# From YRR to......



## Weston Stoler (Jan 9, 2012)

What do you think it would take to make the, very numerous, YRR crowd to become the Young, confessional, orthodox, reformed? I mean I went from YRR to a Westminster guy in about a year however I don't see that happening for a lot of people. I do enjoy the movement however I think it might be a little bit more shallow then they would want to admit.

When YRR people talk to me about covenant theology or the sabbath it just blows over their heads even though they claim to be deep doctrinally. I am not sure what it would take to make them actually reformed. 

Maybe if John Piper told them to submit to the Westminster lol


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 9, 2012)

The YRR Movement is very diverse, and it is simply inaccurate to characterize the whole lot of them as being one way or another.


----------



## Zach (Jan 9, 2012)

AThornquist said:


> The YRR Movement is very diverse, and it is simply inaccurate to characterize the whole lot of them as being one way or another.



This. YRR includes guys that are Confessional, such as Kevin DeYoung.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jan 9, 2012)

I don't know if I have any good answer. For many YRR's that I have encountered, its "Young, Restless and somewhat Calvinistic in soteriology." There is no interest in becoming confessionally "Reformed" for a large part of them. The ones I know tend to self-identify with MacAurther and Driscol, neither of whom I consider truly "reformed." And if they are not in a Church that is confessional, or have a distinct sub-set of confessional folks in thier Church to mentor, I am not sure where this group would aquire the "education" in the Reformed faith that would lead to becoming "confessional." This is why is good that there are places like the PB where the "process" towards a confessional identification can begin for those who are inquiring.


----------



## JS116 (Jan 9, 2012)

First I would think it wouuld be helpful for them to clearly understand the 5 solas,majority(not all),but alot of the YRR cats I talk to dont even have a clear grasp of the 5 solas which to me is the introduction to becoming reformed,at least it was for me.I have met those who agree with Sola Scriptura,but disagree with me on the importance and necessity becoming church members,being under biblical church government and even church discipline.Second thing that needs to happen is they need to know the importance of creeds and confession along with the desire to know church history,you know how many "reformed" guys I talk to that would tell that the bible was formed at the synod of dort?!The young restless and reformed movement,needs to firstly understand what it means to be *Reformed* and not "reformed" if you get what I'm saying.I share John MacArthur's thoughts on the movement to an extent,wouldnt take it as far as him but I see where he's trying to go.The LAST thing we need is a bunch of "confessional" chrstians running around acting soo unconfessional.


----------



## MW (Jan 9, 2012)

I think we are going to find difficulties in describing any group that has been misidentified. The problem here seems to be that a certain phenomenon is being limited to the "reformed" community when it is to be found throughout the broader "Christian" spectrum. It is not a "reformed" problem. It is a sociological problem connected with the mass marketing of Christianity. People are able to use large movements and groups to hide themselves in. They can exist comfortably in these groups without facing up to their individual responsibilities. The "form" of Christianity is fitted to assist individual Christian discipleship. Biblical emphasis on things like "profession of faith" and "body ministry" should guard against this sociological phenomenon. When these things are emphasised it becomes apparent that "what you believe" and "what you do" are matters of importance.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 9, 2012)

I would think that in order for large numbers of them become genuinely Reformed they would have to drop the first "R", _restless_. Restlessness is not a spiritual virtue, and people leave as well as come into Reformed churches because of restlessness. Part of finding rest, part of becoming involved in a deep way, is precisely committing to drudge work - to attempting to profit from a pastor's worst, as well as his best, sermons; to doing unglamorous work that has no book giveaways to incentivize and no cheerleaders to pump you up for it.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 9, 2012)

Reformation and maturity are to be found within the bonds of the local church, not is some para-church organization or gathering. The "one another" commands of Scripture are meant to be carried out in the local body where you may know and can be known intimately by those you labor beside on a regular basis.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Jan 10, 2012)

I really think a lot of them should leave their arminian churches, go to a reformed baptist or prebsyterian church and then be feed and contribute to the congregation. It is hard to be restless with a church that agrees with you doctrinally and feeds you on a regular basis. I am done being restless. Now I am just young and Reformed. I still like piper, however I don't have him as my pastor. My pastor is Tommy Lee of Decatur Presbyterian. I think John Piper would agree with this along with every leader of the YRR crowd.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 10, 2012)

I think I qualify as one of those YRR folk who became Confessionally Reformed. It is not an easy transition especially when it concerns worship style, the emphesis on family, and hearing the Bible actually applied through the 3rd use of the Law. 

