# A critique of the New Calvinism



## JonathanHunt

'The merger of Calvinism and Worldliness' by Dr Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

Read the article here: Metropolitan Tabernacle - The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness

Some of you will agree, and some will vehemently disagree. Sacred cow-free zone, folks.


----------



## CharlieJ

I think that though there is some legitimacy to his complaints, the general lack of balance and accuracy in the article limits its usefulness. His major charge of worldliness is that the musical genre is inappropriate. Also, he fails to make necessary distinctions - John MacArthur is by no means friendly with Driscoll, and T4G's inclusion of Mahaney does not say anything about cessationism that Duncan's inclusion does about paedo-baptism. 

Reading this, for a moment I thought I was back at Bob Jones.


----------



## LawrenceU

Wow. Unfortunately, I am not surprised. I respect Masters, but not his fundamentalist tendencies. He is making some very broad generalities in this article. While I agree that worldliness is a problem in much of the church today. I would not point to the same things that Masters does. Case in point: Musical form. I am not a fan of heavy metal, rap, or other more 'edgey' music, but to say that using that form is the same type of synchretism that plagued Israel is quite a leap. It wasn't the music that marked that activity that marked that worship, it was the embracing and worship of other gods. 

His lumping MacArthur into the charismatic camp because of the use of more modern music forms is telling. 

What I saw is a man who is entrenched in form over doctrine.

We should strive toward holiness in our lives. But, it should be a Biblical definition of holiness, not a societal definition.


----------



## JonathanHunt

CharlieJ said:


> I think that though there is some legitimacy to his complaints, the general lack of balance and accuracy in the article limits its usefulness. His major charge of worldliness is that the musical genre is inappropriate. Also, he fails to make necessary distinctions - John MacArthur is by no means friendly with Driscoll, and T4G's inclusion of Mahaney does not say anything about cessationism that Duncan's inclusion does about paedo-baptism.
> 
> Reading this, for a moment I thought I was back at Bob Jones.



I made the MacArthur-Driscoll comment when I sent in a request to have the article put online.

I don't think that I view paedobaptism and cessationism as two issues of the same order. Dr Masters himself relies heavily on some paedobaptists as conference speakers and seminary lecturers.


----------



## raekwon

LawrenceU said:


> What I saw is a man who is entrenched in form over doctrine.
> 
> We should strive toward holiness in our lives. But, it should be a Biblical definition of holiness, not a societal definition.





Looks to me as if he's guilty of a "worldliness" similar to what he's accusing others of, except he's using a worldly definition of holiness. That's *much* more dangerous than (what he calls) "worldly" musical forms.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

raekwon said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I saw is a man who is entrenched in form over doctrine.
> 
> We should strive toward holiness in our lives. But, it should be a Biblical definition of holiness, not a societal definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks to me as if he's guilty of a "worldliness" similar to what he's accusing others of, except he's using a worldly definition of holiness. That's *much* more dangerous than (what he calls) "worldly" musical forms.
Click to expand...




I just dittoed your ditto, Rae. I see nothing "unholy" or "worldly" in the conferences he mentions, though I'll admit they aren't my personal style either. But something modern or contemporary or even edgy doesn't necessarily make something worldly. 

Pastor Underwood also makes a good point - he seems to value form over doctrine.


----------



## Jie-Huli

I agree with Dr Masters' article entirely and hope that it will be widely read.

I do not think the issue of worship style is a minor issue, but that is of course a much larger discussion. The kinds of worldliness and compromise Dr Masters is talking about are not limited to music, however --- the proponents of the so called "new Calvinism" are far, far removed from Puritan and Reformed theology on countless issues, a number of which are mentioned by Dr Masters --- the continuing application of the Sabbath Day, the Second Commandment prohibition against images of Christ, the continuing validity of the moral law generally, the regulative principle of worship, the meaning of holiness and separation from worldliness, the duty of seeking God's will in personal decision-making . . . The list could go on and on. Every department of the Christian life is affected.

Dr Masters has written about many of the above issues at greater length elsewhere (and with a definite Scriptural basis - it is not a matter of personal cultural preferences) and it cannot be expected that he would discuss them all in detail in this one brief article - that is not its purpose. The key point he is making here, which I should think it is hard to deny, is that the "new Calvinists" represent a sharp break indeed with what has always been known as Calvinism in the past. They are not reformed in any meaningful sense - it is a very narrow form of Calvinism they hold, accepting Calvinist soteriology, but tragically casting away all of the deeper implications of Calvinism and reformed theology on sanctification and the Christian life. Some of them love to quote certain Puritans, but there can be little doubt the Puritans themselves would be appalled by most of what is going on.

Respectfully,

Jie-Huli

-----Added 6/9/2009 at 02:16:09 EST-----



CharlieJ said:


> I think that though there is some legitimacy to his complaints, the general lack of balance and accuracy in the article limits its usefulness. His major charge of worldliness is that the musical genre is inappropriate. Also, he fails to make necessary distinctions - John MacArthur is by no means friendly with Driscoll, and T4G's inclusion of Mahaney does not say anything about cessationism that Duncan's inclusion does about paedo-baptism.
> 
> Reading this, for a moment I thought I was back at Bob Jones.



Other than not detailing the differences amongst the teachers discussed in the article, could you clarify what in the article you believe was factually inaccurate?

Respectfully,

Jie-Huli


----------



## historyb

I'll have to read the article later, I consider myself a new Calvinist with Driscoll.


----------



## Gloria

Once again someone deems it necessary to equate his own personal preferences with God's law and word ("worldly" music). Meh.



> Whatever their strengths and achievements (and some of them are brilliant men by any human standard), or whatever their theoretical Calvinism, the poor stand of these preachers on these crucial issues will only encourage a fatally flawed version of Calvinism that will lead people to be increasingly wedded to the world, and to a self-seeking lifestyle.
> 
> Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world.



I totally agree with this but it seems the author, as Raekwon said, is failing to define "worldliness" using the Bible. I can say the same for consecration, reverence and sincere obedience to his will. How can he, without witnessing the daily lives of these men say that people like Macarthur (who I'm not a HUGE fan of), Piper and the like, are not living in "sincere obedience to his will?" What sin have these men committed in preaching at these conferences and supporting this resurgence? Are they leading these young believers into sin? Are they spreading a false gospel? 

It's sad to see brothers BASHING other brothers. I know we're called to judge each other righteously, but as I said, he's judging based on his preferences, NOT the Bible.

I also wanted to comment on this:


> Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? *There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly.* One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, *but very many more turned aside.* Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving *the cause* compromised and scarred.



God calls who he calls. He finishes what he begins. All those he draws will stay with it by HIS grace and all those who are just caught up in the moment or into the weighty implications of the doctrines of grace will fall away. The gospel is preached to all, the truth is shared with all. We plant the seeds but God makes the seed grow and flourish. Isn't he describing the parable of the sower that our Lord told us about in Matthew 13? 



> 18 "Hear then the parable of the sower: 19When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."



Is it not God himself who ordains those who WILL BE "good soil" by his grace according to his purpose?

He is defending "calvinism" but is failing to practically apply these doctrines and allow them to shape his view of evangelism, sanctification and salvation. 

I'm a calvinist. I praise God that he introduced me to reformed theology THROUGH CHRISTIAN RAP. I do understand though that right doctrine does not save me. Christ saved me. The author, through this article, seems more concerned with a set of doctrinal stances. We really need to learn to be more gracious towards one another...


----------



## christianhope

Quoted from the aforementioned article:

"" Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world.

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism. ""

-----

I'm glad to hear what Master's had said- although he may have gone a bit too far or did not provide enough clarification, the courage and benefit of such a statement far exceeds the short comings- although I do not profess to be perfectly right in my judgment here, it's a topic that is very broad and hard to define, at least for me. 

Overall, I find this article to be a breath of fresh air. Something I have noted in all of the churches I have attended, is a general lack of desire for holiness and separation with the world. This has been a burden on my heart and I'm thankful for this voice stating a needful return to such. 

It's really so hard today in this modern world to make even seemingly innocent compromises. There is so much sensuality everywhere that if I were to jump into alot of these newer hip hop christian scenes I would expect to find a great deal of irreverence and ungodliness. Although- true- the music itself may not be wrong in some of it's contemporary forms, the general compromises that come with it are very burdensome and sorrowful for me. I recall Paul Washer or Charles Leiter (can't recall) telling a story about a man who fasted for 28 days, basically locked away in his room and enjoyed wondrous communion with God- afterwards, the man picked up a newspaper and almost threw up, it was so sickening and worldly to him... 

John Owen sums up this example in this quote: “The custom of sinning takes away the sense of it, the course of the world takes away the shame of it” 

Christians don't realize how weak they really are, and how easily influenced and hardened they really are. 'The course of the world takes away the shame of their sin.' We don't often realize how sinful we really are, and how prone to it... It's a mark of sanctification to be separate from it, certainly not legalistically, that's just hypocrisy, but, in sincerity, not trying to walk the line between the two. Men of God, who have such great genuine love for Him, and for all that He loves, will have a greater sense of this. The nearer you are drawn to Him the more a christian realizes the greatness of his sin. Just as the writer of Hebrews stated:

Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. (Heb*5:14*ASV)

For myself, what I look for most in a professing christian, especially a 'calvinist' is a genuine love for God, a delight in His commandments, great desire for holiness and a hatred of sin... These characteristics, are the heart and soul of the doctrines of grace themselves, and of course they should be viewed together! 

I enjoyed greatly what Sinclair Ferguson said in a sermon: "what does a calvinist look like? "He's loving, humble, compassionate, he loves God and hates sin etc..." (Not a direct quote, vaguely recalled) 

All that to say, I'm thankful for Peter Master's article and think it will do far more good than harm- now if only we had more fervent examples of men living this character! It is so rare in these days. For me, it's what I'm always searching for, I'm young and need men who have such a reverence and presence of God on them. That's what attracts me.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Gloria said:


> he's judging based on his preferences, NOT the Bible.



A standard defence that those who decry 'new worship' are wrong because it is a matter of their 'personal taste'. A fair reading of his scripturally based arguments surrounding worship would be required to make such a sweeping statement.

I don't agree with the article in every respect, as Jie-Huli does, but I think you are being a little unfair.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Jie-Huli said:


> --- the proponents of the so called "new Calvinism" are far, far removed from Puritan and Reformed theology on countless issues, a number of which are mentioned by Dr Masters --- *the continuing application of the Sabbath Day, the Second Commandment prohibition against images of Christ, the continuing validity of the moral law generally, the regulative principle of worship, the meaning of holiness and separation from worldliness, the duty of seeking God's will in personal decision-makin*g . . . The list could go on and on.



I agree with you on the first two items in your list: the Sabbath day and the 2nd Commandment. However, this isn't just a problem with "New Calvinists," but with Reformed folk across the board, at least in the US. Those of us who still adhere to the 2nd and 4th Commandments are a vast minority. So I agree with you (and Dr. Masters) on these points, but they are certainly not limited to the New Calvinists as described in his article.

I disagree with every item in the rest of your list. When has a New Calvinist ever said the moral law is no longer valid? When have they repudiated the RPW? How does their definition of holiness and separation from worldliness differ from yours and Dr. Masters'? I doubt its based on any Scriptural understanding. And when have they ever discarded the concept of seeking God's will in decisions? Piper, for one, is emphatic on that point. The biggest difference between the "New" and "Old" Calvinists is stylistic. I understand your desire to keep the Reformed faith pure, my friend, but I can't see how these New Calvinists are failing in that regard.


----------



## Edward

Jie-Huli said:


> Other than not detailing the differences amongst the teachers discussed in the article, could you clarify what in the article you believe was factually inaccurate?
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Jie-Huli





> Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. As one who regularly visited American seminaries to speak from the early 1970s, I constantly met many preachers and students who loved the doctrines of grace, preaching also in churches of solid Calvinistic persuasion.



While I have no doubt that he was able to find Calvinistic students and churches in the early 1970s, Calvinism in the US neared statistical insignificance in those days. His use of the word 'preposterous' shows a victory of rhetorical flourish over intellectual rigor, of heat over light.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

If you look at all the articles. There is one entirely dedicated on John Piper and what John Piper calls " Christian Hedonism". Quite interesting. But yet so, so, wrong. It seems, as if most of his articls are soley designed to attack others who are in what is called the "new calvinism".


----------



## Archlute

I won't take time to read the article (not that I would disagree with him necessarily, but I have a lot on my plate right now), but I would like to clarify something in his defense. I believe that I am speaking accurately when I say that there is a disjunction of thought between many of the younger reformed folk on this board (and in the PCA as a whole) regarding issues of musical form and many older ministers (or even Westerners in general) who would take a particular approach to music and the human spirit.

Up until the early to mid 20th century the predominant way of viewing the relationship of the arts and the human spirit was set forth by Platonic and Aristotelian aesthetic theory. The basic idea being that music has the ability, for better or for worse, to affect the human spirit, and therefore we should be careful about how we allow our art, and our music in particular, to be constructed and ingested. 

This is not a bad thing, and would fall in line with the apostolic instruction regarding sobermindedness and respectability being a virtue among office holders in the church. For if it is good for them to set and example of being sober in our thoughts, and yet we listen to music that causes our thoughts to drift and flow with the induced emotions, how can we then say that exposing ourselves to these musical forms on a regular basis is following in the footsteps of apostolic teaching and its intent for the personal life of Christian? 

However, in our own day, when classical thought is a widely neglected area of our educational development (dead white men, you know), and personal liberty reigns as king in our decision making processes (just read current popular critiques of the aesthetic restrictions found in Plato's _Republic_, and how _un-American_ they are  ) one begins to see why even many of today's Christians take offense at statements targeting music. They have no intellectual context in which to place such a criticism other than it being an encroachment upon their personal liberties. They think that labeling certain forms of music as worldly and others as less so is an arbitrary distinction, because they have never taken time, or maybe not had opportunity give, to think about the subject as men such as Dr. Peter Masters have been given opportunity.

The bottom line is that, whether you want to label certain styles as being worldly or otherwise, music is indeed a powerful force that affects our emotions and our thoughts. If you want to deny that you are either a liar or an android, and I would hope that you would not want to exist as either! With that in mind, our selection of music for worship needs carefully to be thought through. Are we creating soberminded disciples of Christ, or are we developing our people in less strengthening and edifying ways? I am not hesitant to say that on more than one occasion my wife and I (and on even one occasion my kids also!) have been embarrassed to see people leading worship in Reformed congregations who were swaying before the us with eyes shut and who looked like they were waiting for someone to come up and give them a kiss! When your own young daughter has to ask why the men leading worship in a local PCA congregation were sweating and "looked like he was trying to kiss his microphone", then you know that issues of worship need to be addressed!

So for all who think Peter Masters is acting like a fundy with his take on music, I think you should realize that a bit of ignorance may be going on at your own end, and that you should familiarize yourselves with historic Western thought on the matter, as well as studying that thought in the light of Scripture (the Pastoral Epistles especially) to see how much light these man may have been able to gather from general revelation on the matter. You might be surprised to find that there has been a discussion going on for quite some time on the relationship between music, the emotions, and ethics (millenia, in fact).


