# Clark/Driscoll Old/New Calvinism Dust Up in the Blogosphere



## Marrow Man (Mar 18, 2009)

I just read this great article by the PB's own R. Scott Clark this morning over the the Heidelblog. I posted my thoughts here.

Granted, this is probably a touchy subject for some. I do NOT wish to start any wars on the PB. But do you think Dr. Clark's observations are warranted? And where do we draw the line on what is Reformed and what is not (this has been discussed on other threads, such as this recent one)? Do you think that Mars Hill can meaningfully be called a "Reformed" church? And finally (something I allude to on my blog), how many exceptions can a _Presbyterian_ minister take to the WCF (or insert your denomination/confession here) and still be considered "Reformed"?

Discuss.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I just read this great article by the PB's own R. Scott Clark this morning over the the Heidelblog. I posted my thoughts here.
> 
> Granted, this is probably a touchy subject for some. I do NOT wish to start any wars on the PB. But do you think Dr. Clark's observations are warranted? And where do we draw the line on what is Reformed and what is not (this has been discussed on other threads, such as this recent one)? Do you think that Mars Hill can meaningfully be called a "Reformed" church? And finally (something I allude to on my blog), how many exceptions can a _Presbyterian_ minister take to the WCF (or insert your denomination/confession here) and still be considered "Reformed"?
> 
> Discuss.




This is a great topic. Furthermore, I appreciate the link to D.G. Hart. I didn't know he was blogging anywhere currently.


----------



## Michael Doyle (Mar 18, 2009)

It`s funny pastor Tim, as I read this, I am in the midst of a discussion with another "Calvinist" over the fad of New Calvinism. He, however, seems to be of the Piper, Driscoll, ilk and I do apologize preemptively if I have in any way misrepresented him.

The thought seems to be that many are jumping on the Calvinism bandwagon, which seems to be true and running out to buy their ESV study bibles. There is, however, a huge divide between this school of thought and confessional Reformed theology. Even this friend of mine and those who have been agreeing with him do not hold to the moorings of confessionalism.

It is all very frustrating, albeit I am new to Reformed theology, I pray I have not fallen pray to this trend. I thank the members of this board who have supplemented my study of scripture as well as the great worship from my church body.

Scattered thoughts as I have to run...Caio


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 18, 2009)

I think this is a helpful discussion for all of us. I do _not_ want it seem as if we are picking on Reformed Baptists. That is *not* my intent. I do think, however, that it is healthy for all Reformed folks, regardless of their affiliation, to examine their theological moorings and see how warm and rich God's theology is and how far and wide and deep this affects all of Christian thinking. I will confess that there are times in which I have been too superficial in my own theology. Articles' like Dr. Clark's help draw our attention to these things. We are not broadly evangelical; we are _Reformed_.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 18, 2009)

Hey guys, be careful we're not shooting our own wounded through all of this. If people are curious about Calvinism, for whatever reason, great.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 18, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Hey guys, be careful we're not shooting our own wounded through all of this. If people are curious about Calvinism, for whatever reason, great.



Agreed.

Part of the problem, though, is that Driscoll did a lot of the firing first.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 18, 2009)

I will just mention that in the left Site Navigation Box there is a bullet titled Reformed Confessions. Following that link you will find a list of "Reformed" Confessions, one of which is the 1689 LBCF. Therefore, by the authority of the Puritan Board, I claim to be Reformed . . . whether you Presbyterians think I am or not. 

Is Driscoll (or Mars Hill) _Reformed_? No. 
Soteriological Calvinists? Perhaps.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 18, 2009)

Regardless of their status as Reformed, as I understand it they are Calvinistic. Biblical soteriology is the zenith of the split in Protestantism. The gap which separates the Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist is minuscule, where the gap which separates either of us from the standard fare Evangelical is nearly as big as that which separates us from Rome. 

Is it worth discussing whether or not they are Reformed? Do they hold themselves out as Reformed? How Reformed are they and how Reformed are they not? Does it really matter?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 18, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> I will just mention that in the left Site Navigation Box there is a bullet titled Reformed Confessions. Following that link you will find a list of "Reformed" Confessions, one of which is the 1689 LBCF. Therefore, by the authority of the Puritan Board, I claim to be Reformed . . . whether you Presbyterians think I am or not.
> 
> Is Driscoll (or Mars Hill) _Reformed_? No.
> Soteriological Calvinists? Perhaps.



Jim, does Mars Hill subscribe to the LBC? Or any historic confession other than the church's statement of faith? This might be more of the problem, methinks.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 18, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Jim, does Mars Hill subscribe to the LBC? Or any historic confession other than the church's statement of faith? . . . .



No. Not as far as their public statements or website.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 18, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Jim, does Mars Hill subscribe to the LBC? Or any historic confession other than the church's statement of faith? . . . .
> ...



And therein lies the difference between you and them, my *Reformed *brother.


----------



## Tripel (Mar 18, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...



Do you have to subscribe to a confession of faith that is a few hundred years old in order to be called "Reformed"? I didn't think confessions had a monopoly on that word. 
I guess I always assumed it was defined as being those who follow in the footsteps of the Protestant Reformation by continually going back to the Word of God as the final authority.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 18, 2009)

I would say the Reformed Confessions help tie us to the historic faith. Rather than divide, they hold us together.

