Justin Taylor made me do it.
He linked to Ray Ortlund’s blog from a couple days ago at the Gospel Coalition – calling it a “classic†in which the he warns TR’s (i.e., Truly Reformed) about the danger of falling into the Judaizer trap. Ortlund writes:
The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.
This is truly an amazing assertion by the Nashville pastor. Even though Reformed folks think they are following Paul in their teaching and ministry (let’s not forget the Jerusalem Council or the pastoral epistles which say something about presbyterian polity), they become Judaizers by following Paul and insisting that the church heed everything Christ commanded – from theology to worship and polity. I feel like I am in a Coen Brothers movie where up is down, white is black, and rodents are felines.
Ortlund’s post is standard fare among evangelicals who look for a lowest-common-denominator approach to Christian unity and so regard sticklers for doctrine and practice – like the Reformed – as sticks in the mud and unloving sectarians to boot. (Ortlund fails to remark that Baptists, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans, who insist on the correctness of their distinct teachings and practices, are also would-be Judaizers. Rather than acknowledge that differences exist within the church because different parts of the visible church interpret the Bible differently, Ortlund, like many a pietist before him, disregards actual differences and chalks up resistance to unity as a lack of love – for both Christ and for other Christians. As the Church Lady might say, “isn’t that charitable?â€
But the neat trick that Ortlund adds to this standard kvetch about Reformed particularists is a claim about the psychology and sociology of being Reformed. He comments on Gal 4:17 – “They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them†– in the following paraphrase:
“When Christians, whatever the label or badge or shibboleth, start pressuring you to come into line with their distinctive, you know something’s wrong. They want to enhance their own significance by your conformity to them: ‘See? We’re better. We’re superior. People are moving our way. They are becoming like us. We’re the buzz.’â€
Ortlund adds, “What is this, but deep emotional emptiness medicating itself by relational manipulation? This is not about Christ. This is about Self.â€
Isn’t that charitable, indeed.
Is it so hard to imagine that other people with whom we disagree may actually have good reasons for what they hold, and that they may actually be trying to honor, serve, and love the Lord and his church? Apparently, Ortlund would rather speculate on motives and psychology.
Ortlund concludes with this plea to Reformed Protestants:
My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.
Brother Ray, I have been around the non-Reformed and they are not nearly as much fun as Reformed folks are. As much as I do enjoy Mark Dever’s company (sorry for name-dropping), I refuse to smoke a cigar or drink a Gin & Tonic in his company, not because I find him unworthy of such camaraderie but because I know my smoking or imbibing could get Mark in trouble. Baptists still bulk large in the prohibitionist camp and for that reason the merriment supplied by leisurely conversation over a pipe or a pint (better with both) is off limits to many of the Christian groups that Ortlund wants me to hang out with and have fun.
This may seem like a trivial point but it actually bears much more on the passage to which Ortlund appeals than it might seem at first. Paul’s battle with the Judaizers was over the misapplication of Scripture. In the Judaizers’ hands formerly God-made rules had become man-made norms because the work of Christ introduced freedom from the old covenant norms. In other words, the Judaizers were effectively substituting man-made rules for being Christian than the gospel that Paul was preaching. The Judaizers were denying Christian liberty in the way that contemporary believers do when they conclude that smoking or drinking is sin with (erroneous) appeals to Scripture. Without a proper biblical justification for their prohibitions they wind up enslaving Christians and thus burden the very gospel that Paul was out to protect among the Galatians.
In my own knowledge of church history, it is the Reformed (and other confessional Protestants) who understand much better than the “Jesus only†evangelicals the difference between the word of God and the words of men. And it is this difference that makes Reformed Protestants (with apologies to my friend, Mark Dever) more fun.
184 Comments
Zrim,
Nope, it’s just mistaken.
Raja,
Well, I’d rather the Baptist calling my baptism false than you calling me schismatic and him (downgraded to) mistaken. Sort of like the Catholic anathematizing for sola fide. They both understand the importance of doctrine instead the importance of “understanding.”
Thanks for the tussle.
