Salvation is so much more than Justification and I realize the means of sanctification as dispensed by our Ordained Ministers is vital to a life for Jesus.

As a side note...I have heard the story of men reading a bible while plowing a field after The First Great Awakening, which sounds good but not very practical, or safe, and has for quite while stuck me as comical in that can you imagine a truck driver doing the same on a large highway? I think if I were a policeman I would give the truck drive a ticket and if I were Whitefield I would tell the farmer to plow the field and not ruin the potatoes.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 25, 2015)

Original post edited for clarification. Apologies this wasn't done originally.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Here are my comments on Clark's analysis of Revivalism, taken from _Recovering the Reformed Confessions_
> ...



You're welcome. I really struggled with Dr Clark's book, primarily because I liked where he was going. But I just couldn't write off Edwards and Whitefield.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 25, 2015)

I, for the most part, found the podcast interesting and useful. Generally speaking they're contending for that which they see revivalism attacking or subverting in the following aspects of historical and confessional Reformed piety and praxis: 

1. A Christian piety that is centered around the God-given means of grace administered in public worship
2. Christian covenantal nurture and catechesis 
3. A high view of ordained, ecclesiastical ministry

They see, I think rightly, what in what they call revivalism a tendency to instead substitute:

1. Piety centered on private experience and irregular gatherings of laypersons
2. Crisis conversionism and a practical uncovenanting of the youth
3. Every-member/lay ministry

Hart isn't a theologian, rather he's a historian. With that in mind, it must be remembered that he's more interested in tracing broad trends of historical and intellectual development rather than strict exegesis. He's less interested in the exceptions who can hold the first group and the second together even as he's occasionally allowed for them. He is, rather, lamenting the loss of the first set in contemporary American Christianity and many churches which consider themselves Reformed and is trying to trace how that loss occurred. I think that's valuable even if you disagree with some of his conclusions along the way. 

I would also add that my suspicion is that he, like Nevin did, tends to use "Puritan" in a sense in which it describes a historical tendency terminating in the American New Siders/New Lights and traced mainly through English congregationalism rather than in the more common, broader sense where it would just as well describe Covenanter divines.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2015)

I missed the part in the CTC discussion where the participants were just tearing down the people with whom they differ, ripping on Whitefield, etc.

Maybe this just wasn't the discussion the listener thought he was going to hear when he tuned in?

These guys are under no obligation to affirm all views, nor refrain from criticizing things they disagree with.

The conversation was overwhelmingly positive, focused on what they think _should_ be the case, while the contrast to what they disagree with was mainly conspicuous by its absence... and the fact is: _*such a <space> that was left has been invaded by harsh criticism*_, and thus their general assessment of the present landscape seems validated, in my view.

And, the participants more than once went out of their way to diverge from any view promotional of of "rote" exhibitions of genuine piety.

By all means, listen to the podcast; it's a good one.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2015)

earl40 said:


> What has "freed" me from this revivalism is knowing what my vocation is in being a husband, father, and good neighbor to all men, and that it is not being a Minister. Salvation is so much more than Justification and I realize the means of sanctification as dispensed by our Ordained Ministers is vital to a life for Jesus.



Earl, I encourage you to press on in your freedom as it is the freedom which our Saviour gives. But also, in supporting an ordained ministry, there is a fellowship (partenership) in the gospel mission to the ends of the earth, a vision to see the word of God spread abroad, Christ exalted, and the kingdom extended, as well as a love for individual souls in doing what we can to make them partakers of our peace.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> Hart isn't a theologian, rather he's a historian.



Point taken; but he does seem to venture into theological waters on a regular basis, and here he is especially speaking on "the doctrine of the spirituality of the church," setting forth a view of the church which restricts its influence on the broader life of men. As he notes in the podcast, the Word is powerful. Indeed; so why may it not exercise its influence on politicians?

Covenant nurture is important but it ought not to be set over against personal religion. Effectual calling is important. Conviction of sin, enlightenment in the knowledge of Christ, and renewal of will are personal elements which must be pressed in covenant nurture. A nurture devoid of these personal elements is not covenantal.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 26, 2015)

I would say to TheOldCourse and Contra_Mundum that if these men were looking to address general trends and not focus on the "exceptions", then why bring up Frelinghuysen? Why did Clary spend two thirds of his talk attacking Frelinghuysen, and the remainder attacking Tennent? Frelinghuysen's sermons are full of the Heidelberg catechism and he was a staunch advocate of church discipline and the means of grace. If these men were interested in talking about those who undermined the confessions and the means of grace and the visible church they picked the worst person to hold up as an example of that.

But they weren't really talking about those who undermined the means of grace. Very little of their discussion was actually about those churches which ignore the means of grace. What they were more interested in was criticising experiential religion, which is why they brought up Frelinghuysen and threw in their digs against the Puritans.

Contra_Mundum: well, saying what _should_ be the case is just a nice way of saying "complaining about what _is_ the case", which isn't exactly being positive. And I think it's a bit curious for men who are Sabbath breakers and don't even adhere to the regulative principle of worship, or the Establishment principle to criticise other ministers- whose ministries' abundant fruit is testified to by history- for not adhering to the confessional standards.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 26, 2015)

kodos said:


> This is especially important if your claim is that "dead men" were speaking. That seems to imply that you believe these are men condemned to hell.



Well Mr. Hart explicitly denied the need for conversion in those brought up in the church and just in case this could be put down to a misunderstanding of word definitions (which would be charitable in the extreme) he also, explicitly, denies the reality of an "instantaneous" change in the life of the sinner, whether that be conversion or regeneration or the new birth or whatever you want to call it (it's all three).

And Mr. Cassidy specifically differentiated between those who were pagans and then became believers- not regenerated, but believers which is a broader term- and those brought up in the church. The implication being that those brought up in the church should _not_ be expected to go through such a change.

All of this, and the fact that all seemed to be in agreement with these sentiments, would suggest to me that it's not I who am saying they are unconverted but themselves.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 26, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> I would say to TheOldCourse and Contra_Mundum that if these men were looking to address general trends and not focus on the "exceptions", then why bring up Frelinghuysen? Why did Clary spend two thirds of his talk attacking Frelinghuysen, and the remainder attacking Tennent? Frelinghuysen's sermons are full of the Heidelberg catechism and he was a staunch advocate of church discipline and the means of grace. If these men were interested in talking about those who undermined the confessions and the means of grace and the visible church they picked the worst person to hold up as an example of that.
> 
> But they weren't really talking about those who undermined the means of grace. Very little of their discussion was actually about those churches which ignore the means of grace. What they were more interested in was criticising experiential religion, which is why they brought up Frelinghuysen and threw in their digs against the Puritans.
> 
> Contra_Mundum: well, saying what _should_ be the case is just a nice way of saying "complaining about what _is_ the case", which isn't exactly being positive. And I think it's a bit curious for men who are Sabbath breakers and don't even adhere to the regulative principle of worship, or the Establishment principle to criticise other ministers- whose ministries' abundant fruit is testified to by history- for not adhering to the confessional standards.



The guys at ReformedForum are Sabbath breakers?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 26, 2015)

Mr. Hart certainly is.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Mr. Hart certainly is.



If you don't mind, please substantiate that point. As far as I am aware, he does adhere to the continuing validity of the fourth commandment. I could be mistaken, however.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 26, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Hart certainly is.
> ...



Accepting that the Fourth Commandment still applies, and applying it correctly are two different things. His blog is littered with personal anecdotes which show that he does not keep the Sabbath according to the Biblical standard. The fact he posts on the Sabbath itself shows this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 26, 2015)

A.S., you are engaging in some "detracting," and "tale bearing," (WLC 145) here, which will cease forthwith.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 26, 2015)

Mr. Smith:

I am on record (which is to say, published in several places) as defending at least certain emphases of the New Side and of being, together with Charles Hodge (and the Princetonians more broadly), a champion of the reunion of Old Side/New Side Reunion of 1758. I've been critical of those who've appeared at times to me to be overly-critical of Edwards and others. I could cite such articles if necessary. 