When someone wants to raise the banner of being "Reformed" and wants to label themselves as a "New Calvinist" while ridiculing the "old" and eschew historic confessions of faith, that should at least raise an eyebrow or two. It smacks more of postmodernism than historic Reformed Christianity.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 18, 2009)

Tripel said:


> Do you have to subscribe to a confession of faith that is a few hundred years old in order to be called "Reformed"? I didn't think confessions had a monopoly on that word.
> I guess I always assumed it was defined as being those who follow in the footsteps of the Protestant Reformation by continually going back to the Word of God as the final authority.



I concur. 

I am just not sure who draws the line on "how Reformed" one must be to be classified as Reformed. I don't hold to certain things that are considered Reformed, but I am definitely _mostly_ Reformed. My church doesn't completely hold to a confession, but we definitely _mostly_ hold to the LBCF and others. Are we to say that we are a "mostly Reformed Baptist church?"


----------



## Michael Doyle (Mar 18, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I would say the Reformed Confessions help tie us to the historic faith. Rather than divide, they hold us together.
> 
> When someone wants to raise the banner of being "Reformed" and wants to label themselves as a "New Calvinist" while ridiculing the "old" and eschew historic confessions of faith, that should at least raise an eyebrow or two. It smacks more of postmodernism than historic Reformed Christianity.



My eyebrows are certainly raised in the seemingly inflammatory language used in his response as well as the point pastor tim makes concerning the historic confessions.


----------



## semperveritas (Mar 18, 2009)

I live in Seattle, and now attend a confessional PCA(thank God). I used to attend Mars Hill and another Acts 29 church. Let me tell you from first hand experience. They are not "reformed" they may in-slang say "God'll never kick you butt out of the house once youre his kid"(they literally talk like that. They try so hard to be chic' urbanites with bohemian hipness and artsy coolness.) They may on paper hold to some form of monergism but very little is heard of it in the pulpit. Driscoll is more like a super cool and hip Piper in Seattle grunge. Its usually just edgy applicatory "recipes for better living" sermons with current hip illustrations and colorful language. I dont mean to be harsh but Ive heard so many people say he is a modern Spurgeon,etc-and he couldnt be farther from that. There is precious little doctrine in his sermons( which are 80 minutes long sometimes-usually filled with 20-30 minutes of jokes, personal illustrations, or references to modern culture. Reformed...no, calvinistic soteriologically?... kind of (maybe 3 points)


----------



## Josiah (Mar 18, 2009)

> When someone wants to raise the banner of being "Reformed" and wants to label themselves as a "New Calvinist" while ridiculing the "old" and eschew historic confessions of faith, that should at least raise an eyebrow or two. It smacks more of postmodernism than historic Reformed Christianity.



 



> I live in Seattle, and now attend a confessional PCA(thank God). I used to attend Mars Hill and another Acts 29 church. Let me tell you from first hand experience. They are not "reformed" they may in-slang say "God'll never kick you butt out of the house once youre his kid"(they literally talk like that. They try so hard to by chic' urbanites with bohemian hipness and artsy coolness.) They may on paper hold to some form of monergism but very little is heard of it in the pulpit. Driscoll is more like a super cool and hip Piper in Seattle grunge. Its usually just edgy applicatory "recipes for better living" sermons with current hip illustrations and colorful language. I dont mean to be harsh but Ive heard so many people say he is a modern Spurgeon,etc-and he couldnt be farther from that. There is precious little doctrine in his sermons( which are 80 minutes long sometimes-usually filled with 20-30 minutes of jokes, personal illustrations, or references to modern culture. Reformed...no, calvinistic soteriologically?... kind of (maybe 3 points)



You hit the nail on the head.  but Welcome! its good to have yet another Washingtonian on the board. 

Not to derail the thread but, the elusive DGH has posted at the Old Life Theological Journal about Mark Driscoll's recent decision to join the C&MA. The comments below this post are very interesting.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2009)

semperveritas said:


> I live in Seattle, and now attend a confessional PCA(thank God). I used to attend Mars Hill and another Acts 29 church. Let me tell you from first hand experience. They are not "reformed" they may in-slang say "God'll never kick you butt out of the house once youre his kid"(they literally talk like that. They try so hard to be chic' urbanites with bohemian hipness and artsy coolness.) They may on paper hold to some form of monergism but very little is heard of it in the pulpit. Driscoll is more like a super cool and hip Piper in Seattle grunge. Its usually just edgy applicatory "recipes for better living" sermons with current hip illustrations and colorful language. I dont mean to be harsh but Ive heard so many people say he is a modern Spurgeon,etc-and he couldnt be farther from that. There is precious little doctrine in his sermons( which are 80 minutes long sometimes-usually filled with 20-30 minutes of jokes, personal illustrations, or references to modern culture. Reformed...no, calvinistic soteriologically?... kind of (maybe 3 points)



Exile PCA? Is that Pastor Stellman's Exile? I thoroughly enjoy his blog.


----------



## semperveritas (Mar 18, 2009)

Let me add to my comments. Even though I would only classify Driscoll(by what I heard attending his church for a year)as a partial calvinist (3 points maybe) He does not capitulate or soften the essentials of the Christian faith. He holds to a strong view of innerrancy and the deity and exclusivity of Christ. Very commendable indeed-still I wouldnt classify him as reformed though.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 12:37:27 EST-----



> Exile PCA? Is that Pastor Stellman's Exile? I thoroughly enjoy his blog.