Raja, so if I cop to Baptists being in error the way that Mark Dever said that Presbyterians were in sin by baptizing babies do you win? Baptists are in error. They are not false churches the way Rome is — feel the love?
So what does that prove? You already knew that Presbyterians regard Baptists as being in error and that I am not loving — Ortlund’s post remember?
So what? You went through all these comments for the obvious? Hey, buy that pope a cigar!
DGH,
This isn’t about winning. I am making the point that there is room for differences among true churches on secondary matters–which you adamantly deny.
Odd that you would label me a pope when you are the one declaring the correct interpretation of Scripture from the Reformed Magisterium, and excluding all who disagree.
Who’s acting like the Pope here?
Regardless, thank you for the interaction.
love,
RD
Raja, what you don’t see is that you “win” when you get to determine what the “secondary” matters are. Liberals told fundamentalists that the Virgin Birth was a “secondary” matter. Fosdick actually called it tiddly winks. So if I am concerned about a “secondary” matter, then I’m not loving. But you’ve begged the question so that you win even if your repeated responses here show that you don’t know it. But you’ve won — congratulations — only because you and Ortlund established the rules without consulting TR’s. That may not be unloving, but it’s not very sporting.
“Raja, so if I cop to Baptists being in error the way that Mark Dever said that Presbyterians were in sin by baptizing babies do you win? Baptists are in error. They are not false churches the way Rome is — feel the love? ”
Please explain. My reading of the Belgic Confession states that “churches” that do not properly adminster the sacraments are in fact “sects,” and ordinarily there is no salvation outside the (true) church. Denying God’s covenant sign and seal to our infant children seems to me to be the equivalent of denying them Christ Himself. Isn’t it better to have a large millstone be placed around one’s neck and be thrown into the sea than to do such a thing?
Catabaptists existed in Calvin’s day and I have a hard time believing he didn’t see them as members of false churches. Of course, I could be misunderstanding you and what you meant is that, “Baptists are members of false churches, but their churches are not false in the way of Rome.”
The Reformed Confessions don’t seem to leave much hope for “believers” who are life-long members of false churches. I’m not trolling with this comment, btw, or trying to start unnecessary controversy.
Walt, I was trying to follow Ortlund and be “fun” to Raja. You, sir, are downright mean (but I do agree with you).
DGH,
The Virgin Birth is not a secondary matter. You can’t seem to make a simple distinction between the essence of the faith that almost all Christians hold to (our common confession), and secondary matters where there is (and has been, and will always be on this side of heaven) disagreement.
Walt rightly points out your inconsistency, and then you “agree” with him. Well, which is it? Letter grade distinctions based on your confessional assessment or agreeing with Walt that “The Reformed Confessions don’t seem to leave much hope for “believers†who are life-long members of false churches”.
Your previous statements contradict Walt’s point. You can’t have it both ways…
Raja, like I said you win since you get to define what is primary and secondary. But as Zrim said, if the Virgin Birth is essential say hello to Rome (which is fitting given your papal decrees). Where Walt and I may disagree is over admitting Baptists to the Lord’s Supper. Some Reformed communions practice close communion and will not let non-Reformed participate. I am a member of a communion, though, that loves.
DGH,
Oh, I see. The charges of papal authority are based on my assesment of what is primary and secondary. Well, I think the Apostle’s Creed sums up the primary stuff pretty well. Did the Pope write that? Any way, I do appreciate your work, and enjoyed the discussion.
Peace,
RD
“Some Reformed communions practice close communion and will not let non-Reformed participate.”
Glad you’re not a part of such a communion, since the Lord’s Supper is a Christian sacrament, not a Reformed one.
Raja,
I hate to be a fly in the ointment (yet again), but the Lord’s Supper is understood vastly differently in Christian sects vs. Christian churches. You can compare the Baptist position on the Lord’s Supper to the Reformed position by comparing the London Confession to the WCF where both discuss the Lord’s Supper.
Also, Rome (a Christian sect) observes the Lord’s Supper as well but they understand it completely differently than do the Reformed, so I’m not sure you’re making much of a point.