That having been said, I take issue with the tone that you've adopted here with respect to the brothers on the Reformed Forum. Not only are they friends of mine (with whom I may differ about this or that, as is customarily the case with friends), but I've no idea what you are talking about when you cite "Sabbath breakers." Confessionalists in the American context do not, in the main, hold to the Establishment principle and the RPW is not uniformly interpreted--I readily grant this and these are all legitimate items for discussion. 

But if the "Sabbath-breakers" charge was not bad enough, you also appear, unless I misunderstand you, to conclude that these men are "unconverted," though you do so by saying that they themselves appear to acknowledge such. I find such a "charge" unconscionable and I call upon you publicly to repudiate such. Again, differ with these men as you like in how they are understanding history and theology here, but to say that they are Sabbath-breakers and to imply that they are unconverted is simply wrong.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> His blog is littered with personal anecdotes which show that he does not keep the Sabbath according to the Biblical standard.



Such as? I don't follow blogs closely, so we would need to see more evidence - otherwise you are asking us to accept tale-bearing against an ordained elder, which is a violation of scripture and the Larger Catechism.




alexandermsmith said:


> The fact he posts on the Sabbath itself shows this.



No, it does not. Have you ever posted on PB on the Sabbath? If so, what is the difference?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 26, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> But if the "Sabbath-breakers" charge was not bad enough, you also appear, unless I misunderstand you, to conclude that these men are "unconverted," though you do so by saying that they themselves appear to acknowledge such. I find such a "charge" unconscionable and I call upon you publicly to repudiate such.



Alan, this point seems to grow out of a rather weak covenant-theology that I detected in the OP. The poster does not seem to accept the proposition that we should expect covenant children to be regenerate, and thus not have the same sort of "conversion narrative" that you might expect from converted pagans.


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 26, 2015)

MW said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > Hart isn't a theologian, rather he's a historian.
> ...



I Really appreciate all of your post in this thread Rev. Winzer. I think your post capture the balance that we ought to have as followers of Christ. So often men put forth views that end up in one unbiblical ditch while crying out against the other ditch and completely missing the mark that we call balance.

Thanks again brother!


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 26, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Here are my comments on Clark's analysis of Revivalism, taken from _Recovering the Reformed Confessions_
> ...


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 26, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Original post edited for clarification. Apologies this wasn't done originally.



Hi Alexander,

First I want to say that I see where you're coming from. In many ways I share the same concerns when I hear brethren (and yes they are my brethren) on different podcast chatting about topics that I believe to be un-biblical. With that said, I hope you will find the rest of my post helpful.

Though I agree with you I'm going to have to say that you're assessment was overly harsh. If anything, we have to be patient with those whom we disagree with (1 Thess. 5:14). I can't tell you how many times I've listened to the Reformed Forum and heard things that I disagree with. As a Baptist I'll have to say their conversations about infant baptism has been the most trying for me. But, there's several ways that I think you can address your concerns:

1. You could just ignore it. If you find that you cant handle the topic at hand than (for your own sake) it would be best to just avoid it altogether. I also doubt the subject matter that is being discussed will have any affect on the average member in your church. I've learned to avoid listening to brethren when they discuss infant baptism because it can (at times) make me angry. Why put yourself through that if you don't have to? 

2. You could reach out to at least one (or all) of the men on the podcast. Brother Cassidy is a Facebook friend of mine. I think he's a good brother in the faith. I don't agree with everything he says but he's always been nice enough to answer my questions via private chat. Have you done that?

3. And finally, just pray for brothers in the faith. This sort of goes back to number one but if you feel you need to just separate yourself from certain brethren than do it. I think you have enough biblical support from the New Testament to do that. If you feel these men are idle in their discussions than avoid it and follow the apostle Paul's exhortation when he says: "...note that person and do not keep company with him,...Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess 3: 14-15). These men are your brothers in the Lord so you're going to have to find a better way to reach out to THEM. And if all else fails, pray for them with all sincerity. 

I suspect this wasn't the first episode of the Reformed forum that you've taken the time to listen to. If not, than I'll go ahead and assume you've been greatly blessed by their labors in past episodes. If so, "let's give credit where credit is do." Let's not jump the gun just yet. If anything give thanks to the Lord for how they may have helped you on different topics and take up your beef with them privately. In this "wicked and adulterous generation" that we're living in I think we have enough evidence to suggest that these men are for us, not against us. 

In Christ,
Tyrese


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 26, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Here are my comments on Clark's analysis of Revivalism, taken from _Recovering the Reformed Confessions_
> 
> I suspect MLJ overplayed his hand on the importance of revival. Clark is correct on one point: the church's sanctification is through the means of grace and discipline. That is the established norm. I think I can also argue, though, that MLJ's views can be modified and accommodate some of Clark's concerns on this point. MLJ strongly argued “that the New Testament appeal to sanctification is always an appeal to the reason of the believing man” (Murray, The Fight of Faith, 173). Of course, one would need to supplement this statement with a discussion on the Lord's Supper, but it is a good start.



MLJ's error was not that of overplaying his hand on the importance of revival. His error was mis-identifying the historic Reformed doctrine of assurance with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit later in his career in "Joy Unspeakable." His earlier writings on assurance, however, are solidly confessional. 



ReformedReidian said:


> I fear that Clark's model of QIRE, while valuable, can be overused to filter out any contrary evidence. Further, it does not account for a lot of the Puritans' experiences where they were in fact met with much of the Spirit of God. At this point if Clark dismisses them and uses Calvin's praxis against them, then it is hard to see how he is not adopting some form of the Calvin vs. Calvinists scheme.



Well said.


----------



## MW (Nov 26, 2015)

Tyrese said:


> Thanks again brother!



You are very welcome, Tyrese. May God lead us all in the balance of His truth.


----------



## MW (Nov 26, 2015)

I think the overall point of our brother who started this thread is a fair and valid one. On the one hand the podcast expresses thankfulness for the Presbyterian heritage. On the other hand it lifts up a "view" of 19th century Dutch piety over against the Puritan experiential heritage. That Puritan heritage has been quite influential in the formation of Presbyterian values. May I once more recommend the excellent article from William Young on historic Calvinism and neo-Calvinism. His article on conversion is also worth consulting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2015)

I forgot who said it, but the Anglo Reformed world tends to fall into three categories:

1. Piets (Banner of Truth piety types)
2. Kuyps (Kuyperians, theonomists)
3. Docs (Westminster California, DG Hart)


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 27, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I forgot who said it, but the Anglo Reformed world tends to fall into three categories:
> 
> 1. Piets (Banner of Truth piety types)
> 2. Kuyps (Kuyperians, theonomists)
> 3. Docs (Westminster California, DG Hart)



I don't know a whole lot about Kuyperians and "Docs", but what I can say with certainty is the Presbyterianism that I read about in books published by the Banner of Truth (and other good publishers) is much more desirable than what I see today in America. I think some Reformed Baptist have done a good job applying the many practical examples left by Presbyterian pastor/scholars from the past. Pastor A.N Martin would be a good example. I'm sure some of you would appreciate the lectures he gave at the Trinity Ministerial Academy many years ago on practical and pastoral theology. They can be found here: Almartin.org


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 27, 2015)

I venture cautiously into the conversation! And I've only had time to listen to about half the podcast. I'm familiar with Dr. Hart and have benefited from many things he has to say. As Earl has expressed, I appreciate the liberation which comes from Christ, from many false ideas associated with revivalism; ideas which have infiltrated even good Presbyterian churches (like the "every member a minister" idea). I know that no minister who publishes his ideas is perfect, but one can benefit from a good minister's thinking even if one decides the minister needs balance in one area or the other. As far as the discussion on conversion goes- am I right in thinking the NT teaches that we are to accept a church member as a regenerate person and one of Christ's own, as long as they continue outwardly in biblical faith and practice, even if they don't speak about or claim to have experienced anything we now associate with the 'conversion experience?' Isn't this basically what Hart and the other men are arguing for? And Paul speaks to the children of the church as though they are able to obey their parents in the Lord, with no qualifiers.

