By all accounts it would seem that evangelicalism is currently in the midst of a resurgence of interest in Reformed theology. At conferences and in publications all sorts of people are noting the growing interest in Calvinistic theology, especially (though certainly not exclusively) among younger people. Collin Hansen captured some of this interest in an article he wrote for “Christianity Today” called “Young, Restless, Reformed.” Now certainly simply saying something is happening does not make it so. But I am in agreement that this surge of interest does seem to be genuine and does seem to be widespread (and growing).
I am interested in asking questions of those who are quite new to an understanding of the Reformed faith or who are perhaps simply new to the “banner” of Reformed, even if they have always understand these doctrines of God’s sovereign grace. In particular, I am interested in knowing about how you came to understand the Reformed faith and what resources you depended on to teach you about them. Questions like these come to mind:
As you began to understand Reformed principles, what were your greatest and most pressing questions about this system of theology?What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?
What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?
Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?
How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?
If there are some people who would be willing to share their experiences, either in a comment or in an email, I’d be grateful.
Comments (57) »
1. Cap Stewart
June 14, 2007
3:52 PM
My first exposure to a detailed explanation of Reformed theology was R.C. Sproul’s book “Grace Unknown.” The first half explained the foundational elements of Reformed theology—which, to my amazement, I found I agreed with! Even so, certain aspects of the TULIP acrostic (described in the second half of the book) were hard to swallow; the doctrine of Limited Atonement in particular made my gag reflex work overtime. The more I studied, however, the more I realized that my root problem was with Total Depravity (which, when rightly understood, makes the other four doctrines quite easy to accept). I started paying more attention to Scriptural passages that I had pretended didn’t exits (i.e., Romans 9).
A while later, I started reading Piper’s book “Future Grace,” which has Reformed elements scattered throughout the pages. It only served to further convict me of my pride. Still later, Luther’s masterful “Bondage of the Will”—especially his treatment of Law and Gospel—removed the few roadblocks I had left.
2. Zach Nielsen
June 14, 2007
4:06 PM
Reading Desiring God by John Piper in 1996 was what took me over the edge. I hated it a first, but then was persuaded to believe that he was not just some wild nut job from Minnesota.
It’s been a great journey since then.
zach
3. Hank Imler
June 14, 2007
4:21 PM
I don’t remember exactly when I had first heard of the Reformed doctrines. But I remember when my parents began going to an EPC church, they started to talk to me about Reformed theology and even gave me the arguments that the church gave them.
I read them over and then was at a cross roads of sorts because the arguments made sense, which I was told there normally weren’t supposed to make sense because Reformed theology didn’t line up with Scripture.
I studied them for about a month by taking my NASB, NRSV, KJV, NIV, and concordance and studied through the passages, writing down my study, until I understood the arguments.
What kept me from the Reformed doctrines was the limited atonement and the reason for prayer. But when I studied texts like Romans 9 and Romans 8:28-30, I understood why the atonement was effective for the elect. I also studied the Lord’s Prayer and I came to realize the truth that prayer wasn’t trying to convince God of anything but rather that I was conforming myself to God. That was two years ago this past April.
4. Joel Burdeaux
June 14, 2007
4:39 PM
I am “new” compared to some, I guess. I have been a Christian for almost 7 years, but I have been calling myself “reformed” for 3 or so.
When I first became a Christian, I consumed scripture… I spent hours and hours everyday reading all of scripture for months. Through this, I started to question some things I was hearing in churches and bible studies. I would hear songs in church that said that on the cross, Jesus thought about me above all, and I was honestly confused because I read the text, and saw Jesus wanting to do His Father’s will, and Glorify Him.
After a couple of years of this, I went on a mission trip to Russia with Josh McDowell’s group, and they taught us the “proper” way to share the gospel to orphans… orphans who more often than not were abused and abandoned by their alcoholic parents.
I simply could not tell them honestly that, “the most important thing to God is you.” They would see through that line.
This was my “aha” moment when I realized that I have a particular theology, and that I needed to discover what it was.
