T4G Day 2, Session 1
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 10:57AM We're not the only show in town. Thought I came to the wrong conference from Canada.
I debated which conference to attend. The machinery at the snow conference looked impressive, but I still like books better.
This morning we sang.
We listened to John MacArthur talk about total depravity.
MacArthur talked about the contextualization debate that's been going on at Team Pyro and TSK. By contextualization, I think MacArthur means changing the message. That's not what everyone means when they use the term. For instance, Keller says, "Contextualization is not giving people what they want. It is giving God’s answers (which they probably do not want) to the questions they are asking and in forms they can comprehend." I wish we could establish definitions before engaging in debates.
At Boars Head Tavern, Michael Spencer is calling this "Together for Calvinism." On a related topic, Trevin Wax has a good couple of posts on the new book Young, Restless, and Reformed, including this one:
If we can learn from those who disagree with the Abstract on a doctrine as important as baptism, surely we can learn from someone who disagrees with unconditional election. There’s a double standard at work here. The Calvinists welcome paedobaptists...overlooking that ecclesiological difference. Yet they protest fellow Baptists who do not toe the line on Calvinism. Personally, I am thankful that Southern Seminary administrators have chosen to welcome a variety of godly Christian men to the pulpit with whom we might strongly disagree on certain issues, but with whom we share a strong commitment to the gospel.
Both Spencer and Wax have a good point: if we are truly together for the Gospel, it has to be broader than just Calvinism. The people who need to say this the loudest are the Calvinists.
Challies continues to post summaries of each session.
Reader Comments (7)
Together for Calvinism. How would that be different from Together for the Gospel anyway?? I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. Charles Spurgeon
Ken: I understand the argument, and I am Reformed in my commitments. But surely the Gospel is the work of God in Christ. Our understanding of that may be Reformed, but there are many who are not Reformed in their theology who are also centered on the Gospel. We may believe that Reformed doctrine is the best way to understand the Gospel, but that is not the same as saying that Reformed doctrine is the Gospel. I like Redeemer's approach of planting churches with all who are Gospel-centered regardless of many secondary issues, such as egalitarian vs. complementarian, credobaptistic vs. paedobaptist - not that there wouldn't be many issues to work out in how this is done.
hi daryl. i am blogging from Dubai, United Arab Emirates and I the link to what MacArthur said is blocked due to censorship. Maybe when i get back to Europe i will take a look. glad to see you are still kicking things around. peace
Hey Darryl, it was good to talk with you at the conference. That quote from Spurgeon that Ken gives above nails it for me. We were actually talking about this on the way home. After I got saved and reflected on the work of God in my life it just became so clear to me that I had absolutely nothing to do with it. I never considered those terms Calvinist or Arminian and the differences. I just considered what took place in my life. As I seek to share the Gospel with others I don't think about it in terms of Calvinist or whatever, just in terms of what the Bible teaches and what I know has taken place in my own life. I just cannot fathom how anyone, who has been truly redeemed, can come to any other conclusion than that it was all God. Makes absolutely no sense to me and I don't think I need a seminary degree to understand that. The more I think of it the more I would love to hear an "Arminian" tell me how they are somehow responsible for making the right decision towards God. I can see how a young and immature Christian might initially believe that, but as one grows and reflects and meditates on the Word and communes with God, it just becomes so clear that we have absolutely nothing to do with that, it is all grace, grace, grace. The conference was great, I too loved Piper and Mahaney. Loved all those other guys too, including MacArthur and his straight-forwardness about what the Gospel really is, what the core is, and how we always have to remember that, but I love how Piper and Mahaney spoke heart to heart with us. God is awesome.
George, I think saying that Calvinism is the Gospel is dangerous. Calvinism is a doctrinal system, and I think it's a good one. But we aren't saved through a doctrinal system; we're saved through faith by the work of God in Christ at the cross. I think it's better for someone to say that Calvinism is the best way to understand the Gospel. Otherwise we're implying that if someone isn't a Calvinist, they believe another Gospel and are not saved. I hope that's not what anybody is saying.
"I think it's better for someone to say that Calvinism is the best way to understand the Gospel." Right Maybe I'll have coffee with that Bill Kinnon guy after all. I recall he said he was Arminian. I'd love to hear someone describe their salvation from an Arminian point of view. I think I have the basics of that. They think they had something to do with their own salvation and that once saved they can lose it. Is that it?
To George, In case you are not aware of this, your attitude in commenting to this post is extremely arrogant.