Comments on: The Unconverted Calvin, Part One http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/ Faith and Practice Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Debbie http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2112 Debbie Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:42:06 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2112 Dear Cath and all, In my own and other members of my fellowship, there has been one common event, the day, the moment that we were born again, changed from death unto life. I was conscious of it, they were concious of it and other greats have too. It was a definite instant change of direction.for Calvin it was to have his understanding opened more perfectly to the truth. Ours was a cut off of an interest, a leaning to all things of the world, for myself (for one thing) a forsaking of horoscopes, which in the eyes of God is the use of familiar spirits,witchcraft, for one of my fellow believers, to leave of clubbing and pubbing, it's not a wrangling with our conciousnesses to do these things, we did them willingly, freely, needing to consecrate our lives. My belief is that God by His Spirit changes your desires from worldly things, to the things of God, some of them quickly, ie the horoscopes, (how could I serve two masters?), and some of them gradually, but this has absolutely nothing to do with a "gradual salvation" or "consciousness" or "awakening", don't we believe, that to have such an experience with God the Holy Spirit, would leave a lasting impression of one moment being one kind of person, to the next being someone totally different? We then put behind us as it were our born again experience and go on to greater exploits, learning to walk in the Spirit,learning the greater depths of the word, and by learning the depths of the Word, is to know Him better, yes mortifying the flesh, bringing forth good works, not works of the hands which breeds haughtiness,self importance (as the Pharisees), but works which are the fruit of the Spirit. Love,joy peace longsuffering etc. Calvin, was restrained in his description of his experience with God, I think possibly because of the Catholic church being so full of signs and wonders, that it sickened him, and rather than be charged with having had some kind of higher spiritual experience or even being an heretic ( which the Catholic church would have done) he played it down, like Mary he held it within his heart or pondered it. The work of the Reformers, was limited somewhat to the Doctrine of Predestination because they had their hands full with the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, fighting this off was a full time job. The Disciples had their time, to do their ministry, teaching, ordaining,healing, casting out demons, and much more, but then they died, their work had been accomplished, if God had so wanted it, the disciples could have lived forever, but the batton is then handed to others, in the case of the Reformers, their ministry was to fend off the heresy of the Popes. There have been many who have been confused by the sheer quantity of people turning up at church week after week, but not having had the "born again" experience, able to tell of the day the time they had their experience of God, of being sealed with the Holy Spirit, the late great Lloyd-Jones was one, Spurgeon another. there will be many, the many who have been called but not chosen, who hear the Gospel with joy, but anon it is caught away lest they should believe. There will be many who shall stand before the Lord crying that they cast out demons in His name, but He shall turn them away. These are the tares, the ones that should be left 'til the end time where they shall be gathered and burned. Dear Cath and all,
In my own and other members of my fellowship, there has been one common event, the day, the moment that we were born again, changed from death unto life.
I was conscious of it, they were concious of it and other greats have too.
It was a definite instant change of direction.for Calvin it was to have his understanding opened more perfectly to the truth. Ours was a cut off of an interest, a leaning to all things of the world, for myself (for one thing) a forsaking of horoscopes, which in the eyes of God is the use of familiar spirits,witchcraft, for one of my fellow believers, to leave of clubbing and pubbing, it’s not a wrangling with our conciousnesses to do these things, we did them willingly, freely, needing to consecrate our lives.
My belief is that God by His Spirit changes your desires from worldly things, to the things of God, some of them quickly, ie the horoscopes, (how could I serve two masters?), and some of them gradually, but this has absolutely nothing to do with a “gradual salvation” or “consciousness” or “awakening”, don’t we believe, that to have such an experience with God the Holy Spirit, would leave a lasting impression of one moment being one kind of person, to the next being someone totally different?
We then put behind us as it were our born again experience and go on to greater exploits, learning to walk in the Spirit,learning the greater depths of the word, and by learning the depths of the Word, is to know Him better, yes mortifying the flesh, bringing forth good works, not works of the hands which breeds haughtiness,self importance (as the Pharisees), but works which are the fruit of the Spirit. Love,joy peace longsuffering etc.
Calvin, was restrained in his description of his experience with God, I think possibly because of the Catholic church being so full of signs and wonders, that it sickened him, and rather than be charged with having had some kind of higher spiritual experience or even being an heretic ( which the Catholic church would have done) he played it down, like Mary he held it within his heart or pondered it.
The work of the Reformers, was limited somewhat to the Doctrine of Predestination because they had their hands full with the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, fighting this off was a full time job.
The Disciples had their time, to do their ministry, teaching, ordaining,healing, casting out demons, and much more, but then they died, their work had been accomplished, if God had so wanted it, the disciples could have lived forever, but the batton is then handed to others, in the case of the Reformers, their ministry was to fend off the heresy of the Popes.
There have been many who have been confused by the sheer quantity of people turning up at church week after week, but not having had the “born again” experience, able to tell of the day the time they had their experience of God, of being sealed with the Holy Spirit, the late great Lloyd-Jones was one, Spurgeon another.
there will be many, the many who have been called but not chosen, who hear the Gospel with joy, but anon it is caught away lest they should believe.
There will be many who shall stand before the Lord crying that they cast out demons in His name, but He shall turn them away.
These are the tares, the ones that should be left ’til the end time where they shall be gathered and burned.

