The Young Restless and Reformed may be surprised to learn that some Reformed Protestants do not consider the young and restless to be very Reformed. They might even be surprised to know that Reformed Protestantism exists outside Desiring God Ministries, The Gospel Coalition, and Acts 29 (but that is another matter). But the Old Settled and Reformed keep tabs on the younger crowd and the reviews are not encouraging.
Brent Ferry is an OPC minister who is not particularly old and since he is a husband and father is fairly settles. But as an avocation he plays drums for a band and has a feel for youth and restlessness. Despite his demographical profile and musical talent, he is not much impressed with the recent Crossway book by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (2010). The recent issue of the OPC’s magazine, New Horizons, has Ferry’s review of Driscoll and Breshears. Here is an excerpt:
Driscoll is sometimes identified as part of evangelicalism’s resurgent Calvinistic movement. Besides puffs and quotes from Reformed authors, however, the book does not reflect the contours of Reformed thought at all.
For example, the authors omit the covenant of works (p. 177). They argue against limited atonement in favor of hypothetical universalism (p. 267). They condition regeneration upon faith and repentance (pp. 317, 436). There is no clear affirmation of unconditional predestination. The book excludes the fourth commandment from the abiding moral law (pp. 198-99), yet has a high view of the Lord’s Day (pp. 381-84). It also contains pictures of Christ (pp. 208, 244). . . .
In short, Doctrine is a hodgepodge of various theological trajectories. When the authors compare Noah’s drunkenness to “a hillbilly redneck on vacation” (p. 184), they reveal the nature of their contextualization project, which is to promote a Christianity that embraces irreverent adolescence. Theologically, this book does does rise above that standard, but not by much.
Old Life 
“A hillbilly redneck on vacation”? Really?
LikeLike
Just sold my copy 😉
Did you know that Dr. Trueman wrote a blurb for this book? I love Dr. Trueman’s articles but I am still puzzled as to why he plays footsies with YRR, SGM, and T4G at times. I grabbed this from my pdf copy:
“Christianity is ineradicably doctrinal, and, contrary to popular instincts, doctrine
unites, as Paul makes clear in Romans 16:17. The question for church leaders, therefore,
is how to communicate Christian doctrine in a clear, faithful, and winsome way.
It is therefore a pleasure to commend this book, an excellent primer in basic Christian
teaching. It will serve as an introduction for new Christians, a refresher for church
members, and a good text for Sunday school classes. Highly recommended.”
Carl Trueman, Academic Dean and Vice President,
Westminster Theological Seminary
LikeLike
“..however, the book does not reflect the contours of Reformed theology at all.” I like that line – clear, and no faffing about. I get the sense that in evangelical and GC/Acts29/TFG circles there is an unscripted but essential code as the guiding light: don’t criticise one’s peers even if what they write or say is, to use a Lancashire/Mancunian/Noel Gallagher descriptive term,’ bobbins’, which means basically rubbish or trash. Or in another phrase from the same blunt North West of England, Driscoll writes ‘a load of tripe’. Why such hard words? Because the ever so nice polity and back slapping of such gatherings like those above allow these guys to ride on the crest of a trend, and thereby allow chunks of essential and vital doctrine to be omitted or distorted. Expose them, don’t praise them. On a similar theme, I don’t think I was the only person not to be taken in by the street cred ways of CJ Mahaney who was hanging out with and promoted by the ‘Reformed’ big names, but it amazes me how his allies at ACE and those like Kevin DeYoung still staunchly defend him.
The rather odd fan base of Driscoll and such men is not some theory of mine; recently on Ref21 a noted Free Church of Scotland minister and board member of the ACE wrote of Driscoll’s book in glowing terms, with just a few words about it’s fundamental caveats. And then in May 2011 in London the chaps of the Men’s Convention (a sort of Anglican, evangelical para church set up with a fawning nod to essentially charismatic types) were ecstatic to get Driscoll to address their Convention. I wonder what they would make of Brent’s assessment of Driscoll’s book?
I have flagged up in the past Driscoll’s questioning of the eternal generation of the Son of God. To many this may seem a high falutin’ and nit picking issue to raise but I am sure that unless (as the the early Church Fathers argued and scrapped for such), these doctrines are upheld then their erosion and questioning may lead to big trouble. I also see Brent Ferry rightly picks up Driscoll about his approach to the Sabbath not being part of the abiding moral law – good point, but others like Kevin DeYoung take the same line too and he, like Driscoll, has some kind of Reformed tools in his bag and slips past criticism. It would be so refreshing and even helpful if these men who are read and listened to world wide would answer head on some of the concerns raised by men like Ferry, but I guess they are too busy with their agendas and the para church clubs like those mentioned above.
LikeLike
DJ, time to fix the indemnity?
LikeLike
DJ,
I am not surprised that Carl Trueman wrote such a glowing recommendation for Driscoll’s book. I could be wide of the mark, as I am getting the sense he clearly likes to be a wide up merchant or even something of a maverick in Reformed circles. Hence he may have known that to recommend a book like this would not go down well with some. Even though I know he is a master craftsman of words with a tangy descriptive turn of phrase, I would also say that it does not surprise me to think that even this rightly respected and learned man can be wrong about men like Driscoll and make a massive error in recommending him. Recently Carl wrote on REF21 about the riots which took place in England this summer – he was wide of the mark in his assessment of the events by trying to put them in some sort of historical perspective by saying the Brits have a notable history of rioting. If some of the folks who suffered directly during those mad and dark days of July could have read his assessment they may well have been, like me, deeply angered by his thoughts and analysis which would have been best placed in The Guardian or Independent newspapers. But I also noticed some of his arguments and lines of thought about the riots had an uncanny similarity to another article about the same events written here by a journalist in England around the same time.
LikeLike
settles = settled
Trueman, trying to straddle a chasm.
LikeLike
Driscoll’s Death By Love presents the common false gospel that the application of what took place at the cross depends on the sinner. Driscoll has no idea of an atonement in which the application of the atonement is secured by the atonement.
To the question of why can’t God simply forgive sins without punishing Jesus for sins, Driscoll correctly answers that somebody has to pay for sin for God to be God and to be just. But then he undermines the justice and satisfaction of God by saying again and again that Jesus died for all sinners and even paid for all their sins.
Notice that this is something different from saying that the application does not happen until the time of hearing and believing of the gospel. Certainly the elect are under the wrath of God until the time when the righteousness of the cross is imputed and applied to them . But Driscoll is saying that many for whom Jesus died will perish. He is saying that even though Jesus died to pay for the sins of Judas, that justice and satisfaction will not be effectual for Judas . So contrary to Romans 8:32, God will not freely give all things along with Jesus to all those for whom He gave His Son.