----------



## A2JC4life

Kauffeld said:


> Quoted from the aforementioned article:
> You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.



I confess I did not read the article. Having read some of the portions quoted here, I suspect I would disagree strongly with the author on many points. On this one, however, I think that he is absolutely right-on.


----------



## Wannabee

Ditto Lawrence, Mason and other dittos of theirs. 


A2JC4life said:


> Kauffeld said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted from the aforementioned article:
> You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I confess I did not read the article. Having read some of the portions quoted here, I suspect I would disagree strongly with the author on many points. On this one, however, I think that he is absolutely right-on.
Click to expand...


The statement, in itself, is right on. However, is his assumption that the practices of these men is consistent with "worldly bait"? This seems like more of a philosophical imposition with a lack of Scriptural scrutiny than a biblical treatise. It's a good twist of words with a bad argument behind it. What he's addressing needs to be addressed. But this needed point is lost in rhetoric and lack of Scriptural presentation.


----------



## jogri17

*The good and bad of the article.*

To give my opinion I have divided the following into 3 sections: the Good, bad and the _chais pas_(the I don't know). The texte that is in normal texte is copied from the original article and my individual pensées on the subject inwhich it deals shall be in *bold.*


Good: In the sense I agree with the statment or the general spirit of it.
1. John Piper proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments. And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine.
*When when wants to evaluate the movement without dealing with the fringes of it (e.g. Driscoll) it is best to deal with Piper given his sound evangelical and acadmic creditentials. Piper is to historic Reformed theology what Baxter is to Puritanism there is a strong connection but his beliefs DO NOT by any stretch of the imagination mirror the overall claims by that of historic Reformed confessionalism. His many Passion conference are not Reformed by any means. But one can argue that they are MUCH BETTER than a Billy Graham Crucade and they are perfectly with in the realm of evangelical orthodoxy defined by historic practices. But at the end of the day Piper is commited not to the Reformed tradition because he honestly feels that the Reformed and the Reformed Baptistic traditions (I count confessional baptists as Reformed personally though I am aware of the debate) while have MUCH to offer evangelicals of all sorts they do nor represent his understanding of what the Bible teaches. For that reason he picks and chooses that he finds biblical from many traditions like a good fundamentalist-neoevangelical usually will do. For him there is no creed but Christ and no confession but the Bible. He acknowledges statements of faith and a confession adopted by his own local church however it can easily be changed by the will of the people of one local church. *

2. They hold anti-fourth-commandment views, taking a low view of the Lord’s Day, and so inflicting another blow at a consecrated lifestyle.
*There is no question that I would be apart of this movement to some extent. When I joined my local church because of my change of belief to padeo-baptism (I was free to because I moved to a different country and my old membership was in a reformed baptist church; NOT BECAUSE OF THAT CHANGE IN CONVICTION ONLY) I must confess my sabbath observance and my view of the Church was sinfully low. Yet the Pastor was so generous and kind to take me under his wing and help me. I really began to call the sabbath a delight and I stoped skipping church because I was out late. I am not going to say my sabbath observance is perfect, but this is a place where God has been working in me the last year through the ordinary means of preaching and the sacraments. As sure as I am about the 4th commandment, it must be acknowledged that many of them do not believe in the sabbath and they prefer to use the term ''Lord's day'' and say that the OT rules don't apply. I think there is a legtimate debate on this subject from a biblical-theological perspective though at the end of the day I think the Reformed approach is correct. Also we must remember that keeping thes sabbath in a consistent matter is a matter of Confessional allowances and NOT OPC, CANADIAN REFORMED, DUTCH REFORMED, SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN, PCA, ect.. tradition. Each Reformed tradition has it own traditional dues and don'ts and I believe in the matter of how we keep the sabbth in certain questionable areas (ex: restarurants, family sports, going to friend's house, driving, taking public transportation, cooking, movies, tv, ect...) ought to be left to Christian liberty with the goal of trying out best to live within our consciences to glorify God and obey him and not trying to flaunt our liberty against others and offend them. *

3. They are soft on separation from worldliness [see endnote 2].
*Of course a big aspect of this is semantics however playing movies with swearing in church, a desire to ''sanctify the secular'' (When there is nothing inherently with the secular), and an increasing desire to see means as 100% negociatable are without questions signs of worldliness. I disagree with many aspects of fundamentalism but they are right in saying God calls his elect to live different. This is hard and it has always been especially for those not born covenant children (like myself) and we feel have feelings of insecurity around those born into Christian homes. An interesting thing I have noticed is that a huge bulk of the young, restless and reformed folk were not raised in Christian homes (like myself). And our spiritual lives have been much more about constant struggles to best conform our lives to the Bible. We usually got saved out of an arminian-evangelical church and after a while hear Piper or someone, discouver the (so called) TULIP and our vision of God become so much bigger and we struggle in the implications of a Dordtian solteriology (worship, sabbath, church government, ect...) but we don't want to loose our evangelical identity but we want to reform also and it's a constant battle for many of us (myself) who see themselves as both evangelical and confessionally reformed. We don't see a contradiction but there are tensions without question. As a result of this tention some evangelicals see us as conforming to fundamentalism and some Refomed folk see us as conforming to a sort of anti-nomianism and worldliness. Yet where Reformed theology doesn't produce true life changing effects the only word to call it is: SIN. 
*
4. True Calvinism and worldliness are opposites. Preparation of heart is needed if we would search the wonders and plumb the depths of sovereign grace. 
*There is no need to comment greatly in this given #3, however I will just say I agree with it but the big question is what is Calvinism? Is it 5 points or is there more? I of course believe there is more*


Bad: I strongly disagree
1.In the 1970s and 80s there were also smaller Calvinistic publishers in the USA, and at that time the phenomenon of Calvinistic discount Christian bookshops began, with bulging catalogue lists and a considerable following. The claim that Calvinism virtually disappeared is hopelessly mistaken.
*I was born in 1987, however my older and more godly friend with whom I have talked about the history of Calvinism in the USA and globally (see Dr. Curt D. Daniel; Reformed Baptist historian of Calvinism who is revising his ''History and Theology of Calvinism'' and should be out sometime in 2010)Sense the second great aweakening Calvinists have been in a downdoward spiral. We are mostly Amillenialists here so of course there has been some ups but as the Banner of Truth was taking off so the PCUSA was becoming heretical. As the evangelicals in the Anglican communion became more vocal so the heretics grabbed all the powerful posistions, ect... I think a major disctinction has to be maintained between Calvinistic instutions and Calvinistic philosophy. I would not consider Dr. R. Albert Mohler reformed, BUT he helped rescue a seminary from liberalism and has made it friends to both reformed baptists, calvinistic evangelicals and to the historically reformed. The point is that in evangelical circles calvinists were the main force at the beginning of this country and now sense this return to a calvinistic solteriology they have been becoming more influential. Let's be honest here: I am an OPC kinda man but the OPC has not had a great job at reaching out. And there is a certain obsession that easily affect confessional persons to confuse Confessionalism with traditionalism. There are areas where the Psalms permit freedom for the local congregation and the believer historically. You can be a confessional presbyterian and sing Christ Tomlin and HillSong songs (I know you will disagree with me there Dr. Clark!). You can be a confessional Presbyterian and have women deacons (I personally think IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA that will lead to problems and inevitably liberalism unless you define the idea of a woman deacon different that the man's job, but I maintain its permissible). You can be just as confessional and use a PC as opposed to a MAC (though you are certainly foolish for doing so ). But that presence of calvinism in the states that is mentioned was usually very isolated to certain geographic regions, and bound up with the small traditions and not very known outside the non-evangelical Reformed community. *. 

2. Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. As one who regularly visited American seminaries to speak from the early 1970s, I constantly met many preachers and students who loved the doctrines of grace, preaching also in churches of solid Calvinistic persuasion.
*An Appeal to Anecdotes as opposed to an appeal to schollars or data. There is no question that there is a bit of romanticization of the history in Hansen's book however as I said previously it was always very isolated and non engaging and the main source of evangelism in many of the Reformed churches was not 1-1 evangelisaton, gospel tracts, open-air preaching but rather lots of baby making and training them up (which is a good thing! but its not the sum and total of the great commission). *

3. Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship.
*McArthur is one of ther persons who is responsible for my initial introduction to expoistory preaching and the idea of presuppositional apolegetics so I have a soft spot for him. It is to be noted that while most of us here would disagree with the dispensationalism and lack of historic confessionalism in MacArthur, he has been a tried and true defender of the Gospel and its implications. He is not charismatic by any means and warmly embraces BB Warfield. He brought Expositroy preaching back to the forefront of fundamentalist, evangelical, and reformed circles when all you would get is a different text every weak and a topical sermon based on that (still exists but is scrinking slowly!), and was one of the first calvinistic (in terms of doctrines of grace, church, worship and preaching) radio ministries. *

4. C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.
*I just think the author misses the Point of T4G. This is not about churches, or denominations or confessions. It's about acknowleding that the invisible Church of Christ exists apart form our circles. In fact if I were in I would welcome Dave Hunt, Norman Geisler, Roger Nicole and Ravi Zacharias all of whom I have GREAT problems with but we can work together with for the promotion of the Gospel. This is why I hate pentecostal theology but I will gladly support a pentecostal missionary who is going to place where only Mormons and jehovah's witnesses are willing to go. My man at T4G is Lignon Duncan and Dr. Dever and Mohler have admitted that if he goes to their church on a communion day he will be denied it. This is not about compromising truth rather it is about evangelicals who have a commitment to the doctrines of Grace and expository preaching but realize that the matter of first importance is the Gospel rightly defined. And on that they are all agreed. T4G does not claim to be confessionally Reformed so I think it's unfair to include it in the criticism. *

5. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.
*If you believe non-cessationists are not justified before God then I would say you are right. If you believe that some one bay be united to Christ by faith alone and have wrong theology on a non-essential matter (and believe that there are theological TRUTHS not-essential for justification) then this is just wrong. I will not endorce Sovereign Grace ministries to friends asking me for a good Bible church if there is a OPC, PCA, NAPARC member, ARBCA member, or another confessional church... but there are many places where that may not be an option and then in those cases I could reccomend a less than ideal church that affirms the Gospel but with whom I would disagree on secondary matters. It is best to see them as NOT REFORMED, but REFORMING in a direction that pleases and encourages us confessionally reformed folk and we ought to be patient and understanding and form loving relationships with them based on the Bible and try to show them why we think they are wrong. *

Chais pas: both good points and bad points and I could not agree or disagree with it. 
1. They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.
*Those who hate contemporary worship use hymns and many other Reformed folk say that hymns are just as bad because they were written by man. They would say unless you sing psalms only you're not really reformed enough. Myself: I personally judge the worship based on content and if the primary focus is on Preaching and the sacrements. I can tollerate many things and see them consistent within a Reformed confessional frame work as long as it keeps within a ballance that promotes: unity, love, tollerance, diversity, multi-generational, multi-cultureal (our worship should not overtly reflect one culture because the Church is not an western, easter, southern, or northern instutition... It's an heavenly institution. This is an area where I think Canadian Calvinists (broudly defined once again) and Evangelicals are doing far better than their American counterparts). So while I may not appreciate one the repetivness of many songs, that is a taste issue not a biblical one given the Psalms can be a bit repetative sometimes. *

2. You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism.
*I get what he is trying to say however... Baxter, Owen, Bunyan and Sibbes were all Big name Puritans and how they approached worship, theology, living the Christian life, ect.. had LOTS of difference in it. And yet Owen reccomended Bunyan. Sibbes was burried along side Bunyan. Baxter loved Sibbes. You cannot say ''Puritan'' and assume they all believed and practiced the same. One could argue that the Puritan movement was in a sense one big T4G movement given there was much more diversity in a movement that spanned about 100 years (Packer's date used here) and there is much more incommon between Mohler, Duncan, Mahaney,&Dever than there was between Sibbes, Owen, Bunyan and Baxter. And I can say that I have profitted from all 8 of those guys (can't you to some extent?). *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final thoughts. I think how we confessionally Reformed persons and how the evangelical 5 pointers define ''reformed'' and ''calvinist'' are different as this is the cause of much of the debate. For us to be un-confessionally Reformed is an oxymoron (and it is in my opinion) and to them to be Reformed is to be commited to the Solas of the Reformation and constantly not willing to submit your theological mind to anything apart of the Bible (how they see Sola Scriptura) which is why you have so many baptists who love Dordt but don't affirm the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. So while this is not by any means binding here is how I would like to use the labels if I was dictator of Christianity for those within camps that can be considered orthodox...

Reformed: Any person who is a baptized Christian 
who has given a profession of faith and is a member in good standing of a local Church that is consciously devoted to at least one of the HISTORIC reformed Confessions. ( examples: Joel Beeke, Sinclair Ferguson, Walter Chantry)

Calvinist: Any person who upholds othodox theology (broadly defined within evangelical tradtion; includes the Reformed but not exclussive) and believes that Confessions may serve as valuable theological guides AND reformed in the matters of solteriology concerning the arminian v. reformed debate and comes down on the side that the Synod of Dort was right. There is a big diversity in this group because the emphesis is placed on solteriology as opposed to the others aspects of tradtioinal dogmatic theology. (Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Wayne Grudem)

Arminian: Any person who either agrees with the historic remonstrant posistion. (Arminious, can't think of many others)

Evangelical-Arminian: Any person who upcolds the inconsistent theology that became popular in the States and from the spread through out the world that the atonement is universal, one cannot loose their salvation, Man is really bad but with a special dose of restible grace may choose or reject God's offer of salvation, and Election is either based on or is identified as God's foreknowledge (an idea based not on foreordanation but somewhat like a witch looking in to a crystal ball). (Billy Graham, Norman Geisler, John Wesley to a large extent)

Reformed- Evangelical: One who believes in Reformed solteriology and may a Calvinist or Reformed (as defined above) but while acknoledges the truthfulness of his or her historical tradition (and deffinition I wrote above), strives to acheive a greater ballance between doctrinal purity and strong evangelism that both the Calvinists, the Reformed, the arminians and the evangelical-arminians have failed to acheive in their opinion. They place a greater emphesis on doctrinal purity within their own ecclasitical traditions however keep much more freedom in evangelistic workings and para-church ministry (though never at the expense of the local Church). They strive to acheive ballance but they will always be criticized by others and will defend themselves but try their best to show grace in their defense. Less dogmatic on non-essentials but still are willing to debate non-essentials things publially because they see the importance. There is over lap between Calvinist and Reformed here so one can be Reformed and Calvinst but not here or they can be in here AND one of the other previously mentioned two. (John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Ligonan Duncan, Al Mohler, Joshua Harris, ect...)

Those are my thoughts!