Update: I re-read the thread and took Rev. Winzer's advice to read William Young's article on conversion. No time to read the whole thing yet but I see where it will be helpful. We do indeed need the right balance.


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 27, 2015)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I venture cautiously into the conversation! And I've only had time to listen to about half the podcast. I'm familiar with Dr. Hart and have benefited from many things he has to say. As Earl has expressed, I appreciate the liberation which comes from Christ, from many false ideas associated with revivalism; ideas which have infiltrated even good Presbyterian churches (like the "every member a minister" idea). I know that no minister who publishes his ideas is perfect, but one can benefit from a good minister's thinking even if one decides the minister needs balance in one area or the other. As far as the discussion on conversion goes- am I right in thinking the NT teaches that we are to accept a church member as a regenerate person and one of Christ's own, as long as they continue outwardly in biblical faith and practice, even if they don't speak about or claim to have experienced anything we now associate with the 'conversion experience?' Isn't this basically what Hart and the other men are arguing for? And Paul speaks to the children of the church as though they are able to obey their parents in the Lord, with no qualifiers.



The idea that "every member is a minister" was never intended by its originators to mean that every member is a teaching elder. What it means is that every member brings whatever gifts they have and uses them for the benefit of the body.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 27, 2015)

Right, I understand that. I've been in a church or two where the idea was used to teach that all church members share the same responsibility as ordained ministers in evangelism, etc.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2015)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > What has "freed" me from this revivalism is knowing what my vocation is in being a husband, father, and good neighbor to all men, and that it is not being a Minister. Salvation is so much more than Justification and I realize the means of sanctification as dispensed by our Ordained Ministers is vital to a life for Jesus.
> ...



Indeed I do my proper role (which many believe is not enough) and am pressing on by His grace to continue without taking on the mantel of a Minister or Preacher. 

I write this know most work full time, have children, and have little to no time, or energy, to put in towards a direct "m"inistry of the local church. Now if you come to Orlando and have a heart attack I will do my best to ensure you,Minister or not, shall make it to the next worship service,for working in a hospital is my "Ordained" vocation along with taking care of my family and friends outside the church as well as inviting them there where the saving grace is Preached.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 27, 2015)

Tyrese,

Thank you for your post. I appreciate the friendly and warm tone of it. I readily accept that the tone of my posts is harsh. I've never been the most apt at voicing disagreement in an agreeable fashion and blog posts only accentuate this tendency as all there is are the bare words. If you were offended by the tone of my posts I apologise. Contrary to appearances, I never set out to purposeful offend, especially another of the Lord's people. I also readily acknowledge that I have listened to a good many of the Reformed Forum podcasts, and many of those I have found very beneficial and interesting. I don't believe in commenting on every thing I hear, especially if it's only to say "Thank you" or "Excellent". I only comment if I feel I have something specific to say, or I feel something should be said which hasn't been said.

In my defence I would say that the reason I posted what I did was because I believe that the views expressed in this podcast- and in Mr. Clary's lecture- are deeply corrosive to the Christian faith and are some of the chief causes of the problems we are seeing in the church today. I do not deny for one moment the problem of a particular brand of revivalism which we see in the Second Great Awakening and its fruit: the new measures, the hyper-emotionalism, the subjectivism, the disorder and anarchy which was wrought and which has carried much of the church in its wake. I know only too well the insidious nature of such a "spirituality". But the cure to this is not a dead orthodoxy and that is exactly what I feel was being promoted in these audios.

And this is not an isolated situation. I didn't suddenly hear views expressed by these men which I had never heard before and rush to judgment without comparing what they say here with what they have said elsewhere. This anti-revival, anti-experiential piety is a hallmark, certainly, of Mr. Hart. His blog is full of posts which criticise experiential religion- seen, for example, in his long crusade against an approach which emphasises union with Christ. His "Where's Waldo?" series of posts from a few years ago were a concerted, and sarcastic, attempt to deny the centrality of union with Christ. It is seen whenever the names of Rutherford and M'Cheyne and others like them are brought up on his blog; it is seen in his many recent criticisms of Mark Jones (which no-one seems to pull him up on) and it is seen in the broiling cesspit of a comments section which he allows on his website.

It is suggested that I ignore those things of which I disagree. Well, to a great extent I do. But some things need to be commented upon. I don't comment upon Joyce Meyer or Joel Osteen; Tim Keller or John Piper because these characters are so clearly outside the Reformed camp and in some cases completely off the reservation. But men like Mr. Hart and Mr. Clary are office bearers in Reformed denominations and they have influence as Reformed persons. What they say the Reformed faith is directly affects all who claim that mantle. And so when such persons routinely deny whole swathes of Reformed piety and history and claim that only a very narrow, exclusively doctrinal current is true Reformed Christianity then I feel something must be said in opposition. 

I understand some of these men are friends with others on this forum and who have posted in this thread. But, frankly, that is irrelevant to a discussion on fundamental tenets of the truth. I am not friends with these men; I am not in communion with them. I am an anonymous Joe listening to their _public pronouncements_ on what is and isn't, apparently, true Reformed Christianity. Public error needs to be rebuked publicly. That is how Mark Driscoll had to be responded to and it's how all public error must be responded to.

I also think there is, to put it charitably, a double standard here. Mr. Hart criticises numerous Christians on his blog- some high profile names and some just ordinary Christians who happened to have made the news for one reason or another; he allows personal attack on his blog against Christians; Mr. Clary defamed Mr. Frelinghuysen in his lecture and again in the podcast: condemned his ministry and accused him of undermining Biblical Christianity. Messrs. Tennent and Edwards are routinely criticised by people like Mr. Hart, Mr. Scott Clark; as was mentioned on this thread already, Mr. I. Murray is another one who is criticised. Why are they not called to account for these attacks? I know, legally, one cannot libel the dead but libel is libel and is the law of the land really to be our standard? No, there is a higher standard.

As to my saying these men are unconverted. As I said previously, these men said themselves they were unconverted. That is in the podcast. It is clear. I also posted that, in case that was merely about a different understanding of words, Mr. Hart specifically denied the need for an "instantaneous" change in the life and experience of a sinner, at least one who was brought up in the church. That is a direct denial of the testimony of Christ Himself who said a man _must_ be born again. And He did not say that to a pagan: he said it to a Pharisee, a Jew of the Jews. Being brought up in the nurture of the church and catechised with the doctrine of the faith is _not_ enough. Without regeneration there is not life, only death. Of course there is a life-long growth in grace and faith. That is sanctification. Maybe you want to call that conversion. Or maybe regeneration. I don't think it's either of those two things: I think sanctification is one thing and conversion and regeneration are another thing, namely the new birth. I understand that some earlier Reformed theologians used these terms in broader ways, but generally they are not used in that respect. (Hence the fact that whenever someone _does_ use conversion or regeneration in that sense they usually add something along the lines of "Calvin actually thought conversion was a lifelong process", which implies that such a notion is not commonly held.) But if one does wish to use these terms to refer to sanctification, then fine, but then they need to give me a term for that instantaneous change, that new birth, which is one-off event (one is either dead or alive there is no in-between state) and tell me they have that. In this podcast they denied the need for that.