The Gospel was shared with my by an Arminian on the school bus when I was 14, just before my 15th birthday. I started to attend, much to my parent's displeasure, a generic evangelical church that had the goal to be the next Willow Creek or Rick Warren type Church. I was fed there the basics of Christianity. No, it wasn't doctrinally perfect (it was overall arminian though the associate and youth pastor were calvinists), but I was taught about the deity of Christ, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, the Trinity, and about trusting Jesus alone for my salvation. Ok, there were alter calls, but they preached Christ. 

When I started University at 18, I knew the importance of finding a local Church right away. I experimented for the first few months and tried different churches. But I found some too extreme, some too superficial. You see, I recently discouvered John McArthur sermons through podcasts, and I wanted more Bible preaching (btw, we need a return to exposition in Refomred Churches. I find that there has been a turning away from it!). So I searched in google ''Calvinism Church Bible Springfield Illinois'' and one of the first results was an independant Bible Church pastored by Dr. Curt Daniel (he has a series online) and there I was fed. He taughte me about the regulative principle. He gave me some free books to read as well as deals on books provided at cost that helped me start my library. He also gave me good book reccomendations. I read Sproul, Calvin's Institutes in my Dorm, and I got a copy of Berkhof's ST, a copy of the Westminster Confession of faith, Lloyd-Jones's spiritual depression, The Gospel according to Jesus by MacArhur, etc....

I spent around 2 years there, then I came to Québec with the intention of studying abroad for just a semester. I was taught about membership and became a member and joined an ARBCA type Church here. When it be became clear that I felt that God would have me stay here, I deceided to stay and at the same time I became confessionally reformed (on baptism and government) after reading John Gerstner's A biblical theology of J. Edwards on the section of the sacraments. 

All that to say: remember to be a gracious young and gracious. People find it hard to go through chance and to leave a familiar Church environment for a different one is a scarry thing. This is an area where we ought to encourage our brothers and sisters to leave is they ask us, but not one where we ought to pick a fight.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I would think that in order for large numbers of them become genuinely Reformed they would have to drop the first "R", _restless_. Restlessness is not a spiritual virtue, and people leave as well as come into Reformed churches because of restlessness. Part of finding rest, part of becoming involved in a deep way, is precisely committing to drudge work - to attempting to profit from a pastor's worst, as well as his best, sermons; to doing unglamorous work that has no book giveaways to incentivize and no cheerleaders to pump you up for it.



I believe this "restlessness" is a good thing; a synonym for "activistic" - they want to do something, to get their hands dirty. I talk to many potential missionary recruits and there are many, many YRR folks who are "restless" because they are wanting to do something due to the great truths that they have heard.

Thus, "restlessness" is an unfortunate adjective to use with them, I would use "active" and "unsatisfied with the status quo." There are many of these heading towards hard mission fields.


A better name for this group might be younger, activistic calvinists - YACs....rather than YRRs.....

---------- Post added at 08:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 AM ----------




Southern Presbyterian said:


> Reformation and maturity are to be found within the bonds of the local church, not is some para-church organization or gathering. The "one another" commands of Scripture are meant to be carried out in the local body where you may know and can be known intimately by those you labor beside on a regular basis.



Not true.

There are plenty of immature or overly rigid local churches that simply are not maturing or equipping or utilizing their young people. And, many solid para-churches are partnering with local churches to provide services that these local bodies cannot in order to maximally utilize those that want to serve.

I believe the popularity of these gatherings and conferences is a good thing to feed people supplemental Vitamin T (theology) because in many local churches they are simply not getting it and they are hungry.

--

P.s. I am always surprised that many are alarmed and shocked by young people flocking to the doctrines of grace en masse. As if it were a bad thing. Even if more than half of this massive throng never adopt the WCF but remain only calvinistic, baptistic and prefer modern worship, we should rejoice because the doctrines of grace are undergoing a resurgence in our day and within the last 2 decades many baptist universities have shifted from liberal to solidly conservative, they are graduating 5-pointers and a whole horde of younger missionaries are fully calvinistic and "restless" in that they want to take the Gospel to the Muslims. So the great number of YRRs (or YACs) are not a "problem" but a great opportunity.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Jan 10, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> I believe this "restlessness" is a good thing; a synonym for "activistic" - they want to do something, to get their hands dirty. I talk to many potential missionary recruits and there are many, many YRR folks who are "restless" because they are wanting to do something due to the great truths that they have heard.