----------



## A2JC4life

Wannabee said:


> Ditto Lawrence, Mason and other dittos of theirs.
> 
> 
> A2JC4life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kauffeld said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoted from the aforementioned article:
> You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I confess I did not read the article. Having read some of the portions quoted here, I suspect I would disagree strongly with the author on many points. On this one, however, I think that he is absolutely right-on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statement, in itself, is right on. However, is his assumption that the practices of these men is consistent with "worldly bait"? This seems like more of a philosophical imposition with a lack of Scriptural scrutiny than a biblical treatise. It's a good twist of words with a bad argument behind it. What he's addressing needs to be addressed. But this needed point is lost in rhetoric and lack of Scriptural presentation.
Click to expand...


I think that this would be my conclusion, as well. Although, as I said, I didn't read the whole article - just the clips posted in this thread.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

O. Wow. I guess rapping or listening to rap music must now be placed under as the same category as sin, huh....And since I rap, and I am a calvinist I guess im at the forefront of this "new calvinism"? Give me a break.


----------



## Kevin

XBlackWaterX said:


> O. Wow. I guess rapping or listening to rap music must now be placed under as the same category as sin, huh....And since I rap, and I am a calvinist I guess im at the forefront of this "new calvinism"? Give me a break.



dude, you must post some of your rap so that we can hear it!


----------



## AThornquist

Kevin said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> O. Wow. I guess rapping or listening to rap music must now be placed under as the same category as sin, huh....And since I rap, and I am a calvinist I guess im at the forefront of this "new calvinism"? Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you must post some of your rap so that we can hear it!
Click to expand...


sinner


----------



## lynnie

_My man at T4G is Lignon Duncan and Dr. Dever and Mohler have admitted that if he goes to their church on a communion day he will be denied it._

Is this true? Anybody got a link to a proof? 

I heard Duncan at a PCRT in Philly talking about the Word of God. One of the most powerful teachings I ever heard....


----------



## Kevin

AThornquist said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> O. Wow. I guess rapping or listening to rap music must now be placed under as the same category as sin, huh....And since I rap, and I am a calvinist I guess im at the forefront of this "new calvinism"? Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you must post some of your rap so that we can hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sinner
Click to expand...


When I was your age the first commercially sucessful xn rap group were still crashing in our dorm rooms to avoid hotel bills on there way to gigs!


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Kevin said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> O. Wow. I guess rapping or listening to rap music must now be placed under as the same category as sin, huh....And since I rap, and I am a calvinist I guess im at the forefront of this "new calvinism"? Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you must post some of your rap so that we can hear it!
Click to expand...


I will. I just haven't worked on anything for a while. School and work have occupied most of my time. I will soon.

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 01:03:15 EST-----



AThornquist said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> O. Wow. I guess rapping or listening to rap music must now be placed under as the same category as sin, huh....And since I rap, and I am a calvinist I guess im at the forefront of this "new calvinism"? Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you must post some of your rap so that we can hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sinner
Click to expand...


 i hope your kidding


----------



## Gloria

JonathanHunt said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> he's judging based on his preferences, NOT the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A standard defence that those who decry 'new worship' are wrong because it is a matter of their 'personal taste'. A fair reading of his scripturally based arguments surrounding worship would be required to make such a sweeping statement.
> 
> I don't agree with the article in every respect, as Jie-Huli does, but I think you are being a little unfair.
Click to expand...


It's not my intention to be "unfair." I made my statements by comparing his definition of "worldly" with the Bible's definition of "worldly." I'll try to show you my line of thinking as briefly as possible.

I'll begin with the most obvious. Romans 12:1-2, which says:



> I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.



What is "the world" in this passage? I'd like to submit that "the world" is the world system in all it's rebelliousness and hatred of God. We are encouraged to "be transformed." How is one transformed? By the world and the spirit. Now, according to the author, this music is "worldly" because of the genre. Where in scripture is it taught or even implied that music, in and of itself, is "worldy"? He seems to be expressing a preference.

He says:



> And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine.
> .....We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.



I won't even touch on "immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture." This just shows the author's ignorance regarding the subject of Christian rap. Here are my questions: What on earth is a "musical form of worldly culture"? Where did he get this term? By what standard is he making the claim for the existence of a "musical form of worldly culture"? Where is this concept discussed explicitly or implictly in the Bible? Help me out.

Next. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the lyrics of any Christian rappers, but as an avid supporter, I can tell you that Shai Linne, Trip Lee, Flame, Tedashii, Lecrae, Timothy Brindle, etc. are only putting scripture to music. I listen hymns, psalms and Christian rap. That's how Christ exalting this stuff is. 

There is even an album titled 13 Letters with an exposition of each over music. Tim Brindle has an album "Let's Kill Sin." Sound familiar...yes...John Owen. Brindle is how I was introduced to this AWESOME theologian...

I don't want go off on a tangent. The point off all of this is, these men do not love the world and it is proven in their music and ministry. They preach that we are not to love the world, we are to shun evil, we are to love the church, we are to preach the gospel, we are to disciple and be discipled, we are use our gifts, we are to show forth fruits of the spirit, live holy lives, serve others, be faithful in our marriages, all to the glory of God out of our love for God. How is this message a "worldly" one? I can't even list all the bible verses associated with what these rappers preach. If these men were "worldly" using the biblical definition of "worldly" they would not preach these things. They would preach the opposite.

When comparing what these rappers preach with author's implied definition of "wordliness" I saw a difference. I can tell you that many of the rappers I named attend ONE church in Philly. To my knowledge, no one raps during corporate worship on the Lord's Day. If the complaint is a violation of RPW, that should do away with it. 

I could go on and on about this...lol. I think Christian rap has been discussed here ad nauseum. People have the right to have a personal preference. When those same people decide to make it their personal "don'ts," laws that everyone must abide by to be "holy," it becomes a problem. This goes for ANYTHING (music, food, drink, clothing, etc.)

I hope this makes sense! I'm trying to type this quickly because I need to get back to work.

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 04:16:05 EST-----



Archlute said:


> I won't take time to read the article (not that I would disagree with him necessarily, but I have a lot on my plate right now), but I would like to clarify something in his defense. I believe that I am speaking accurately when I say that there is a disjunction of thought between many of the younger reformed folk on this board (and in the PCA as a whole) regarding issues of musical form and many older ministers (or even Westerners in general) who would take a particular approach to music and the human spirit.
> 
> Up until the early to mid 20th century the predominant way of viewing the relationship of the arts and the human spirit was set forth by Platonic and Aristotelian aesthetic theory. The basic idea being that music has the ability, for better or for worse, to affect the human spirit, and therefore we should be careful about how we allow our art, and our music in particular, to be constructed and ingested.
> 
> This is not a bad thing, and would fall in line with the apostolic instruction regarding sobermindedness and respectability being a virtue among office holders in the church. For if it is good for them to set and example of being sober in our thoughts, and yet we listen to music that causes our thoughts to drift and flow with the induced emotions, how can we then say that exposing ourselves to these musical forms on a regular basis is following in the footsteps of apostolic teaching and its intent for the personal life of Christian?
> 
> However, in our own day, when classical thought is a widely neglected area of our educational development (dead white men, you know), and personal liberty reigns as king in our decision making processes (just read current popular critiques of the aesthetic restrictions found in Plato's _Republic_, and how _un-American_ they are  ) one begins to see why even many of today's Christians take offense at statements targeting music. They have no intellectual context in which to place such a criticism other than it being an encroachment upon their personal liberties. They think that labeling certain forms of music as worldly and others as less so is an arbitrary distinction, because they have never taken time, or maybe not had opportunity give, to think about the subject as men such as Dr. Peter Masters have been given opportunity.
> 
> The bottom line is that, whether you want to label certain styles as being worldly or otherwise, music is indeed a powerful force that affects our emotions and our thoughts. If you want to deny that you are either a liar or an android, and I would hope that you would not want to exist as either! With that in mind, our selection of music for worship needs carefully to be thought through. Are we creating soberminded disciples of Christ, or are we developing our people in less strengthening and edifying ways? I am not hesitant to say that on more than one occasion my wife and I (and on even one occasion my kids also!) have been embarrassed to see people leading worship in Reformed congregations who were swaying before the us with eyes shut and who looked like they were waiting for someone to come up and give them a kiss! When your own young daughter has to ask why the men leading worship in a local PCA congregation were sweating and "looked like he was trying to kiss his microphone", then you know that issues of worship need to be addressed!
> 
> So for all who think Peter Masters is acting like a fundy with his take on music, I think you should realize that a bit of ignorance may be going on at your own end, and that you should familiarize yourselves with historic Western thought on the matter, as well as studying that thought in the light of Scripture (the Pastoral Epistles especially) to see how much light these man may have been able to gather from general revelation on the matter. You might be surprised to find that there has been a discussion going on for quite some time on the relationship between music, the emotions, and ethics (millenia, in fact).



Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm familiar with what you've discussed here and I think it's great that you've included this information in this thread.

If one exposits Ephesians and puts a rap music track under it, what will be the effect on the emotions of the hearers? What if I put that same exposition over a piano? A violin? No music at all? I also wany to reiterate that some of the rappers being targeted in his article are RPW adherents, so the use of said music during corporate worship on the Lord's Day would not occur.

I also want to add that I don't take personal offense to when people express distaste regarding Christian rap. LOL...I do take offense when people imply that I'm not trying to live a life pleasing to God because I listen to Christian rap. I also take offense when I see attacks based on personal preferences rather than admonishments based on God's word. I've seen the Lord use these men mightily. I've seen some of these men on the streets witnessing to people who frankly, I don't think Dr. Masters would even approach. It's very unfair of him to imply what he's implied about them because they music they use to exalt Christ and is too "rhythmic" for *his *taste. The saga will continue though...LOL. As you've said, this has been going on for.ev.er.


----------



## Roldan

WOW....that article is full of logical fallacies and written by a person who does not even understand the culture and has lumped every rapper in the same category as those rappers who would pervert a music for thier own gain. Should we also condemn contemporary christian music as wordly too? being that this music has been taken to be used for God's glory, the same can go for any genre..this is ridiculous, but then again I don't expect people who are not of the culture to understand and accept the culture.

Another thing, so this is called "New Calvinism" because we don't worship like centuries old Puritans? LOL you got to be kidding. Should we dress like them too in order to be accepted, I mean where do we draw the line. 

I am Reformed and also an MC and have been doing so for 13yrs and have seen many upon many come to the Reformed Faith through my music and the music of others but better yet have been regenerated to be recipients of the Gospel through the means of preaching the Gospel through the verbal testimony of these rappers on hot beats. 

The bottom line is this Master's guy knowledge of the culture is extremely lacking and his comparison is far fetched and found wanting.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Roldan said:


> WOW....that article is full of logical fallacies and written by a person who does not even understand the culture and has lumped every rapper in the same category as those rappers who would pervert a music for thier own gain. Should we also condemn contemporary christian music as wordly too? being that this music has been taken to be used for God's glory, the same can go for any genre..this is ridiculous, but then again I don't expect people who are not of the culture to understand and accept the culture.
> 
> Another thing, so this is called "New Calvinism" because we don't worship like centuries old Puritans? LOL you got to be kidding. Should we dress like them too in order to be accepted, I mean where do we draw the line.
> 
> I am Reformed and also an MC and have been doing so for 13yrs and have seen many upon many come to the Reformed Faith through my music and the music of others but better yet have been regenerated to be recipients of the Gospel through the means of preaching the Gospel through the verbal testimony of these rappers on hot beats.
> 
> The bottom line is this Master's guy knowledge of the culture is extremely lacking and his comparison is far fetched and found wanting.



Another Reformed rapper? yikes. lol. That makes three on this board.


----------



## Prufrock

Roldan said:


> Another thing, so this is called "New Calvinism" because we don't worship like centuries old Puritans? LOL you got to be kidding. Should we dress like them too in order to be accepted, I mean where do we draw the line.



Respectfully, before you so cavalierly dismiss the concerns of a great many (i.e., the majority of the denizens of this board), it would be fitting to take some time to understand the causes of why Puritans (and the heirs today) worship the way they do; as your comment comparing worship with dress suggests you don't yet understand the theological basis for puritan worship. Our forefathers were mocked and ridiculed for their beliefs on worship, and this is why they were called "Puritans;" this importance which they placed upon it suggests it may be prudent to look into their practices a bit more closely.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Prufrock said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing, so this is called "New Calvinism" because we don't worship like centuries old Puritans? LOL you got to be kidding. Should we dress like them too in order to be accepted, I mean where do we draw the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, before you so cavalierly dismiss the concerns of a great many (i.e., the majority of the denizens of this board), it would be fitting to take some time to understand the causes of why Puritans (and the heirs today) worship the way they do; as your comment comparing worship with dress suggests you don't yet understand the theological basis for puritan worship. Our forefathers were mocked and ridiculed for their beliefs on worship, and this is why they were called "Puritans;" this importance which they placed upon it suggests it may be prudent to look into their practices a bit more closely.
Click to expand...


It might be helpful for Ricky to clarify what he means. Worship was at the core of Puritan belief - to dismiss it is to dismiss Puritanism in general. Maybe Ricky means their dress and music styles, being 400 year old, are outdated though their worship principles (namely the RPW) are still valid. If that's his point I would tend to agree with him.


----------



## LawrenceU

One thing I have been thinking about: Is there a difference between worship styles and worship principles? 

I have some thoughts, but no time to post them. What about y'all?


----------



## Confessor

LawrenceU said:


> One thing I have been thinking about: Is there a difference between worship styles and worship principles?
> 
> I have some thoughts, but no time to post them. What about y'all?



I suppose there might be if the Psalms were sung to tunes that were substantially different from the tunes of today's Psalters -- e.g., singing a Psalm to the melody of "How Great Is Our God" (a praise song). Otherwise, if the RPW entails EP (which I believe), then I see no difference.


----------



## Oecolampadius

I believe that R. Scott Clark provides a better critique of New Calvinism on his Heidelblog:

Calvinism Old and "New"

I would recommend this instead of Peter Masters' critique.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Phil Johnson has responded (awesomely graciously) to Greg Linscott who asked him for his opinion of the article:



> Given Dr. Masters' stature, his age, and his history of usefulness for the cause of Christ, I'm happy to let him have his say without feeling the need to argue with him on the points where I disagree. As you note, he makes some valid points and says vital things no one else is saying. Like you, I can't agree with him on every detail of the worship issue completely, and I certainly wouldn't place the importance he does on matters of style per se. (The doctrinal content of our singing and the mindfulness we pay to the lyrics is of much more importance in my judgment than the question of whether we're being accompanied by instruments or not.)
> 
> Anyway, he has given a message on this subject at every conference I have ever attended with him. In his mind it's the most vital issue facing the church today. No one is likely to change Dr. Masters' mind on that, so all anyone in your position (or mine) can do is listen with an open heart, glean whatever edification we can from his lectures on the worship issue, and be thankful to the Lord for the way He has used Dr. Masters.
> 
> If Dr. Masters had come to central London and taken the pulpit of a thriving church and let it die while making worship style the one issue he was passionate about, even while his evangelistic testimony in the community completely diminished--then we might be justified in taking him aside and suggesting that his priorities are upside down. But since the opposite is the case, and he took a historic but nearly-dead congregation and shepherded it through a season of growth and fruitful evangelism, so that it is now full every Sunday, I think he is entitled to speak his mind on the worship issue, and I'm thankful to the Lord for all He has accomplished through Dr. Masters.
> 
> I'm also deeply grateful for Dr. Masters' own faithfulness and clarity on all the crucial doctrinal issues of our time.
> 
> Given all that, I have no trouble listening to him with great profit even when I disagree. I just have to keep all that in clear perspective.
> 
> Hope that helps.