]]> By: Whatever Happened to Sanctification (or Mortification, or Vivification or Glorification)? Or Strange Days Indeed, Most Peculiar, Mama! « The Confessional Outhouse http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2049 Whatever Happened to Sanctification (or Mortification, or Vivification or Glorification)? Or Strange Days Indeed, Most Peculiar, Mama! « The Confessional Outhouse Wed, 12 Aug 2009 01:28:04 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2049 [...] a pagan theology than a Christian one when it comes to just what is happening in the mystery of God’s lifelong inner work of mortifying the flesh and vivifying us unto salvation. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and forget the fact that Christians appear no [...] [...] a pagan theology than a Christian one when it comes to just what is happening in the mystery of God’s lifelong inner work of mortifying the flesh and vivifying us unto salvation. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and forget the fact that Christians appear no [...]

]]> By: Bill Schweitzer http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2047 Bill Schweitzer Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:30:11 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2047 David, Sorry for not replying to you thus far. You said "Nevertheless, that this emphasis received an imbalanced degree of attention seems to be borne out by the highly subjective recasting of reformational theology that developed in the wake of Edwards’ death. The New Divinity, whatever the true relationship between it and Edwards, nevertheless claimed Edwards as their father after all." I would just want to say that although they did claim Edwards as their father, I don't think we should invest too much into that one way or another. Lots of people have claimed Edwards as their father, just as liberal critics and Barthians call Calvin their father. Come to think of it, heretics of every stripe want to call Jesus their father. The way we prove them wrong is by pointing out that the one they call father never said the things they hold, and/or that he said other things which they choose to ignore. I know someone who went to WTS and took a class by Carl Trueman, and later became a Roman Catholic. Should we then say that, because Carl often critiques the a-historical and overly subjective evangelicalism of our time, cares about the sacraments as a means of grace, and recently wrote a book that has the word "Catholic" in the title, that he led this man to swim the Tiber? Same, same, with those who with selective hearing learned some things from Edwards but not others. You said "It does seem to me that Edwards and Boston are both more aligned with the Westminster Standards on these points than he older traditions in which they were reared." I would have to concur. And more broadly, I also think it would be useful for us to remember that Westminster is a Puritan document written by English speaking Puritans to complete the reformation of the British church(es), and so may sound (again, emphasis is not the same as substance; I am not saying they departed from the Calvinist inheritance in any way) a little more subjective in tone than the Heidelberg Catechism, written specifically to bring together Lutherans and Reformed in Germany. Darryl prefers the wording of Heidelberg 88-90 on conversion, while pointing out that Westminster does not use the word conversion. True, but other aspects of the WSC, such as question 87 (What is repentance unto life? Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience) could *sound* more subjective than Heidelberg. If you want to undo the greater balance in tone I think the Westminster Puritans achieved between external/objective and internal/subjective, you can't stop at the late 17th Century, but have to go back before the Puritans. Which would be OK I suppose if you are a German Reformed confessional (Sebastian Heck and...), but less good if you are ordained in a church officially holding to a Puritan confession. Bill As for your point, Darryl, about national churches and the problem of qualifications for the sacraments and the half way covenant complex of ideas, I think you are right to a certain extent. Rutherford argued that Scotland was a covenanted nation as a whole and that therefore the whole populace were in the covenant and ought to be baptized. Similarly, if memory serves, the New England Puritans believed in a kind of national covenant concept that saw themselves as a new Israel, a City Set on a Hill etc. Could it have been something of this order that led to the half way covenant idea among the Stoddardites? It does intrigue me still however to note that Edwards and Boston both insisted on higher qualifications for sealing ordinances than the older traditions of which they were a part, and both do so as leading exponents of a transatlantic reformed revival movement. Do you think there was any conncetion between the theological ideas that made them revival friendly and the ideas that made them insist on credible professions of faith for baptism and the supper? It does seem to me that Edwards and Boston are both more aligned with the Westminster Standards on these points than he older traditions in which they were reared. At the very least that indicates that it is not as simple as finding an older and a newer stream of piety at work here. More like two often intermingling and not always distinct streams that were present in the Reformed movement from the begining, finally moving apart in the era of Nevin and Finney perhaps? I am no Edwards expert. I’d love your thoughts gents. David,

Sorry for not replying to you thus far.