I think Perg is on to some things here. While I don't agree with every word he's said, I think we ought to be harnessing the restlessness (or activism) rather than seeking to quench it. We dislike the way it manifests itself sometimes (immaturity), but that doesn't mean we should seek to snuff out the desire. Many great missionaries were probably restless. We even celebrate stories of men like Carey who stood against set in their ways hyper-calvinists and went even though men mocked them. 




Pergamum said:


> Not true.
> 
> There are plenty of immature or overly rigid local churches that simply are not maturing or equipping or utilizing their young people. And, many solid para-churches are partnering with local churches to provide services that these local bodies cannot in order to maximally utilize those that want to serve.



I agree that there can be some good things coming out of parachurch organizations, but I think Southernpres. is absolutely correct that the local church is the only institution established in the NT for the living out of Christianity. We need to be very careful in ascribing undue priority to parachurch events. Also, it's not fair to say that the fact that there are many churches that aren't functioning properly somehow gives credence to parachruch ministries. That said, I am in no way doubting that a lot of people have been genuinely helped by conferences like T4G and Desiring God. I have been. But they can only come alongside the local church and assist her. Nothing more.



Pergamum said:


> P.s. I am always surprised that many are alarmed and shocked by young people flocking to the doctrines of grace en masse. As if it were a bad thing. Even if more than half of this massive throng never adopt the WCF but remain only calvinistic, baptistic and prefer modern worship, we should rejoice because the doctrines of grace are undergoing a resurgence in our day and within the last 2 decades many baptist universities have shifted from liberal to solidly conservative, they are graduating 5-pointers and a whole horde of younger missionaries are fully calvinistic and "restless" in that they want to take the Gospel to the Muslims. So the great number of YRRs (or YACs) are not a "problem" but a great opportunity.



Amen! I believe that Calvinists in certain denominations have been so much the underdog for so many years that there may be a underlying pride in being outnumbered. Thus when people are becoming calvinistic right and left, they question the legitimacy of it and maybe even feel a little put off. They like being the gaurdians of truth. (NOTE: I am NOT accusing any of our posters here of this! Please take no offense.) It is a lot like when Spurgeon was becoming popular and couldn't please the old-school Calvinists because he wasn't a hyper-calvinist and couldn't please the new school proto-evangelicals because he was too calvinistic!


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 10, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> I don't know if I have any good answer. For many YRR's that I have encountered, its "Young, Restless and somewhat Calvinistic in soteriology." There is no interest in becoming confessionally "Reformed" for a large part of them. The ones I know tend to self-identify with MacAurther and Driscol, neither of whom I consider truly "reformed." And if they are not in a Church that is confessional, or have a distinct sub-set of confessional folks in thier Church to mentor, I am not sure where this group would aquire the "education" in the Reformed faith that would lead to becoming "confessional." This is why is good that there are places like the PB where the "process" towards a confessional identification can begin for those who are inquiring.


I'm curious to know why you don't think of MacArthur as Reformed, especially when he touts the five points of Calvinism and divine sovereignty better than some professing "reformed" theologians.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2012)

Jeff Burns said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this "restlessness" is a good thing; a synonym for "activistic" - they want to do something, to get their hands dirty. I talk to many potential missionary recruits and there are many, many YRR folks who are "restless" because they are wanting to do something due to the great truths that they have heard.
> ...



Yes, I believe that if a one-sentence conclusion for best practice can be given for how to interact with YRRs it is your phrase, "Harness the restlessness/activism."


*Harness the activism*. It has a nice ring.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 10, 2012)

Weston Stoler said:


> What do you think it would take to make the, very numerous, YRR crowd to become the Young, confessional, orthodox, reformed? I mean I went from YRR to a Westminster guy in about a year however I don't see that happening for a lot of people. I do enjoy the movement however I think it might be a little bit more shallow then they would want to admit.
> 
> When YRR people talk to me about covenant theology or the sabbath it just blows over their heads even though they claim to be deep doctrinally. I am not sure what it would take to make them actually reformed.
> 
> Maybe if John Piper told them to submit to the Westminster lol


I'd label myself as first being YRB (Young restless Baptist) to YRP (Young Restless Pentecostal) to YRAPL (Young Restless Arminian Pentecostal-lite) to NSYPR now (Not so Young, Peaceful, and Reformed).