Yep.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2009)

semperveritas said:


> Let me add to my comments. Even though I would only classify Driscoll(by what I heard attending his church for a year)as a partial calvinist (3 points maybe) He does not capitulate or soften the essentials of the Christian faith. He holds to a strong view of innerrancy and the deity and exclusivity of Christ. Very commendable indeed-still I wouldnt classify him as reformed though.
> 
> -----Added 3/18/2009 at 12:37:27 EST-----
> 
> ...



I've been lurking for a couple of years but I may eventually post in his comments. The exchanges are usually better than any contribution I could make.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 18, 2009)

I think Dr. Clark makes some good points, and I would agree that Mars Hill (and Driscoll) is not truly "Reformed." However, I would tend to disagree with those (including Dr. Clark) who claim he is not "Calvinistic." Whether we like it or not, a Calvinist is widely understood as someone who adheres to the "5 points." That may not be the traditional meaning of the word, but that's what it has become to the vast majority of people. So I'm willing to grant that he's Calvinist according to our 21st century meaning of the word. And that's all he, and the other "Neo-Calvinists," claim to be - I don't think they would consider themselves traditionally Reformed. I don't have a problem with calling them Calvinists, and like Andrew (Zenas) said, if it brings more to our way of thinking in terms of soteriology, then so be it. 

However, I do take issue with Driscoll's original post contrasting "New" and "Old" Calvinists. Not only am I skeptical that he's actually correct (Calvin was very ecumenical among Protestant churches - perhaps more than we are today), but it makes assumptions and enforces stereotypes that need not exist. Even so, if Calvinism today means an adherence to the 5 points, then Driscoll certainly falls into that category, even though an "Old" and "New" distinction is irrelevant.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 18, 2009)

At the risk of making an unfair comparison, this attempt by Driscoll to shoot down other Reformed ministers (granting him the title for the sake of the argument) in order to boost his own freshness/hipness is starting to remind me of another so-called Reformed minister a few years ago who began insulting, mocking, and calling out Reformed folks from the pulpit. I don't know if Driscoll has ever done this, and I hope he has not, because this is surefire way to drive a wedge and burn bridges in the Reformed community. Plus, I doubt seriously if he wants to be associated with the name _Steve Schlissel_.

The fact that the Mars Hill folks took down the initial blog post and replaced it with a tamer one is to their credit, In my humble opinion.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Mar 18, 2009)

Tripel said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Gomarus said:
> ...




It is not a mere word that is up for debate here, and if it was there would be no point in continuing to debate. What is up for debate is, I take it, a question of authority, theologically and ecclesiastically: who or what gets to decide what our "Reformed" churches believe and what theological standards they use to evaluate other churches, their ministers, and their members? So when we ask, "Is Driscoll (or his church) Reformed?" we are saying, _given_ the pre-determined standard of our Reformed churches (the WCF, the three forms, and such), how does he compare to the theology we consider biblical? I think everyone would admit that he is obviously free do call himself and his church whatever he wants, whether it be Reformed or otherwise, and he can mean whatever he wants when he says this. The point is, we (NAPARC fellows) have a relatively fixed meaning to the word "Reformed"--constituted by the theology of a confession(s)--and, by that standard, Driscoll is not Reformed. 

And notice it's not just the "Protestant Reformation" that "continually go[es] back to the Word of God as the final authority," and that is the heart of the problem. The PCUSA, Anabaptists, Roman Catholics, Arminians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., all do that, too. However, each group has a different understanding of what it means to hold the Word of God as the final authority, not to mention what that actually amounts to.


----------



## semperveritas (Mar 18, 2009)

Another thing to consider is this lone ranger , I by myself will start my church because everyone up to me has gotten it wrong, mentality. I am not saying that is Driscoll's schtick-but so many of these non denominational churches CAN and tend to have this isolationalist attitude towards accountability on doctrinal standards because there are no doctrinal standards other than whatever that particular person thinks is correct. And so often these guys have their own individual theology that is a mixed bag of sorts because nobody or no denomination before them got it right, according to them. I am not saying a confession of faith or denominational creed is fail proof but it does intend to unite and preserve such doctrine from corruptions-always subservient to the Word of course. Now creeds and confessions can be forsaken by denominational leadership but the checks and balances are harder to overcome than joe blow who just started a bible study in his living room. So historic labels that have specific meaning (reformed,calvinistic,etc)can mean nothing to uneducated spirit led men(not lumping Driscoll into that) who reject church history and creeds. They may use the term but hold fast and loose with it giving it a "new" definition. As long as these guys are lone rangers we can only try and hold them to respect terms and thier definition. Other than that no accountability is there. I speak generally about the state of casual lone ranger christianity and not Driscoll in particular. To quiet objectors, I do not imply there is only safety within a denomination, or that there is no accountability for an independent. If a congregational or baptistic polity is structured properly with godly elders who subscribe to a confession this is less likely to happen. But so few independent churches are doing that. And a good presbyterian polity with godly leadership locally and across the prebytery,etc is harder to allow doctrinal error(without backlash and accountability) than in this kind of nonsense we see in "come to my unique church usa-no creeds, just Jesus and me" Christianity.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 18, 2009)

semperveritas said:


> Let me add to my comments. Even though I would only classify Driscoll(by what I heard attending his church for a year)as a partial calvinist (3 points maybe) He does not capitulate or soften the essentials of the Christian faith. He holds to a strong view of innerrancy and the deity and exclusivity of Christ. Very commendable indeed-still I wouldnt classify him as reformed though.



Which three points does he hold to and is there something in print or on video or audio online where we can hear this ?