Of course, I’m not saying all of this stuff to be divisive. I truly find the Reformer’s doctrine of the church and their position on the sacraments to be biblical and I believe them when they say, “ordinarily, there is no salvation outside the church.” That last point tends to cause me much more worry than it causes Baptists and evangelicals though.
Walt,
The only point I was making is that fencing the table to only those who hold to the WCF is divisive, the sacrament is for Christians–Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.
I have in view Protestants, not Roman Catholics as I don’t consider the RCC to be orthodox.
I agree with the last point generally, however I view non-Reformed and Baptist churches to be true churches of Christ if they preach the gospel.
best,
RD
Raja,
I’m back.
Your contention is that sacramentology is entirely secondary, so Reformed paedobaptists who say that credo-baptism is to take one giant step away from orthodoxy is “unduly divisve” (the credo-Baptist who calls the infant baptism “false” is merely “mistaken,” which is a curious disproportion by the way). And so you say that where the confessions elevate baptism to marks of orthodoxy should be revised.
Since communion is the other sacrament, does that mean you think Heidelberg 80 should also be revised, where it says that “…the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry”?
IOW, if Belgic 29 creates undue divisions over baptismal sacramentology then doesn’t HC 80 do the same over eucharistic sacramentology? And, if so, it would seem to me that while the revision of the former might bring Baptists into closer communion with Presbyterians then so would the latter bring us closer to Rome. But maybe your arbitrary decree that sacramentology is secondary only counts for baptismal sacramentology, but that seems like piling arbitrariness atop even more arbitrariness.
I just saw the below post over at Triablogue. Perhaps you guys can go over there and beat them up
“Thank you for your comments. We also agree that there must be essential unity in the church of Jesus Christ and that Christians must strive for such so as to maintain a strong and effective witness to a lost and dying world. However, I have several disagreements that I would like to share:
1. Paul was not warning against denominations in 1 Cor. 1:10-17, for such a reading would be anachronistic. Instead, he’s condemning sectarianism/factions within the local church at Corinth. This is not the same thing as denominationalism as it has been historically understood. Denominationalism has been historically rooted in a core set of Protestant beliefs; i.e., The Five Solas of Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of the Trinity, the virginal conception of Christ, and the literal resurrection of Christ and of all people at His second coming. In other words, various local churches could have different views on say the mode and subjects of baptism but in order to be considered a true church of Christ they had to adhere to certain cardinal doctrines of the faith in order to be considered truly Christian.
Being Christian means believing that Jesus is the one savior, that should be what brings us together, denominations should not get in the way. We may have different approaches to things, but we can still worship together, love each other, and love the world, together, we still believe the same core beliefs, we all believe in Jesus, the trinity, and the apostles creed, these are what matter, not the the different ways we go about believing in them. Jesus is not divided, nor should we be.”
Maybe DGH will give them a “C”!
Raja, actually I’ll give you an F for two reasons. First you keep signing off than then you keep coming back. Second, ahem, the apostle’s creed is not the confessional standard of Reformed Churches. There is something called a bit of intervening history that fleshed out AC’s affirmations. Funny, liberal Protestants affirmed the AC to avoid all that difficult theology of the 16th and 17th centuries. Where are you Raja? First Pope, then apostle, now liberal? My, I hope you don’t lose your head.
Raja,
There’s good reason you resonate. Like Ortlund represents the pietist wing of Reformed evangelicalism, Triablogue represents its philosophic-apologetic wing. Neither has the high view of the ecclesiastical expressions that Reformed confessionalism does and both eschew those who cling too much to their churchly religion. Pietism resembles Paul’s super-apostles and subjects the forms to the evaluation of certain personalities and their heart religion, and the philosophers-apologists resemble the Greeks and employ their favorites. This is all still the difference between ecclesiastical Reformed and movement Reformed.
And I’ll see DGH’s point about the AC and raise another: good as they are, the five solas are what we call a slogan; they don’t even rise to the level of creed. So to make them unifying the way the Three Forms of (here it comes) Unity are is even more dubious.