Instead of people criticising me for taking them at their word in this discussion, people should instead maybe ask why they spoke the way they did and the implication of such talk. I'm not the only one who, having listened to this discussion, raised this concern about the lack of discussion of the reality and need of regeneration. In such a situation I believe I am required to speak out when those who have such influence and who claim to be truly Reformed speak in a way which suggests that such a change does not exist.

This discussion is of the utmost importance. It means the difference between a sinner deluding themselves into a lost eternity and seeking that salvation in Christ which includes regeneration. I know the dangers of a subjective piety which undermines and destroys the means of grace and the visible church; but I know only too well the dangers of formalism and false professions. People becoming communicant members in the church, and further, elders and ministers, who do not know Christ or what it is to be born again are and have been the _ruin_ of the church. Scotland has suffered deeply from this formalism. Indeed the history of the Scottish church could be seen through the prism of faithful ministers of the Gospel striving to awaken the people to the dangers of such a "Christianity". That is why I felt the need to say what I said.

I hope that helps clear up a few things.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 27, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> > The fact he posts on the Sabbath itself shows this.
> ...



I have not posted on the Sabbath. Is browsing the Internet and posting on it a work of necessity or mercy? No it's not, ergo it is to be avoided.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > alexandermsmith said:
> ...



Is conversing with Christian brothers in matters of faith forbidden on the Sabbath?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 27, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Alan D. Strange said:
> 
> 
> > But if the "Sabbath-breakers" charge was not bad enough, you also appear, unless I misunderstand you, to conclude that these men are "unconverted," though you do so by saying that they themselves appear to acknowledge such. I find such a "charge" unconscionable and I call upon you publicly to repudiate such.
> ...



Where in Scripture does it tell us that the faith of the parent automatically results in the faith of the child? And I mean true, saving faith.

There is a difference between expecting the children of believers to come to saving faith and assuming they will or even are. This discussion tended very much to the latter position. All the men seemed to require from those brought up in the church was an intellectual agreement with the doctrine of the church and an outward walk which did not contradict that. That is enough for Baptism but not for admittance to the Lord's Supper. To be admitted to the Lord's Table- to be accepted as a member in full communion- requires an _accredited_ profession of faith. There are many who agree with the teaching of the Church; assent to the doctrines of the faith; live outwardly moral lives and yet are dead in trespasses and sins. The Pharisees are, obviously, the prime example of such a person. It is not weak covenant theology to require from all persons seeking admittance to the Supper- whether brought up in the church or pagans- evidences that they have been born again. Christ required it of Nicodemus; do we have the authority to require anything less?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 27, 2015)

TheOldCourse,

No, in person. Wouldn't you rather have a conversation with those you have worshipped with? Christian conversation can't be used as an excuse to break God's law. Ends do not justify means.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Tyrese,
> 
> Thank you for your post. I appreciate the friendly and warm tone of it. I readily accept that the tone of my posts is harsh. I've never been the most apt at voicing disagreement in an agreeable fashion and blog posts only accentuate this tendency as all there is are the bare words. If you were offended by the tone of my posts I apologise. Contrary to appearances, I never set out to purposeful offend, especially another of the Lord's people. I also readily acknowledge that I have listened to a good many of the Reformed Forum podcasts, and many of those I have found very beneficial and interesting. I don't believe in commenting on every thing I hear, especially if it's only to say "Thank you" or "Excellent". I only comment if I feel I have something specific to say, or I feel something should be said which hasn't been said.
> 
> ...



Perhaps it's a matter of your own misunderstanding of what they claim then. To my knowledge neither have ever denied being converted or the necessity of conversion _per se_. They don't even deny the occurrence of legitimate experiential crisis conversions. What they deny is that everyone experiences their conversion consciously at a particular moment of time. In fact it would have, before the revivals of the 18th century, been completely normal to expect one would be converted without experiencing any such thing since they had been raised in the bosom of the church and God had worked his effectual calling in them before they were fully aware of their natural rebellion and hatred for God. Even for those converted as adults, frequently men cannot honestly pass the test of testifying to the moment of their conversion as it was a subconscious act of God that may manifest itself gradually to the understanding rather than instantaneously. When they say they are not "converted" they speak in the idiosyncratic revivalist sense, rather than claiming they had not experienced the effectual calling of God which would be tantamount to denying the faith. 

The point being made above is that we can certainly discuss and critique the merit's of Hart and Clary's ideas just as they have Murray or Jones, but to my knowledge they have never but made clear they regard those men as brothers in Christ and are confident of their standing before Christ. You have instead called the very souls of Hart and Clary into question and invoked criticisms not just of their teachings but their persons which is a serious affair and must needs be substantiated.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Where in Scripture does it tell us that the faith of the parent automatically results in the faith of the child? And I mean true, saving faith.



Is anyone actually claiming this? I've heard Steve Wilkins say this in a sermon, but which non-FV Reformed person actually said this?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> TheOldCourse,
> 
> No, in person. Wouldn't you rather have a conversation with those you have worshipped with? Christian conversation can't be used as an excuse to break God's law. Ends do not justify means.



What does proximity have to do with it? Godly conference is a duty of the Lord's Day and therefore does not need to be justified by necessity or mercy. Means are not irrelevant, but it requires a bit more consideration than a bare appeal to necessity and mercy which suggests some Christian charity should be used when evaluating another's deeds in this realm. Would you also object to speaking to one's family on the telephone on the Lord's Day? Perhaps you would.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Where in Scripture does it tell us that the faith of the parent automatically results in the faith of the child? And I mean true, saving faith.



I never said that it did; there are such things as covenant-breakers. Since God has promised to be a God unto us and to our seed after us, we expect them to keep the way of the Lord. Covenant children should be nutured to full profession of faith; not evangelized as if they were pagans outside the covenant people of God. That is not the same thing as presuming they are all elect, however. If it becomes clear that they do not have a credible profession of faith, then we treat them as non-Christians.




alexandermsmith said:


> There is a difference between expecting the children of believers to come to saving faith and assuming they will or even are. This discussion tended very much to the latter position. All the men seemed to require from those brought up in the church was an intellectual agreement with the doctrine of the church and an outward walk which did not contradict that. That is enough for Baptism but not for admittance to the Lord's Supper. To be admitted to the Lord's Table- to be accepted as a member in full communion- requires an accredited profession of faith. There are many who agree with the teaching of the Church; assent to the doctrines of the faith; live outwardly moral lives and yet are dead in trespasses and sins. The Pharisees are, obviously, the prime example of such a person. It is not weak covenant theology to require from all persons seeking admittance to the Supper- whether brought up in the church or pagans- evidences that they have been born again. Christ required it of Nicodemus; do we have the authority to require anything less?



In Presbyterian ecclesiology, we only require a credible profession of faith to come to the Lord's table. To demand that someone "prove" they are regenerate is not a Presbyterian practice. For the individuals own personal assurance that he is born again, however, he will need to discern the inward marks that he is a child of God. Note that the Larger Catechism only calls for the exclusion of those who are ignorant or scandalous from the Lord's Supper. It does not demand that the communicant "prove" to the elders that he is regenerate, as that is something the elders can never definitely know.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > alexandermsmith said:
> ...



So do you regard several men here, who are some of the most zealous men for Sabbath observance that I have ever met, "Sabbath breakers"? Seriously, reading PB on the Sabbath is no different to reading a theological book or talking to others about spiritual things. To use it on the Lord's Day is keeping the Sabbath, not breaking it. What a blessing it is to live in the internet age, which if used rightly is actually a help to Sabbath keeping rather than a hindrance.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2015)

Vipers in Covenant Diapers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Vipers in Covenant Diapers.