----------



## semperveritas (Mar 18, 2009)

> Which three points does he hold to and is there something in print or on video or audio online where we can hear this ?



Sorry dont have dates but he has expressed total depravity, unconditional election and perseverance of the saints in an orthodox manner as his beliefs.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2009)

semperveritas said:


> > Which three points does he hold to and is there something in print or on video or audio online where we can hear this ?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dont have dates but he has expressed total depravity, unconditional election and perseverance of the saints in an orthodox manner as his beliefs.



DIdn't he say he was a 4.5 point in an interview somewhere?


----------



## Jon 316 (Mar 18, 2009)

> \"I dont mean to be harsh but Ive heard so many people say he is a modern Spurgeon,etc-and he couldnt be farther from that. There is precious little doctrine in his sermons\"



Come on!? 

[video=youtube;--iC5KHqaZk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--iC5KHqaZk[/video]

[video=youtube;pK65Jfny70Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y[/video]

[video=youtube;13c1MH9Dj4w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13c1MH9Dj4w[/video]

[video=youtube;7IuiUOapK1w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IuiUOapK1w[/video]

[video=youtube;s_MLUuNKjZU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_MLUuNKjZU[/video]


----------



## ww (Mar 18, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> At the risk of making an unfair comparison, this attempt by Driscoll to shoot down other Reformed ministers (granting him the title for the sake of the argument) in order to boost his own freshness/hipness is starting to remind me of another so-called Reformed minister a few years ago who began insulting, mocking, and calling out Reformed folks from the pulpit. I don't know if Driscoll has ever done this, and I hope he has not, because this is surefire way to drive a wedge and burn bridges in the Reformed community. Plus, I doubt seriously if he wants to be associated with the name _Steve Schlissel_.
> 
> The fact that the Mars Hill folks took down the initial blog post and replaced it with a tamer one is to their credit, In my humble opinion.



In his book *"Confessions of a Reformission Rev"* he speaks about some guys in his church who were Theonomist and that these hyper-Calvinist were upset because he wouldn't baptize their babies. I haven't seen him name any names but at least in this criticism he indirectly is taking potshots at Bahnsen and Rushdoony. I don't believe he was calling Paedobaptist "hyper-Calvinist" but the way the sentence is written you are left wondering but even so in the very least he is calling Theonomist "hyper-Calvinist".


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 18, 2009)

whitway said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of making an unfair comparison, this attempt by Driscoll to shoot down other Reformed ministers (granting him the title for the sake of the argument) in order to boost his own freshness/hipness is starting to remind me of another so-called Reformed minister a few years ago who began insulting, mocking, and calling out Reformed folks from the pulpit. I don't know if Driscoll has ever done this, and I hope he has not, because this is surefire way to drive a wedge and burn bridges in the Reformed community. Plus, I doubt seriously if he wants to be associated with the name _Steve Schlissel_.
> ...



He's actually come out and repented of the language and some of the things he said (particularly the WAY he said them) in that book. He's grown quite a bit over the past few years.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2009)

BlackCalvinist said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...



Didn't Piper publicly rebuke him a couple years ago at a conference and Driscoll accepted the correction.?


----------



## ww (Mar 18, 2009)

BlackCalvinist said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...



Ok thanks I'm late to the party as I've been reading his books in chronological order. I'm now on "Vintage Jesus" then on to "Vintage Church". I've already completed "Radical Reformission" and "Confessions of a Reformission Rev". I can say that Driscoll's writing style as with his style of speaking is intriguing and entertaining in the very least.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 18, 2009)

Jon 316 said:


> > \"I dont mean to be harsh but Ive heard so many people say he is a modern Spurgeon,etc-and he couldnt be farther from that. There is precious little doctrine in his sermons\"
> 
> 
> Come on!?
> ...



I'm glad you posted this, Jon. I'm no huge supporter of Driscoll, but I have listened to enough stuff to know that someone saying Driscoll is light on doctrine either has his fingers in his ears, hasn't been on YouTube or hasn't attended the church. In fact, it's called SLANDER.

*People, we need to get primary source material when criticizing someone, not secondhand.* *ANYONE* could take a trip to Driscoll's YouTube channel and look at the plethora of videos (28 on theology and doctrine including the ones posted above which affirm all five points) on multiple topics, usually answered from the perspective of scripture.

Yeah, his church doesn't look like 1746. Oh well. Get over it. Calvin and Driscoll did a lot more reaching out (both to the culture around them as well as among other believers) than most of what I've seen pass for 'reformed' around here (holed up in your micro-denomination and cursing what you perceive to the darkness). And though all he's doing is planting and watering like the rest of us are supposed to, he's been used greatly of God to reach more than a few thousand folks who would have otherwise not come across biblical truth.

Tell the truth...even on people you disagree with.


----------



## Jon 316 (Mar 18, 2009)

> yeah, his church doesn't look like 1746. Oh well. Get over it. Calvin and driscoll did a lot more reaching out (both to the culture around them as well as among other believers) than most of what i've seen pass for 'reformed' around here (holed up in your micro-denomination and cursing what you perceive to the darkness). And though all he's doing is planting and watering like the rest of us are supposed to, he's been used greatly of god to reach more than a few thousand folks who would have otherwise not come across biblical truth.



amen!!!!


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 18, 2009)

As I have said earlier, we should pray for, encourage and send healthy suggestions to people like Mark Driscoll. Does he have faults? Yes....so do you and I. Is he the perfect pastor? No, neither are any others. Here is a person in a high profile position that can swing totally Reformed or totally insane. The determining factor may be good mentors, encouragers and prayer on his behalf.