Sorry Zrim,
We’ll have to joust over the Lord’s Supper another time, I’m afraid I have worn out my welcome from our gracious host.
Until then,
RD
Sorry Zrim,
We’ll have to joust over the Lord’s Supper another time, I’m afraid I have worn out my welcome from our gracious host.
DGH, I cited the T-Blog post because every little label you want to slap on me you have to slap on them as well (and I happened to see it after my last comments here, sorry) The T-bloggers are not exactly known for being “nice”, but at least they get it.
best,
RD
RD, what do they get? I think I get IT. I also think I have IT.
DGH,
They get this:
“Being Christian means believing that Jesus is the one savior, that should be what brings us together, denominations should not get in the way. We may have different approaches to things, but we can still worship together, love each other, and love the world, together, we still believe the same core beliefs, we all believe in Jesus, the trinity, and the apostles creed, these are what matter, not the the different ways we go about believing in them. Jesus is not divided, nor should we be.â€
You understand IT, but reject IT on confessional grounds (which, I know, I know, you think are biblical grounds).
Raja,
Clearly neither you nor DGH think you have worn out your welcome. So, if you don’t mind, please go ahead with your answer to my query on eucharistic sacramentology.
(Re the T-blog, the label they get is the same one you get: Reformed evangelicalism. But how “nice” was it of Ortlund to charge Galatianism against confessionalists? I guess the pietist RE’s and the philo-apolo RE’s are just taking after the revivalists who charged the confessionalists with being unconverted.)
Zrim,
In all fairness, I have tried to bow out. DGH loves me too much to let me go!
Just one comment on baptism, I would consider Baptists who deny that Prebyterians are true churches of Christ the same way I do paedobaptists that do the same to credos.
In my opinion, Heidelberg 80 doesn’t need to be revised. Again, I reject the RCC as a true church of Christ for gospel reasons.
You asked:
“IOW, if Belgic 29 creates undue divisions over baptismal sacramentology then doesn’t HC 80 do the same over eucharistic sacramentology?”
No, not undue divisions–necessary ones.
Also, I would never suggest that confessionalists are unconverted based on their confessionalism. That’s nonsense…
Raja,
…I would consider Baptists who deny that Prebyterians are true churches of Christ the same way I do paedobaptists that do the same to credos.
Well, assuming by “the same way” you mean “unduly divisive” (which is an upgrade from your previous “mistaken”) I suppose that’s something. Still, though, the credo would demand my daughter be re-baptized because her infant baptism was “false.” I’ll still take his sacramental chutzpa over your koombaya evangelicalism. I remain perplexed, however, over Ortlund’s (credo) koombayaness co-existing with his (credo) chutzpa.
In my opinion, Heidelberg 80 doesn’t need to be revised. Again, I reject the RCC as a true church of Christ for gospel reasons.
I reject the RCC as a true church of Christ for gospel reasons, too. But I also consider that soteriology and sacramentology are necessarily linked, as in orthodoxy begets orthopraxis: the Mass is consistent with the theology. Now, as Walt has pointed out, when the credo rejects baptism for his covenant child he effectively denies Christ, even if he formally confesses sola fide. He’s inconsistent. He’s given us reason to doubt his formal confession by his action. But you must think that soteriology and sacramentology aren’t necessarily linked when it comes to baptismal sacramentology (since Belgic 29 needs revision), but it is when it comes to eucharistic sacramentology (since you think HC 80 doesn’t).
I would never suggest that confessionalists are unconverted based on their confessionalism. That’s nonsense…
Hmmm, but suggesting that confessionalists are “Galatian” is ok? That’s what Ortlund did, and when we raise our hands in dissent we’re being difficult (in fact, you might recall Sullivan saying I was resisting godly exhortation).
Zrim,
“orthodoxy begets orthopraxis”
This goes back to the rigidity of what you consider to be orthodox. I try to leave the borders as wide as the Bible allows. There is believers baptism in the Bible.
I think that when a church turns the Lord’s Supper into idolatry, I have reason to question that church’s orthodoxy.
“Hmmm, but suggesting that confessionalists are “Galatian†is ok?”