So this is not a good news message about what God has done, but only a message about what God will do if you do something. On p 193, Driscoll writes, “it all comes down to you and Jesus”. But in fact Driscoll’s message comes down to only you, the sinner.
Jesus according to him has paid the ransom for every sinner, so it most certainly does not come down to Jesus. It depends on the sinner, and then God will respond by applying it. Even though he writes about “efficacious” love (p240), the success depends on “if you turn”. He has no desire to tell the sinner that turning to the true gospel is a result guaranteed for the elect by the cross.
Driscoll is offended by Christ’s cross making the difference. How can the cross be the difference between saved and lost when you have a cross which is saying that God loves every sinner? Yes, Driscoll is clear that God hates many sinners in the end. But he contradicts this with his constant assurance to all sinners that Jesus has already paid for their sins.
LikeLike
While I am certainly no fan of Driscoll, the fact that he affirms hypothetical universalism is not a reason to say he is not Reformed on that point. A large number of Reformed theologians affirmed hypothetical universalism. That said, the rejection of the eternal generation of the Son is not only anti-Reformed, but against orthodoxy in general.
LikeLike
Who’s running Crossway? Wheaton, IL, correct? Is it Justin Taylor? GC?
Can we get some scholarship here?
The publication of Baldy Mahaney’s (Hansen’s term for CJ) volumes and other Baptacostalistic works raises questions.
Who’s running Crossway? Taylor?
LikeLike
DJ, my recommendations for future articles on the SGM-Mahaney slice of YRR. Hopefully, the prospective authors will take up the recommendations.
Ambassadors of Reconcilation. “The Long Story of Years of Cover-up: 1982-2011.” Big Moneyville: IL: Lutheran Press, 2011. Print.
Boorstein, Ms. “Congratulatory Tomczak Gets Dumped in Late De-Congratulatory SGM Developments, Nov 2011.” www. washingtonpost.com. Oct 2011. Web.
Challies, Tim. “Getting Rolled Bigtime: Mahaney Story.” http://www.challies.com. Oct 2011. Web.
Detwiler, Brent. “Crosshairs on Lying, Deception, Hypocrisy, and Other Documented and Unseemly Behaviours: A Study in the Records.” Mooresville, NC: Screw-over Press, 2011.
Dever, Mark. “Some Powerful Whiffs and Strange Odours Wafting Over from SGM.” Wash, DC: Odorific Press, 2011. Print.
Dever, Mark. “Sanctuary for a Scoundrel: Some Thoughts.” http://www.christianitytoday.com. Oct 2011. Web..
Duncan, Ligon. “Sticking My Foot in My Big Mouth: A Study in Hasty Conclusions Re: Mahaney and Claiming `My Old Friend’ Privilege.” http://www.ref21.com. Oct 2011. Web.
DeYoung, Kevin. “Did Mahaney Roll Me? Further Reflections.” http://www.gospelcoalition.com. Oct 2011. Web.
Emerson, Gene. “Church Control and Back-door Tactics and Operations: Lessons from Kingsway, Crossway, and Grace Churches.” Richmond, VA: Hose-em-over Press, 2010. Print.
Harvey, Davebitious. “Damage Control Procedures During DavetoberFest: Jul-Sept 2011.” (Phila, PA: Hotwater Press, 2011). Print.
Harvey, Davebitious. “My Historic Cravings for CJ’s Approval.” Phila, PA: Cravings Press, 2011.
Harvey, Davebitious. “Shuck and Jive Tactics: Jul-Dec 2011 Ops.” Phila, PA: Oh-Oh Press, 2011. Print or Web. Harvey,
Harvey, Davebitious. “My Historic Cravings for CJ’s Approval Over the Decades.” Phila, PA: Cravings Press, 2011. Print or Web.
Harris, Josh. “Getting Flipped: Story of a Mentor’s Lockdown and Accusations.” Gaithersburg, MD: What-Do-I-Do-100 Degree-Hotwater Press, 2011. Print or Web.
Kauflin, Bob. “Keepin’ Em’ Happy-Clappy, Enthused, and Passionate at CLC During a Meltdown of Intellect and Inquiry: Studies in Revivalism.” Gaithersburg, MD: Enthusiastic Press, 2011. Print or Web.
Kirchner, Eric. “Flipping on Detwiler in 45 Days: How SGM’s Gene Emerson, Davebitious, and CJ Flipped Me from April to May 2009.” Gaithersburg, MD: Coverup Press, 2010.
Mahaney, CJ. “Five-to-Thirteen Years of Coverup on Tomczak Including the Long Email Trail: How the Detwiler Docs Outted Me.” Gaithersburg, MD: Surprises-Central Press, 2010. Print.
Mahaney, CJ. “Counselling Families of Sex Abuse and Trauma: How to Do It With No Education Like Me and My SGM Pastors.” Gaithersburg, MD: Cultic Press, 2011. Print.
Mahaney, CJ. “Jude Tour Through Several Churches: How to Preach Jude without Reference to It.” Gaitherburg, MD: Non-Exegetical Press, 2011. Print.
Mahaney, CJ. “Working a Crowd: How to Exploit a Crowd of Willing Admirers to Meet Narcissistic Needs.” Gaithersburg, MD: Narcissistic Press, 2011.
Mahaney, CJ. “True Humility While All the Insiders Observe Otherwise, Including Davebitious: A Study in Deception.” Gaithersburg, MD: Humble Press, 2005.
Mahaney, CJ. “Spray-painting Brown Turds with Gold: Survival Studies in Perfuming Turds.” Gaithersburg, MD: Golden-Perfumed-Camouflage Press, 2011.
Mahaney, CJ. “Mountebankery 101: How to Enthuse, Gesticulate, Emote, Elevate, Whisper, Excite, and Suppress Reason.” Gaithersburg, MD: Speaking-from-the-Heart Ministries, 2011.
Mohler, Al. “How I Got Co-opted, Exploited and Rolled by Mahaney.” http://www.baptistnews.com. Oct 2012. Web.
Purswell, Jeff. “Exegetical Studies on Gossip and Slander Without Reference to Correlative Studies on Lying, Deceit, Abuse, Hypocrisy, or Other Themes: Tactical and Strategic Studies.” Gaithersburg, MD: Wow-em-Press, 2011. Print.