I first discovered (no surprise here) John Piper. I had read both Desiring God and Let the Nations be Glad before this, and nothing really bothered me in those books, but they are full of Reformed Theology.
My PCA in-laws recommened Sproul and Boettner to me, and oddly enough, where I reacted to the Reformed Faith was not limited atonement… it was Perseverance of the Saints. I had a very strong emotional reaction against that doctrine because 2 of the main people involved in my conversion had since renounced the faith and were calling themselves atheists.
I didn’t want to think of them as proving that “they were never among us.”
For a long time, everytime I opened the Bible, it seemed to speak of Perseverance, and the Holy Spirit used men like Spurgeon and Piper and the pastor who ordained me, Bill Streger, to show me the truth in this doctrine.
Now, I fall under the category of a Calvinist who never calls himself one. I have never said the word “tulip” from the pulpit, and I’m not planning on it. I just preach through books of the Bible, and I don’t shy away from the hard stuff.
5. Josh
June 14, 2007
5:06 PM
I was a true “4-point Calvinist” for many years, believing that Limited Atonement was unbiblical. I had never heard any biblical arguments for Limited Atonement, only logic. I wasn’t even looking for a challenge to my position when I read the Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain Murray. It is a biography (mostly) of Spurgeon’s conflict with Arminianism in his time. One of the main points was Limited Atonement. The questions Spurgeon asked and the sermon excerpts in the book caused me to see that Scripture does teach Limited Atonement.
6. joel stobie
June 14, 2007
5:10 PM
About a year ago I was really challenged by a few good friends who were listening to the “Whitehorse Inn” radio show, and asking questions to their fellow believers. I’ve been a Christian from my youth and grew up in a charasmatic church. The best thing I learned there was that the Word of God is Truth. But nothing beyond that was really expounded upon. In college I was involved with Campus Crusade, and was actually taught that I should know the answers of what I believe from Scripture. So things like me understanding perseverance of the saints grew out of that time.
Q1: So as my friends began challenging my wife and I, our first difficulty (and most people who I talk to) is the issue of Free Will. The thought that we had to reach out and receive this free gift of salvation. As we continued to grow (we were studying Romans at the time. Irony? No, Sovereignty) our next questions mostly had to do with Election and how that worked with children (we had a new baby, so it was an obvious concern)
Q2: The most troubling and hardest to swallow was/is God’s not electing some. It’s just not easy to accept, but we have to believe that God does all things for his Glory even in his not choosing some.
Q3: I am very fortunate in that I can listen to sermons while I work, so I have spent a lot of time listening to Piper, Mohler, MLJ and whoever else is giving out free audio. So that on top of studying Romans at the time, I was pretty much bombarded with the Doctrines of Grace. It’s been awesome.
Q4: I’m still trying to understand and reconcile regeneragtion coming before faith, probably because of the way I’ve been taught for so long. I havn’t spent an in depth amount of time studying it yet, it will probably be the next thing to study.
Q5: I wasn’t very confident in sharing with people these principles, but as I did begin to explain things like God’s Election vs. Free Will in salvation, I realized I was able to explain things well or be able to find answers fairly easily (thank you, Desiring God). So it is easier now.
So today here I am, humbled, because I used to “thumb my nose” at those “boring reformed type”, when really I was lacking some fundamental truths that have led to incredible joy and peace, Now I really know who is the author of my salvation. Thank the Lord its not me!
And a note for those who have been “Reformed” their whole life. Have patience and grace with your brothers who are not reformed due to ignorance. I was one of those people who had been turned off to the Doctrines of Grace, because they had been presented to me with the complete lack of grace. Don’t let them sit complacent in their ignorance, but encourage them and challenge them lovingly. A friend of mine who grew up in a reformed church, had no concept of people trying to earn their salvation everyday by being sinless. So I had to explain to him, that it was for that reason that I’m so passionate about the Doctrines of Grace because there are brothers who really still live in bondage because they do not fully understand God’s soveriegnty and and his saving grace.