There is always going to be disagreement among secondary issues, even among more orthodox Reformed and Calvinist circles. We discuss here with degrees of disagreement about eschatology, baptism, the Sabbath, worship principles, etc., yet there is a core unity of doctrine within our body as holding fast to the doctrines of grace. Nobody here (I hope) would base another's salvation based upon whether or not the music portion of worship is based upon acapella singing, or whether drums are used in church.

When dealing with the YRR, we have concerns, and rightly so. I'm firmly convinced that some of them have not abandoned elements of the emergent movement, and that is where the danger can come in. The emergent church is a bastion of relativism and neo-orthodoxy, and the YRR need to understand that the things they bring along with them which are in clear contradiction of Scripture must be jettisoned.

I believe this is where sound doctrinal teaching comes in. A revisiting of the basic doctrines of Scripture is something that a church needs to do on a regular basis, not just for the sake of bringing these truths back afresh into the body, but also to explain to newcomers like the YRR that "This is what Christianity is." Now, for those of us who frequent this site, that sounds like a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at how many churches relegate any in-depth discussion of doctrine to a soundbyte summation of points given in a church membership class, without ever revisiting those doctrines again. It's extremely sad, and it's one of the reasons why churches have members who are weak Christians at best, and deluded unbelievers at worst. 

But above all, soteriology needs to be hit. The emergent church was notorious for leaving an open door for universalism; all one must do to see this is read Rob Bell or Brian MacLaren or Leonard Sweet. Emergents coming into the Reformed movement-or any orthodox evangelical church for that matter-without disposing of the central facts of the gospel will bring a terrible virus into the body, and this virus can spread more quickly than some realize (After reading about church history, and how the church in different ages was more concerned with numerical growth than spiritual discipleship, I can say that this is a real problem). The gospel cannot be overemphasized with the YRR crowd. If this is not done, any other discussion about secondary issues will be irrelevant.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jan 10, 2012)

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

[/COLOR]


J. Dean said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I have any good answer. For many YRR's that I have encountered, its "Young, Restless and somewhat Calvinistic in soteriology." There is no interest in becoming confessionally "Reformed" for a large part of them. The ones I know tend to self-identify with MacAurther and Driscol, neither of whom I consider truly "reformed." And if they are not in a Church that is confessional, or have a distinct sub-set of confessional folks in thier Church to mentor, I am not sure where this group would aquire the "education" in the Reformed faith that would lead to becoming "confessional." This is why is good that there are places like the PB where the "process" towards a confessional identification can begin for those who are inquiring.
> ...



I don't consider him "Reformed" because I believe being "Reformed" is much broader than a spiffy soteriology. "5 Point Calvinist" and "Reformed" are not the same thing. At least not to me. Particularly when a "Reformed" minister claims being Amill is essentially arminian. In my humble opinion, to be "dispensationalist" is to reject "general" covenant theology. And, from my perspective, to reject covenant theology is to remove oneself from being "Reformed" proper, versus "reformed in aspects of soteriology or other theology." 

To which of the Reformed Confessions does Dr. MacArthur subscribe? 

See some thoughts here: What is "Reformed"? "Reformed Baptist"? An Opinionated Attempt At Sorting Through the Labels

I think this covers the general point pretty well: Riddleblog - "How Many Points?"


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 10, 2012)

Really, I have only one problem with (some aspects of) the YRR movement. They think they're more Reformed than they are. I don't really blame them for where they are; I just want them to be clear on the issue. When I ask someone to name three contemporary Reformed pastors/theologians, and he says, "John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Josh Harris," we have a problem. I want YRR's to be able to distinguish between classic Reformed theology and certain contemporary figures with Reformed leanings so that they can make an informed decision as to which they believe to be the most biblical. I want them to be able to choose on the basis of an informed conscience, not to remain ignorant due to sloppy labeling. 

