Alarming podcast and lecture on "revivalism"

[Tyrese]

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

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

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

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

Sam Waldron comments,

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

Hi brother Wallace,

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

Thanks for your post!

Tyrese

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

 

[Tyrese]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tyrese]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

Sam Waldron comments,

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

Hi brother Wallace,

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

Thanks for your post!

Tyrese

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[earl40]

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

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

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

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

Sam Waldron comments,

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

Hi brother Wallace,

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

Thanks for your post!

Tyrese

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

Sam Waldron comments,

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

Hi brother Wallace,

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

Thanks for your post!

Tyrese

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

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

Alexander,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[greenbaggins]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[nicnap]

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[nicnap]

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