Tomczak, Larry. “Story of CJ: 13 Years and CJ Gets Sense after Being Outted.” Nasheville: Bonejob Press, 2011.
Tomczak, Larry. “Flip-Flopping: The `Invite-Disvite Saga,’ Nov 2011 SGM Pastors Conference.” http://www.christianitytoday.com. Oct 2011. Web.
Trueman, Carl. “Sticking My Nose into SGM-Business While Not Understanding a Lick: Confession by a Scholar.” Phila, PA: Meathead Press, 2011. Print.
Veitch, Donald Philip. “Lawful Rules for Legitimate Sarcasm and Justifiable Contempt for Toxic-Two-Timers, Liars, and Other Hypocrites.” Camp Lejeune, NC: Truth-Seeking Press, 2011. Print.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart – Do you know why this review isn’t on-line to read? I search for it at opc.org and couldn’t find it.
Mark Mc – very true, this death by Love is very similar to what Rick Warren & the other Purpose Driven/Seeker guys preach also. To listen to Warren’s message from 2010 Desiring God Conference.
LikeLike
I wrote a typo error in my last post. I wrote “wide up” and should have written “wind up”.
Mark McCulley: your post is a good read – concise,helpful, and a model of brevity.If you are seminary trained, thankfully you don’t wear it on your sleeve. Is there any others who could likewise comment on other serious issues in Driscoll’s theology like the eternal generation of the Son which he has downplayed, if I am understanding him correctly?
I understand if some would think my calling Driscoll’s book garbage is a tad harsh. But when those like Mark McCulley and Brent Ferry expose the flaws of his thinking, then it is right and proper to warn people to NOT recommend such men and their teaching. Sadly, there is no process to refer these stars to a Presbytery to call them to account so places like OL help to raise the issues.
Some also may feel I was being hard on Carl Trueman. But then I thought also of how recently he seemed to commend an Australian children’s evangelist/comedian called Colin Buchannan for putting the Apostles Creed (spoken by Carl) to basically a ditty so children could learn it. What in the world is going on? Was this some sort of joke? Or a wind up?
LikeLike
I agree with the “other Mark” that many who are “Reformed” also teach a hypothetical atonement.And also many who do sign the Reformed Confessions seem to treat definite effectual atonement as only a “shelf doctrine”. The heresy of an atonement conditioned on the sinner is nevertheless a contradiction of the gospel and of the WCF.
Notice that I don’t call it “hypothetical universalism”. An atonement that does not atone is not the biblical atonement. The issue here is not only the extent but also the nature of Christ’s death.
On another issue, I know John Murray was OPC and that he denied “the covenant of works”. I wonder if anybody knows how many clergymen in the OPC now deny “the covenant of works”.
I am 56 years old. Not young but still more restless than I should be….
LikeLike
I’m certainly no expert in theology – especially Reformed theology, so I do try to not comment on your distinctives (alas, not always successfully!). But, I would like to give an outsider’s two cents on a couple of things.
Re: Driscoll
The thing that I find beyond the pale in this situation is his spooky spirituals. When I watched the video with Driscoll and Doug Wilson, I was reminded of all the soothing assurances and rationalizations of the charismatic movement back in the 80’s and 90’s. Does anyone else remember that? I don’t think we need to tip-toe around the problems with his “gifts” – the guy has left the farm. Driscoll has no more checks and balances than the charismatics and their non-denominational churches. There are problems that begin occurring when we leave the means of grace and start playing around outside those boundaries. And it is always the laity that gets creamed. The SGM has a survivors group and a Mars Hill survivor group will not be far behind. No one who has read Acts 16:16-18 or church history should be surprised by the deceptiveness of the enemy outside the means of grace.
Re: Trueman
IMO, he is a man with all of the accompanying limitations, faults, and weaknesses common to us all. It’s always a temptation to be swept up by the acceptance and flattery of being part of the “in-crowd,” not to mention the fame, wealth, and other such things that accompany it. I have hopes that he will wake-up to the slippery slope he is sliding down – despite the fact that it smells like Westminster Seminary East is in danger too. Trueman has a reputation for being an “expert” on Luther, but from this Lutherans point of view, a lot of the things he says make me cringe because his comments show a deep lack of understanding of Lutheranism. IMO, Trueman may be okay on the rudimentaries, but it’s far better to read a qualified Lutheran theologian on Luther (and the same can be said with reading a qualified Reformed theologian on Calvin).
Sigh… five point Calvinists are almost as rare as paleo- pietists. An endangered species?
LikeLike
DPV – that’s one of the funniest things I have read in a while! Did you post at SGMS blog? I haven’t checked it in a few days…
LikeLike
Mark Mc,
Sorry, but hypothetical universalism has a strong Reformed orthodox pedigree, and even some Westminster divines were hypothetical universalists, not to mention some very able Reformed theologians on the Continent. And I tend to think HU is something one can hold to and hold to the WCF, even though I am not HU myself.
The point is that if we are going to critique Driscoll’s book for having non-Reformed elements, we had better stick to those points where he is clearly not Reformed.
Mark
LikeLike
@Mark McCulley regarding John Murray:
Can you provide a citation please for Murray’s alleged denial of the covenant of works? My understanding of his position is that he was uncomfortable with the language on the grounds that biblical precedent was wanting, but I thought he was comfortable with the theological content of the concept. Can you elaborate please?
LikeLike
On John Murray and the Covenant of Works, I would refer you to the two excellent essays in the volume By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters(one of the better Crossway books!) by David Gordon and John Bolt. But for now let me give you a footnote from the OPC report on justification:
17 For example, John Murray (1898-1975) expressed his difficulties with the covenant of works in “The Adamic Administration,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 47-59. Murray’s critique centered on his conviction that “covenant” is always redemptive, and hence inapplicable in the pre-lapsarian context, and that the presence of grace in God’s dealings with Adam makes the terminology of “works” misleading. Murray, however, did affirm the necessity of Adam’s perfect obedience and the promise of eschatological life if he did obey. Murray’s contemporary, Anthony Hoekema (1913-88), followed the general
lines of Murray’s critique, though he was less sure than Murray whether Adam’s obedience would have led to eschatological life. Yet he also asserted that “we must indeed maintain the doctrinal truths that lie behind the concept of the covenant of works” (see Hoekema’s Created in God’s Image [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 118-21). A different sort of critique was offered by Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965) in Reformed Dogmatics Grand Rapids: Reformed Free, 1966), 214-26.
LikeLike
Just to give you a little taste of the David Gordon!—Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow. In my opinion, Murray kept what ought to be discarded and discarded what ought to be kept.