Thanks for being willing to listen…
7. Dorian
June 14, 2007
5:51 PM
My dad was converted in his early twenties and then went to TEDS. He was an Arminian until lectures and conversations with Carson and Grudem changed his mind. Although he was reformed my whole life, I never took an interest in theology until an in depth youth Bible study in my church began to teach the doctrines of grace. I know this experience is probably rare, but the first time I heard it, I was about 19, it just clicked. I have grown in and loved these truths ever since. I particularly enjoy the teachings of John Piper and Albert Mohler.
8. Dorian
June 14, 2007
5:53 PM
P.S. I am 22 now, and am witnessing the rise of interest myself, although, many young people at my particular bible college are still just anti-theology/intellectual in general, very frustrating.
9. Richard
June 14, 2007
6:00 PM
Walking into Tenth Presbyterian Church, where Dr. James Boice was doing a verse-by-verse sermon on Ephesians was the starting point for me. People such as R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton (and the guys at The White Horse Inn) sealed it for me. It helped me to be presented the doctrines of grace with a sense of humor—The White Horse Inn guys have that in spades!
10. Alex Jordan
June 14, 2007
6:29 PM
Hi Tim
This is a great question.
I assume that by reformed theology what most are describing here is belief in the doctrines of grace (TULIP). I have indeed come to believe in these 5 points, but I know that they are not representative of the whole of Reformed theology. Some might include other beliefs as essential to calling oneself Reformed, such as being covenantal as opposed to dispensational in their theological framework, or perhaps believing in infant baptism, or having a particular view on continuationism vs cessationism.
I think however that one can have an “essentially reformed” theology (adhering to the 5 points of Calvinism), while perhaps having a certain amount of disagreement about other points. For example I am currently attending a Sovereign Grace church in NYC which is essentially reformed, but believes that gifts like prophecy and tongues are valid for today.
So I would describe myself as one who, after 24 years as a Christian, now believes in the 5 points and is intent on studying them further and being able to preach them wholeheartedly, because I think they’re true to Scripture. But if I were ever to change my mind— because I found that these doctrines were not biblical— I would hope that the Spirit would enable me to let them go and correct myself. Yet thus far, I am convinced that they are indeed founded in Scripture.
Over the years I perhaps held some to some of the truths contained within the doctrines of grace, but I had never really examined in depth what my theological beliefs were. I think that for this reason, I believed in things like eternal security of believers, but at the same time had other beliefs—like about election and how one becomes a Christian— which tended to be Arminian. My theology was really an unexamined one.
But interestingly God really used my readings and involvement with the blogosphere to challenge me to think more deeply on these topics. Like many here, I am a fan of John Piper but hadn’t recognized that the foundation of his teaching was Reformed. So he was an influence. Bob deWaay’s Critical Issues Commentaries were also instrumental— yet I also read his excellent material without at first realizing their Reformed foundation. I kept encountering bloggers I respected who were reformed —Tim Challies, Steve Camp, Dan Edelen, among many others— and found that I liked what they had to say. At the same time, I was being challenged in to re-think some things because I was attending charismatic churches with a more Arminian flavor.
As someone interested in writing and communicating I had begun my own blog, Jordan’s View, and was initially identifying myself as a “charismatic, thinking blogger” (or something like that). I was reading people like Smith Wigglesworth, AB Simpson as well as more contemporary people like TL Osborn or Kenneth Hagin, studying topics like the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a distinct experience, and wanting to write on topics like that, though generally I was doing more cultural commentary.
But the thing I began to appreciate most as I encountered writings in the Reformed tradition and in was the foundation— an attempt to simply be true to Scripture and to interpret Scripture soundly. I had already doubts and questions about the way the Scriptures were being interpreted and applied in much of the charismatic literature I was reading.
Well, I could probably go into much greater detail but will try to summarize. My embrace of the Reformed view has primarily come through my own studies of the Bible combined with reading tons of material available through the web on Reformed theology. Having embrace this view, I have now made a lot of this material available on my blog.
And for the past 6 months I have been writing a series on Arminian vs Reformed theology, using TULIP as an outline. I think that writing this series, more than anything else, has sharpened my thinking and given me greater confidence that these doctrines are Scriptural, honor God and give him glory. I invite people to visit my blog and comment on the series I mentioned, if they care to.