----------



## jogri17

lynnie said:


> _My man at T4G is Lignon Duncan and Dr. Dever and Mohler have admitted that if he goes to their church on a communion day he will be denied it._
> 
> Is this true? Anybody got a link to a proof?
> 
> I heard Duncan at a PCRT in Philly talking about the Word of God. One of the most powerful teachings I ever heard....



I got the quote wrong: He would permit a visitor to partake but not on a regular basis according to AW: adrianwarnock.com: Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord's Supper

I was correct on Mohler: Credo-Baptists, Paedo-Baptists and The Lord’s Supper Reformation Faith Today You can search albertmohler.com with the matching show dated (1-2 day difference between the blog and the show). I do specifically remember him saying that. 



-----------
And I would agree with baptists: Both baptism and a clear profession of Faith that evidences regeneration are necessary for partaking in the Lord's Supper. I just don't believe scripture commands an order in those two requirements. If my close charismtic friend came to my church on the first sunday of the month I would ask her not to partake in it even though I am sure she is a christian she has not been baptized.


----------



## christianyouth

Archlute said:


> You might be surprised to find that there has been a discussion going on for quite some time on the relationship between music, the emotions, and ethics (millenia, in fact).



This is really interesting, and it would be a good topic to explore more sometime. Thanks for the post!


----------



## jogri17

If you do not believe one of the Reformed confessions and are held under its authority as the truth interpretation of scripture you have no right to claim to be in the Reformation or Calvinistic tradition. You may be in its protestant heritage but you are not Reformed and not one of the historic Reformed folk would recognize most of the major players in the Young, restless and Reformed movement. To see the ballance to this harsh statement please see my long post.


----------



## Roldan

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing, so this is called "New Calvinism" because we don't worship like centuries old Puritans? LOL you got to be kidding. Should we dress like them too in order to be accepted, I mean where do we draw the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, before you so cavalierly dismiss the concerns of a great many (i.e., the majority of the denizens of this board), it would be fitting to take some time to understand the causes of why Puritans (and the heirs today) worship the way they do; as your comment comparing worship with dress suggests you don't yet understand the theological basis for puritan worship. Our forefathers were mocked and ridiculed for their beliefs on worship, and this is why they were called "Puritans;" this importance which they placed upon it suggests it may be prudent to look into their practices a bit more closely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be helpful for Ricky to clarify what he means. Worship was at the core of Puritan belief - to dismiss it is to dismiss Puritanism in general. Maybe Ricky means their dress and music styles, being 400 year old, are outdated though their worship principles (namely the RPW) are still valid. If that's his point I would tend to agree with him.
Click to expand...


Thank you..That is exactly what I meant. And you read me right so I think I communicated myself clearly in my opinion.

Yes their worship STYLE is outdated and we cannot formulate a doctrine on a cultural practice but soley on biblical principle.

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 10:55:34 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing, so this is called "New Calvinism" because we don't worship like centuries old Puritans? LOL you got to be kidding. Should we dress like them too in order to be accepted, I mean where do we draw the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, before you so cavalierly dismiss the concerns of a great many (i.e., the majority of the denizens of this board), it would be fitting to take some time to understand the causes of why Puritans (and the heirs today) worship the way they do; as your comment comparing worship with dress suggests you don't yet understand the theological basis for puritan worship. Our forefathers were mocked and ridiculed for their beliefs on worship, and this is why they were called "Puritans;" this importance which they placed upon it suggests it may be prudent to look into their practices a bit more closely.
Click to expand...



Sorry for the confusion.....


----------



## Prufrock

Roldan, might I sincerely ask what aspects of Puritan worship you find outdated?


----------



## Roldan

ANd for the record, there is no "New Calvinism" to critique in the first place 

We teach and preach the same Calvinism that has been taught since the Reformation and even would venture to say that we have brought to light true Reformed thought and Calvinism by engaging culture and the arts


----------



## Oecolampadius

Roldan said:


> ANd for the record, there is no "New Calvinism" to critique in the first place
> 
> We teach and preach the same Calvinism that has been taught since the Reformation and even would venture to say that we have brought to light true Reformed thought and Calvinism by engaging culture and the arts



Does this mean that what Mark Driscoll says about "New Calvinism" in the Resurgence blog, which is that primarily it is different from "Old Calvinism", is just a product of his imagination?

Here is what Driscoll says:


> Four Ways 'New Calvinism' is So Powerful
> 
> 1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
> 2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
> 3. 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.
> 4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.


----------



## Roldan

Chippy said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANd for the record, there is no "New Calvinism" to critique in the first place
> 
> We teach and preach the same Calvinism that has been taught since the Reformation and even would venture to say that we have brought to light true Reformed thought and Calvinism by engaging culture and the arts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that what Mark Driscoll says about "New Calvinism" in the Resurgence blog, which is that primarily it is different from "Old Calvinism", is just a product of his imagination?
> 
> Here is what Driscoll says:
> 
> 
> 
> Four Ways 'New Calvinism' is So Powerful
> 
> 1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
> 2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
> 3. 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.
> 4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sounds like good ol regular Calvinism to me......

1. Calvinism was always to engage culture, some did and some didn't just like we do today.

2. "Old Calvinism" fled from persecution in those cities (not because of culture ) and flooded other cities in the process.

3. Calvinism is still cessationistic but never fearful, this is an assumption forced into this description by the author for we always were til this day joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. 

4. Again another forced assumption, Calvinism has always defended itself from error and in the process those who disagreed took away their bridges and burned them themselves, just because we have always been confident in our doctrine does not equal being fearful by any means, Calvinism has ALWAYS loved other Christians, its the other Christians who feared us not vise versa, example...PURITANS

Just because Calvinist are finally starting to be more consistent in their Theology does not make it anything "New" I would rather call it TRUE CALVINISM....Que Dios te bendiga

So yes Driscoll is wrong on many counts....


----------



## Confessor

One thing's for sure; Driscoll wasn't biased in describing so-called "Old Calvinism"! (Speaking of burning bridges...)


----------



## Roldan

Gloria said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> he's judging based on his preferences, NOT the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A standard defence that those who decry 'new worship' are wrong because it is a matter of their 'personal taste'. A fair reading of his scripturally based arguments surrounding worship would be required to make such a sweeping statement.
> 
> I don't agree with the article in every respect, as Jie-Huli does, but I think you are being a little unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my intention to be "unfair." I made my statements by comparing his definition of "worldly" with the Bible's definition of "worldly." I'll try to show you my line of thinking as briefly as possible.
> 
> I'll begin with the most obvious. Romans 12:1-2, which says:
> 
> 
> 
> What is "the world" in this passage? I'd like to submit that "the world" is the world system in all it's rebelliousness and hatred of God. We are encouraged to "be transformed." How is one transformed? By the world and the spirit. Now, according to the author, this music is "worldly" because of the genre. Where in scripture is it taught or even implied that music, in and of itself, is "worldy"? He seems to be expressing a preference.
> 
> He says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine.
> .....We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't even touch on "immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture." This just shows the author's ignorance regarding the subject of Christian rap. Here are my questions: What on earth is a "musical form of worldly culture"? Where did he get this term? By what standard is he making the claim for the existence of a "musical form of worldly culture"? Where is this concept discussed explicitly or implictly in the Bible? Help me out.
> 
> Next. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the lyrics of any Christian rappers, but as an avid supporter, I can tell you that Shai Linne, Trip Lee, Flame, Tedashii, Lecrae, Timothy Brindle, etc. are only putting scripture to music. I listen hymns, psalms and Christian rap. That's how Christ exalting this stuff is.
> 
> There is even an album titled 13 Letters with an exposition of each over music. Tim Brindle has an album "Let's Kill Sin." Sound familiar...yes...John Owen. Brindle is how I was introduced to this AWESOME theologian...
> 
> I don't want go off on a tangent. The point off all of this is, these men do not love the world and it is proven in their music and ministry. They preach that we are not to love the world, we are to shun evil, we are to love the church, we are to preach the gospel, we are to disciple and be discipled, we are use our gifts, we are to show forth fruits of the spirit, live holy lives, serve others, be faithful in our marriages, all to the glory of God out of our love for God. How is this message a "worldly" one? I can't even list all the bible verses associated with what these rappers preach. If these men were "worldly" using the biblical definition of "worldly" they would not preach these things. They would preach the opposite.
> 
> When comparing what these rappers preach with author's implied definition of "wordliness" I saw a difference. I can tell you that many of the rappers I named attend ONE church in Philly. To my knowledge, no one raps during corporate worship on the Lord's Day. If the complaint is a violation of RPW, that should do away with it.
> 
> I could go on and on about this...lol. I think Christian rap has been discussed here ad nauseum. People have the right to have a personal preference. When those same people decide to make it their personal "don'ts," laws that everyone must abide by to be "holy," it becomes a problem. This goes for ANYTHING (music, food, drink, clothing, etc.)
> 
> I hope this makes sense! I'm trying to type this quickly because I need to get back to work.
> 
> -----Added 6/10/2009 at 04:16:05 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't take time to read the article (not that I would disagree with him necessarily, but I have a lot on my plate right now), but I would like to clarify something in his defense. I believe that I am speaking accurately when I say that there is a disjunction of thought between many of the younger reformed folk on this board (and in the PCA as a whole) regarding issues of musical form and many older ministers (or even Westerners in general) who would take a particular approach to music and the human spirit.
> 
> Up until the early to mid 20th century the predominant way of viewing the relationship of the arts and the human spirit was set forth by Platonic and Aristotelian aesthetic theory. The basic idea being that music has the ability, for better or for worse, to affect the human spirit, and therefore we should be careful about how we allow our art, and our music in particular, to be constructed and ingested.
> 
> This is not a bad thing, and would fall in line with the apostolic instruction regarding sobermindedness and respectability being a virtue among office holders in the church. For if it is good for them to set and example of being sober in our thoughts, and yet we listen to music that causes our thoughts to drift and flow with the induced emotions, how can we then say that exposing ourselves to these musical forms on a regular basis is following in the footsteps of apostolic teaching and its intent for the personal life of Christian?
> 
> However, in our own day, when classical thought is a widely neglected area of our educational development (dead white men, you know), and personal liberty reigns as king in our decision making processes (just read current popular critiques of the aesthetic restrictions found in Plato's _Republic_, and how _un-American_ they are  ) one begins to see why even many of today's Christians take offense at statements targeting music. They have no intellectual context in which to place such a criticism other than it being an encroachment upon their personal liberties. They think that labeling certain forms of music as worldly and others as less so is an arbitrary distinction, because they have never taken time, or maybe not had opportunity give, to think about the subject as men such as Dr. Peter Masters have been given opportunity.
> 
> The bottom line is that, whether you want to label certain styles as being worldly or otherwise, music is indeed a powerful force that affects our emotions and our thoughts. If you want to deny that you are either a liar or an android, and I would hope that you would not want to exist as either! With that in mind, our selection of music for worship needs carefully to be thought through. Are we creating soberminded disciples of Christ, or are we developing our people in less strengthening and edifying ways? I am not hesitant to say that on more than one occasion my wife and I (and on even one occasion my kids also!) have been embarrassed to see people leading worship in Reformed congregations who were swaying before the us with eyes shut and who looked like they were waiting for someone to come up and give them a kiss! When your own young daughter has to ask why the men leading worship in a local PCA congregation were sweating and "looked like he was trying to kiss his microphone", then you know that issues of worship need to be addressed!
> 
> So for all who think Peter Masters is acting like a fundy with his take on music, I think you should realize that a bit of ignorance may be going on at your own end, and that you should familiarize yourselves with historic Western thought on the matter, as well as studying that thought in the light of Scripture (the Pastoral Epistles especially) to see how much light these man may have been able to gather from general revelation on the matter. You might be surprised to find that there has been a discussion going on for quite some time on the relationship between music, the emotions, and ethics (millenia, in fact).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts on this. I'm familiar with what you've discussed here and I think it's great that you've included this information in this thread.
> 
> If one exposits Ephesians and puts a rap music track under it, what will be the effect on the emotions of the hearers? What if I put that same exposition over a piano? A violin? No music at all? I also wany to reiterate that some of the rappers being targeted in his article are RPW adherents, so the use of said music during corporate worship on the Lord's Day would not occur.
> 
> I also want to add that I don't take personal offense to when people express distaste regarding Christian rap. LOL...I do take offense when people imply that I'm not trying to live a life pleasing to God because I listen to Christian rap. I also take offense when I see attacks based on personal preferences rather than admonishments based on God's word. I've seen the Lord use these men mightily. I've seen some of these men on the streets witnessing to people who frankly, I don't think Dr. Masters would even approach. It's very unfair of him to imply what he's implied about them because they music they use to exalt Christ and is too "rhythmic" for *his *taste. The saga will continue though...LOL. As you've said, this has been going on for.ev.er.
Click to expand...


Beautifully said my sista....Folks better get on board for God is doing glorious things in our culture and very rapidly redeeming and reforming a genre and culture that noone thought possible LOL God is so awesome when He brings confusion to those who thought they were God's gift to the Church...Love it!!!!


----------



## Roldan

Gloria and I wanted to share this email with you guys sent to Masters...The person who sent this email is a member of another board and a sound brotha and good friend..