 If you believe that you may as well be a Baptist.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 27, 2015)

Maybe there should be a spinoff thread on the matter of Internet on the Sabbath to avoid needless distraction from the concerns raised in the OP. It is not new that there are folks on both sides of the question here, as it has been discussed a few times before.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

au5t1n said:


> Maybe there should be a spinoff thread on the matter of Internet on the Sabbath to avoid needless distraction from the concerns raised in the OP. It is not new that there are folks on both sides of the question here, as it has been discussed a few times before.



Agreed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Vipers in Covenant Diapers.
> ...



It's from John Gerstner. He was waxing eloquently in his Church History lectures on how children should be viewed as vipers in diapers. Someone said since they are covenant children, shouldn't they be seen as vipers in Covenant diapers. He didn't like the adjective. Neither position was actually right!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



Dr Gerstner did have a way with words!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> The point being made above is that we can certainly discuss and critique the merit's of Hart and Clary's ideas just as they have Murray or Jones, but to my knowledge they have never but made clear they regard those men as brothers in Christ and are confident of their standing before Christ. You have instead called the very souls of Hart and Clary into question and invoked criticisms not just of their teachings but their persons which is a serious affair and must needs be substantiated.



While D. G. Hart is a friend of mine, I differ with him on a number of issues - especially neo-2K theology. And while I largely reject revivalism, I did agree with some points that were made in the OP. Still, I see no evidence for the sweeping claims that are being made about the state of these men's souls.


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Tyrese,
> 
> Thank you for your post. I appreciate the friendly and warm tone of it. I readily accept that the tone of my posts is harsh. I've never been the most apt at voicing disagreement in an agreeable fashion and blog posts only accentuate this tendency as all there is are the bare words. If you were offended by the tone of my posts I apologise. Contrary to appearances, I never set out to purposeful offend, especially another of the Lord's people. I also readily acknowledge that I have listened to a good many of the Reformed Forum podcasts, and many of those I have found very beneficial and interesting. I don't believe in commenting on every thing I hear, especially if it's only to say "Thank you" or "Excellent". I only comment if I feel I have something specific to say, or I feel something should be said which hasn't been said.
> 
> ...



Hi Alex, 

It does help. With that said, I do pray men on the board would take heed to your overall message as I to believe it to be valid. This is something that I've thought about many times. The only thing that I can think to do is reach out to these brothers and pray for them.

Thanks for your response!

Tyrese


----------



## JP Wallace (Nov 27, 2015)

While I would not agree with everything, I think the criticisms are too pointed.

A) the starting point was 18th century revivalism (as opposed to a belief in revival). This period was characterised by the expectation that a person must go through a crisis experience to be truly converted/accounted as regenerate. Whatever else was said I believe the main thrust of the discussion was to say that such a crisis was and is unnecessary. Especially in the case of children in a covenantal situation brought up under the family and church discipline of the Word, who never openly rebel, or go in to the world, such a radical crisis would be odd, and basically impossible in practice. This, I believe is what Dr Hart meant when he said, "convert from what".

B) this is not actually that controversial, indeed the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith recognises this concept in Chapter 5 Paragraph 1, 

" Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life."

Sam Waldron comments,

"“I believe our Baptist forefathers had several practical concerns in making this distinction. Chiefly, they wanted to make sure that no one could accuse them of believing that that all Christians must have a crisis conversion like that of the Philippian jailor. They were saying, “Though we insist emphatically on personal conversion, we understand that the experience of a child raised in a Christian home may be quite different from that of one who is converted without the benefit of Christian nurture as a child.” Both converts will experience repentance, but both may not have a crisis conversion experience.”
“The practical applications of this are various and important. Do not doubt your salvation merely because you lack a crisis experience like that of some respected brother or sister in the Lord. Do not demand of others a certain type of conversion experience as a necessary mark of true grace. An emotional earthquake, radical, external changes in one’s life-style, knowing the exact time of one’s rebirth, an extended work of conviction by the law, immediate sudden joy–all of these may accompany conversion, but none are necessary marks of true repentance.”


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 27, 2015)

JP Wallace said:


> While I would not agree with everything, I think the criticisms are too pointed.
> 
> A) the starting point was 18th century revivalism (as opposed to a belief in revival). This period was characterised by the expectation that a person must go through a crisis experience to be truly converted/accounted as regenerate. Whatever else was said I believe the main thrust of the discussion was to say that such a crisis was and is unnecessary. Especially in the case of children in a covenantal situation brought up under the family and church discipline of the Word, who never openly rebel, or go in to the world, such a radical crisis would be odd, and basically impossible in practice. This, I believe is what Dr Hart meant when he said, "convert from what".
> 
> ...



Hi brother Wallace,

While I don't think a child (or teen) needs to go through a "crisis experience" I do believe they should have a valid testimony where they can answer for themselves what they were converted from. From my own observations those who grow up in the Church often struggle with sins that are more or less unique to them.

Thanks for your post!

Tyrese


----------



## alexandermsmith (Nov 27, 2015)

ReformedCovenanter said:

"In Presbyterian ecclesiology, we only require a credible profession of faith to come to the Lord's table. To demand that someone "prove" they are regenerate is not a Presbyterian practice. For the individuals own personal assurance that he is born again, however, he will need to discern the inward marks that he is a child of God. Note that the Larger Catechism only calls for the exclusion of those who are ignorant or scandalous from the Lord's Supper. It does not demand that the communicant "prove" to the elders that he is regenerate, as that is something the elders can never definitely know."

I do not say the applicant must prove he is one of the elect but he must be able to give an account of the Lord's dealings with his soul and why he believes he is regenerate. In Scotland there has always been a higher standard require for admittance to the Lord's Supper than to Baptism; the Westminster divines only required that one profess the true religion in order to be considered a member of the visible church, as oppose to a profession of saving faith (which was specifically rejected as a requirement by the divines); and the Westminster Standards require a far greater diligence and experience from those who would sit at the Lord's Table than from those who would have their children baptised. The session has the responsibility to ensure that only those who can give an accredited profession of faith sit at the Table.

That is not the same as knowing they are regenerated: some may well be deluded. But it is not enough to leave it to the individual to decide for himself whether he is a child of God: partaking in the Supper is a corporate action therefore the session must demand evidences from the applicant that suggests they are regenerate.

I don't think every believer needs to have a crisis experience or be able to give the moment they were converted. Maybe some of the Puritans and Pilgrims did require that. I don't see that requirement in Frelinghuysen though. What I do see is a requirement that a professor be able to explain and justify the hope within him. I think the Standards clearly teach that as a necessity in any prospective communicant.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2015)

Tyrese said:


> JP Wallace said:
> 
> 
> > While I would not agree with everything, I think the criticisms are too pointed.
> ...



Must a child/teen/young adult be required to give knowledge of the moment he was converted?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> In Scotland there has always been a higher standard require for admittance to the Lord's Supper than to Baptism;



That's true of every non-paedocommunion church, especially if the ones being baptized are infants.


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 27, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > JP Wallace said:
> ...



No, in fact I couldn't tell you the exact moment I was converted but I still have a testimony. Are you of the opinion that children who grow up in the Church have no knowledge of their own sins that they're saved from? And if they do, shouldn't they have a testimony?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, be kept from it?
A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.

I fear that we are starting to talk past each other, but the Westminster divines are pretty clear that those who are ignorant and/or openly living in scandalous sin are not to be admitted to communion. There is no demand for a conversion narrative beyond a profession of saving faith in Christ. If a person professes saving faith that profession ought to be taken at face-value unless there is something in their lives that calls this profession into question. It is not the place of church officers to judge their hearts. A young person brought up within the covenant may have this saving faith without having the conversion narrative of others converted from paganism.