----------



## ww (Mar 18, 2009)

Rich Koster said:


> As I have said earlier, we should pray for, encourage and send healthy suggestions to people like Mark Driscoll. Does he have faults? Yes....so do you and I. Is he the perfect pastor? No, neither are any others. Here is a person in a high profile position that can swing totally Reformed or totally insane. The determining factor may be good mentors, encouragers and prayer on his behalf.



That's why I've always been encouraged by his relationship with Piper however Driscoll like anyone in his position is going to have a very tight circle of those who he trusts and is willing to submit for accountability.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2009)

whitway said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > As I have said earlier, we should pray for, encourage and send healthy suggestions to people like Mark Driscoll. Does he have faults? Yes....so do you and I. Is he the perfect pastor? No, neither are any others. Here is a person in a high profile position that can swing totally Reformed or totally insane. The determining factor may be good mentors, encouragers and prayer on his behalf.
> ...



Right! What pastor doesn't have a tight circle for accountability?


----------



## Jon 316 (Mar 18, 2009)

Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?


----------



## ZackF (Mar 18, 2009)

Jon 316 said:


> Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?




What bashing are you speaking of? The comments linking Piper to Driscoll are complementary.


----------



## Jon 316 (Mar 18, 2009)

KS_Presby said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?
> ...



Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of another post where Piper got a roasting as well. It may be in this thread, I cant remember! (too much PB time I think!)


----------



## ww (Mar 18, 2009)

Jon 316 said:


> Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?



I don't think all criticism is created equal. You may want to qualify which criticism you consider "bashing" and which criticism you see as Biblically warranted.


----------



## Jon 316 (Mar 18, 2009)

> I don't think all criticism is created equal.



Agreed...


----------



## semperveritas (Mar 18, 2009)

Iam not bashing him. I commended him for his stands he takes especially in the liberal Seattle area. I just said there was precious little "reformed doctrine" Of course he has doctrine. Doctrine is teaching. Arminius, Wesley, Warren,etc all have doctrine. Nobody is bashing Driscoll here. We are merely saying like R Scott Clark- to bash old school calvinism and claim to be the bethe newer improved model when at least while I was there and another year in his church plant by my house, heard precious little of Gods sovereignty or an emphasis on the doctrines of grace in particular. He is still a great man of God being used in a niche here in Seattle a lot of churches are not reaching out to. He doesnt compromise on the central teachings of the Bible and yet all that said I dont consider him reformed. I consider Macarthur much more soteriologically reformed-at least he is old school enough to talk about in the pulpit regularly. That is all I am saying. No slander involved. Just an observation but I guess 2 years in the Acts 29 churches here in Seattle mean Iam ignorant of his teaching ministry unlike people in the midwest who have seen a few you tube videos.


----------



## Edward (Mar 18, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> how many exceptions can a _Presbyterian_ minister take to the WCF (or insert your denomination/confession here) and still be considered "Reformed"?
> 
> Discuss.



It depends on the exception(s). In many cases, one would be enough to disqualify him; in other cases, several might not (although I'd be hard pressed to come up with an example that would support my second point.)


----------



## the particular baptist (Mar 18, 2009)

semperveritas said:


> precious little of Gods sovereignty or an emphasis on the doctrines of grace in particular.
> 
> 
> 2 years in the Acts 29 churches here in Seattle mean Iam ignorant of his teaching ministry unlike people in the midwest who have seen a few you tube videos.



Check out any one of his sermons Mars Hill Church | Sermons , you will be hard pressed to hear one and not hear of God's sovereignty and doctrines of grace. He has publicly said he is a 4 1/2, with his view on atonement being identical with Richard Baxter's.

From reading your previous posts it sounds like you have a personal beef with the man, i could be wrong.

Im not a fan of Driscoll's, i would not attend his church if i lived on the same block, he definitely has foot in mouth disease, and i am looking forward to him maturing and begin practicing the spiritual discipline of self control with respect to his tongue. He has an issue with pride that is obvious to many, so pray for him, that God would break him in a million pieces if need be to conform him to the image of His Son, and that he would not further bring reproach to himself, family, church, and most importantly our Lord with careless and thoughtless (self-promoting) words.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 18, 2009)

PactumServa72 said:


> [Driscoll's] view on atonement being identical with Richard Baxter's.



True, he does not hold to limited atonement. He holds to unlimited limited atonement, which is why he is a "4.5 pt. Calvinist." He had a chapter about it in his latest(?) book. I think the chapter name is "My daddy the preacher" or something like that. It is an _interesting_ (and not commonly accepted) view, to say the least. John Frame also holds to it.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 19, 2009)

semperveritas said:


> calvinistic soteriologically?... kind of (maybe 3 points)





semperveritas said:


> No slander involved. Just an observation but I guess 2 years in the Acts 29 churches here in Seattle mean Iam ignorant of his teaching ministry unlike people in the midwest who have seen a few you tube videos.



Your firsthand experience differs from one of my friends (he posts on the board I'm an admin on and came out this way back in the middle of last year) who is currently at MHC.

Your 'maybe 3 points' comment was inaccurate and a misrepresentation of what Driscoll publicly teaches.

Your 'very little doctrine' comment doesn't match up with the words of my friend who currently is at the church, nor does it match up with the bulk of what Driscoll has made publicly available on his blog, YouTube Channel and on their website. 