Thanks for this opportunity to share a little of my story. Blessings in Him,
Alex
11. dt
June 14, 2007
6:31 PM
Looking back on my life, I can see how God sovereignly began to plant the seeds of my eventual “conversion” to Reformed theology. When I was in middle school, I made the decision to question everything I thought I knew about doctrine, to see if what I believed was biblical. As a result, I began to question how things were done in the Fundamental, mostly Arminian, Baptist churches that I grew up in.
My “conversion” to Reformed theology happened when I was doing my undergrad (I’m in my mid-20s now, so that wasn’t very long ago). Somewhat oddly enough, my first exposure to Reformed theology was through Biblical (nouthetic) counseling literature. I began reading books and articles by people like Jay Adams, MacArthur, David Powlison, Ed Welch, etc. God used those books and articles to open my eyes to the importance of the full authority and sufficiency of the Word of God for “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (Peter 1:3), the sovereignty of God, and the total depravity of man. Once I understood those, everything else (election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) naturally fell into place. My biggest struggle was actually not with limited atonement, but rather with election. However, the more I studied Scripture, the more I began to see that doctrine is everywhere, and that the only way to get around it is to do some serious hermeneutical gymnastics, and quite frankly that was in direct conflict with my understanding of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. In the end, God won and I accepted election as the Biblical view.
Then one day, for reasons that I cannot remember, I decided to do a bit of reading on Calvinism. As I began to read through the 5 points, it hit me that was exactly what I believed! I then decided to do some reading on Arminianism, and realized that while that was what I once believed, I no longer believed it to be true. Taking my cue from the Biblical counseling literature I had read, I began to think through the implications of the sufficiency of Scripture and the doctrines of grace. Some books that helped me on this journey include Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Packer), Let the Nations Be Glad! (Piper), Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World (MacArthur), and Chosen by God (Sproul). I then took the next step of leaving my Arminian, integrationist church for a Reformed one, where I was able to hear sound teaching and application of the Word of God.
I am still in the process of Reforming my thinking and living. Through reading good Reformed books and listening to Reformed sermons (both online and in my local church), God is continually pointing out areas in my thinking and living that need to be brought in line with Scripture.
12. Mike in Japan
June 14, 2007
7:30 PM
My first confrontation with reformed theology was when I was doing a Bible Study with two other guys. We were going through Romans, and when we got into 8 and 9, there myself and another guy were pretty disturbed by what we read. I remember that my mind was kind of back-peddling because what I was reading, if I took it plainly, seemed to contradict so much of what I had been taught in my 4 years of being a Christian. The one guy in the group that was able to be more objective was saying that he thought the verses implied some kind of supreme sovereignty of God, myself and the other guy were rather passionately pointing out all of the verses we could find about making choices and God giving different consequences for which choices we made. After that, I left that business alone for a few about a year and a half.
Later I bought an excellent video series done by crosstv called “A workman approved by God”, that dealt over a 32 hour long series about proper hermeneutics. I was a music director at a Christian summer camp in Alaska, and would watch one episode every night after all the kids were asleep. Those were sweet days, and my world was being turned upside down, as the series peeled away layer after layer of my shallow theology and lack of first-hand biblical interpretation. One day, I had the chance to show a video to my best friend who had become a Christian around the same time as I. I remember hoping that the video would cover something like my friends view of baptismal regeneration, but it ended up being an exposition of John 6. This time I was less apprehensive towards the topic of God’s sovereignty because of some time growing up a bit, as well as trusting the series by this point to clearly explain things so I could know I was getting the whole story. My friend on the other hand was devastated by what he was seeing. I remember him saying “if what I just saw is true, what’s the point? What’s the point in trying to witness to people and everything?” He made a quick move to find all the arminian arguments he could to sooth his troubled conscience, while it felt to me as if the sun was beginning to rise in my life like never before. I began to see the glory of God.