John Murray despised dispensationalism. We all disagree with it, but few of us with the passion of John Murray.
What Murray jettisoned was the notion of distinctions of kind between the covenants. He wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it.
The first generation of the magisterial Reformers would have emphasized discontinuity; they believed that Rome retained too much continuity with the levitical aspects of the Sinai administration. But the Auburn theology cannot describe covenant theology without reference to dispensationalism, despite the historical reality that covenant theology was here for several centuries before dispensationalism appeared.
My own way of discerning whether a person really has an understanding of covenant theology is to see whether he can describe it without reference to dispensationalism.
LikeLike
Westminster Confession, Chapter 3: VI.
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Chapter 8, V.
The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
Hebrews 10:14
For by one offering, He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
I agree with Mark that many “Reformed” have thought they could teach “the indicative declaration of what Christ has accomplished” without addressing the question of the extent of the atonement. But the nature of Christ’s righteousness ( and redemption, and reconciliation) cannot be clearly taught without saying that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ.
If Christ bore the sins of every individual, but not each of them is saved, then Christ’s blood cannot be taught as that which actually satisfies the demands of God’s law . If Christ’s death does not “set apart” the elect from the non-elect, then something sinners do or decide is that which sets apart.
I am not going to say, for example, that Richard Baxter and the Torrances are “not Reformed”. Rather, I say that they deny the gospel and contradict the Westminster Confession.
LikeLike
Mark Mc,
My last comment since this isn’t a big deal to me. But I am afraid you may be conflating Amyraldianism with HU. This has nothing to do with Baxter – who was not a Westminster divine – but more with those who were at the WA, such as Edmund Calamy, and held to HU. And I think if you properly understand HU you’ll see that it can “work” with the WCF. Consider, for example, the scholarly work of Jonathan D. Moore or Lee Gatiss.
LikeLike
Reading Jonathan Moore makes me think it will “work” only in you engage in double-speak and don’t talk about the nature of Christ’s reconciliation. Sure, Christ earned some extra stuff for the elect. But what is the nature of propitiation? Whose sins were imputed to Christ and who imputed those sins to Christ?
It’s not a deal with me to equate Baxter with the Torrances, or Calamy with Amyrald. “Reformed” folks can flee to McCleod Campbell if they want, or to Barth. The “Reformed” bus is very big. But these alternatives end up taking the place of the good news that Christ’s death for the elect is the righteousness which saves the elect.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, same question as Joe Coker — the review doesn’t show up on the OPC web site — any chance you or someone with access to it could copy or link to it?
LikeLike
DJ, like Paul(UK) suggests, it isn’t very surprising that Trueman lends plaudits to Driscoll. I recall reading a 2008 NTJ in which he wrote: “It wasn’t the confessional Presbyterians who told me the gospel; it wasn’t the confessional Lutherans who took the time to teach me the basics of the faith; it was the evangelicals. They cared enough to reach out to me and engage me…I owe everything, almost all my theology, and much of my Christian nurture to such people.”
While I share with Trueman the experience of evangelicals having “…cared enough to reach out and engage me,” what has always struck me as curiously absent his sentiment is what exactly it was that retained him. Since he has landed as a Presbyterian, I feel safe in assuming that it probably wasn’t, in Trueman’s words, a movement that “…requires the marginalizing of ecclesiastical distinctives.” Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to be thankful to those who were more concerned with keeping me than getting me? By my lights, it seems one thing to be civil and gracious toward someone, quite another to be so manifestly obligatory.
LikeLike
David and Joe, I’m not sure what New Horizons’ policy is for putting material on the website. Maybe it will show up after the next issue of NH comes out.
LikeLike
I was not aware that one could deny limited atonement and still be considered “reformed.” The Canons of the Synod of Dort repudiate an unlimited atonement. The three forms of unity define the Reformed faith.
Driscoll should call himself a “Christmas Calvinist,” or a 4 point Calvinist. Or, as R.C. Sproul has said, there is another name for a 4 point Calvinist . . . an Arminianist.
LikeLike
Arminianism is a “damnable heresy,” to borrow language from the WCF.
I think we largely have this problem with the YRR, Grace, Sovereign Grace, and other arminians and anabaptists because the Reformed have spent so much time trying to become popular with evangelicals and sharing conference podiums with them and engaging them in “dialogue,” where only one side listens (hint: not them).
LikeLike
Thanks Dr. Hart
I just went to the OPC.ORG’s contact us section and ask them if they would post it maybe with enough requests, they might.
I believe this a timely review and needs to be on-line. Especially with McDonald embracing unorthodox view of The Trinity and promoting TD Jakes and with his Emerging/Missional buddy, Mark Driscoll defending him. It needs to be known that Mark Driscoll doesn’t have an orthodox view and understanding the Trinity and not mention the pornographic Miss Cleo act he is now preforming at the Multi-site near you.
LikeLike
Haven’t read the Driscoll and Breshears book, but if Rev. Ferry’s review of it is accurate, then I would agree with him that the theology of that book should not be described as “Reformed.” At the same time, I find it interesting that included in Rev. Ferry’s litany of why the book is not sufficiently Reformed is the fact that the authors do not hold to the sabbath as part of the abiding moral law of God. Ferry writes: “The book excludes the fourth commandment from the abiding moral law (pp. 198-99), yet has a high view of the Lord’s Day (pp. 381-84).” Why I find this interesting is because the late biblical theologian and OPC minister Dr. Meredith Kline, who has exercised a tremendous influence on the thinking of the OPC and her ministers (myself included!), himself rejected the sabbath as part of the universally-binding moral law of God. Instead, he held to an innovative and unconfessional view that the sabbath is an eschatological sign that is only binding for the covenant community, and that we fulfill our sabbath obligation simply by participating in the “cultic” activities of the public assembly of worship on the Sabbath/Lord’s Day (i.e., he did not view the entire day as requiring abstention from secular labors and recreations, and as being set apart for physical rest and worship, as taught in our Confession of Faith). I guess my point is that before we seek to remove the insufficiently-Reformed specks of dust from the eyes of our YRR brethren, maybe we need to deal with the unconfessional theological planks portruding from our own Reformed eyes.
LikeLike
Hey guys. Isn’t it a standard understanding that the Atonement COULD have been sufficient for every single person who would ever live and if that had been God’s plan Christ wouldn’t have had to suffer anymore than he actually did? So, in theory or “hypothetically” it could have been universal, bur in ACTUALITY wasn’t? Or is HU something different? Obviously if someone argues that the Atonement, as is, could be universal they’re wrong; but if one argues it could have been, isn’t that ok?