You said “Nevertheless, that this emphasis received an imbalanced degree of attention seems to be borne out by the highly subjective recasting of reformational theology that developed in the wake of Edwards’ death. The New Divinity, whatever the true relationship between it and Edwards, nevertheless claimed Edwards as their father after all.”

I would just want to say that although they did claim Edwards as their father, I don’t think we should invest too much into that one way or another. Lots of people have claimed Edwards as their father, just as liberal critics and Barthians call Calvin their father. Come to think of it, heretics of every stripe want to call Jesus their father. The way we prove them wrong is by pointing out that the one they call father never said the things they hold, and/or that he said other things which they choose to ignore. I know someone who went to WTS and took a class by Carl Trueman, and later became a Roman Catholic. Should we then say that, because Carl often critiques the a-historical and overly subjective evangelicalism of our time, cares about the sacraments as a means of grace, and recently wrote a book that has the word “Catholic” in the title, that he led this man to swim the Tiber? Same, same, with those who with selective hearing learned some things from Edwards but not others.

You said “It does seem to me that Edwards and Boston are both more aligned with the Westminster Standards on these points than he older traditions in which they were reared.”

I would have to concur. And more broadly, I also think it would be useful for us to remember that Westminster is a Puritan document written by English speaking Puritans to complete the reformation of the British church(es), and so may sound (again, emphasis is not the same as substance; I am not saying they departed from the Calvinist inheritance in any way) a little more subjective in tone than the Heidelberg Catechism, written specifically to bring together Lutherans and Reformed in Germany. Darryl prefers the wording of Heidelberg 88-90 on conversion, while pointing out that Westminster does not use the word conversion. True, but other aspects of the WSC, such as question 87 (What is repentance unto life? Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience) could *sound* more subjective than Heidelberg. If you want to undo the greater balance in tone I think the Westminster Puritans achieved between external/objective and internal/subjective, you can’t stop at the late 17th Century, but have to go back before the Puritans. Which would be OK I suppose if you are a German Reformed confessional (Sebastian Heck and…), but less good if you are ordained in a church officially holding to a Puritan confession.

Bill

As for your point, Darryl, about national churches and the problem of qualifications for the sacraments and the half way covenant complex of ideas, I think you are right to a certain extent. Rutherford argued that Scotland was a covenanted nation as a whole and that therefore the whole populace were in the covenant and ought to be baptized. Similarly, if memory serves, the New England Puritans believed in a kind of national covenant concept that saw themselves as a new Israel, a City Set on a Hill etc. Could it have been something of this order that led to the half way covenant idea among the Stoddardites?

It does intrigue me still however to note that Edwards and Boston both insisted on higher qualifications for sealing ordinances than the older traditions of which they were a part, and both do so as leading exponents of a transatlantic reformed revival movement. Do you think there was any conncetion between the theological ideas that made them revival friendly and the ideas that made them insist on credible professions of faith for baptism and the supper?

It does seem to me that Edwards and Boston are both more aligned with the Westminster Standards on these points than he older traditions in which they were reared. At the very least that indicates that it is not as simple as finding an older and a newer stream of piety at work here. More like two often intermingling and not always distinct streams that were present in the Reformed movement from the begining, finally moving apart in the era of Nevin and Finney perhaps?

I am no Edwards expert. I’d love your thoughts gents.

]]> By: Christian http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2045 Christian Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:27:18 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2045 You lost me at "Constantinians"/"Palin-Maher". You lost me at “Constantinians”/”Palin-Maher”.

]]> By: Zrim http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2039 Zrim Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:30:18 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2039 Christian, You're almost as fun as watching Constantinians fight (the Palin-Maher bout was hard to beat). Yours is more like Whack-A-Mole: banned on one blog after another, where's he gonna show up next? Clark's slap for your Christ-like vulgarities on the HB must've smarted since it has taken a couple of weeks to pop up here. Christian,

You’re almost as fun as watching Constantinians fight (the Palin-Maher bout was hard to beat). Yours is more like Whack-A-Mole: banned on one blog after another, where’s he gonna show up next? Clark’s slap for your Christ-like vulgarities on the HB must’ve smarted since it has taken a couple of weeks to pop up here.

]]> By: Christian http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2036 Christian Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:45:00 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2036 For the record I was with you 100% on the Warfield centrality of justification thing. You actually surprised me there. You actually sounded...I don't know...Calvinist. For the record I was with you 100% on the Warfield centrality of justification thing. You actually surprised me there. You actually sounded…I don’t know…Calvinist.