Mind you, I don't appreciate the 'bashing' of 'old school Calvinism' either and I think his initial 4 points he posted are pretty wrong (I was actually in the process of writing something on that topic to post on my site, since I believe that much of what he said was erroneous), but that does not give one license to be untruthful about what the man teaches.



> http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/exc...s-individuals-helping-us-moderate-both-41951/
> 
> 4. Above all, we must be tireless in upholding the good name of our neighbor at all costs even if we're critical. Christ demands it of us toward our enemies and especially toward those that name Christ.
> 
> ...



I think you've failed to do so in your representation of Driscoll.


----------



## semperveritas (Mar 19, 2009)

point taken. Just telling you what I heard and didnt hear. No personal beef. Still have many friends there. I just dont consider him reformed. I have only heard him say he didnt believe in limited atonement and never heard much about irresistible grace in the reformed sense. So take it for what its worth. I havent read his books. So if I violated the 9th commandment it was out of ignorance.


----------



## Parsifal23 (Mar 27, 2009)

I agree with what R. Scott Clark says it seems like so many people are just too happy to have an "calvinist" who seems relvent to the culture at large. Even if he is not really an Calvinist I think Mark Driscol's view of The Atonement alone disqualifys him as an Calvinist.



whitway said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of making an unfair comparison, this attempt by Driscoll to shoot down other Reformed ministers (granting him the title for the sake of the argument) in order to boost his own freshness/hipness is starting to remind me of another so-called Reformed minister a few years ago who began insulting, mocking, and calling out Reformed folks from the pulpit. I don't know if Driscoll has ever done this, and I hope he has not, because this is surefire way to drive a wedge and burn bridges in the Reformed community. Plus, I doubt seriously if he wants to be associated with the name _Steve Schlissel_.
> ...



I wouldint call Theonomist Hyper Calvinists confused LOL) yes but hyper calvinists never. Besides Bahnsen was one of our greatest apoligests and Rushdoony for all his "blood and thunder" was a guy where you knew where he stood and that he came to that view by honest study and I can respect that even if I dont agree with the he comes to conclsouns.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 31, 2009)

Parsifal23 said:


> I agree with what R. Scott Clark says it seems like so many people are just too happy to have an "calvinist" who seems relvent to the culture at large. Even if he is not really an Calvinist I think Mark Driscol's view of The Atonement alone disqualifys him as an Calvinist.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 31, 2009)

It's easy to lose one's bearing in stormy seas.

There is no such thing as "new" Calvinism. The system of doctrine is what is was when it was articulated by the great theologian himself, carefully studied and summarized later in places such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.



> Ephesians 4
> 
> 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
> 
> 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:



We really must resist attempts to re-define it so that it becomes less clear, "broader" and more popularly acclaimed.

In a sense, it is flattering. The popular culture of the moment seems to want to be like us, but that is only a fleeting fancy... not a substantial change of heart. Arminian influenced theologies, dispensational ones, and nonconfessional communions... even charismatic/pentecostal ones who view pronouncements of their leaders on par or above Scripture. They seem to suddenly want to at least sound like us.

What we have is a coherent systematic biblical theology that is based on all-of-scripture interpreting all-of-scripture which binds us together in a community covenanted together to serve God in this world whose unity is grounded on doctrinal agreement, and is accountable to one another. 

They do not yet have this. What many have is following the personality of a leader who may be coming to understand some of the glorious reformed truths for the first time but is not bound by them, does not understand all of them and how they fit together, nor is accountable by covenant for them.

They have not developed a practical faith in the perspecuity of Scripture. Let us not compromise that, ever.

Some are indeed trending toward a full "doctrines of grace," others are trending toward reformed theology... they are not there yet, but they seem to moving toward it. That can be a good thing and we must prayerful, supportive and patient with that.

We also must challenge attempts to re-define reformed theology. It absolutely is, at a minimum:



> doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession



It may be more than that, and I would suggest it is, but it is never less than that... not at places called Mars Hill or anywhere else.


----------



## ooguyx (Apr 20, 2009)

I was a member of Mars Hill (MH) and worked there for a while. I have to say that I began going there because I thought it was reformed, and it seemed that way to me as I was coming from a pentecostal background. 

I think of MH as reformed little league. As for Driscoll, my personal opinion is that he is concerned with cutting a path and making a name for himself. 

Also, concerning his Calvinism position here are his notes for "Unlimited/Limited Atonement" http://cdn.marshillchurch.org/media/2005/11/20/20051120_unlimited-limited-atonement_document.pdf -- what do you guys think?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 20, 2009)

Here is a good example of TR psychologizing:


Old School Calvinist Gairney Bridge

He writes:

"I was mildly miffed that the persons specifically mentioned in the article — John Piper, Mark Discoll, Al Mohler — are all Baptists. But then I realized this is the new Calvinism.."


Hmmm....people are coming to the true Gospel and he is *miffed..... *why? Because his own folks are not at the forefront..... instead, all those named as key leaders among the Calvinists are all Baptist (oh my, how awful)....WHY? Why are these Baptists all at the forefront, but the TR Presbyterians are not even mentioned? OBVIOUSLY, they MUST be doing something wrong!




I need to ask...why is it that the TR's are under-represented even when interest in calvinism and the doctrines of grace are making a resurgence in this country? 

Should we be blaiming Piper, Mohler for this...or do TRs need to look at themselves?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

Ummm, Pergy, I don't think you read the OP very clearly. I am Gairney Bridge; that's my blog you're quoting, and I suppose that I am the one who is guilty of "TR psychologizing."