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 27, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, be kept from it?
> A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.
> 
> I fear that we are starting to talk past each other, but the Westminster divines are pretty clear that those who are ignorant and/or openly living in scandalous sin are not to be admitted to communion. There is no demand for a conversion narrative beyond a profession of saving faith in Christ. If a person professes saving faith that profession ought to be taken at face-value unless there is something in their lives that calls this profession into question. It is not the place of church officers to judge their hearts. A young person brought up within the covenant may have this saving faith without having the conversion narrative of others converted from paganism.



John 3:3 -"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

I think this is the most important verse in this discussion. You say "...without having the conversion narrative of others converted from paganism", but I'm not sure I'm ready to say that Nicodemus was a pagan. An unbeliever yes, but a pagan I'm not sure; unless their one in the same and I'm just not aware of it. But with that in mind, Jesus still told him that he needed to be born again or else "he cannot see the kingdom of God." I think this verse also applies to individuals who grow up in the Church. If you choose to call unbelievers pagans than you have the right to do that, but I usually just refer to them as unbelievers. So the question "converted from what?" is rather troubling because it in a way denies the need to be "born again." I'm not even sure if it matters if a conversion experience is dramatic or not. 

Jesus said, "...her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little”(Luke 7:47). The message here is about forgiveness. It doesn't matter if a person can recite the shorter catechism or a couple scriptures about the gospel; there's unbelievers who do that everyday. Even worse the demons know these things (James 2:2). Can a person tell you how God has forgiven them of their sins? And can they tell you what sins they were forgiven of. I'm not saying they should get vulgar, but they should be able to effectively and clearly get their point across. If not, than they may not be born again. 

I apologize if I'm still talking past you here. Please believe that's not my intent.

Btw: I want to say that I think we're both right here. Some could accuse you of easy believism, while another could accuse me of not valuing someones profession of faith. This is where balance comes into play.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 27, 2015)

Tyrese said:


> John 3:3 -"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
> 
> I think this is the most important verse in this discussion. You say "...without having the conversion narrative of others converted from paganism", but I'm not sure I'm ready to say that Nicodemus was a pagan. An unbeliever yes, but a pagan I'm not sure; unless their one in the same and I'm just not aware of it. But with that in mind, Jesus still told him that he needed to be born again or else "he cannot see the kingdom of God." I think this verse also applies to individuals who grow up in the Church. If you choose to call unbelievers pagans than you have the right to do that, but I usually just refer to them as unbelievers. So the question "converted from what?" is rather troubling because it in a way denies the need to be "born again." I'm not even sure if it matters if a conversion experience is dramatic or not.



Being born again is not the same thing as having a modern evangelical conversion narrative. A person who grows up in the visible church but lacks saving faith needs to be regenerated, yet that is not the same thing as presuming unregeneration in all covenant children until they can give a conversion narrative. I agree, however, that a person should profess that they trust in Christ alone for salvation.




Tyrese said:


> Jesus said, "...her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little”(Luke 7:47). The message here is about forgiveness. It doesn't matter if a person can recite the shorter catechism or a couple scriptures about the gospel; there's unbelievers who do that everyday. Even worse the demons know these things (James 2:2). Can a person tell you how God has forgiven them of their sins? And can they tell you what sins they were forgiven of. I'm not saying they should get vulgar, but they should be able to effectively and clearly get their point across. If not, than they may not be born again.



We are talking here about professions of saving faith; the points you raise apply to historical faith. None of us are arguing that a person will be saved who only has historical faith; what we are saying is that you should not expect everyone who is regenerate to have a modern evangelical conversion narrative.

I do not think there is any evidence of easy believism in what I have advocated. As I have repeatedly stated, those whose lives contradict their profession of saving faith should not be regarded as true Christians.


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 27, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > John 3:3 -"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
> ...



Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I think we're on the same page this time. God bless


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 27, 2015)

Tyrese said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...



No. It's just that people who are raised in teh covenant admonition of the Lord usually won't have sordid testimonies. I have Christian parents and God didn't pull me out of the whorehouse at age 9. I even "walked the aisle" (Baptist) but I probably couldn't give that exact moment when I passed yea from death unto life.

The OP's posts in this thread seemed to lean towards that conclusion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2015)

1. I think it's reasonable to call on the carpet those who claim theirs is and has always been the "real" Reformed faith and speak in ways that place the Puritans (and by extension the WCF) outside the boundaries of Reformed theology.

2. It is *beyond absurd* to claim that these men who are concerned about "crisis conversion" claim that they have never been regenerated.

Alexander; I find you at the same time insightful and obtuse. You have valid criticisms and then write really stupid things. I won't mince words with the latter as you have not minced them.

Yes, many have come to the defense of other Reformed when some of the R2K proponents make radical historical or theological claims.

That said, it is absurd to claim that Hart and others are saying: "I've never been converted to the Gospel."

Grow up. Seriously. That kind of criticism is simply childish. If you're 14 years old I might understand it but you simply cannot be serious in assuming that a Reformed minister is saying: "I've never been converted."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2015)

Incidentally, one of the things I appreciate about the Puritans is a "full-orbed" faith. I was listening to Joel Beeke the other night as I ripped his 26 Lectures on Puritan Theology to MP3. Highly recommend it. In his first lecture he talks about who the Puritans were. It really helped me to distill (in my own thinking) how many Christians are imbalanced. The Puritans were full-orbed "head-heart-hands" Christians. Doctrine impelled the affections drove the life and all were symbiotic. They were obsessed with piety because they believed God wanted it for them. They could not imagine some of the debates we have where we're arguing about those who emphasize "grace" over the "law" because they wouldn't agree that we need to choose between the two at times in order to achieve balance.

I was critically reviewing a work on worship the other day and it kept placing things in the Christian life into dichotomony: doctrine vs. heart, grace vs. commandment, etc. I think much of Christianity (and the Reformed faith) is either choosing one either head, heart, OR hand as the core of Christianity or it believes it can only achieve the three by placing the three in some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis paradigm in order to get them to proper philosophical balance.

I often find it a bit amusing when someone who is Puritan-esque is seen as both ally and enemy to competing factions. 

On the one hand, a Puritan is going to agree that one should not doubt that that promises belong to the one baptized. On the other hand, the life of any Christian is one of daily dying to self and turning in faith to Christ. The problem with a "conversion experience" is the very idea that union with Christ is something that happened in the past. It's not simply that Christ died for me 2000 years ago but that He is *presently* Prophet, Priest, and King and that I daily die to sin and turn in faith to Him. So, yes, it is valid to criticize Revivalist traditions that look for the super-duper crisis event but it is also foolish to turn everything into an objective "Jesus died and rose 2000 years ago and I was baptized and that's all I need to know".


----------



## earl40 (Nov 27, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > JP Wallace said:
> ...



To do so would say Jesus knew not what He was talking about when He said we do not know when The Spirit does His work. Yes we can see the effects but I really believe most adult conversion "experiences" are simply when many receive the assurance of their conversion that came in times past. This is why the experiential should be what we believe now. If we believe now we can be assured that The Spirit has worked in the past.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 28, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> 1. I think it's reasonable to call on the carpet those who claim theirs is and has always been the "real" Reformed faith and speak in ways that place the Puritans (and by extension the WCF) outside the boundaries of Reformed theology.



I have heard some of those who oppose revivalism claim that the Westminster Confession's view of subjective assurance not being of the essence of faith is revivalistic. The irony of that assertion is that some of the "revivalists" around the time of the 1859 Revival in Ulster often argued for this very position (or something like it). I think that this observation highlights the poverty of a theology of reaction. We should seek to define ourselves as biblical and confessional, not simply anti-revivalist or anti-something else.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 28, 2015)

earl40 said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Tyrese said:
> ...