]]> By: dgh http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2034 dgh Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:03:24 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2034 Christian, are you off your meds again? Good to see you're still alive though. Christian, are you off your meds again? Good to see you’re still alive though.

]]> By: Christian http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2032 Christian Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:19:23 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2032 Bill Schweitzer, D. G. Hart, like his friend and ideological comrade-in-arms R. Scott Clark, is a practical deist. I'm not the first to identify them as such. Just keep this in mind as you try to understand where he, as they say, is coming from... And D. G Hart: you don't seem to grasp what is being said when the phrase 'self-knowledge' is put in front of you. Self-awareness would be another. 'Lean professors', by the way, is not a positive characterization. Bill Schweitzer, D. G. Hart, like his friend and ideological comrade-in-arms R. Scott Clark, is a practical deist. I’m not the first to identify them as such. Just keep this in mind as you try to understand where he, as they say, is coming from…

And D. G Hart: you don’t seem to grasp what is being said when the phrase ’self-knowledge’ is put in front of you. Self-awareness would be another. ‘Lean professors’, by the way, is not a positive characterization.

]]> By: Bill Schweitzer http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2005 Bill Schweitzer Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:23:12 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2005 Darryl, Perhaps "villain" was too strong a word, but when you say someone ”…actually betrayed Reformed teaching on conversion, and so undermined a churchly form of Reformed Christianity”, that's the sort of imagery that comes to my mind. If you're right about what you say, then ministers like myself would be irresponsible to appropriate or recommend Edwards without very careful safeguards. That is why I'm taking you so seriously. Criticism is fine and helpful. Yet it remains interesting that Nevin himself did not choose to make that particular criticism of Edwards. "Appeal and Disappointment" is short for "The Appeal & Disappointment of Evangelicalism: Is Reformed Christianity Evangelical?", a talk you gave at the 2005 Reformation Heritage Conference in Douglasville, GA based on your 2003 essay in the book you edited. On your side, Bill Darryl,

Perhaps “villain” was too strong a word, but when you say someone ”…actually betrayed Reformed teaching on conversion, and so undermined a churchly form of Reformed Christianity”, that’s the sort of imagery that comes to my mind. If you’re right about what you say, then ministers like myself would be irresponsible to appropriate or recommend Edwards without very careful safeguards. That is why I’m taking you so seriously. Criticism is fine and helpful. Yet it remains interesting that Nevin himself did not choose to make that particular criticism of Edwards.

“Appeal and Disappointment” is short for “The Appeal & Disappointment of Evangelicalism: Is Reformed Christianity Evangelical?”, a talk you gave at the 2005 Reformation Heritage Conference in Douglasville, GA based on your 2003 essay in the book you edited.

On your side,
Bill

]]> By: dgh http://oldlife.org/2009/07/19/the-unconverted-calvin-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-2001 dgh Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:35:28 +0000 http://oldlife.org/?p=158#comment-2001 Bill, I'm really not sure I've made Edwards the villain. Could it be that others have made him a sacred cow? In which case, any criticism looks like villainy? The main reason for pitting Nevin against Edwards is that Edwards is the go to guy for experimental Calvinism among folks who take the five points seriously. I could discuss Gilbert Tennent, but do experimental Calvinists really care about him? Plus, Edwards illustrates a shift among Calvinists about conversion. If you look in the Standards or the Three Forms of Unity you will not see much treatment of conversion. And where you do you see conversion described as mortification and vivification (Heidelberg 88-90??), in which case conversion is not a crisis point in a believer's life but an life-long process of being sanctified. I don't know about you, but that's a pretty big change in Reformed thinking. I think we can both give Edwards credit for it. The question is whether its worthy of praise or blame. BTW, if you're still reading, what is "Appeal and Dissappointment," RHC? Bill, I’m really not sure I’ve made Edwards the villain. Could it be that others have made him a sacred cow? In which case, any criticism looks like villainy?

The main reason for pitting Nevin against Edwards is that Edwards is the go to guy for experimental Calvinism among folks who take the five points seriously. I could discuss Gilbert Tennent, but do experimental Calvinists really care about him? Plus, Edwards illustrates a shift among Calvinists about conversion. If you look in the Standards or the Three Forms of Unity you will not see much treatment of conversion. And where you do you see conversion described as mortification and vivification (Heidelberg 88-90??), in which case conversion is not a crisis point in a believer’s life but an life-long process of being sanctified.

I don’t know about you, but that’s a pretty big change in Reformed thinking. I think we can both give Edwards credit for it. The question is whether its worthy of praise or blame.

BTW, if you’re still reading, what is “Appeal and Dissappointment,” RHC?

]]>