Pergy, I think you're right about harnessing activism. I personally am merely a boring academic, but I'm so happy that many of my friends are preparing for difficult church planting and missionary assignments. I hope that I can benefit them by clarifying doctrines and giving them a sense of historical and "catholic" consciousness.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jan 10, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> Really, I have only one problem with (some aspects of) the YRR movement. They think they're more Reformed than they are. I don't really blame them for where they are; I just want them to be clear on the issue. When I ask someone to name three contemporary Reformed pastors/theologians, and he says, "John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Josh Harris," we have a problem. I want YRR's to be able to distinguish between classic Reformed theology and certain contemporary figures with Reformed leanings so that they can make an informed decision as to which they believe to be the most biblical. I want them to be able to choose on the basis of an informed conscience, not to remain ignorant due to sloppy labeling.
> 
> .



Bravo!


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 10, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Really, I have only one problem with (some aspects of) the YRR movement. They think they're more Reformed than they are. I don't really blame them for where they are; I just want them to be clear on the issue. When I ask someone to name three contemporary Reformed pastors/theologians, and he says, "John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Josh Harris," we have a problem. I want YRR's to be able to distinguish between classic Reformed theology and certain contemporary figures with Reformed leanings so that they can make an informed decision as to which they believe to be the most biblical. I want them to be able to choose on the basis of an informed conscience, not to remain ignorant due to sloppy labeling.
> ...


Second that notion. Get these people copies of Calvin's Institutes and start from there. 

Part of the problem also stems from the American culture, insofar as that Americans are fad-driven, and unfortunately the church has not divorced itself sufficiently from this element. The YRR movment, if we're not careful, will become "just another fad" which is why the transcendence of Reformed theology and Calvinism needs to be emphasized.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2012)

Some good thoughts here, although I hasten to add that this is ground that has been covered here several times and is the topic of discussion elsewhere. 

I do not consider myself Reformed as I don't consider it to be a helpful modifier for the term Baptist. (I was of the same mind in my Presbyterian days.) The Reformed rejected baptistic thought then and now. Near as I can tell, there is no usage (especially consistent usage or usage in a denominational sense or identity) of the term Reformed Baptist prior to the early 1960's and the rise of the modern RB movement under the leadership of Martin, Chantry, Ernest Reisinger, etc. And many of these "High Water Presbyterians" are woefully ignorant of Baptist history between the Seventeenth century and the mid 20th Century. 

That being said, Weston, a lot of people are more convinced in their views than you were. One day a few months ago you posted here that you weren't convinced of paedobaptism and then proclaimed about two days later that you were convinced. For many, it takes a little longer than that. 

I agree with the main thrusts of Pergamum's post. While there are a number of reasons why I would prefer not to get involved with Southern Baptists, the activism as noted by Pergy among the younger ones (and many not so young ones) is laudable if somewhat lacking in discernment at times and employing questionable methodology at times. At this point I basically give them a tip of the cap, impart a word or two when I can and get on with my own business. Oh that we should be as interested in making disciples in our own sphere of influence (i.e. those who have never heard the gospel especially) as we are about correcting the errors of other evangelicals!  

However, in his comments Pergamum does come across as downplaying the local church too much. I think some of this may be his circumstances on the mission field (very laudable) rather than having boots on the ground here on a regular basis and having a more comprehensive view of the fruit of the movement in question. One can't be aware of the circumstances everywhere, even with the internet! A mutual friend of ours has a book coming out on the importance of the local church that I'm sure he would probably endorse.

The downside to these conferences and parachurch efforts, especially on the lay level, is an infatuation with superstar preachers that preach at many of them and often a neglect of the local church. One might say "Well that's because they aren't being fed at home." In many cases this is simply not so. You see this with some of them even when there are numerous sound Calvinistic works in their local area. If the preacher can't be Piper, Chandler or whoever some will come right out and say "Why bother, I'll just listen to podcasts." In some cases the local preachers may be as good or even better doctrinally but because they don't have the cool factor or aren't as dynamic a speaker they are denigrated. A lot of them also don't want to be bothered with accountability and "one anothering".