> Dear Dr. Peter Masters,
> 
> 
> Good sir. My name is Sylvester Pittman and I was born and raised in Orlando,FL in the United States. I hope all is well and that Grace is being extended to your entire organization. I was given a link to your article about Worldly Calvinism. Now off hand sir, I am a Calvinist in soteriology and Presbyterian in my ecclesiology. I Love Owens, Gill, and Spurgeon. However with the accusations you bring against this worldly Calvinism is quite unwarranted and the name in itself is offensive. Worldly is something associated with pagans and their lifestyles not the ideas worldly people come up with. That's like saying we are worldly for eating at Mcdonalds or shopping at walmart. Perhaps a pagan came up with the two business but their ideas are not evil within themselves or sinful. It's the same exact thing with Rap. Rap is a form of communication and what's being communicated depends on the persons worldview and master. Many you may of heard of worship satan and it's obvious. Yet, to bunch in Christian Rap artist as being worldly b/c they use the same form of communication as heathens is not a logical assertion and a fallacy. So, it would be most appropriate to drop off the Worldly when you connect that with the Doctrines of Grace. They are two conflicting terms and assert irrationalism.
> 
> Now on the subject of worship. We are commanded by Paul to worship God with Spiritual Songs and hymns. Please take time to listen to the words of these songs and see what's being communicated. As you have acknowledged in your article that the Truth of Scripture which is Calvinism in soteriology is being broadcast on airways and concerts. Many of us (myself included) were in heretical movements like Word of Faith, Pentecostal, and etc. Yet unfortunately none of your sermons nor books were presented to me where I lived. Infact there isn't a reformed Baptist or Presbyterian church within 20 miles of my "Urban" or "Ghetto" home. So forgive me good sir, but it is the height of arrogance to condemn or slander the means that our Sovereign God chose to get these truths to us. Forgive us for not being in a location where a church plant isn't profitable. Forgive us for being given Heretical Doctrine nearly our entire lives by churches that are in these areas but God sent a Christian Rapper with Truth to open our ears. Forgive us for this offense.
> 
> There is a lot of emotion built up in this topic. Spurgeon, Owens, and Gill all being Post Mill would certainly see how God's Word transcends not only time but cultures and sub cultures to articulate his majesty. I did not write this email for you to have pity or to condone Christian rap. That's not my objective. There's a lot of bad Christian rap out there that I will openly and freely help you refute. This email is about the expansion of YHWH's Kingdom and his means in doing so. If Christian rap and this raunchy worship isn't your cup of tea then please continue to avoid it. However, to frankly condemn it without seeing it as a means of how God reaches people many within your own denomination wouldn't even look upon is hypocrisy. Britain being the home of Dispensationalism can be blamed for many ills in our country thanks to Darby and then Scofield. So there are many concerns and accusations that can be made about your nation as well. However, this isn't about history either. We learn from history and there is plenty of truth in it. The future however is evident that this movement will continue to grow because anything that produces spiritual fruit is from above. It's not about the art form (rap) but what's being communicated is the greatest story every told.
> 
> In closing, I hope you read this email with the same mind I'm reading it through. We are co-laborers for Christ and all are called to those whom the Father will draw to himself. Please feel free to respond back with your thoughts because as an Elder and learnt man of the Faith I'm sure I can learn a lot from you. If my emotions and sensuality has blinded my mind from seeing the truth I pray the Spirit shines light on it. I hope to hear from you soon.
> 
> Hail King Jesus,
> Sylvester Pittman Jr.



Hopefully he will get a response.......


----------



## Confessor

I'm not sure about Owen or Spurgeon, but I'm fairly certain that Gill was historic premil.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

*Rap*



XBlackWaterX said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> O. Wow. I guess rapping or listening to rap music must now be placed under as the same category as sin, huh....And since I rap, and I am a calvinist I guess im at the forefront of this "new calvinism"? Give me a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you must post some of your rap so that we can hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will. I just haven't worked on anything for a while. School and work have occupied most of my time. I will soon.
> 
> -----Added 6/10/2009 at 01:03:15 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you must post some of your rap so that we can hear it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sinner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i hope your kidding
Click to expand...




Julio,

Some think any music that has a beat is of the devil. I have a neighbor that boasts that there Baptist Church only has a piano and someone suggested an electric keyboad and drums and they were rebuked. "those are tools of the devil". So I guess to some if you listen to Rap you are a SINNER. Funny, I know some who refuse to show any emotion towards Jesus yet act like a lunatic at a Football game. I like Christian Rap (Shia Linne, Cross Movement, LaCrae, and I look soft intrumental music and I like hymns and whatever else falls under Ephesians 5:19 "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;")

Some like to worship to Bach, other to Billy Jo Jim Bob and a Banjo, some to Contemporary Worship, some to Rap. As long as it is (making melody in your heart to the Lord) and not to entertain man I say Knock yourself out. It is all a matter of personal preference. So bust out a rhyme and praise Jesus!!


----------



## dbroyles

*Owen Quoted*



Kauffeld said:


> John Owen sums up this example in this quote: “The custom of sinning takes away the sense of it, the course of the world takes away the shame of it”



I love this quotation by Owen. I just looked it up online -- BOOK 3, Chapter 1 on the "Work of the Holy Spirit in the New Creation by Regeneration." It's found near the end of the chapter where Owen expounds on Ephesians 4:19 - "Being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness with greediness."

And also, thanks for the rest of your comments in this post. I found them helpful.


----------



## Confessor

The Author of my Faith said:


> Some like to worship to Bach, other to Billy Jo Jim Bob and a Banjo, some to Contemporary Worship, some to Rap. As long as it is (making melody in your heart to the Lord) and not to entertain man I say Knock yourself out. It is all a matter of personal preference. So bust out a rhyme and praise Jesus!!



Well, the regulative principle of worship demands only that elements prescribed in Scripture are permitted in worship -- and not only permitted, but required. All elements not prescribed are forbidden. As a result, it's not all a matter of personal preference.

However, it is entirely a matter of personal preference regarding one's own music tastes _outside of worship_. For instance, I enjoy metal, though I would never advocate its inclusion in a worship service (per the RPW, not per the majority opinion on metal). This would mean that keyboards are excluded by the witness of Scripture, not because they are inherently "of the devil."


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> The Author of my Faith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some like to worship to Bach, other to Billy Jo Jim Bob and a Banjo, some to Contemporary Worship, some to Rap. As long as it is (making melody in your heart to the Lord) and not to entertain man I say Knock yourself out. It is all a matter of personal preference. So bust out a rhyme and praise Jesus!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the regulative principle of worship demands only that elements prescribed in Scripture are permitted in worship -- and not only permitted, but required. All elements not prescribed are forbidden. As a result, it's not all a matter of personal preference.
> 
> However, it is entirely a matter of personal preference regarding one's own music tastes _outside of worship_. For instance, I enjoy metal, though I would never advocate its inclusion in a worship service (per the RPW, not per the majority opinion on metal). This would mean that keyboards are excluded by the witness of Scripture, not because they are inherently "of the devil."
Click to expand...


And thats a whole other subject that a plethora of threads on this board is dedicated to. But you raise a good point, noone ever said that Christian rappers are going to rap in worship service (though some do and that is where I draw the line) not only is it a form of CLEAN entertainment but also a means of teaching.


----------



## Jie-Huli

Roldan said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Author of my Faith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some like to worship to Bach, other to Billy Jo Jim Bob and a Banjo, some to Contemporary Worship, some to Rap. As long as it is (making melody in your heart to the Lord) and not to entertain man I say Knock yourself out. It is all a matter of personal preference. So bust out a rhyme and praise Jesus!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the regulative principle of worship demands only that elements prescribed in Scripture are permitted in worship -- and not only permitted, but required. All elements not prescribed are forbidden. As a result, it's not all a matter of personal preference.
> 
> However, it is entirely a matter of personal preference regarding one's own music tastes _outside of worship_. For instance, I enjoy metal, though I would never advocate its inclusion in a worship service (per the RPW, not per the majority opinion on metal). This would mean that keyboards are excluded by the witness of Scripture, not because they are inherently "of the devil."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thats a whole other subject that a plethora of threads on this board is dedicated to. But you raise a good point, noone ever said that Christian rappers are going to rap in worship service (though some do and that is where I draw the line) not only is it a form of CLEAN entertainment but also a means of teaching.
Click to expand...


I really do not wish to enter into a long discussion about music at the moment - again, the article that is the subject of this discussion is about much more than music, as large an issue as that is. I am glad to see the article itself being read by many people, and I just hope that many people will read the article with an open mind and not reflexively dismiss it because it seems "fundamentalistic" compared to the circles they are used to travelling in. 

The only thing I would like to add, very briefly - because I think this is a most important matter that Christians need to be clear on - is that I do not believe it is at all proper to make such a sharp distinction between what is done during formal public worship and what is done outside of public worship - as though the regulative principle had relevance _only_ to public worship. 

I would agree that, in the strictest sense, the RPW regulates primarily stated times of worship - public, private and family. But at the same time, we must recognise that much of what is contained in these principles must surely apply _whenever_ we are singing about the things of the Lord. If we agree that styles such as rap are not appropriate in public worship, we must be clear on why that is. Is the RPW simply an arbitrary rule which we just follow in public because we are following what is written in a systematic theology, or are we actually appreciating the spiritual reasons behind the RPW? Why is it that God does not want us to worship Him in ways that He has not prescribed? To put it another way, there are reasons why everything that is excluded from public worship by the RPW is excluded - the reasons are not arbitrary. And if we truly appreciate these spiritual reasons, it is difficult to see why we would just put them in a box as applying only during the formal worship services (which would seem at base a most legalistic approach) and not apply these principles at any other time that we are singing about the things of God. The RPW is surely normative for the whole of life.

It is useful to remind ourselves that the RPW is closely connected with the 2nd Commandment, which forbids us from making graven images of God. But throughout reformed history, it has been clearly understood that it is not just forbidden to make graven images of God to use in worship services; it is forbidden to make graven images at all, whether for "private" use or otherwise. The same must surely apply to music. If a worship style is not appropriate for public worship, surely it is not appropriate for private worship either? For the God who is being addressed in worship is the same whether we are alone, together with the body of Christ for stated worship, or in some other sort of gathering. If our singing/music is truly for the purpose of worshipping God, the question must be asked why the musical enjoyments of the worshippers would enter into the discussion at all.

Perhaps some will say that what is going on in Christian rap is not actually "worship" at all, but this raises other serious difficulties. Is it possible or appropriate to sing/make music about the things of God without worshipping Him? I cannot see that the Scriptures ever mention singing other than in the context of worship. Singing/music is not, for example, mentioned in the Bible as a means of evangelism, so there is no Scriptural warrant for viewing it as such. And I cannot imagine how the things of Christ can be put to song and regarded simply as a matter of "entertainment".

I do not write the above in a censorious spirit, but I do think these issues deserve serious contemplation by everyone professing the name of Christ.

Respectfully,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Roldan

Jie-Huli said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the regulative principle of worship demands only that elements prescribed in Scripture are permitted in worship -- and not only permitted, but required. All elements not prescribed are forbidden. As a result, it's not all a matter of personal preference.
> 
> However, it is entirely a matter of personal preference regarding one's own music tastes _outside of worship_. For instance, I enjoy metal, though I would never advocate its inclusion in a worship service (per the RPW, not per the majority opinion on metal). This would mean that keyboards are excluded by the witness of Scripture, not because they are inherently "of the devil."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thats a whole other subject that a plethora of threads on this board is dedicated to. But you raise a good point, noone ever said that Christian rappers are going to rap in worship service (though some do and that is where I draw the line) not only is it a form of CLEAN entertainment but also a means of teaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really do not wish to enter into a long discussion about music at the moment - again, the article that is the subject of this discussion is about much more than music, as large an issue as that is. I am glad to see the article itself being read by many people, and I just hope that many people will read the article with an open mind and not reflexively dismiss it because it seems "fundamentalistic" compared to the circles they are used to travelling in.
> 
> The only thing I would like to add, very briefly - because I think this is a most important matter that Christians need to be clear on - is that I do not believe it is at all proper to make such a sharp distinction between what is done during formal public worship and what is done outside of public worship - as though the regulative principle had relevance _only_ to public worship.
> 
> I would agree that, in the strictest sense, the RPW regulates primarily stated times of worship - public, private and family. But at the same time, we must recognise that much of what is contained in these principles must surely apply _whenever_ we are singing about the things of the Lord. If we agree that styles such as rap are not appropriate in public worship, we must be clear on why that is. Is the RPW simply an arbitrary rule which we just follow in public because we are following what is written in a systematic theology, or are we actually appreciating the spiritual reasons behind the RPW? Why is it that God does not want us to worship Him in ways that He has not prescribed? To put it another way, there are reasons why everything that is excluded from public worship by the RPW is excluded - the reasons are not arbitrary. And if we truly appreciate these spiritual reasons, it is difficult to see why we would just put them in a box as applying only during the formal worship services (which would seem at base a most legalistic approach) and not apply these principles at any other time that we are singing about the things of God. The RPW is surely normative for the whole of life.
> 
> It is useful to remind ourselves that the RPW is closely connected with the 2nd Commandment, which forbids us from making graven images of God. But throughout reformed history, it has been clearly understood that it is not just forbidden to make graven images of God to use in worship services; it is forbidden to make graven images at all, whether for "private" use or otherwise. The same must surely apply to music. If a worship style is not appropriate for public worship, surely it is not appropriate for private worship either? For the God who is being addressed in worship is the same whether we are alone, together with the body of Christ for stated worship, or in some other sort of gathering. If our singing/music is truly for the purpose of worshipping God, the question must be asked why the musical enjoyments of the worshippers would enter into the discussion at all.
> 
> Perhaps some will say that what is going on in Christian rap is not actually "worship" at all, but this raises other serious difficulties. Is it possible or appropriate to sing/make music about the things of God without worshipping Him? I cannot see that the Scriptures ever mention singing other than in the context of worship. Singing/music is not, for example, mentioned in the Bible as a means of evangelism, so there is no Scriptural warrant for viewing it as such. And I cannot imagine how the things of Christ can be put to song and regarded simply as a matter of "entertainment".
> 
> I do not write the above in a censorious spirit, but I do think these issues deserve serious contemplation by everyone professing the name of Christ.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Jie-Huli
Click to expand...


Its for worship only brother......to extend it further than that is to be totally irrelevant to culture and to peoples. Further, to extend the RP and I can't emphasis enough the W, is to take away any form of music to listen to at all for that matter, especially those who hold to the EP principle. We are not considering the consequences of our ideas when we exaggerate principles.

To all, like it or not the bottom line is this, God is being Glorified through this music and thousands are coming to the Reformed Faith because of it. Are any of the Strict RPW or EP folks going into the ghettos and hoods to communicate this faith? I sure don't see it and I've been in Urban missions for 13yrs now and have seen rapid growth in our culture in respects to sound doctrine because of this music and its teachings, so go figure.....


----------



## Confessor

Roldan said:


> Its for worship only brother......to extend it further than that is to be totally irrelevant to culture and to peoples.



He does make a good point, however, in pointing out that the RPW applies to non-corporate worship, including family and private.

Furthermore, as Jie-Huli noted, I'm not sure how I understand exactly the demarcation between corporate worship and rapping about Jesus publicly. There certainly seems to be a difference (otherwise it would seem to be a censorship on mentioning Jesus, because "that counts as worship!"), but I can't put my finger on it. If there is no difference, however, then the RPW applies.


----------



## Jie-Huli

Roldan said:


> Its for worship only brother......to extend it further than that is to be totally irrelevant to culture and to peoples. Further, to extend the RP and I can't emphasis enough the W, is to take away any form of music to listen to at all for that matter, especially those who hold to the EP principle. We are not considering the consequences of our ideas when we exaggerate principles.



All right.

To be clear, I am, at the moment, speaking only about music/singing in relation to the things of the Lord.