I know and agree. I was just asking a question to clarify a point someone made.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 1, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Where in Scripture does it tell us that the faith of the parent automatically results in the faith of the child? And I mean true, saving faith.
> ...



I said that in response to your post suggesting my covenant theology was shaky. By being born to parents who are members of the visible church, and who have at least an uncontradicted profession of faith, the child is entitled to Baptism, thus marking them as a member of the covenant community. They thus receive the benefits of such a membership: it is unto them the oracles of God are given; they are reared under the preaching of the Gospel- the free offer is presented to them where it is not presented to the heathen outwith the visible church; they are taught the faith by their parents. And, yes, one would hope and, indeed, maybe even expect them to be converted/regenerated. But one does not _assume_ they are regenerated: that is not only foolish but dangerous. Until they, themselves, profess true, accredited saving faith: that they not only agree and believe the doctrines of the faith and live an outwardly moral life, but that they believe Christ died for them personally (appropriate Christ) and have placed their trust in Him as _their_ personal saviour, then they are not to be assumed to be regenerated.

Nicodemus was not a pagan: he was a Pharisee. He lived a moral, circumspect life and he knew and believed the doctrines of the faith. But he was unconverted: he had not been born again. That is what Christ says to him: "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" How could someone who was steeped in the teaching of the church: who lived according to its doctrines and rules for faith and life have missed the most essential thing: the necessity of being born again? Because he had been blinded by his formalism and legalism. There are many to this day who live outwardly moral lives and assent to the teaching of the church who are as far from God as the pagans in the world.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 1, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > alexandermsmith said:
> ...



Alexander,

Nobody is disputing what you have written here. As Jacob noted, however, the real question is: "Who, beside FV proponents has a view of the Covenant where they don't believe kids need to be called to faith and repentance?"

The language that a child "...never knows a time when he didn't know the Lord..." can certainly be abused. We can confuse those who hear it by such language. In fact, I had to interact at length with some parents in my Church to explain what it means that their child is baptized to explain how the Covenant signs relate to their visible membership in the Church. On the one hand, I have to make sure they understand that the physical sign does not necessarily confer the graces signified. On the other hand, they are getting flack from their Baptist relatives who believe that their child needs to have a "crisis event" at which point they can express "true faith" in Christ and, thereafter, receive baptism. Default for many American Christians (including many Presbyterians) is that baptism retrospectively looks at my "known real faith" rather than being sacramentally related to Christ and His benefits.

Consequently, the language of "...never knowing a time when he didn't know the Lord..." is not the best language but tries to avoid teaching parents that they need to be looking for the "once-for-all" decision in their child.

The life of the Christian is turning from sin in repentance and unto Christ in faith. Yes, we need (as parents) to be praying that our children would repent and turn to Christ. Their baptism, like ours, is not a "you're in the Covenant now so you're good to go" but it is a promise of everlasting life and the benefits of Christ to those who believe. We don't point them to "crisis conversion" and it may well be the case that our children are learning, daily, to repent and believe (as much as they can utter in immaturity) and that they may not know a time (consciously) when they didn't believe the things they learned from their youth.

Thus, that language in itself is not arguing against the idea of regeneration and conversion and you would be wise to be more careful in your assessment of other ministers based on perceived rather than real disagreements with fundamental doctrines. The ninth commandment requires nothing less of you.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 1, 2015)

Alexander Smith, if you are correct in all your points, then a significant chunk of the Reformed world (probably a lot more than you think!) is leading people straight to Hell. You need to think much more carefully before making such claims. 

In all debates, there can be a tendency to speak a little over the top. I have seen this tendency in Hart. He exaggerates to make a point. He is reacting against modern evangelicalism, which, on almost anyone's analysis, is heavily indebted not just to revival (a la Murray), but revivalism. There is an almost constant disregard for the means of grace. You can see it in the almost constant refrain "God told me to..." (usually involving a direct contradiction to God's Word!). 

As to your theology, I don't see a place in your theology for passages such as Psalm 22:9 (how can your theology account for David's _*TRUSTING*_ in God even while he was nursing?), and the passage where John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth's womb at the entrance of Jesus, who was also still in the womb. Why would Luke record this incident if no version of faith was possible for John? Does faith grow? Certainly it does. Do we need regeneration? Absolutely. Do we need to be born again? Yes. But several things are also true: 1. it does not need to be on the level of the conscious mind (see Vos's _Reformed Dogmatics_ volume 4, on calling and regeneration for an excellent treatment of this). 2. Faith can have a seed-like characteristic. It can start as a seed, and organically grow throughout one's life. That's what Hart and Cassidy are talking about. As such, there is often no need for a crisis conversion experience for covenantal children. 

That being said, the solution to the whole problem is relatively simple: always preach the gospel to the children. For we never outgrow our need of it. The most mature Christian and the brand-new convert both need the gospel. The problem comes when we either assume our children are unconverted when there may be a seed of faith (and thus teach them to doubt), or assume our children are believers when they are not (thus teaching them to presume). 

Either way, I agree with Alan Strange on what you have written. I know Jim Cassidy fairly well, and you've got the wrong end of the stick with regard to his theology. Clary I don't know so well, but Hart I have had extensive interaction with in the past, and you need to understand how he debates. He detests revivalism. That is his target much of the time. Does he exaggerate? Yes, probably. But you did, too.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 1, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> There are many to this day who live outwardly moral lives and assent to the teaching of the church who are as far from God as the pagans in the world.


When Jesus said, "You are not far from the kingdom of God," it was a warning that the man who spoke was not IN the kingdom, as he needed to be. The difference between IN and OUT is absolute.

But it will not do to say that he was as far from it in a *relative sense* as others, as Gentiles for instance. Jesus' words are both more realistic and generous; and urgent besides. Furthermore, Scripture's witness is that Israel according to the flesh had tremendous advantages, Rom.3:1ff. The Savior's condemnation of Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum, to say nothing of Jerusalem--comparing their last lot unfavorably to that of Sodom and Gomorrah--has the force it does precisely because their advantages were real.

We don't even need supernatural insight to grasp the truth of this comparative blessing. Good thing, too, because we don't have prophets with soul-discernment. Neither ministers, elders, nor anyone else has omniscience; and is able to read hearts.

So, while it may behoove us to ask searching questions in the midst of preaching to our congregation, prompting the members of the church to some self-examination; it is not fitting to speak to them in terms harsher--or in terms less balanced--than Paul's, the writer of Hebrews', James', Peter's, etc. Paul's harshest letter, to the Galatians, is sent in response to available evidence that some there are in process of "turning away."

Paul knows this because of what has come to his physical ears. Even then, he laments more than he rants, v3:1, and follows up with this expression, 3:26f, "For you are ALL SONS of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Paul is certainly aware of the difference between an outward possession of sign--whether it be Old Covenant circumcision so prominent in the letter, or baptism--and possessing the inward reality.

But until these professing believers _marked by their baptism, _which is a sign that "puts a visible difference between those that belong to the church, and the rest of the world" (WCF27.1), have been formally disciplined OUT of the church, even Paul speaks of them as Christians. He treats them as having the faith their baptism, together with their doctrine and their lives, bears to witness. "I am afraid for you" (4:11), is more fitting to be declared than "You brood of vipers." "I am confident in you," 5:10, whilst he reserves a third person judgment for "your troubler."

The reality is, that _*Christians*_ need the gospel preached to them every week. It is the SAME faith that first saved them, whenever that was, that continues to save them all the way to the end. If ministers are faithful in that gospel task, they will have no other, special word for various "classes" of believers. I don't need a particular word of pious advice for the person who is "well-and-truly" saved, and a threat for the fool. No one present is to escape either the warnings against apostasy, or the encouragement to live as a Christian.