Presbyterians need to attend to their own house as well.  There are plenty of YRR types (regardless of age) or simply sub-Confessional (or Reformed) people in the PCA (not to mention the EPC or well nigh apostate PCUSA) who have little or no regard for the confession or the RPW. In some cases, there is a lack of understanding of the basic doctrines of Christianity. Some can't explain the reason for the differences between Presbyterianism and Romanism and think the latter is equally valid or nearly so. (I've even seen this among elders!) I've seen a man ordained as a Teaching Elder who took exception to the standards regarding marrying papists and excluding them from the Lord's Supper. He didn't understand why an evangelical Baptist or Congregationalist could partake in the Lord's Supper in a PCA congregation while Romanists were prohibited. After some questioning and deliberation he still didn't appear to get it. But he was ordained nonetheless, even though he was called to a church that is in a heavily Romanist area. Others will say things like Oneness Pentecostals worship the same Jesus they do. And these are people who have been sitting in Reformed pews for decades.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Jan 10, 2012)

Pilgrim said:


> The downside to these conferences and parachurch efforts, especially on the lay level, is an infatuation with superstar preachers that preach at many of them and often a neglect of the local church. One might say "Well that's because they aren't being fed at home." In many cases this is simply not so. You see this with some of them even when there are numerous sound Calvinistic works in their local area. If the preacher can't be Piper, Chandler or whoever some will come right out and say "Why bother, I'll just listen to podcasts." In some cases the local preachers may be as good or even better doctrinally but because they don't have the cool factor or aren't as dynamic a speaker they are denigrated. A lot of them also don't want to be bothered with accountability and "one anothering".



Boy isn't this the truth. I'm finding that many folks who even listen to not so superstar-ish pastors who preach really sound doctrine have a very hard time hearing that same doctrine when it comes from their own pastors. Local church work is messy. People don't like getting their hands dirty, so when the going gets tough, they get going....often to a new church that meets whatever their felt needs are at the moment.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jan 10, 2012)

Pilgrim said:


> the term Reformed Baptist prior to the early 1960's and the rise of the modern RB movement under the leadership of Martin, Chantry, Ernest Reisinger, etc. And many of these "High Water Presbyterians" are woefully ignorant of Baptist history between the Seventeenth century and the mid 20th Century.



Chris could you explain and justify this statement...two parts of it.

1) Explain the term "High Water Presbyterians" it sounds derogatory to me.

2) Justify the assertion that these men...I take it Al Martin, Walt Chantry and Ernie Reisinger are woefully ignorant of Baptist history between 17th and mid 20th century

Thank-you.


----------



## KMK (Jan 10, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Part of finding rest, part of becoming involved in a deep way, is precisely committing to drudge work - to attempting to profit from a pastor's worst, as well as his best, sermons; to doing unglamorous work that has no book giveaways to incentivize and no cheerleaders to pump you up for it.



I whole heartedly agree with this statement. (Even though I have no idea what the YRR movement is.)

This kind of rest seeking reminds me of Cornelius in Acts 10. In verse 25 it says, "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." Then Cornelius says in verse 33, "Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God."

Peterson notes in his commentary:



> This is a remarkable confession (on Cornelius' part). Hearing the message God gave Peter was as much an experience of being in the divine presence as being addressed by an angel...God continues to make his presence and his purpose known every time the apostolic word is proclaimed or taught (Col 3:16; 1 Thess 2:13).



This is true whether the apostolic word is proclaimed by the great Piper or the lowly Klein.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 10, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> ... in many local churches they are simply not getting it and they are hungry.



Then they need to find a local body that does feed them. And if there is not one locally available, they need to petition one at a distance to start a work locally. Paul and the other apostles went throughout the world starting local churches, not Promise Keepers (et. al) groups.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 10, 2012)

JP Wallace said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > the term Reformed Baptist prior to the early 1960's and the rise of the modern RB movement under the leadership of Martin, Chantry, Ernest Reisinger, etc. And many of these "High Water Presbyterians" are woefully ignorant of Baptist history between the Seventeenth century and the mid 20th Century.
> ...



Paul, my comments are to be largely understood in the American context and may or may not apply to the same degree in the UK or elsewhere. They also constitute something of a rabbit trail. While not unrelated to the subject at hand, there is the potential to get us off track, and it's an issue that's been discussed here _ad nauseum_ anyway, with the possible exception of my answer in #1 below. Since it was a throwaway passage in which I painted with a somewhat broad brush (and thus prone to be misunderstood,) it might be better for me to just delete that paragraph. But since a question has been raised about it, I'll respond here as briefly and helpfully as I can. 