I would like to ask you, on the basis of your response above, the following questions:

1) When you say that the RPW is "for worship", what do you mean by worship? Do you mean that the RPW applies only to the public services held by the church, or do you mean that it applies to all worship whenever and wherever it occurs, whether in the church, at home or at other gatherings of believers?

2) Do you believe it is possible to ever sing/make music about the things of God without there being an element of worship in it?

3) Is there any Scriptural warrant for using music in relation to the things of God in any way other than in worship?

4) Given that the RPW is derived largely from the 2nd Commandment, if the RPW can be reduced to applying to the things of God only in certain settings, does this mean that you would be allowed to have little statues representing the three members of the trinity in your house as long as you did not bring them to the stated times of worship?

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 01:25:20 EST-----



Roldan said:


> To all, like it or not the bottom line is this, God is being Glorified through this music and thousands are coming to the Reformed Faith because of it. Are any of the Strict RPW or EP folks going into the ghettos and hoods to communicate this faith? I sure don't see it and I've been in Urban missions for 13yrs now and have seen rapid growth in our culture in respects to sound doctrine because of this music and its teachings, so go figure.....



Just to be clear, the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Dr Masters' church) is itself situated in what has become one of the roughest parts of London - surrounded by gigantic low income housing estates and with crime and gang activity rife in the area. Most of the members purposely live in this area specifically in order to be intimately involved in the ministry of the church, and there are evangelistic teams out constantly on the streets and in the parks reaching out to people of every possible description in witness. And people from every background are being saved continually, by the Lord's grace, through the preaching of the Word. Whatever else may be said, it is certainly possible to do this work without rap and pop music.


----------



## Roldan

Jie-Huli said:


> Just to be clear, the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Dr Masters' church) is itself situated in what has become one of the roughest parts of London - surrounded by gigantic low income housing estates and with crime and gang activity rife in the area. Most of the members purposely live in this area specifically in order to be intimately involved in the ministry of the church, and there are evangelistic teams out constantly on the streets and in the parks reaching out to people of every possible description in witness. And people from every background are being saved continually, by the Lord's grace, through the preaching of the Word. Whatever else may be said, it is certainly possible to do this work without rap and pop music.



Super, that still doesn't negate the use of music by any means. God can use whatever means He wants to communicate His Word, if He used a jackass/donkey to communicate I think him using human beings and their poetry on beats to do so as well.

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 01:40:34 EST-----



Confessor said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its for worship only brother......to extend it further than that is to be totally irrelevant to culture and to peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does make a good point, however, in pointing out that the RPW applies to non-corporate worship, including family and private.
Click to expand...


Says who? The bible sure doesn't.....you mean to tell me that on my family nigh with my kids that I can't even play a board game that teaches the gospel and talks about Jesus without it being called "worship"? This is just silly to be quit frank. The RPW is for corporate worship only, again to exaggerate the principle beyond its limits is to make basic entertainment of no effect and basically we must live in the 17th-18th centuries. We can't everytime we disagree with something or don't like something right away pull the RPW card...frustrating


----------



## Confessor

Roldan said:


> Says who? The bible sure doesn't.....you mean to tell me that on my family nigh with my kids that I can't even play a board game that teaches the gospel and talks about Jesus without it being called "worship"? This is just silly to be quit frank. The RPW is for corporate worship only, again to exaggerate the principle beyond its limits is to make basic entertainment of no effect and basically we must live in the 17th-18th centuries.



Where does the Bible restrict it to corporate worship? I am fairly sure that the men who originally deduced the RPW from Scripture also applied it to family and private worship, although I admittedly am ignorant of the specific Scriptural warrant for such an application.

But the question you raise about board games brings up a point that can assist us in understanding what I asked before? How is it possible for Jesus to be involved in an event (e.g. as a rapper's lyrics) without necessitating that the event be worship? I for one think that it is, but I don't know how.


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> Where does the Bible restrict it to corporate worship? I am fairly sure that the men who originally deduced the RPW from Scripture also applied it to family and private worship, although I admittedly am ignorant of the specific Scriptural warrant for such an application.



Where in the bible does it extend the principle beyond corporate worship? I would reccomend John Frames book of RPW.



> But the question you raise about board games brings up a point that can assist us in understanding what I asked before? How is it possible for Jesus to be involved in an event (e.g. as a rapper's lyrics) without necessitating that the event be worship? I for one think that it is, but I don't know how.



So according to your reservation then, playing a board game is also considered worship since Jesus is involved or anything that involves speaking of Jesus is worship....you see my brotha this is the logical conclusion that one must lead to in order to hold to extending the RPW to anything that mentions Jesus....I for one think that its a silly exaggeration to say the least.


----------



## Confessor

John Frame's view of the RPW is unconfessional, essentially a NPW, because he defines worship so broadly as to be inclusive of pretty much anything. He makes no real distinction between church on Sunday mornings and work during the week.



Roldan said:


> So according to your reservation then, playing a board game is also considered worship since Jesus is involved or anything that involves speaking of Jesus is worship....you see my brotha this is the logical conclusion that one must lead to in order to hold to extending the RPW to anything that mentions Jesus....I for one think that its a silly exaggeration to say the least.



I'm sorry that I was unclear. I said I think there _is_ some way to distinguish between events that mention Christ and worship events that are under the purview of the RPW. However, I don't know what that distinction is.

That is what Jie-Huli was asking above; he was asking how rapping about Jesus is substantially different from corporate worship. As I said, I believe _that_ it is without knowing _how_ it is at the moment.


----------



## Jie-Huli

Roldan said:


> Jie-Huli said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Dr Masters' church) is itself situated in what has become one of the roughest parts of London - surrounded by gigantic low income housing estates and with crime and gang activity rife in the area. Most of the members purposely live in this area specifically in order to be intimately involved in the ministry of the church, and there are evangelistic teams out constantly on the streets and in the parks reaching out to people of every possible description in witness. And people from every background are being saved continually, by the Lord's grace, through the preaching of the Word. Whatever else may be said, it is certainly possible to do this work without rap and pop music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Super, that still doesn't negate the use of music by any means. God can use whatever means He wants to communicate His Word, if He used a jackass/donkey to communicate I think him using human beings and their poetry on beats to do so as well.
Click to expand...


Well, you have implied or asserted many times in this discussion that people who adhere strictly to the RPW and traditional worship principles are not interested in witnessing to people who live in urban sub-cultures (i.e., "Are any of the Strict RPW or EP folks going into the ghettos and hoods to communicate this faith? I sure don't see it . . .") and I was simply pointing out that this is unfair and untrue. Come to Elephant & Castle, London, and you will certainly see what you say you've never seen.


----------



## Roldan

Jie-Huli said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jie-Huli said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Dr Masters' church) is itself situated in what has become one of the roughest parts of London - surrounded by gigantic low income housing estates and with crime and gang activity rife in the area. Most of the members purposely live in this area specifically in order to be intimately involved in the ministry of the church, and there are evangelistic teams out constantly on the streets and in the parks reaching out to people of every possible description in witness. And people from every background are being saved continually, by the Lord's grace, through the preaching of the Word. Whatever else may be said, it is certainly possible to do this work without rap and pop music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Super, that still doesn't negate the use of music by any means. God can use whatever means He wants to communicate His Word, if He used a jackass/donkey to communicate I think him using human beings and their poetry on beats to do so as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you have implied or asserted many times in this discussion that people who adhere strictly to the RPW and traditional worship principles are not interested in witnessing to people who live in urban sub-cultures (i.e., "Are any of the Strict RPW or EP folks going into the ghettos and hoods to communicate this faith? I sure don't see it . . .") and I was simply pointing out that this is unfair and untrue. Come to Elephant & Castle, London, and you will certainly see what you say you've never seen.
Click to expand...


Well that would be pretty sad that I would actually have to fly to another continent to actually see this......that furthers my point


----------



## Confessor

Roldan said:


> Well that would be pretty sad that I would actually have to fly to another continent to actually see this......that furthers my point



Ricky, come on. He made a good point. You said that "strict RPW" people do not reach out to urban areas, and he pointed to his own church as a counterexample. He was not saying that his is the only example.

Besides, this is not at all about whether "strict RPW" people or Christian rappers are more effective by our own systems of counting effectiveness, but whether the RPW allows for Christian rap in the first place. And to repeat my stance on the issue, I do believe there is a distinction between Christian music (e.g. Christian metal, Christian rap) and worship music (i.e. that is under the RPW), but I can't put my finger on it.


----------



## Jie-Huli

Roldan said:


> Where in the bible does it extend the principle beyond corporate worship?



With due respect, to say that the RPW applies only to stated times of corporate worship is an extremely deficient understanding of it. Of course the phrase "Regulative Principle of Worship" is a theological term and does not appear directly in the Scriptures, but the principles we are talking about certainly apply to ALL worship. It is the "Regulative Principle of Worship", not the "Regulative Principle of Corporate Worship", and the Biblical principles apply to _the essence of worshipping God _- it is about worship itself, it is not merely some useful tool for keeping order in churches.

I would again ask, what exactly are the spiritual principles behind the RPW? We must not view this as just some formalistic rule to be followed in certain settings, we must truly grasp the spiritual implications and depths of it - and once we do, it is clear that these implications cannot by any means be limited to certain settings. If we truly take these great, soaring principles seriously, how can we think that they suddenly cease to be of any relevance the moment we walk out the doors of our church's sanctuary?

If something is not appropriate for worship, then it is not appropriate for worship, full stop. The God being sung to in private or at unofficial gatherings is the same God that is being sung to in the corporate worship of the church, and the same reverence is due to Him no matter what the setting.


----------



## historyb

So what musical stuff is allowed under this RPW? (Note I am not RPW, just wondering)


----------



## Confessor

Jie-Huli,

How would you answer Ricky's example above? He said that the view that anything involved with Jesus is worship would logically conclude that one cannot use board games to learn about the Bible, because board games are not prescribed in Scripture as elements of worship.


----------



## Jie-Huli

As to the question of what properly falls within the definition of "worship" as referred to in the Regulative Principle of Worship, it would seem clear to me that this refers to any sort of praise directed towards God, no matter the setting. This may indeed be distinguished from having normal conversations between individual people about the things of God, which would not, strictly speaking, come within the definition of "worship" as it is not directed specifically towards God --- though of course the principle of reverence towards His name will always apply.


----------



## Prufrock

historyb said:


> So what musical stuff is allowed under this RPW? (Note I am not RPW, just wondering)


Doug:

Well, debate about what the RPW entails strictly with respect to music (whether it be A Capella Exclusive Psalmody, or whether non-inspired hymns are also allowed) is currently restricted to the moderated EP sub-forums.

_But_, since this board is governed by the confessions which we all agree at least teach the RPW, there are two main positions on the board:

1.) Those who believe that only the Psalms may be sung, and that without instrumentation; and, 

2.) Those who believe that non-canonical hymns may be sung as well, and this is frequently accompanied by the belief that these songs may be accompanied by the use of a musical instrument _strictly as a circumstance_, not an actual part of worship, in order to assist the singing.

This being said, believing in regulated worship, another things which (I think) we all agree upon is that the use of singing is regulated based upon its _purpose_ as well: that is, we see that singing of psalms (and hymns, if you fall into category #2) is instituted for some of the following reasons: 1.) To sing praise back to God in response to his word spoken to us; 2.) To recount to one another the works of God, speaking the word of God to one another, whereby the Spirit works to put us in remembrance, the convict, sanctify and assure our hearts. This would be opposed to the basically mystical _immediate_ "encounter of God" that is targeted in much of contemporary evangelical worship, whereby in singing many powerful, emotional songs in a row, the worshiper is basically brought into a trance, which is referred to as "drawing into the presence of God."

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## Confessor

Jie-Huli said:


> As to the question of what properly falls within the definition of "worship" as referred to in the Regulative Principle of Worship, it would seem clear to me that this refers to any sort of praise directed towards God, no matter the setting. This may indeed be distinguished from having normal conversations between individual people about the things of God, which would not, strictly speaking, come within the definition of "worship" as it is not directed specifically towards God --- though of course the principle of reverence towards His name will always apply.



I remember before in a RPW thread, I asked someone (Rev. Winzer, "armourbearer," I believe) if this would make it wrong to sing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" as I'm taking a walk -- assuming that EP is implied by the RPW. He responded that it would be permissible, but I can't remember his reasoning.


----------



## historyb

Prufrock said:


> historyb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what musical stuff is allowed under this RPW? (Note I am not RPW, just wondering)
> 
> 
> 
> Doug:
> 
> Well, debate about what the RPW entails strictly with respect to music (whether it be A Capella Exclusive Psalmody, or whether non-inspired hymns are also allowed) is currently restricted to the moderated EP sub-forums.
> 
> _But_, since this board is governed by the confessions which we all agree at least teach the RPW, there are two main positions on the board:
> 
> 1.) Those who believe that only the Psalms may be sung, and that without instrumentation; and,
> 
> 2.) Those who believe that non-canonical hymns may be sung as well, and this is frequently accompanied by the belief that these songs may be accompanied by the use of a musical instrument _strictly as a circumstance_, not an actual part of worship, in order to assist the singing.
> 
> This being said, believing in regulated worship, another things which (I think) we all agree upon is that the use of singing is regulated based upon its _purpose_ as well: that is, we see that singing of psalms (and hymns, if you fall into category #2) is instituted for some of the following reasons: 1.) To sing praise back to God in response to his word spoken to us; 2.) To recount to one another the works of God, speaking the word of God to one another, whereby the Spirit works to put us in remembrance, the convict, sanctify and assure our hearts. This would be opposed to the basically mystical _immediate_ "encounter of God" that is targeted in much of contemporary evangelical worship, whereby in singing many powerful, emotional songs in a row, the worshiper is basically brought into a trance, which is referred to as "drawing into the presence of God."
> 
> I hope this is helpful.
Click to expand...



Thank you


----------



## Jie-Huli

Confessor said:


> Jie-Huli,
> 
> How would you answer Ricky's example above? He said that the view that anything involved with Jesus is worship would logically conclude that one cannot use board games to learn about the Bible, because board games are not prescribed in Scripture as elements of worship.



Apologies, Ben, I made my above post before I saw yours. I think I have already answered this in essence in my post just above, but just to be more specific - I do not think everything involved with Jesus is worship, strictly speaking - only acts which are specifically offered in praise towards God directly. So, no, a board game to learn about the Bible would not fall under the regulative principle of worship.

Someone may then say that Christian rap is not being offered as praise towards God, but is being used purely as a means of communicating teaching to other people. But in the Bible, singing in the Christian life is always related to worship - I do not think singing about Biblical truth can ever be segregated from the act of worship, as the act of singing itself contemplates a sweet and joyful proclamation of love towards God. There is no warrant in the Scriptures for using song as purely a means of teaching others.

And overriding everything, there is always the great principle, which is not limited to what is strictly speaking "worship", that God's name is to be given great reverence at all times.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Confessor

Jie-Huli said:


> Apologies, Ben, I made my above post before I saw yours. I think I have already answered this in essence in my post just above, but just to be more specific - I do not think everything involved with Jesus is worship, strictly speaking - only acts which are specifically offered in praise towards God directly. So, no, a board game to learn about the Bible would not fall under the regulative principle of worship.