(Please don’t take this as an attempt to defend Driscoll, who is monstrous, but merely my attempt to understand what you guys mean :P)
LikeLike
In some of the current literature, there is a distinction between “intrinsic sufficiency” (because of Christ’s person) and “intentional sufficiency” (because of a supposed “desire” by God for the salvation of the non-elect).
The key thing we need to see is that God’s sovereign justice demanded the death of Christ because certain specific sins had been imputed (charged, credited) to Christ by God. This is not to say that Christ would have had to die twice if there had been more elect.
An old formula from Lombard is used in the political compromise of the Synod of Dordt, “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect”. Or for those who don’t want to talk about the word “elect” at all: sufficient for all, efficient for the believer.
But the truth is that Christ’s death is not sufficient for the non-elect. What we really need to see is not simply the extent of the atonement but its nature.
What do we mean by sufficient for the elect alone? If we don’t understand how Christ’s death is enough for the elect, denying that Christ’s death works for the non-elect will not explain the gospel. Why did Christ need to die for the elect? And what did that death for the elect alone accomplish?
The regeneration of the elect does not satisfy God’s justice. Nor is it the application of benefits from Christ’s death which appeases God’s wrath. God’s wrath has already been appeased or not, and the justification of elect individuals is what happens when they are legally joined to that death.
The elect “receive the reconciliation” by God’s imputation.
LikeLike
I get ya (I think). So we shouldn’t even talk about Christ’s Atonement having a hypothetical sufficiency for everyone? We cannot separate what the Atonement had the potential to achieve from what it actually achieved?
LikeLike
Walt S., I would have thought tattoos and piercings would have been enough to put off God’s frozen chosen from the young and restless. I would have also thought that would put of Piper and Carson, though.
LikeLike
Geoff, are you as scrupulous about Murray?
LikeLike
Paul, with all due respect for Sproul, I think the more precise term would be “Calminian,” a modern creature neither Gomarus nor Arminus would’ve understood. Sort of like a “Bapterian.” But why are points ascribed to Calvinists? After all, the Arminians started it. You never hear about 1- or 2-point Arminians, you only hear about 4- or 3-point Calvinists.
LikeLike
Zrim:
My favorite was Sproul’s reference to the “Christmas” Calvinist. No “L.”
LikeLike
Here’s some (admittedly anecdotal) observations concerning John Murray, covenant of works, etc.
I had occasion to approach Dr. R. B. Gaffin at the OPC GA this past June (78th GA, June 2011). I had some thought about confessional subscription, and exceptions to the Westminster standards. So posed a question about John Murray’s exceptions to West. Standards. The question provoked Dr. Gaffin to an uncharacteristically strong expression of exasperation at the contemporary sniping at John Murray.
So, I’m familiar with some of Dr. T. David Gordon’s comments about John Murray (T. David and I were classmates at WTS – we never knew Murray personally).* Dr. Gaffin studied under Murray, and certainly knew him before he was a student at WTS. I think we can trust his observations about Murray and Murray’s theology (Mrs. Gaffin had some fun things to say about the old professor as well).
With reference to “covenant of works” and Murray I think it’s correct to note that he did not want to apply the term covenant (or berit or diatheke) to God’s dealings with Adam. Murray wanted to leave it at “Adamic administration” even as he recognized that basically every aspect or feature of a covenant could be found in Scripture, predicated of God’s dealings with Adam.
At the risk of irking Dr. Gaffin, I would opine that John Murray seems to exhibit just a hint of a flavor of “biblicism” with respect to terminology in some of his writings.
-=Cris=-
* T. David and I are still friends; we have folks in my church that have studied with T.David at Grove City College, I am not surprised they speak highly of him, and note he is one of the more popular profs at GCC.
LikeLike
Hey Phil: who knew you were such a comedic talent. Makes me reconsider who authored a certain essay about the WTS administration back around 1982….
You should be taking on the Episcopal machinery with that talent.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Good news, I just received an e-mail from the admin of the OPC.Org. The Brent Ferry review of Mark Driscoll’s book is being formatted for posting on the site and should be posted on 10-09-11
LikeLike
Mr. Willour,
Concerning MG Kline’s view of the Sabbath:
(1) is the view delineated above what MGK held at his ordination, or is that his view from later in his career?
(2) do you see MGK’s view as basically the same as the “continental” or Reformed view of the Sabbath?
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Phil: here’s the scoop on Crossway, apparently still a privately owned company, I see no stock exchange abbreviations…
http://www.crossway.org/about/history/
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Correction: Brent Ferry plays in 3 bands.
LikeLike
@ The Viking
>>>How to Do It With No Education Like Me and My SGM Pastors<<<<
This is a serious problem throughout the professing Christian Church. If I'm "called" to perform heart surgery, nobody in their right mind, in this country or any other, would allow me to practice on them until I've undergone years of formal education and served a residency or two. Even if I'm adamant that the Holy Spirit will guide my hands and give me the words to say to my surgical help, that sort of thing will not fly. However, it flies in a lot of churches and "ministries."
LikeLike
I think the frozen chosen you mention are like battered wives that just keep returning to their tatttood biker husbands.
I remember an OP minister recommending a parenting book written by a member of a “charismatic Reformed” church in the PNW. After hearing about my bad attitude from my wife, I compared the claims in the book to the confessions and then emailed my concerns to the pastor. That was about as far as it went. The book could have also been titled, “How to Treat Your Kid Like He’s Not a Member of the Covenant.” Anyways, these “charismatic Reformed” guys are in the same category as the YRR/missional repair-the-world Kellers.
I was more in the market for a book on catechizing children and family worship. If you know of any, I’m all ears.
LikeLike
Paul, understand the point.
SGM is notorious, historically, for having half-witted clerics. Even now, as we speak, they have a 9-month wonder college for their clerics. Old Shifty, my new term for Mahaney, or, as Hansen calls him, “Baldy,” he’s a high school graduate. I’m calling him Mr. Shifty or Old Baldy. It’s quite bad. On the “7th” read of Det docs. Took close notes on “6th read.” At: http://www.scribd.com/sgmwikileaks. I doubt Carl, Ligon or Kevin have read them as closely as this scribe. Old Lig pulled the “my friend” card. Sorry, they may work down south, but not with this frozen, old school, Canadian, Anglican, Marine.