1) I agree that it is a somewhat derogatory term and without further qualification was not very helpful. It is basically a reference to people who would prefer to be Presbyterians but for their scruples on baptism. Some would prefer to fellowship with Presbyterians than with fellow Calvinistic Baptists who may not dot the I's and cross the T's the way they do on the finer points of Covenant Theology or Sabbath observance. (In some cases, it could be said that this makes them more exclusivistic with regard to their own camp than many evangelical Presbyterians of the PCA type are with regard to theirs, where a great many practically use dispensational arguments in their opposition to the 4th Commandment.) To some degree I would include Baptists who adopt an elder form of government in which there is effectively a third office of ruling elder, something that is largely foreign to Baptist history and practice, especially in the USA. Perhaps it is different on your side of the pond. I'm not arguing here against plural elders, which is preferable, (although I'm not convinced is absolutely necessary in all cases) but simply against an office of elder in which men rule but do not teach and often are either not able or are not given to teaching. If I am wrong here and there is more precedent for this form of government among Baptists (specifically, ruling elders who take no role in the teaching ministry whatsoever and who are not ordained to the gospel ministry) then I'm happy to be corrected. But that issue is really beyond the scope of this thread. If it has been discussed at length here, I'm not aware of it. 

2. The reference to those men who were named had specific reference to the term Reformed Baptist and the rise of that movement in the mid 20th Century in the Northeast US. Are you aware of any usage of the term Reformed Baptist prior to the late 1950's or early 1960's? The reference regarding ignorance of church history wasn't specifically directed at those men, which after looking at it again was unclear and thus unhelpful in the way it was phrased. That's what I get for posting too quickly. I'm not really familiar enough with them to be able to say one way or the other with regard to this. The reference to apparent ignorance of history is something that dawned on me when reading an old thread here a few weeks ago. In the thread, a former "Reformed Baptist" pastor turned Presbyterian listed prominent authors on either side of the baptism issue who had written at length on it and wondered (to put it generously) where all the Baptist thinkers are on the subject compared to the number (and expertise) of Reformed worthies. But there were few if any Baptist writers from the 18th and 19th Centuries on his list, which was perhaps the time in which more Baptist polemics were churned out than any other. Evidently he was mostly unaware of these works. But I can't find the post now (apparently the user name has changed) and can't remember what I was looking for when I found it the first time. Admittedly, most of the works in question are long out of print and the post was made prior to the advent of things like Google Books, although some are probably available on sites like the Reformed Reader. But many of them are well known books from that period nonetheless, including Carson's "Mode and Subjects of Baptism" which I don't think was listed. I don't think Judson was listed either, even though it was reprinted around 2000.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jan 10, 2012)

Chris

With respect I am extremely familiar with the USA Reformed Baptist scene and so my questions and scruple concerning the your points is nothing whatsoever to do with my UK location or my interpretation, or indeed their application.

1) If I am not mistaken the kind of phrase you used and have used frequently on Puritanboard is characteristic of a certain Sovereign Grace Baptist, and indeed, though I cannot find the reference at present is used in an article in which is roundly lambast Reformed Baptists and many doctrines they share with Puritans and Reformed in general and which he himself rejects. The term is unfortunate because it suggests an unstableness in theology. With regard to it being a rabbit-trail, it most certainly is and one that you took us on unnecessarily and so I won't address any of the other ones you take up under paragraph 1.

2) As you will note in my question I asked you specifically about two issues, and the one you begin with in point 2 is one I did not ask you about. No one asked you to speak about whether or both the Reformed Baptist tag was used or not used, I am very conversant with the use of that tag. What I asked you to do was justify your statement that RB of the Al Martin etc. school and indeed the wider movement were woefully deficient in their understanding of church history. You could not be more correct is realising what you posted was unhelpful, it was much worse of course, not only in by implication suggesting the named men were ignorant, but by painting with a brush with a breadth that would reach from the USA to the UK regarding the whole movement. You based this (at least part) on the idea that "former" RB pastor posted without mentioning many Calvinistic baptists from the past. See the problem? A whole movement judged 'woefully ignorant' on the basis of you exceptionally limited interpretation of largely one post on one subject on one forum it seems. The men you mention and the vast majority of men within the modern RB movement (and I know this from personal knowledge and acquaintance) are whether based in the USA, New Zealand or UK *exceptionally* knowledgable about history. You may disagree with their conclusions but to call them (indeed me/us), ignorant or imply that we are woefully ignorant of history is frankly derogatory and is in my opinion untrue. 