It was a suggestion, not a dogmatic pronouncement. Feel free to raise your hand in dissent.
Raja,
Paedobaptism includes believer’s baptism. Indeed, if it’s maximizing one wants then how much more can one get than with paedobaptism? It’s credo-baptism that unduly excludes.
I think that when a church turns the Lord’s Supper into idolatry I have reason to question that church’s orthodoxy, too. I also think that when it denies grace and the sign of the covenant to members of the covenant I also have reason to question that church’s orthodoxy. What I can’t figure out is why you think baptismal sacramentology is so radically different from eucharistic sacramentology, so I’ll ask bluntly: why?
How is suggesting Galatianism less offensive than dogmatically pronouncing it? Isn’t that like saying, “Well, I didn’t come out and call you a racist, but that is what I’m suggesting”? Still, we’re talking about Galatianism here, so shouldn’t the mode match the content and be a dogmatic pronouncement? Or is it possible that Ortlundism simply waaaay overtstates its case and means old-fashioned incivility and gracelessness instead of the sort of thing that gets apostles and angels condemned?
Raja, I also reject IT on historical grounds. That sentiment not only narrows the Bible to a lowest common denominator but is the seed of liberalism and an undisciplined church. You might want to check out today’s post about Ortlund’s ally in the Gospel Coalition, Tim Keller.
Mike Horton may be ‘more fun’ than RayO, and just as wishy-washy:
Mike wrote on April Fools Day this year:
“I admire Rick Warren’s zeal for reaching non-Christians and concern for global challenges. I respect him for giving away much of his income for charitable purposes.
“At the same time, I believe that his message distorts the gospel and that he is contributing to the human-centered pragmatism that is eroding the proper ministry and mission of the church. Judging by The Purpose-Driven Life, Pastor Warren’s theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism, especially with its emphasis on the new birth as the result of human decision and cooperation with grace. There are also heavy traces of Keswick “higher life†teaching throughout the book. None of this disqualifies him from being an evangelical statesman. After all, much the same can be said of Billy Graham.”
& “While I applaud his concern for social justice, I am concerned that he confuses the law with the gospel and the work of Christians in their vocations (obeying the Great Commandment) with the work of Christ through his church in its ministry of Word and sacrament (the Great Commission).”
Quoting JewishJournal.com: “Warren managed to speak for the entire evening without once mentioning Jesus — a testament to his savvy message-tailoring.”
& “Getting the gospel right and getting the gospel out, as well as loving and serving our neighbors, comprise the callings of the church and of Christians in the world. However, confusing these is always disastrous for our message and mission.”
Translation: “I admire & respect & applaud Rick Warren. Though he distorts the gospel & confuses law & gospel, it’s not enough to bother about.â€
In June 2010, Horton spoke at the Lausanne “Global Conversation†held at Saddleback Church and hosted by its pastor, Rick Warren. Says Horton, “It’s great to be able to discuss our differences as well as our common convictions in a spirit of friendship as well as mutual challenge. Our mission at White Horse Inn is to go to any forum that invites us where we have a chance to clarify what we are convinced is the proper message and mission of the church.” http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/522/cpage/1.html#comment-1463
Judge for yourself whether you hear any “challenge,” “clarification,” or “the proper message” of the church (i.e. the gospel)! See http://www.saddleback.com/webcast/12cities12conversations/
We can say, “gospel, gospel, gospel” all day long, as Mike did this month with the Warrenites, but w/o reproving those who promote a false one (one distorted or confused), we fail to honor Christ, edify his saints, or confront his enemies. Titus 1:9 and all that…
Mike sounded tough in print, but folded at S-back! (I have written this email to him, too.)
Online he gives back with the left hand what he appeared to take away with the right, and when given the opportunity to “hammer” in person, he failed to DEFINE the gospel with McPherson, Belcher, Mrs. Warren, et. al., much less CHALLENGE those who are distorting and confusing the gospel!
… we keep running away from the gospel in the name of ‘gospel’!
Q: Why the uncertain sounds?!
A: Luther is dead.