In my estimation, you have taken the quote out of context. No matter: you have provided the link, and folks can read for themselves. Better yet, here is the quote along with the following sentences (emphasis added); let folks judge for themselves if I have been disrespectful toward Baptist brethren:



> I was mildly miffed that the persons specifically mentioned in the article — John Piper, Mark Discoll, Al Mohler — are all Baptists. But then I realized this is the new Calvinism (I’m assuming it’s not supposed to be new and improved). *And I have tremendous respect for 2 of the 3 men mentioned, and that third one (Driscoll) at least intrigues me. We need to give credit where credit is due; these men have done a great deal to grab their churches and denominations by the collar and drag Baptists kicking and screaming back to their Calvinistic roots.*



The phrase "_mildly_ miffed" (not simply "miffed" -- I was using alliteration for rhetorical purposes) was simply an observation, nothing more, as one can see by looking at the entire quote. One would think that a discussion of Calvinism might at least include one modern follower who was not Baptist (e.g., a Tim Keller perhaps). I stated quite clearly that I have "tremendous respect" for the men mentioned. Calling someone "TR" (multiple times) is a very disrespectful term, however.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 20, 2009)

ooguyx said:


> I was a member of Mars Hill (MH) and worked there for a while. . . . I think of MH as reformed little league. As for Driscoll, my personal opinion is that he is concerned with cutting a path and making a name for himself.
> 
> Also, concerning his Calvinism position here are his notes for "Unlimited/Limited Atonement" http://cdn.marshillchurch.org/media/2005/11/20/20051120_unlimited-limited-atonement_document.pdf -- what do you guys think?



Driscoll classifies himself (in the link above) as a modified Calvinist, i.e. he is soft on "limited atonement."

As I have stated before in another thread, his view is essentially the same _dual reference atonement_ as that espoused by John Davenant (1572-1641), which stands precariously close to Amyraldism. 

Unfortunately (in my estimation), I see this becoming the majority view in the New Calvinism, especially among Baptist-types, e.g. Piper et al.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 20, 2009)

As one who has lamented the loss of a term that was quite meaningful to me in my youth, "evangelical," it is with a mixture of sadness and bemusement that I observe what is happening to the term "Calvinist."

Just as my orthodox inerrantist version of evangelicalism never received a patent, copyright, or trademark protection from the "powers that be," neither did the terms "Reformed" or "Calvinist." With people like Driscoll (quasi emergent), MacArthur (quasi or "leaky" dispensational) and Piper (quasi charismatic) on the scene taking up the banner of Calvin and replicating their own disciples in the mega numbers while some of the confessional Calvinistic groups continue to exist in the micro-Presbyterian instantiations, it is unlikely that people like Clark (a hero of mine, btw) will win the day. Even within the conservative Reformed camp there are factions, as evidenced by the threads regarding Frame vs. Clark, Horton, et. al.

Words change over time. Just as "neo orthodoxy" became a distinct movement separate from "liberalism" and "fundamentalism," the new-Calvinists may in time evolve into their own thing, even if it owes precious little to Calvin other than the name. 

I lament this tendency and feel as if I am experiencing _deja vu_ all over and over again with my own existential crisis with "evangelical." But, all of the fussing over what a REAL Calvinist is SUPPOSED to be will not change the fact that Driscoll and Piper will continue calling themselves whatever they want to call themselves and nobody can stop them from doing it. The "market" willl rule, as (sigh) always.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 20, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Ummm, Pergy, I don't think you read the OP very clearly. I am Gairney Bridge; that's my blog you're quoting, and I suppose that I am the one who is guilty of "TR psychologizing."
> 
> In my estimation, you have taken the quote out of context. No matter: you have provided the link, and folks can read for themselves. Better yet, here is the quote along with the following sentences (emphasis added); let folks judge for themselves if I have been disrespectful toward Baptist brethren:
> 
> ...



Ha. Sorry Gairney Bridge. 

If you are offended at being called a TR, I am sorry. I didn't know TR was offensive since I know many who self-identify in that way.


I think you're blog is well written and it has good stuff on it, by the way. I just couldn't help noticing the Presbyterian angst that us baptists are hijacking the name "reformed" and running off with it...who let us have the keys to mom and dad's car anyway?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 20, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Ha. Sorry Gairney Bridge.
> 
> If you are offended at being called a TR, I am sorry. I didn't know TR was offensive since I know many who self-identify in that way.
> 
> ...



Just in the defense of MM Perg, I am not so sure it was the classification of TR that was out of line. It seems you smeared TR with adding another word with it. Also it seems you painted him in a light that wasn't full or necessarily true when you asked the question...



Pergamum said:


> Hmmm....people are coming to the true Gospel and he is *miffed..... *why? Because his own folks are not at the forefront..... instead, all those named as key leaders among the Calvinists are all Baptist (oh my, how awful)....WHY? Why are these Baptists all at the forefront, but the TR Presbyterians are not even mentioned? OBVIOUSLY, they MUST be doing something wrong!



I am willing to bet MM isn't miffed people are coming to Christ. That just seems slanderous to me the way you ascribed motive.

I am also willing to bet the Presbyterian's aren't necessarily doing something wrong. If you understand the publishing industry you know that the publishers have a lot to do with who gets published. BTW, If I am not mistaken Sproul was the one who truly started getting Calvinism back on the map. It was a publisher's dream come true when he started writing his books.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 20, 2009)

Apology accepted, Pergy, and no hard feelings at all on my part. For what it's worth, the epithet TR can be used in more that one way; ordinarily it comes across as a smear that one segment of Reformed folks uses at another. In all honesty, it seems that some use it in a similar vein to the way "puritanical" or even "Pharisaical" are sometimes used. After reading your followup post I see that you did not intend it this way.