If this was the result of too hasty responding on a thread, then take my advice and be more careful with your throwaway comments.


----------



## NB3K (Jan 10, 2012)

Is there a difference in any respect between the Geneva Church of the 16th century & the Puritan Church of the 17th century?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 11, 2012)

JP Wallace said:


> 1) If I am not mistaken *the kind of phrase* *you used and have used frequently* on Puritanboard is characteristic of a certain Sovereign Grace Baptist, and indeed, though I cannot find the reference at present is used in an article in which is roundly lambast Reformed Baptists and many doctrines they share with Puritans and Reformed in general and which he himself rejects. The term is unfortunate because it suggests an unstableness in theology. With regard to it being a rabbit-trail, it most certainly is and one that you took us on unnecessarily and so I won't address any of the other ones you take up under paragraph 1.



I only took the "other ones" up under paragraph 1 because of your previous response. Had you responded privately instead, I would have been happy to have edited my post to remove the offending passage. Had you responded with this context in your previous post, it would not have necessitated going further down those rabbit trails in an attempt to explain what I meant by the term. 

Now, you say that I've used this kind of phrase frequently on the Puritanboard. Frequent usage based on what standard? It appears that I have used the phrase 3 times out of over 8,000 posts on the Puritanboard since 2005. I find it once on my blog. Casting the net wider, I find two posts to email discussion lists. That makes 6. But for the sake of argument, let's double the number. Thus, it would appear that I may have used the term no more than a dozen times in what may be over 20,000 emails, posts (8000+ here alone) and comments in various places online over the past decade. The reader will draw his own conclusions about whether not it is reasonable to allege that I've used the term High Water Presbyterian "frequently." 

I do not know how the term may have been used in the past by others, but my usage of it here was an offhand remark used in reference to some Calvinistic Baptists that I have known and a tendency that I have observed, and not necessarily any specific school. I find that one other poster used the term, apparently coming up with it independently. 

And, while I certainly didn't communicate it as clearly as I should have and the way that I communicated it caused unnecessary confusion, I did mean to suggest an unstableness in theology, which is clear when taking my post as a whole. Part of the subject at hand in this thread is restlessness after all, and that's what occasioned the comment. I am certainly not suggesting an instability of your theology or the theology of such worthies as Martin, Chantry, et al. In fact, quite the opposite! Coming to those kinds of conclusions would be a solution to the issues of rootlessness, charismaticism, antinomianism etc. that are seen among many in the "YRR" camp. The juxtaposition I made was most unfortunate and prone to misunderstanding. Were I to read it if it were posted by someone else, I would probably connect the dots in the way that you did. I was guilty of very poor editing and posted too quickly without adequately reviewing that part of the message. Please accept my apology for the offense given with that juxtaposition. Mea Culpa! 

Now to get back to the point of instability in one's theology. Isn't it fair to state that many if not all of those who embrace Reformed soteriology and within a year or two (if not sooner) embrace paedobaptism had "unstableness" in their theology, at least until the issue in their mind was resolved in favor of paedobaptism? In some cases, they never had a firm grasp on Baptist theology and history, with some demonstrating to this day that they didn't understand it by doing things like anachronistically charging covenantal Baptists with being dispensationalists for rejecting paedobaptism. You'll see comments here and elsewhere about what they think "Baptists believe" based on what some dispensationalist revivalist taught them rather than what historic Calvinistic Baptists (not to mention of the 1689 variety) have believed and practiced. That's about like a Southern Baptist saying that what modern liberal Presbyterians believe equates with historic, confessional Presbyterianism. 

A good example of instability in theology for a time after coming to embrace the Doctrines of Grace is one of our moderators here, "Herald" aka Bill Brown. (I don't think he'll mind my mention of him in this context.) He previously had the user name of "Baptist in Crisis" which was indicative of instability in his theology, coming from a fundamentalist, dispensationalist and Arminianish background. Once he stabilized and came to his current convictions, (in this case rejecting paedobaptism and embracing amillennialism) he jettisoned the name.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 11, 2012)

Here are some clarifying links regarding the role of the local church in missions;

Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: The local church - hot-house and nursery for the task of planting in the world

Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: The Apostle Paul returned to Antioch

Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: Not merely running; being sent

Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: A Solid Port and Steady Winds for the Missionary Journey


----------