Thank you for responding. How would you reply to the "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" example above? If EP is correct, then would it be wrong to sing that at any time whatsoever? If not, why not?

Just to let you know, I'm not trying to single you out here.


----------



## Jie-Huli

Confessor said:


> Jie-Huli said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies, Ben, I made my above post before I saw yours. I think I have already answered this in essence in my post just above, but just to be more specific - I do not think everything involved with Jesus is worship, strictly speaking - only acts which are specifically offered in praise towards God directly. So, no, a board game to learn about the Bible would not fall under the regulative principle of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for responding. How would you reply to the "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" example above? If EP is correct, then would it be wrong to sing that at any time whatsoever? If not, why not?
> 
> Just to let you know, I'm not trying to single you out here.
Click to expand...


Well, I would recognise that there is something of a difference between stated worship (whether corporate, family or secret) and other kinds of singing. What I have meant to say above (and I am not certain whether I have expressed it entirely clearly) is that even if the RPW is strictly speaking _regulative_ only during times of stated worship (corporate, family and secret), it is _normative_ at any time we are singing about the things of the Lord. Thus, I suppose, an EP adherent might believe he could sings hymns for personal reflection outside of stated worship, but would still be bound by the normative principles (such as reverence, holiness, separation, etc.) which would always place bounds around the kinds of music he would connect with the things of God.

Respectfully,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Confessor

Jie-Huli said:


> Well, I would recognise that there is something of a difference between stated worship (whether corporate, family or secret) and other kinds of singing. What I have meant to say above (and I am not certain whether I have expressed it entirely clearly) is that even if the RPW is strictly speaking _regulative_ only during times of stated worship (corporate, family and secret), it is _normative_ at any time we are singing about the things of the Lord. Thus, I suppose, an EP adherent might believe he could sings hymns for personal reflection outside of stated worship, but would still be bound by the normative principles (such as reverence, holiness, separation, etc.) which would always place bounds around the kinds of music he would connect with the things of God.



Ahhh, I understand you now. Your previous statements about not "putting the RPW in a box" after leaving worship makes more sense. The regulations still are in effect, but only in a normative sense, maintaing the _principles_ of worship.

So then, would you deem Christian rap/metal to be off-limits because it is not done with reverence, holiness, etc.? I'm trying to work with you here to discover the difference between stated worship and other types of singing, as you noted exists.


----------



## Jie-Huli

Confessor said:


> So then, would you deem Christian rap/metal to be off-limits because it is not done with reverence, holiness, etc.? I'm trying to work with you here to discover the difference between stated worship and other types of singing, as you noted exists.




Essentially, yes. The Regulative Principle states that "Whatever is not Commanded is Forbidden". This is the basic rule, and a right one it is.

But what are the principles and spiritual reasons behind the rule? Why is it exactly that God has forbidden human innovation in His worship? I am not saying that we can understand all the reasons behind God's commands exhaustively (and certainly we must just obey no matter what our level of understanding), but we can certainly know a great deal from what has been revealed in Scripture. And the principles behind the RPW include the fact that God is holy and separate, that His name is to be treated with great reverence and godly fear, that the things of God are sacred and serious and not to be blended with lesser things or worship made an occassion for showing off human ingenuity. And these principles surely apply whenever the things of God are being sung about.

And although it may not be a popular view, and I do not have the time to expand upon it now, (and I do not wish to hurt the feelings of anyone who is caught up in these things), I do believe that to mix rap, pop and other such genres with the things of Christ does violate these principles.

At any rate, I never meant to turn this into a discussion mainly about the RPW, as, again, Dr Masters' article that is the subject of this thread is about more than that and well worthy of being read and letting it speak for itself.

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Confessor

Jie-Huli said:


> And although it may not be a popular view, and I do not have the time to expand upon it now, (and I do not wish to hurt the feelings of anyone who is caught up in these things), I do believe that to mix rap, pop and other such genres with the things of Christ does violate these principles.
> 
> At any rate, I never meant to turn this into a discussion mainly about the RPW, as, again, Dr Masters' article that is the subject of this thread is about more than that and well worthy of being read and letting it speak for itself.



Thank you for explaining yourself.


----------



## Archlute

Roldan said:


> Beautifully said my sista....Folks better get on board for God is doing glorious things in our culture and very rapidly redeeming and reforming a genre and culture that noone thought possible LOL God is so awesome when He brings confusion to those who thought they were God's gift to the Church...Love it!!!!



 I don't think we could consider this a wee bit of unwarranted and self-serving triumphalism, could we?


----------



## JonathanHunt

Feelings certainly run high on this subject.

I'm sorry to have read one or two presumptious comments about Dr Masters - i.e. - he wouldn't go and talk to people in a ghetto, etc, etc. He wouldn't talk to rappers... what a load of ... sheer presumption. There, I'm being polite.

At least nobody on the PB has called him a 'retard'. I found that on a blog yesterday. Nice, huh?


----------



## Confessor

He's a retard.

Didn't see your post there, Jonathan.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

JonathanHunt said:


> Feelings certainly run high on this subject.
> 
> I'm sorry to have read one or two presumptious comments about Dr Masters - i.e. - he wouldn't go and talk to people in a ghetto, etc, etc. He wouldn't talk to rappers... what a load of ... sheer presumption. There, I'm being polite.
> 
> At least nobody on the PB has called him a 'retard'. I found that on a blog yesterday. Nice, huh?



Regardless of this presumption. What is a valid argument, and no one can sincerly argue... Is that God has worked through Christian rap. Everyone has their own place to reach. One in the jungles of peru, the other in a suburban area, and some have been reached through Christian rap.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Confessor said:


> He's a retard.
> 
> Didn't see your post there, Jonathan.



You are young, you will learn.

Hey, if Dr Masters read your post, he would laugh. He's a good sport.

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 07:17:13 EST-----



XBlackWaterX said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feelings certainly run high on this subject.
> 
> I'm sorry to have read one or two presumptious comments about Dr Masters - i.e. - he wouldn't go and talk to people in a ghetto, etc, etc. He wouldn't talk to rappers... what a load of ... sheer presumption. There, I'm being polite.
> 
> At least nobody on the PB has called him a 'retard'. I found that on a blog yesterday. Nice, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of this presumption. What is a valid argument, and no one can sincerly argue... Is that God has worked through Christian rap. Everyone has their own place to reach. One in the jungles of peru, the other in a suburban area, and some have been reached through Christian rap.
Click to expand...


I know. I hated rap - until I heard some reformed rap. It is very powerful stuff. But his beef is not with rap specifically, but with every music style he views as associated with an anti-God culture. Anyway, I'm not his apologist. I had my reasons for wanting this article to get 'out there' which I can't go into on a public board, but I am glad for all the responses and for those who have written to him. I don't know if he will be able to reply, he is fairly unwell. I am 32, and I have known him all my life. My dad is one of the deacons at the Tabernacle. I have sent him emails several times, and never had a response. But he has read them all and knows about them. I hope that some response goes out to those who do contact in a more 'external' sense. I'd be interested to know.

J


----------



## Confessor

JonathanHunt said:


> You are young, you will learn.
> 
> *Hey, if Dr Masters read your post, he would laugh. He's a good sport.*



This made me smile.


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would be pretty sad that I would actually have to fly to another continent to actually see this......that furthers my point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricky, come on. He made a good point. You said that "strict RPW" people do not reach out to urban areas, and he pointed to his own church as a counterexample. He was not saying that his is the only example.
Click to expand...


Actually I NEVER said that and you guys have misinterpreted what I said...I never said that there is NO strict RPW people who do not reach out to urban areas, but I GUARANTEE you guys that is not the norm.....especially in my experience. This problem is nothing new guys lets not act like I'm the first to complain about this, articles upon articles have been written about these problems, but as you said thats neither here nor there.

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 07:46:11 EST-----



Archlute said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beautifully said my sista....Folks better get on board for God is doing glorious things in our culture and very rapidly redeeming and reforming a genre and culture that noone thought possible LOL God is so awesome when He brings confusion to those who thought they were God's gift to the Church...Love it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we could consider this a wee bit of unwarranted and self-serving triumphalism, could we?
Click to expand...


Man, you guys read so much into everything.....

I stand by my above assertion......its my opinion and I have a right to it...

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 07:47:40 EST-----



JonathanHunt said:


> Feelings certainly run high on this subject.
> 
> I'm sorry to have read one or two presumptious comments about Dr Masters - i.e. - he wouldn't go and talk to people in a ghetto, etc, etc. He wouldn't talk to rappers... what a load of ... sheer presumption. There, I'm being polite.
> 
> At least nobody on the PB has called him a 'retard'. I found that on a blog yesterday. Nice, huh?



Yup your exactly right pure assumptions because noone said no such things...

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 07:54:20 EST-----



JonathanHunt said:


> I know. I hated rap - until I heard some reformed rap. It is very powerful stuff.



Glad to hear that sir...



> But his beef is not with rap specifically, but with every music style he views as associated with an anti-God culture.



Thats just the problem, that every culture that is not subjected to Christ is anti-God no matter what part of the world we live in...but the problem also is that Master's singled out Hip Hop and its evils and lumped everyone associated with the culture with it, and thats our complaint.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Ricky

If you want I can point out in the thread where people have said precisely what I have mentioned about Dr Masters.

And a general point of order folks. It is Masters. Not Master's. And if you want to use an apostophe as in 'Dr Masters' teapot' it goes after the s.

Thank you, normal service is now resumed.


----------



## AThornquist

What did Paul Washer say to the Christian rappers he gave a sermon to?

(paraphrase) "There are _Christians_ who will seek your downfall simply because of your style and culture." Seems about right. I am of his opinion: "I was expecting to hear typical hip-hop music...but what I heard was _gospel_."


----------



## Confessor

JonathanHunt said:


> And if you want to use an apostophe as in 'Dr Masters' teapot' it goes after the s.



Actually, singular nouns in English should _always_ have an apostrophe+s. For example, "James's" is correct, "James' " is not; "Jesus'" rather than "Jesus' "; "Dr. Masters's" rather than "Dr. Masters' "; etc.

If I am not mistaken the permissibility of dropping the last "s" for names ending in "s" was due to some unintentional laziness. It's easier to say "Praise Jesus' name" than "Praise Jesus' name." But the former simply makes no sense at all.

Grammar Nazi out.


----------



## Roldan

JonathanHunt said:


> Ricky
> 
> If you want I can point out in the thread where people have said precisely what I have mentioned about Dr Masters.



And? lol...and along with Masters very wrong....



> And a general point of order folks. It is Masters. Not Master's. And if you want to use an apostophe as in 'Dr Masters' teapot' it goes after the s.
> 
> Thank you, normal service is now resumed.



Well debate over.....

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 09:25:26 EST-----



athornquist said:


> what did Paul washer say to the christian rappers he gave a sermon to?
> 
> (paraphrase) "there are _christians_ who will seek your downfall simply because of your style and culture." seems about right. I am of his opinion: "i was expecting to hear typical hip-hop music...but what i heard was _gospel_."



amen!!!


----------



## Gloria

JonathanHunt said:


> Feelings certainly run high on this subject.
> 
> I'm sorry to have read one or two presumptious comments about Dr Masters - i.e. - he wouldn't go and talk to people in a ghetto, etc, etc. He wouldn't talk to rappers... what a load of ... *sheer presumption*. There, I'm being polite.
> 
> At least nobody on the PB has called him a 'retard'. I found that on a blog yesterday. Nice, huh?



From the article:



> New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, *counselling people to become friends of the world*.


 It that right? Presumptuous.



> Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world.


 So those he mentions in his article don't "truly" proclaim the sovereignty of God? Examples please. Until then...Presumptuous



> You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.


 Define "worldly" (using the Bible). While I'm on that, I'm reading through the posts. Is anyone going to address how I was "unfair" by saying the author's definition of "worldliness" is unbiblical. I did my best in the time I had to define "worldliness" using the Bible. Much is being assumed here but again, definition of "worldly" needs to be fleshed out.



> Aside from pastors, we know some ‘new’ young Calvinists who will never settle in a dedicated, working church, because their views live only in their heads and not their hearts. We know of some whose lives are not clean. We know of others who go clubbing. The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.


 So these 'new' calvinist's have the market cornered on hypocrisy? I'm sure there are and were some 'old' calvinists who have orthodoxy/orthopraxy issues as well. We ALL do. Thank Jesus for the cross! Oh yeah...Presumptuous...

I could go on...so, regarding assumptions, I think the author has made some himself. This does not excuse the assumptions made in this thread by anyone, myself included, however I think it should be pointed out that both sides are guilty. Why assume the worst of a brother in the Lord? Is a different gospel being preached?


----------



## Confessor

Gloria, Jonathan said the comments regarding Dr. Masters's unwillingness to evangelize were presumptuous. It is not as if he just said, "Every possible objection to Dr. Masters is presumptuous."


----------



## Gloria

> Thats just the problem, that every culture that is not subjected to Christ is anti-God no matter what part of the world we live in...but the problem also is that Master's singled out Hip Hop and its evils and lumped everyone associated with the culture with it, and thats our complaint.



Thank you.

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 09:50:32 EST-----



Confessor said:


> Gloria, Jonathan said the comments regarding Dr. Masters's unwillingness to evangelize were presumptuous. It is not as if he just said, "Every possible objection to Dr. Masters is presumptuous."



Thanks. I don't think anyone was talking about Dr. Masters's unwillingness to evangelize. I know when I mentioned it, I was talking about the *likelihood* of him randomly witnessing to someone who would typically listen to rap...grew up listening to rap, watches BET *everyday*, someone growing up in this particular culture...and yes, I think the likelihood is slim...and THAT'S okay. The Lord is raising up people within this culture to bring the truth with boldness! 

Here's what I said in context:



> I also want to add that I don't take personal offense to when people express distaste regarding Christian rap. LOL...I do take offense when people imply that I'm not trying to live a life pleasing to God because I listen to Christian rap. I also take offense when I see attacks based on personal preferences rather than admonishments based on God's word. I've seen the Lord use these men mightily. I've seen some of these men on the streets witnessing to people who frankly, I don't think Dr. Masters would even approach. It's very unfair of him to imply what he's implied about them because they music they use to exalt Christ and is too "rhythmic" for his taste. The saga will continue though...LOL. As you've said, this has been going on for.ev.er.


----------



## Confessor

Gloria said:


> Thanks. I don't think anyone was talking about Dr. Masters's unwillingness to evangelize. I know when I mentioned it, I was talking about the *likelihood* of him randomly witnessing to someone who would typically listen to rap...grew up listening to rap, watches BET *everyday*, someone growing up in this particular culture...and yes, I think the likelihood is slim...and THAT'S okay.



Well, if you think it's unlikely that he would evangelize, then I'm not sure how that's substantively different from saying he is unwilling to evangelize.