I preach not reliance on a profession of faith, on a godly life, on baptism or L.S. participation, on an experience--but faith in Christ, with reliance on his Spirit and the Word of God for nourishment of that faith. Christ promises to work through ordinary means to make believers, and the church is the setting for the abundant presentation of those means. We Christians need to believe the outward and ordinary means unto which God has attached his promises to his elect for making effectual their salvation (WSC 88); not a "special sauce" added to the means.

Proper catechesis will teach our children that their whole lives are to be, for each individual: one grand act of repentance and faith. That is what training our children in this faith is about. Our children don't become citizens of an earthly nation only after they swear an oath of allegiance, at a certain age, upon receiving a proper civics lesson. We expect them, and TRAIN them to act like and to be good little citizens before they know what "identity" is theirs. A proper upbringing will yield faithful supporters of the civic order in due time, all without a crisis experience.

From a natural, _outward and ordinary means_ perspective, the same general scenario is true for children of believers, citizens of the outwardly administered Kingdom of Christ through his church. We understand that mere "civic duty" connection to this Kingdom is insufficient, even if it were sufficient (in some sense) for a worldly nation. But there are dubious connections of heart in adults for their earthly citizenship, just as there are false sons in the church's pale.

But (in my country anyway) we don't have mandatory patriotic sessions, where everyone is summoned to a stadium to prove their allegiance to the State; and where it is appropriate for the Party apparatchik to laud the devoted segment of the crowd, and excoriate those pretenders in the midst. On a July 4th celebration, the crowd that gathers is praised for patriotism; the secret defectors are safely hidden in the throng. But it is possible that ambivalent persons and even the occasional spy-in-the-midst could be reformed (or partly so) by a speech defending the national constitution.

In the church, conversion or genuine reformation is not _*in*_ the mouth of the preacher (who is the ordinary means), but IS _*through*_ the ordinary means (namely, the preacher), and _*by*_ Holy Spirit. To think that faithful preaching and sacraments, and prayers for the good of our people young and old, has no effect except in an outward way is only to deny the function of means, and the promises of God to work by them. If a man sits comfortably for decades under true gospel preaching, and is not converted sooner (hopefully) or later (necessarily), he has the hardest of hearts. Just as likely: the preaching and teaching of his church is not true gospel preaching, so it has no good effect.

We don't have any other tools besides the ordinary. We don't have supernatural insight. All we are capable of doing is looking on the outward appearance, listening to the words people say, and treating them accordingly. And preach the gospel, always and to all.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2015)

Samuel Rutherford sheds some light on this (Christ Dying, p. 298):



> 'Tis true, to all within the visible church, Christ is offered without price or money; but to be received after Christ's fashion and order, not after our order; that is, after the soul is under self-despair of salvation, and in the sinner's month, when he hath been with child of hell. I grant, in regard of time, sinners cannot come too soon to Christ, nor too early to wisdom; but in regard of order, many come too soon, and unprepared.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 3, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> Alexander Smith, if you are correct in all your points, then a significant chunk of the Reformed world (probably a lot more than you think!) is leading people straight to Hell. You need to think much more carefully before making such claims.
> 
> In all debates, there can be a tendency to speak a little over the top. I have seen this tendency in Hart. He exaggerates to make a point. He is reacting against modern evangelicalism, which, on almost anyone's analysis, is heavily indebted not just to revival (a la Murray), but revivalism. There is an almost constant disregard for the means of grace. You can see it in the almost constant refrain "God told me to..." (usually involving a direct contradiction to God's Word!).
> 
> ...



I'm afraid my loyalty is not to upholding the reputation of the Reformed church at large but to the teaching of Scripture. If the Reformed church at large truly has departed in some important ways it is surely better for that to be made known than to compromise or ignore these declensions from fear of offending our friends or those we share a platform with at conferences. I have not spoken about the Reformed church in general: I've highlighted certain trends I find troubling, which were exhibited in this discussion and lecture and which I have heard from these same speakers in previous items. What I will say is that I find it hard to square people who claim to be continuing the Reformed tradition- and will claim to be heirs of those like Calvin- and claim to hold to the Confession of faith, and yet do things and say things which would never have been countenanced by the Reformed in the past. An ongoing example of this is the 7th commandment. On the one hand we have Reformed ministers and elders who subscribe to the Westminster Standards, and on the other hand they are saying it is ok to do things which are expressly forbidden by the catechisms in regards to the 7th commandment. The number of times I have heard the likes of R. Scott Clark defend dancing- usually to criticise fundamentalists. Dancing was never countenanced by the Reformed. Neither was going to public houses. These things are encouraged by many in the Reformed world today and allowed by Reformed communions. The watching of immoral films and tv shows; listening to immoral music; speaking in inappropriate ways; revellings: do you deny these things are not only allowed but promoted by many high profile Reformed office bearers? Things specifically prohibited by the Standards and Scripture?

I hear a lot about the 9th commandment. People like to get very specific about that. I don't hear any specifics about the 7th, except when it's pleading Christian liberty- a grossly misunderstood concept- to do this or that. Even Mark Jones, who has spoken out against the antinomianism so prevalent today (to continued attack by Hart, which, again I ask, has anyone called Hart out on this?) indulges in things which would have cast him as antinomian by the Reformed a few generations ago.

If you want me to accept that most of the Reformed world is actually Reformed, as I understand it from the Westminster Standards and the piety of the godly from the past, you need to explain to me why I should accept teaching and practice from Reformed office-bearers which is in direct contradiction to these examples. I think to say Hart uses exaggeration is to ignore the issue. Hart routinely singles out Christians- some who are not even connected to his communion- for criticism and ridicule and he launches campaigns against others within the Reformed camp he disagrees with. And he allows that despicable comments section on his blog. Why is he not in breach of the 9th commandment? If I have exaggerated I'm sorry. I did not intend to exaggerate, I intended to speak as I saw and heard. Hart may hate revivalism, but does that excuse the way he speaks about people and the things he writes on his blog and the things he allows others to say on it? 

As to regeneration: of course there can be regeneration in the womb. Of course many can grow up in the church without a crisis experience. I never said that a crisis experience was necessary. What I said was that a true, instantaneous change/regeneration was necessary and that such a change will necessarily bear spiritual fruit in the soul and experience of the believer. One cannot become alive and not notice it. One may not know the _moment_ that happened but I never said they had to. But they should be able to tell the difference; they should be able to recognise signs of life/marks of grace in their soul. And it is that they tell to the session when they are being examined. This is the fundamental point I was trying to make: when I listened to this podcase I did not hear anything which suggested these men understand conversion in this way, i.e. becoming alive, spiritually. After listening to them speak, and reading comments they have posted under the podcast on the Reformedforum website, I just do not know how they judge someone to have moved from death unto life that is fundamentally different from someone just becoming intellectually mature and agreeing with the doctrines of the faith.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 3, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I was listening to Joel Beeke the other night as I ripped his 26 Lectures on Puritan Theology to MP3. Highly recommend it. In his first lecture he talks about who the Puritans were.



Do you have a link to these? Or are they on SermonAudio? If on SermonAudio, I can find them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2015)

nicnap said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I was listening to Joel Beeke the other night as I ripped his 26 Lectures on Puritan Theology to MP3. Highly recommend it. In his first lecture he talks about who the Puritans were.
> ...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBGZ7ZD9rqA

You'll see the 26 other lectures on the right hand side. I converted them to MP3 so I can listen to them while I'm driving.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 3, 2015)

Thanks! (I'll ask some other time how you converted them to MP3...)


----------