Thank you also for your kind remarks about the blog. And just for the record, I am happy to let Baptists of the Reformed persuasion to borrow the car any time they like. I'll even take them to the car lot and co-sign the loan with them! That has nothing to do with the issue. Presbyterians do not have sole market rights to Reformed theology; there's plenty of room at the time and anyone who wants to dine on the such a meal is more than invited. The only thing I wary about is someone like Driscoll who may be wandering in directions that don't necessarily mesh with Reformed thinking. It was Driscoll who seemed to be hijacking the Reformed label (and I believe his lack of confessionalism, which I believe was discussed above, to be indicative of a potential problem); I don't see guys like Mohler and Piper doing anything of the sort.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 21, 2009)

TIM:

Accept another apology from me for ascribing motives for you. Yes, I am sure we are all glad that folks are coming to Christ. Confessedly, this is a topic that gets my pulse up and I am a Ready, SHOOT, Aim sort of person sometimes. Yep, I can be a real turd at times (but a turd covered in the love of Christ....picture that!)


p.s. can I still call myself reformed? I can remind folks that I am only "little r reformed" and you all can pray for me that I grow up to be a Big R Reformed."


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 21, 2009)

No need to continue to apologize, but apology accepted once again. And I've always thought that that the Reformed community should be a pretty big tent (except for the clowns -- kick them out!). We are all supposed to be "Reformed and continually reforming [according to Scripture]"; so some of us are going to be different places within the tent. But being in the tent is the important thing. Which is another thing that "miffed" me -- it was Driscoll that fired the first shot here. To co-opt your analogy from before, it was more like the kid borrowed his dad's keys to the car and then when he got home throwing the keys at dad and demanding the old man buy him a brand new sports car.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 21, 2009)

Perhaps if we look at this from another angle we can appreciate the progress these "new" Calvinists have made. 

They are taking the Scriptures seriously and becoming preachers of free and sovereign grace, without much help from history. If that isn't a testament to the Reformed doctrine of the perspecuity of Scripture and the gospel of free grace, I'm not sure what is. Give them more time, and they will probably end up where the "old" Calvinists already are. 

They have chosen to rebuild the wheel on their own, and are at least beginning to land where the historical Reformed Church has already been, and now they are beginning to see that historical connection with Calvinism. They would rather learn the lessons all over again by themselves rather than learn from history. If they continue in their present course, taking Scripture seriously, and working out the implications of God's sovereignty, it will only be a matter of time before they are in line with our own Confessional traditions. 

It's kinda like ambitious teenagers learning the hard way that mom and dad were right all along. And at this point, the parents can either nag the kids and drive them further away, or simply pray, and coach them along with thoughtful questions which force the adolescents to discover and own the truth afresh for themselves, and even help the parents to at least reconsider some questions they hadn't thought of in a while. 

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I see a great reason to praise God in all of this as his Church learns yet again how faithful He is.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 21, 2009)

Patrick, it sort of reminds me of an illustration that G.I. Williamson uses in the foreword/introduction to his study guide on the Heidelberg Catechism. He compares the confessional documents to maps. When we travel to a new area, we generally like to have a map to guide us around. The map was drawn by those who went before us and who know where everything is. It would be silly of us to throw the map away and want to redraw everything ourselves (unless it was a poor map, I suppose). But that's what happens when folks ignore the confessions in pursuit of something "new." I am hopeful with you that they wind up "re-discovering" the map for themselves.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 21, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Patrick, it sort of reminds me of an illustration that G.I. Williamson uses in the foreword/introduction to his study guide on the Heidelberg Catechism. He compares the confessional documents to maps. When we travel to a new area, we generally like to have a map to guide us around. The map was drawn by those who went before us and who know where everything is. It would be silly of us to throw the map away and want to redraw everything ourselves (unless it was a poor map, I suppose). But that's what happens when folks ignore the confessions in pursuit of something "new." I am hopeful with you that they wind up "re-discovering" the map for themselves.



Well, to expand the analogy, there are really only two destinations when you try to relearn everything yourselves. You can either end up with the same old truth as before, or end up in the same old heresies. The landscape hasn't changed at all.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 21, 2009)

Disclaimer: The following is not a Driscoll/Piper bash. This is merely my observation.

Has anyone here aside from me ever wondered why two of the names mentioned, i.e. Mark Driscoll and John Piper, in connection with "New Calvinism" happen to be continualists?

In the Resurgence blog where Mark Driscoll comments on the Time Magazine article about New Calvinism, he says this:



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



Quoted from: New Calvinism Versus Old Calvinism


Now, John Piper in his desiringGod blog says this:



> Yes, I think miraculous gifts continue.



Quoted from: Praise God for Fundamentalists

I wonder if this is a trend amongst "New Calvinists," which is that they tend towards continualism/non-cessationism.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (May 21, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I would say the Reformed Confessions help tie us to the historic faith. Rather than divide, they hold us together.
> 
> When someone wants to raise the banner of being "Reformed" and wants to label themselves as a "New Calvinist" while ridiculing the "old" and eschew historic confessions of faith, that should at least raise an eyebrow or two. It smacks more of postmodernism than historic Reformed Christianity.


----------