Mike says he had “a great time” with one whom he says “confuses the law with the gospel,” a man whose “message distorts the gospel,” and who “is contributing to the human-centered pragmatism that is eroding the proper ministry and mission of the church.”
He was all hugs and smiles for one whose “theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism, especially with its emphasis on the new birth as the result of human decision and cooperation with grace.”
But, “None of this disqualifies him from being an evangelical statesman.” So it’s all O.K.!?
Horton’s blog posts on Warren at http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/tag/rick-warren.html are conflicting at best.
Very sadly yours,
Hugh McCann
Yesterday I sent emails with and posted at blogs the false accusation that Michael Horton in his Saddleback appearance “failed to DEFINE the gospel with McPherson, Belcher, Mrs. Warren, et. al.”
But as has been pointed out to me, in Part One* of “The Conversation Gathering,” Mike says,
“Jesus Christ is the only gospel. He did it. He fulfilled the law in our place, bore the curses for our not having fulfilled it, and rose again as the firstfruits of the redemption of the world order. THAT is the gospel, and it’s wonderful good news because it’s not about me; and it’s not about my plans for making the world a better place.”
I therefore stand corrected and retract my statement above, apologize to Dr. Horton and anyone else offended by my false accusation, and ask the forgiveness of any and all offended by this.
Thank you,
Hugh McCann
* http://www.saddleback.com/webcast/12cities12conversations/ at 61:19 & following.
Hugh, thanks.
It’s sadly funny how gullible today’s neo-reformed leaders can be:
Rick Warren whispers the magic word “Edwards” in John Piper’s ear and he gets invited to DesGod. What better shibboleth (or “Open, Simsim”) could Warren have chosen to get Piper to open his doors?
Mike Horton wrote in response to Piper’s invite of RW (April 1, 2010):
“…Pastor Warren tailors his appeals to his audience. To Calvinists, he stresses his support for the ‘solas’ of the Reformation… Rick Warren endorses a host of books, from New Age authors to Emergent writers to conservative evangelicals. So why not include Calvinists?…”
And why not Westminster Seminary profs, too?
Dr. Horton apparently thought twice about his condemnatory stance toward Rick Warren, since he participated in the June “Saddleback Conversation Gathering,” held in the run-up to the October Lausanne Conference.*
Horton gives this cheery update from June 23rd:
“I had a great time at the Lausanne ‘Global Conversation’ held at Saddleback Church and hosted by its pastor, Rick Warren. It was a privilege to be part of a distinguished panel of evangelical leaders from a wide variety of backgrounds. Before the panel discussion, Rick Warren interviewed me for his Purpose-Driven network. …It’s great to be able to discuss our differences as well as our common convictions in a spirit of friendship as well as mutual challenge. Our mission at White Horse Inn is to go to any forum that invites us where we have a chance to clarify what we are convinced is the proper message and mission of the church…”
Dr. Horton apparently missed his own warning! He attacks Warren as a man-pleaser, and as a distorter of the gospel, and then strangely changes strategy, feeling “privileged” to speak at a conference hosted by Warren @ S-back!
If Warren is as nefarious as Horton painted him on April Fools Day, then Horton’s embrace (literally) of Warren is akin to Luther calling the pope the antichrist one day and kissing his ring the next, or Paul hugging a Judaizer after writing that such should be “cut off” & ananthema!
See http://www.trinityfoundation.org/horror_show.php?id=51 for a piece the editor calls “Horton’s Hypocrisy.”
I have also challenged Dr. Horton in private. I call on his friends and fans to do the same. May he be granted repentance of his capitulation to pragmatism and of his hypocrisy toward Warren.
Yours for Christ & the gospel,
Hugh McCann
* The list of endorsers of Lausanne is a who’s-who of Evangelicaldom: Graham, Hayford, Orombi, Stott, Tada, & Warren, along with Campus Crusade, Evangelism Explosion, & The Navigators. Rick Warren and others promote the conference in short videos at http://www.lausanne.org/.