A 90-hr. MDiv is a “trainer-wheels degree.” My Dad, MDiv, ThM, said his Profs told him those degrees were “beginner degrees.” I remember Dad saying that as a lad, but it just didn’t register then. But he was right. A ThM is nothing for a lad.
But Old Baldy, dazzling Mohler, Ligon, Trueman, and others, eegads. Paul, it gets worse by the day here.
Dr. Hart writes of his love for his denomination. Eegads, quite rightly. The OPC holds to the old WCF.
A recent post to Mr., Taylor at GCC:
“Justin, you need to `steer’ clear and wide of Mahney, a `road less travelled’ and, for you, one not worth travelling. It’s worse than you know.” The precipitating URL was: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/10/06/the-road-less-traveled/?comments#commentscomment-91112
LikeLike
I see some in this post have tackled in a somewhat piecemeal but nevertheless helpful manner aspects of Driscoll’s theology, while my initial contribution to it was a negative (and hot headed) cannon blast of words and thoughts. With some cool reflection I see my words were intemperate and I hope OL can also serve as a place to apologise for any offense my words may have caused, describing Driscoll’s output as ‘tripe’ and ‘bobbins’, words which anyway will be lost on most North American readers. Likewise, I apologise for my strong words about Carl Trueman, calling him something like a maverick etc. Sorry and repentent I am.
While I still stand by my basic disagreements with the Driscoll approach and Carl’s approval of his writing output, there however needs to be a far more detailed and thorough critical analysis of such churches and groups like Driscoll’s which I and others would benefit from. Maybe Dr. Hart could swing his writing efforts and skills from the US political and evangelical scene to a book on this complex modern phenomena in churches which is so prevalent in various guises and forms in the USA and now, as a result, further afield? I and others could greatly benefit from such a book which would then outline the Reformed approach to church, the means of grace, and the use of the catechisms for teaching and discipleship in contrast to the almost commercial, high tech and slick approach to the Gospel which I sense is so prevalent these days.
LikeLike
Walt, Calvin Cummings’ book Confessing Christ is one place to go for catechesis. Great Commission Publications also has a memory notebook that works through Bible memorization and the Shorter Catechism and is pretty effective, at least judging from congregations where I have served. Also, Terry Johnson, pastor at IPC in Savannah, has a good book on family worship.
LikeLike
Walt:
“I was more in the market for a book on catechizing children and family worship. If you know of any, I’m all ears.”
Are you looking for a “how to” boo, a book on theological arguments for it, or are you looking for a book with content you can use for the family? What age range are your children?
LikeLike
Ah, I hadn’t seen Darryl’s response in my Old Life feed.
LikeLike
Paul (UK) – I’m not convinced your words were inappropriate. I am convinced of the seriousness of the errors and the consequences of large numbers of people being led astray is heart rending. IMO, there is a time and place for strong words and when it comes to these kinds of errors, there is too much at stake to namby-pamby around.
Luther made the distinction on how there is a black devil who deals in moral things and a white devil who deals in spiritual things. The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:4 that Satan himself transforms into an angel of light. False doctrine in whatever form it may be in looks, sounds and even smells good but it is dangerous. The battle from the beginning of time has been a battle of truth.
As bad as moral depravity can be, it is the white devil that is much more dangerous and causes much more harm and destruction. This is perhaps why when Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians, he had good to say about them before correcting their moral failure. Meanwhile, in the book of Galatians, he says nothing good about them but launches into condemnation for accepting false doctrine.
This short excerpt from Luther’s commentary from Galatians seems appropriate:
The devil knows better than to appear ugly and black. He prefers to carry on his nefarious activities in the name of God. Hence the German proverb: “All mischief begins in the name of God.”
When the devil sees that he cannot hurt the cause of the Gospel by destructive methods, he does it under the guise of correcting and advancing the cause of the Gospel. He would like best of all to persecute us with fire and sword, but this method has availed him little because through the blood of martyrs the church has been watered. Unable to prevail by force, he engages wicked and ungodly teachers who at first make common cause with us, then claim that they are particularly called to teach the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures to superimpose upon the first principles of Christian doctrine that we teach. This sort of thing brings the Gospel into trouble. May we all cling to the Word of Christ against the wiles of the devil, “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal1-04.html
LikeLike
Chris D. asked:
“Concerning MG Kline’s view of the Sabbath:
(1) is the view delineated above what MGK held at his ordination, or is that his view from later in his career?
(2) do you see MGK’s view as basically the same as the “continental” or Reformed view of the Sabbath?”
Regarding # 1: I have no idea what Dr. Kline’s view on the sabbath was at the time of his ordination. However, the description of his sabbath views I offered in my previous post is defended in his book “Kingdom Prologue,” and I believe he taught this view in the classroom. (I took several classes from him in seminary.) While I believe his view of the sabbath would be within the bounds of the Reformed Faith (at least more broadly considered), yet it is clearly contrary to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, which were the standards he subscribed to in his ordination vows (see, for example, WCF 19.2-3; 21.7-8; LC # 93, 98, 102, 116-121; SC # 41, 58-62). I am not aware of Dr. Kline ever registering an exception to these confessional teachings of the Standards with his Presbytery or getting permission from his Presbytery to publicly teach and propagate these non-confessional views (though he may have done so; I don’t have access to such records).
Just a clarification (lest readers think I am taking this occasion to bash Kline): Dr. Kline was a brilliant biblical scholar and (on a personal level) a lovely Christian gentleman. His lectures and writings were instrumental in bringing me to a reformed and covenantal understanding of Scripture. But on this particular issue I believe he was outside the bounds of the confessional standards he had professed to receive and adopt at his ordination. (I think he probably believed his views to be within confessional bounds, but given the confessional references listed above I don’t see how this could be the case — at least on a plain-grammatical and historical-theological reading of those standards. If he held these views at the time of his ordination I don’t believe he was insincere or intentionally dishonest when he took his ordination vows.)
Regarding # 2: Whether or not Dr. Kline’s view of the sabbath would fall under the “continental reformed” view is an interesting question. But given that he was an OPC minister who subscribed to the Westminster Standards (and not to the Three Forms of Unity), it is a question that is not relevant to the issue of whether or not his sabbath position was consistently confessional.
Geoff W.
LikeLike
Luther talks about the devil with a familiarity unusual for non-charismatics. Explanation?
LikeLike
Lily,
Thank you very much for your excellent, timely, thoughtful words and the apposite quote from Luther. You have given me some wholesome food for thought on a windy Irish Sea swept Friday afternoon. Sometimes I wonder if the supposed Northern English trait of ‘calling a spade a spade’ is truly in my genes, getting me into bother and hence my initial words in this post, but I prefer straight talk as opposed to subtle word plays and games and I haven’t got the brains to engage in subtleties.