Besides, as Jie-Huli pointed out, Dr. Masters's church is in a downtrodden part of London, and they evangelize there. It's fine to disagree with his points (I do), but please don't extend it to personal remarks about his character, even if they are only probabilistic.


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I don't think anyone was talking about Dr. Masters's unwillingness to evangelize. I know when I mentioned it, I was talking about the *likelihood* of him randomly witnessing to someone who would typically listen to rap...grew up listening to rap, watches BET *everyday*, someone growing up in this particular culture...and yes, I think the likelihood is slim...and THAT'S okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you think it's unlikely that he would evangelize, then I'm not sure how that's substantively different from saying he is unwilling to evangelize.
> 
> Besides, as Jie-Huli pointed out, Dr. Masters's church is in a downtrodden part of London, and they evangelize there. It's fine to disagree with his points (I do), but please don't extend it to personal remarks about his character, even if they are only probabilistic.
Click to expand...


She didn't attack anyone, but actually pointing out the obvious.....but again off topic


----------



## Grimmson

First of all I want to thank Jonathan Hunt for bring this article to my attention. I did not read all of the critiques in relation to the article in question on the Board, but one I would recommend you look at is Archlute. 

I think some of Dr. Peter Masters’ prejudice and tradition does stand out, which others have commented on as while. In regards to the issue of Calvinism and Reformed Theology, Calvinism is Soteriological in its substance and not an invention of the Puritans. By equating Calvinism with Reformed Theology you are doing what I would consider fundamentally a systematic error. This equating systematic error has been around for quite a while from those who confess to be reformed, many times to the area of one’s sacramental theology to such a degree that reformed individual of a Presbyterians perspective would deny Baptist as being reformed. So I think we need to be careful of are systematic categories and what they represent. 

I also think we need to be careful how we define the new era of Calvinism particularly in light of other eras or periods in history. We are quick today to condemn Luther and Calvin’s magisterial position or perhaps the some the Puritans on their Post-mil position. We must recognize that we may not have all of our theology in order, some in light of our own tradition. Therefore, we should show Christian love to individuals such as Mark Driscoll, who has been moving away to some degree from the emergent scene. Perhaps share what are differences are biblical, but not go at a straight forward attack who maybe growing in the reformed faith. 

Let us face it Finneyism is not dead, especially if you read books such as the Purpose Driven Church. Where the focus is on the person by external means outside of the proclaimed Word of God. It is such a powerful tradition that has infected the church that it should be no surprise that it has affected many of our Calvinistic brethren. In fact what we should probably recognize is that many of a charismatic tradition are now learning of the reformed faith by being introduced to Calvinism, and as being a gateway drug start to move to a fuller form of reformed thinking. It just requires teaching and patience on our part. 

Piety has always been under attack, and I would say just as much so in the fundamentalist anti-theological other side of the liberal face coin. What I have seen from individuals like Paul Washer, who I think Masters would also criticize, is a cry out towards a return to piety. I would subject looking at a few of his sermons like the “10 Indictments” as a reference for that. What we need to do is define piety in relation to God’s grace and word instead of the strict moralism that we have attached to it outside of holy scripture. Therefore true worldliness must be defined, something sadly must churches or pastors have trouble doing out here in the U.S. and the rest of the West. 

The article clearly shows his perspective on charismatic worship, which I might add am against as well as theologically, and the use of various forms of music. Here I think his own tradition is standing out:

“We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.”

I want to focus initial on his use of language, “drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.” Music by its nature, even though it can dramatically affect one being is not by its nature immoral, even though however many immoral acts associate that genre of music. One example is the upbeat of the great hymn “Joy to the World”. I was critized for being to fast of a song which was compared to immoral music. However today we would not dream to think such with ‘Joy to the World” growing up with it in are own tradition. Here may be another example of culture change, which Masters’ unknowingly may be blinded his tradition. This is not an attack personally on him however for many of are guilty of the same and I do not want it seem as if I am attacking him. Luther, and if this is legend I do not know, why I used modern music in his hymns and his answer was simple. It was so the people could learn the music. Of course we do not sing in the same way they did then even though using the same type of language as the author did above, he may criticize Luther for uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drunken-induced musical forms of worldly culture. I think his statement here went a bit to far, but however should be discussed with our circles because we should want to worship God in the manner that he so desires for his worship. 

I do not think John MacArthur, Mark Driscol, or John Piper has an “anti-fourth-commandment” view. I do think the church at large, regardless of denomination, has a weak view concerning the Lord’s Day. It is a subject that I think needs to be taught more on and a concern that I agree with Masters over, though I would not use his language there of. 

Many of Masters concerns I think are legitimate concerns, but the rhetoric must be balanced with love. We do not want to be as some have called a “Chosen Frozen”. Therefore instead of attacking we should move to biblical discussions on the issues at hand. Also how history has also shaped on views as well, challenging are own man made traditions. Hopefully articles like this will continue the conversation instead of hurt it.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## JonathanHunt

To be fair, I do not believe that MacArthur, Driscoll or Piper teach the fourth commandment in the way in which the Westminster confession/catechisms teach it. This would be the 'traditional reformed view' (allowing for nuances and slight differences).

The names mentioned above teach a much softer view and seem to have (MacArthur a case in point) no issues whatever with eating out on the Lord's Day and so forth.

I wouldn't say 'anti fourth commandment' but perhaps 'soft on the fourth commandment in comparison with historical reformed views'.

I'm not wanting to start a debate on this but simply to say that there IS a difference between a lot of teaching today on the Lord's Day and the teaching that has gone before.

I have not expressed an opinion on this (Lord's Day) subject, as I don't want to start another off-topic debate. Just thought the point was worth making.

I'm bowing out of this one now as there has been a bit too much heat here. It is not for us to take offence on behalf of one or another of our christian heroes, they can take care of themselves.


----------



## Wannabee

It might be helpful to recognize that disagreeing that Sunday, the Lord's Day, is the Christian Sabbath does not necessitate a low view of the fourth commandment. It's a different view. And, for some, it _may _be a low view. I only pose this to help the thought process. The debate over it has been hashed out here enough already. A simple search should yield many threads.


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

Confessor said:


> I'm not sure about Owen or Spurgeon, but I'm fairly certain that Gill was historic premil.



*John Gill wasn't Premill. Have you seen his exposition of Matthew 24? He was clearly a partial preterist. But again, people do go through stages during their theological journey so perhaps he started out Pre-Mill. 

Spurgeon was believed to be Post Mill but sometimes taught contrary to it. Go figure. 

John Owens was no doubt Post Mill.

Oh, and I'm the guy who wrote that email. I just joined the board last night. * 

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## Confessor

sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about Owen or Spurgeon, but I'm fairly certain that Gill was historic premil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *John Gill wasn't Premill. Have you seen his exposition of Matthew 24? He was clearly a partial preterist. But again, people do go through stages during their theological journey so perhaps he started out Pre-Mill.
> 
> Spurgeon was believed to be Post Mill but sometimes taught contrary to it. Go figure.
> 
> John Owens was no doubt Post Mill.
> 
> Oh, and I'm the guy who wrote that email. I just joined the board last night. *
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> seal
Click to expand...


How are partial preterism and historic premil incompatible?

And


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

From Gill's _Body of Divinity_, Book 7—Chapter 8: Of the Millennium:

"That Christ will have a special, peculiar, glorious, and visible kingdom, in which he will reign personally on earth."

"This kingdom of Christ will be bounded by two resurrections; by the first resurrection, or the resurrection of the just, at which it will begin; and by the second resurrection, or the resurrection of the wicked, at which it will end, or nearly; for it is expressly said, that "the rest of the dead," that is, the wicked, "lived not again until the thousand years were finished": now in the interval between the resurrection of the one, and the resurrection of the other, will be the millennium, or thousand years reign of Christ and his people together."

Sounds historic premill to me.


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

Confessor said:


> sealdaSupralapsarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about Owen or Spurgeon, but I'm fairly certain that Gill was historic premil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *John Gill wasn't Premill. Have you seen his exposition of Matthew 24? He was clearly a partial preterist. But again, people do go through stages during their theological journey so perhaps he started out Pre-Mill.
> 
> Spurgeon was believed to be Post Mill but sometimes taught contrary to it. Go figure.
> 
> John Owens was no doubt Post Mill.
> 
> Oh, and I'm the guy who wrote that email. I just joined the board last night. *
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> seal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are partial preterism and historic premil incompatible?
> 
> And
Click to expand...


*I'll get back to you on that. I'm a Partial Preterist and I haven't met one Historic premill that agrees with me on my views. Perhaps Gill would have been the first. 

But the beginning would be Matthew 24 and 25 being fulfilled in 70 A.D. Not sure if any Premill would agree with that.

Any takers?

And I'm glad to be here. I've been trying to join for about 9 months now but my yahoo kept blocking my registration confirmation...I've made up about 10 names...LOL.... Why isn't my picture showing up???

Also, Gomarus can you tell me what part in his life he wrote that book. Later on in his years I know he started to study more Jewish renditions of the sacred text. Thanx..*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## A2JC4life

sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> Any takers?



Maybe. Our eschatology is the one thing we're not real solid on (having only recently been made aware that our former beliefs weren't actually based on anything but what we'd been told), but I think that for the moment I'd best be described as mid- or post-trib pre-mill, and I'm pretty sure I believe that at least parts of Matthew 24/25 were fulfilled in AD 70.


----------



## T.U.L.I.P. TYLER

i am so tired of legalism in the church it makes me sick


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

*


A2JC4life said:





sealdaSupralapsarian said:



Any takers?

Click to expand...


Maybe. Our eschatology is the one thing we're not real solid on (having only recently been made aware that our former beliefs weren't actually based on anything but what we'd been told), but I think that for the moment I'd best be described as mid- or post-trib pre-mill, and I'm pretty sure I believe that at least parts of Matthew 24/25 were fulfilled in AD 70.

Click to expand...


Well my dear Master Mrs. or Ms., we'd have a disagreement there b/c I believe all parts were fulfilled. I'm glad however to see that you are growing in Truth b/c so many people put Eschatology on the back burner for their entire lives never knowing the grave importance of understanding what the Cross accomplished.*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## A2JC4life

Agreed.  Unfortunately, it seems to be the norm in Christian circles where theology is not handled systematically to either obsess over eschatology or to consider it unimportant and ignore it.  But God gave us Scripture about it, so presumably He considers it important, even though it isn't _the_ most important thing.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> I'm a Partial Preterist and I haven't met one Historic premill that agrees with me on my views. Perhaps Gill would have been the first. . .
> 
> Also, Gomarus can you tell me what part in his life he wrote that book. Later on in his years I know he started to study more Jewish renditions of the sacred text. Thanx..
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> seal



Firstly, his Body of Divinity was published in 1767, less than four years before his death. According to one biographer, at the time he fully expected it to be his last publication.

Secondly, I quote from an interview with Dr. Ken Gentry here:
"Preterism is a hermeneutical tool; postmillennialism is an eschatological system. Preterism fits nicely with postmillennialism, but is not a necessary condition for it. Historically most postmillennialists were not preterists. And there are many non-postmillennial preterists, such as Jay Adams and Cornelis Vanderwaal. In fact, on Matthew 24, _premillennial Puritan John Gill_ offers a preterist approach which I follow quite closely." (italics mine)

It seems that Gentry does not see a fundamental incompatibility between historic Premill and partial preterism, while noting Gill was premill.


----------



## Prufrock

T.U.L.I.P. TYLER said:


> i am so tired of legalism in the church it makes me sick



If you're simply making a general (and slightly a-contextual) statement that you do not like legalism, then "Amen, brother!"

But if you are asserting that you have found such legalism in the posts of the participants in this thread, please be sure to include evidence with such an accusation, and be prepared to either demonstrate it or retract your statement.


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

Gomarus said:


> sealdaSupralapsarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a Partial Preterist and I haven't met one Historic premill that agrees with me on my views. Perhaps Gill would have been the first. . .
> 
> Also, Gomarus can you tell me what part in his life he wrote that book. Later on in his years I know he started to study more Jewish renditions of the sacred text. Thanx..
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> seal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, his Body of Divinity was published in 1767, less than four years before his death. According to one biographer, at the time he fully expected it to be his last publication.
> 
> Secondly, I quote from an interview with Dr. Ken Gentry here:
> "Preterism is a hermeneutical tool; postmillennialism is an eschatological system. Preterism fits nicely with postmillennialism, but is not a necessary condition for it. Historically most postmillennialists were not preterists. And there are many non-postmillennial preterists, such as Jay Adams and Cornelis Vanderwaal. In fact, on Matthew 24, _premillennial Puritan John Gill_ offers a preterist approach which I follow quite closely." (italics mine)
> 
> It seems that Gentry does not see a fundamental incompatibility between historic Premill and partial preterism, while noting Gill was premill.
Click to expand...


*Interesting. Touche... I'll go back and Edit. I was always under the impression from his writings that he was Post Mill. However, I would disagree with Gentry that Premill is compatible with Partial Preterism. Gentry believes in the split between Matthew 24 and 25. Me and him part ways. I've had dinner with Gentry once before. He's a beast (brilliant for you old heads). And has a ton of knowledge.*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## The Author of my Faith

Confessor said:


> The Author of my Faith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some like to worship to Bach, other to Billy Jo Jim Bob and a Banjo, some to Contemporary Worship, some to Rap. As long as it is (making melody in your heart to the Lord) and not to entertain man I say Knock yourself out. It is all a matter of personal preference. So bust out a rhyme and praise Jesus!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the regulative principle of worship demands only that elements prescribed in Scripture are permitted in worship -- and not only permitted, but required. All elements not prescribed are forbidden. As a result, it's not all a matter of personal preference.
> 
> However, it is entirely a matter of personal preference regarding one's own music tastes _outside of worship_. For instance, I enjoy metal, though I would never advocate its inclusion in a worship service (per the RPW, not per the majority opinion on metal). This would mean that keyboards are excluded by the witness of Scripture, not because they are inherently "of the devil."
Click to expand...



What about Psalm 150?

Praise him with the trumpet sound; praise him wit lute and Harp (a harp has strings like a piano and a keyboard is advanced technology that sounds like a piano) Praise him with the tambourine and dance. Let me ask you a question? What about Dancing? Are you going to cut that verse out because you do not like it? Praise him with strings and pipe. What about a PIPE ORGAN is that excluded from the witness of scripture? Correct me if I am wrong but did not King David invent instruments for worship? 

Sorry my brother but I do not believe you are rightly dividing the word of truth.


----------



## Confessor

Instruments were specifically instituted by God for temple worship, and they were used only as He expressly instructed.(i.e. there was no freedom to add or subtract or change instruments as one pleased). This is substantiated historically as well, in that Orthodox Jews did not use instruments in worship until sometime in the early nineteenth century (1810 I think).

As for dancing, that's a good question. I'd have to ask someone who knows more about the RPW than I do.


----------