One readily sees how pervasive this movement is, as many putatively “Reformed” seminaries participate: Covenant, Fuller, Gordon-Conwell, & TEDS. A number of “Reformed” folk are speaking in pre-Lausanne conversations: Belcher, Chandler, Chapell, Duncan, Guinness, Horton, Keller. Also, Mark Dever recently discussed justice with Jim Wallis at the http://www.12cities12conversations.com website.
Hugh, so what’s your point? I get it. Mike is inconsistent sometimes. Let’s say he’s 90% right and 10% inconsistent, and if Warren is 10% right, and 90% inconsistent, does that make them equally bad? I guess they would be if you’re God. But I’ve read the Bible, and you’re no god.
So why don’t you start a Mike Horton Waffles blog?
Dear DGH,
Well, given his pass of Rice (Anne, not Condi), and now schmoozing Rick W., we are concerned. I support WHI and have bought loads of Putting Amazing, X-less Xianity, & Gospel-Driven to give away. But he’s a teacher of pastors.
Mike has been such a leader; he denounced RW as a gospel-perverter but then pals with him.
We want Luthers, Cranmers, Tyndales, and Calvins these days. That’s all.
Again, thanks.
Hugh
9 Trackbacks
Not to be a Johnny Rain Cloud…
After reading D. G. Hart’s excellent critique of Ray Ortlund’s post on reforming the Reformed (T.R.s) and reading of a conference in my home town at a Bible Church, I couldn’t help but become deeply frustrated with this American minds…
[...] Like Which Jesus? Posted on June 10, 2010 by R. Scott Clark Ray Ortlund says that Reformed people need to be more like Jesus. That’s doubtless true! All believers need to be more and more conformed to the image of Christ. That’s sanctification. The issue isn’t so much whether Reformed people need to become more like Christ as much as it is this: to which Christ are we to be conformed? After all, the Reformed churches believe that they are seeking to be conformed to Christ. We confess a doctrine of sanctification (to which, certainly, we do not conform) but one wonders whether Ortlund is telling us to be conformed to the Christ we confess or to another confession of Christ. Darryl explores this problem. [...]
[...] tendencies, but rather our own hearts, and it is there to which we should give heed. Read: Mike Horton is More Fun Than Mark Dever (though Mark has his moments) at Old Life Theological [...]
[...] A recent post at OldLife got me thinking about this old post. To be sure, the larger point of the OldLife post is golden. But it entails this whole question about substance use and worldly amusement. I was raised by lapsed WASPs (and, distantly, Catholics). And, after reluctantly converting but happily marrying into pietistic evangelicalism, then into confessional Protestantism, I think I’ve had a good bit of experience to say the following. While all else has been the latter for years, I have come to understand my views on substance use and worldly amusement to be more WASP-y than Old School Presbyterian. Here’s why. The Old School Presbyterians seem to share something in common with the Pietists they rightly mean to counter (sorry, guys): use or non-use is a comment on one’s spirituality. For the Pietist, abstinence means spiritual, and for the Old School Presbyterian use means the same thing. But in the WASP-world, this assumption just isn’t shared. Use, don’t use, nobody really cares much. Of course, WASP-i-osity sides much more with Old School Presbyterianism to the extent that both are favorable to Christian liberty than pietist legality. Anyway, here is the re-run… [...]
[...] about all this “Reformed” posturing that has now become the fashion. Dr. Hart’s essay continues the [...]
[...] 12, 2010 at 10:37 am (Uncategorized) You can read it here. I enjoyed the [...]
[...] Reformed) and all that it embodies. Ray Ortlund, Jr. re-posted one of his old blogs, to which Darryl Hart then replied, and finally Lane Keister expounded a bit further on the [...]
[...] friendly interlocutor, Zrim, took a dose of exception to the recent post here about drinking and smoking with Mike Horton – not with Mark Dever. He makes the plausible point [...]
[...] Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Mike Horton is MoreMeet Mark Dever. Like Dr. Wayne Grudem, Dr. Dever is scary smart. He has an M.Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a Th.M. from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge. … Two-Part Interview with Mark DeverC.J. tells the story behind his two-part interview with… [...]