I must say the Lutheran theology which is represented in OL has given me a renewed respect and appreciation of the great man Luther and the way he spoke in such down to earth, Saxon hued phrases which may have won him few friends but his honesty and pithy words still resonate today. He contrasts so much with today’s silver tongued, clever preachers who pack in many quotes from theologians like Calvin and Luther and yet their church’s rock and roll and are in so many ways contrary to the simple and yet profound means of grace found in the Reformed and Lutheran churches.
We need a book to highlight and explain the differences between these churches in their doctrine and approach, one which may further stimulate debate between the YRR and the Reformed and hopefully draw more like DJ into the Presbyterian or Lutheran understanding rather than the synthesis which is being given some credence by some who should know better.
LikeLike
MM –
Re: “Luther talks about the devil with a familiarity unusual for non-charismatics. Explanation?”
I am baffled by the question. It seems odd to be unfamiliar with the subject of the devil since the bible addresses it many times and in many ways.
Re: “Charismatics”
The problem is in the disconnecting of the Holy Spirit from the means of grace. Charismatics can often be summed up in Luther’s observation that they swallow the Holy Spirit “feathers and all.”
Enthusiasts claim that the Spirit is giving them powers or “gifts.” He certainly is able to. The question becomes – is what they are enthusing about real? Is it from God? Far too often, the actions and words of those who proclaim their own calling and gifted-ness shows that they are their own authority in matters of faith and practice and their claims of the Holy Spirit is subjective in extremis. The objective scriptural basis always proves more reliable and a stronger safeguard against doctrinal perversion than the subjective basis.
Driscoll claims he was called at age 19 and pellmell set off to preach and plant churches. No seminary training where his claims could be tested and proved. No seminary training where a systematic theology would provide him checks and balances. In the historical fashion of American itinerant preachers, he declared himself called, plys his views upon all who will listen, founded a non-denominational sect, and hob-nobs with other loose cannons. Not to mention the fact that Piper and Mehaney have been his mentors in recent years – need I say more?
LikeLike
Paul UK –
Thank you for the kind words. I am thankful you found Luther’s counsel edifying and appreciate straight-talk over the glib. Like the Reformed, the Lutherans suffer from inroads and encroachments from the worst in evangelical and charismatic influences. I am thankful for the areas that the Reformed and the Lutherans overlap. It makes for happy company here. 😉
May I offer the link to the online site of Luther’s commentary on Galatians for those weather days on the Irish sea that might keep you indoors and in need of fresh air?
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal-inx.html#cts
LikeLike
Lily, it’s a good point of course to say that institutional training should provide the sort of checks and balances the enthusiastically inclined need. At the same time, from my own experience I also found that enthusiasts did a fairly good job of going through the seminary motions only to go out and practice the religious equivalent of bloodletting. My suspicion is that even a Driscoll with real credentials would still be more interested in putting on a show than administering Word and sacraments.
LikeLike
Lily, I’m baffled at your bafflement. Luther talks about the devil with a good deal of frequency. That’s just an observation without any intended pejorative tone.
LikeLike
Geoff: I could have phrased it differently, I was expecting you to say you didn’t have knowledge of MG Kline’s Sabbath views, possible exceptions at time of his ordination. I wasn’t yet born when MGK was ordained, doubt you were either. Something to look into, and btw, MGK was ordained in Presbytery of NJ.
Further, while it’s obvious that the Westminster Standards view of Sabbath differs from that of the the Three Forms of Unity, what I was trying to get at, I think Kline’s mature view was in harmony with the continental view. Now as to the nub of that, a ministerial candidate for/in the OPC can present the continental view as his view, and thus take exception to the many details of the Westminster view. It would be up to the presbytery examining him to allow or not allow that view by accepting or not accepting that candidate. Might never happen but it could… And in fact, I now have an itch to look into the details of the receiving of ministers from the CRC back in the early days of the OPC (R.B. Kuiper and CVT come to mind!)
I too would say that Dr. Kline was a christian gentleman and so very knowledgeable of the Scriptures. It was both daunting and inspiring to watch him work from the Hebrew OT in the classroom.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Oh dear – I wasn’t clear – MM
No pejorative tone or otherwise was taken. I’m still baffled why anyone would be surprised that Luther would be familiar with the devil and addressed the devil and his wiles with frequency since the bible does too. The devil and his minions are real and like mice, they leave a trail of clues when they’ve infested your home.
Zrim,
I didn’t mean to come off as sounding like education is the answer to everything. IMO, it provides a lot of general background information on a man. It does provide a filter and it does help set apart those who are truly called. I do understand the fact that we will always have pastors who run amuck and will be our lot until Christ returns.
IMO, the example of Driscoll and his ilk (eg: SGM) is that it is an historical American phenomena and also one that shows a different spirit than those who are willing to go to seminary and be part of a denomination – eg: under authority, accountable to a confession, and so forth. They shun the pentecostal seminaries too, so I can’t help but find the fact that they are a law unto themselves suspect/rocky ground to begin with.
LikeLike
Luther talks about the devil the way he does because he is a medieval man (no pejorative), not because he has charismatic leanings.
LikeLike
MM said:
“Luther talks about the devil with a familiarity unusual for non-charismatics. Explanation?”
I didn’t say he was charismatic, but I understand why a cursory reading might impute that to me. I really have no agenda – I’m just a guy wondering.
Brian, you may have a point that he is a “medieval man” in his thinking. Yet his reformed contemporaries did not emphasize the devil as much. Are you saying that he and his contemporaries are, intellectually, representative of different eras in this respect?
LikeLike
What is your point about the devil MM? I am curious as to why you are so curious. Remember, I don’t take what you say personally, so, let it rip.
LikeLike
I did’nt see the “I’m just a guy wondering” before I posted my last post. So, what you are saying is that there was no cause and effect to your passing thought? Just one of those independant fleeting thoughts?
John Yeazel
Criminologist. TV producer. Blues writer.
LikeLike
Can’t a guy just be in wide-eyed wonder? When I was about six I asked my mother what “time” is. She gave me one of those answers parents say to just make a kid go away, but I knew it was an unsatisfactory answer.
IT’S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT MAKE ME GO “HUH”!
Sorry for raising my voice. I think Brian may be on the right track.
LikeLike
MM,
You always cater to the big-whigs; can someone say schmooze!!
