Alarming podcast and lecture on "revivalism"

[MW]

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[Tyrese]

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

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

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

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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

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

 

[timmopussycat]

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

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

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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

 

[earl40]

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

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

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

Tyrese,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that helps clear up a few things.

 

[alexandermsmith]

The fact he posts on the Sabbath itself shows this.

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

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

 

[TheOldCourse]

The fact he posts on the Sabbath itself shows this.

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

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

TheOldCourse,

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

 

[TheOldCourse]

Tyrese,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that helps clear up a few things.

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[TheOldCourse]

TheOldCourse,

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The fact he posts on the Sabbath itself shows this.

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Vipers in Covenant Diapers.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Vipers in Covenant Diapers.

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

Agreed.

 

[RamistThomist]

Vipers in Covenant Diapers.

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Vipers in Covenant Diapers.

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

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

Dr Gerstner did have a way with words!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

 

[Tyrese]

Tyrese,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that helps clear up a few things.

Hi Alex,

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

Thanks for your response!

Tyrese

 

[JP Wallace]

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

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

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

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

Sam Waldron comments,

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

 

[Tyrese]

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

ReformedCovenanter said:

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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?

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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