LikeLike
Yeazel, I don’t even know who the bigwigs are, so I pretty much treat everyone the same. I may be a suck up when I’m trying to get a free book, but that’s all about the book.
LikeLike
MM,
I just read that Ralph Reed used to hobnob with Jack Abramoff (and collected something like 6 million dollars in contributions from him). In fact, he got all his Christian coalition groupies to boycott and protest in papers etc., competing casino’s in area’s where his friend Jack didn’t have his heavy hand under. That way all the casino money would flow into Jack’s hands. Was it the devil that made Ralph do that? I also noticed that Darryl just mentioned his name and did not go into what the scandal consisted of. Instead his just said this: “But that Reed himself experienced the sort of fall from grace that Colson had in the quest for a politically relevant faith was one lesson that many evangelicals ignored. Too much political capital had been invested; too many social problems needed to be fixed.”
Don’t correct my big-whigs; that word has an interesting etymology. Although big-wig may be spelled without the h. Your response reminded me of what I had just read this morning.
LikeLike
Beware of those on moral crusades.
LikeLike
“Don’t correct my big-whigs”
Is Chris Christie is a big Whig?
LikeLike
Why do you ask? Is he your brother or a politician you like and drink beer with?
LikeLike
Thanks. This is exactly what I wanted.
LikeLike
Full Review of Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe -Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Reviewed by: Brenton Ferry is now posted http://opc.org/review.html?review_id=348
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, Joe. I wish that review was required reading. Here is a quip you may appreciate where Strange Herring addresses Driscoll’s hubris and people’s gullibility with a link to what he is referring to:
“Mark Driscoll, founder of the 600 million strong Mars Hill Church, will have a book out in January that will answer all your most disgusting questions about things intimate. Lock up your daughters and anesthetize your sons: it’s showtime!” http://tinyurl.com/3psnvy8
Excerpt from the link promoting Driscoll’s latest prostitution:
“… the “Real Marriage” church campaign will be launched on Jan. 3, 2012, with an 11-week sermon series by Driscoll, a 10-city tour, and a major mobilization of the 500-church strong Acts 29 Network. [Driscoll’s book, Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship & Life Together will be released on Jan. 3, 2012.]
Resources will be provided, including small-group video curriculums, participant guides and promotional videos.
Free additional research will be available for ministry leaders, including sermon preparation at PastorMark.tv, his recently launched website highlighting Driscoll’s observations on theology and culture.”
A nauseating snippet of a sign of our times:
“Pastor Mark Driscoll is the founding pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle and is one of the world’s most downloaded and quoted pastors, according to The Resurgence.
He was named one of the “25 Most Influential Pastors of the Past 25 Years” by Preaching magazine, and his sermons are consistently No. 1 on iTunes each week for Religion & Spirituality.”
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, you might find this interesting… There is a hard rock band called Thrice. The only believer in the group is the singer, Dustin Kensrue. The band’s last album is titled, Beggars, and the title track derives much from Luther. All in all, thoughtful lyrics. In reading a recent Christianity Today article on the band, I learned that the singer/guitarist is now a “worship leader” at Mars Hill Orange County. http://orangecounty.marshill.com/pastors-staff/
Talk about mixing the two kingdoms!
(full disclosure – this won’t deter me from thoroughly enjoying Thrice’s new album!)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/interviews/2011/pastdragons-september20.html
LikeLike
BTW, the singer is the lyricist as well.
LikeLike
I tried to post a comment with some links in it… says it’s in moderation. the Curse of Lily may be upon me to. Here it goes again:
Dr. Hart, you might find this interesting… There is a hard rock band called Thrice. The only believer in the group is the singer, Dustin Kensrue. The band’s last album is titled, Beggars, and the title track derives much from Luther. All in all, thoughtful lyrics. In reading a recent Christianity Today article on the band, I learned that the singer/guitarist is now a “worship leader” at Mars Hill Orange County. http://orangecounty.marshill.com/pastors-staff/
Talk about mixing the two kingdoms!
(full disclosure – this won’t deter me from thoroughly enjoying Thrice’s new album!)
LikeLike
@DJ- Thrice is one of my favorite bands of all time. They actually have a newer album that was just released last month called “Major/Minor.” But, as a member of Pastor Ferry’s church (and bassist in one of his bands), I have to side with him and Dr. Hart on the topic at hand. I guess I’m just an OPC fan-boy. By the way, Dr. Hart, I look forward to meeting you on the 28th.
LikeLike
Lane – I realized after I posted that I made it sound like Beggars was the latest album. Bought Major/Minor last week and love it! It has a 90’s grunge feel running throughout the album.
LikeLike
On a similar note, in a recent TGC article, Ronnie Martin is not stating that he has essentially traded in one rock stage for another rock stage, from the clubs to the “church”. Another sigh. Ronnie has made some amazing electronic synth-pop over the years (with only one “Christian” album). Just seems obvious that someone with celebrity in a certain area within the KOM should not be placed in a position in the KOG that will cause them to receive the same for doing the same thing.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/10/06/view-from-the-other-side-of-the-mic/
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/09/07/where-rock-stars-go-to-die/
LikeLike
On a similar note, in a recent TGC article, Ronnie Martin is not stating that he has essentially traded in one rock stage for another rock stage, from the clubs to the “church”. Another sigh. Ronnie has made some amazing electronic synth-pop over the years (with only one “Christian” album). Just seems obvious that someone with celebrity in a certain area within the KOM should not be placed in a position in the KOG that will cause them to receive the same for doing the same thing.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/10/06/view-from-the-other-side-of-the-mic/
LikeLike
DJ, thanks for the tip but please don’t be offended if I continue to listen to Moderat, Thom Yorke, and U2.
LikeLike
I won’t be offended! But please don’t get offended that if I don’t like the fact that this OPC church has a picture of Piper on their website and that they link to SGM! 😉
http://www.covopc.org/Main_Folder/Resources.html
LikeLike
I somehow don’t think you will…
LikeLike
Blog sites https://cncn2.club can be a very marketable and really profitable tool if made use of correctly. Profiting from blogs is simply a matter of grabbing the interest of an audience and also refraining any type of actual salesmen selling. In this write-up you will certainly learn the most vital steps to successful blogging.
LikeLike
The even more you comment on other blogs
https://mariop.site, the extra links you make with bloggers. This aids in constructing long term networks and also relationships that can work to your benefit on several social media sites systems. Mutual connections thrive and you reach produce your own neighborhood of bloggers.
LikeLike