After finishing the series, I ordered a few more from crosstv about soteriology and the sovereignty of God, and went through some stuff from Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology book. I came to a point of saying “God, I don’t know what is happening, but I want you to know now that I am finally ready to embrace whatever uncomfortable truth there is about you. If you are Sovereign in all things, and like reformed theology describes you, then I want to believe the truth, where ever it leads.
Now, I have shared my journey with several friends who are now in the reformed camp, and in every case, their response was at first an unreasonable suspicion towards reformed theology and me, but eventually they yield to the truth and are glad because of it. So am I!
13. Patrick
June 14, 2007
8:03 PM
I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church in GA that was Arminian through and through. I had been taught that only fanatic cults taught the doctrines of election/predestination, etc. I had never heard of any proponents of Calvinism or Reformed theology until I moved to Washington State and got involved in a church in Spokane. My wife and I were quickly falling in love with the church, the preaching and ministry opportunities when one night in a Bible study one of the guys mentioned “the elect”. Literally, the hair on the back on my neck stood up. I hadn’t heard that phrase since I was a child. We then launched into a spirited debate regarding man’s free choice and God’s sovereignty.
I had just recently begun to be discipled by one of the Pastors at the church and went directly to him with this “unbelievable heresy” that I had discovered. I remember feeling like the wind had been knocked out of me when he acknowledged that the church did indeed hold to 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism. I was absolutely stunned. This began a year of serious study and debate between John and I. He patiently walked me through the Scriptures and I began to read passages that I did not even know were in the Bible. At the end of that year, we went home to Georgia to visit family and friends. I asked my in-laws about these things and it turned into a heated debate. They were arguing for Arminianism and I, Calvinism. At the end of that trip in 1998, we returned to Spokane as Calvinist’s.
Since that time I began to listen with an open ear to John’s teaching and quickly fell in love (think father/son) with the man who freed me from the chains of false teaching. I am an avid reader and have been shaped by MacArthur, Piper, Driscoll, Sproul, Storms, Packer, Mohler, Mahaney, etc.
I also enjoy reading this site, although I have never posted here, and monergism.com.
14. Nath @ Reformed Geek
June 14, 2007
8:46 PM
Reformed preachers first began to stand out to me as they were aired on Way Of The Master Radio. I use to listen to their show daily in a previous job. Snippets of such men as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, Steve Lawson etc were regularly aired. Immediately I noticed a difference in their preaching, their passion, and their loyalty to what I now know as Sola Scriptura.
I did not know the ins and outs of Calvinism then, but it was reading through the many many Q&A information on the Desiring God website that revealed to me the illogical doctrine of Arminianism. If Christ paid for all sin on the cross, for all people of all time, and “unbelief in me is sin”, then the unbelief of a sinner (the only thing stopping them being a Christian like me) was hence paid for on the cross and we are now all universalists. Or understanding that if it was all paid for on the cross, then God was punishing the sinner in hell for what He had already punished Jesus. That is not pure Divine justice then.
The best sermon I then heard on election was Who Chose Whom by John MacArthur. Then I followed this with a series on TULIP by Dan Duncan. (I have links to both sermons here)
I did struggle a little bit, but maybe not as much as others. I would say it was because I was a false convert for the first 6 months of my “profession of faith” and my wife was for 20+ years. I was so certain that so many of those who claim the name of Christ today were not truly followers of Christ as nothing resulted from their conversion. No change of heart, no love for righteousness, and they still loved their sin. I understand that with the “pray a prayer” gospel that most of these people heard that most of them were not truly converted. But understanding God’s sovereign election made this make more sense. Most of the church is Arminian, and so they try any way they can to get man to become a Christian. And it fails every time. Only God can make someone into a follower of Christ - and when He does, an unquestionable change takes place.
15. Dan Waugh
June 14, 2007
9:30 PM
At 33, I guess I’m still in the ‘younger’ crowd who has discovered Reformed theology as of late. I entered Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with fundamentalist Baptist roots and was not a fan of Calvin or his theology - though I had only been exposed to caricatures.
While at Trinity I was exposed to the minds and hearts of men like DA Carson and Wayne Grudem. They didn’t push Calvinism, but in them I saw a theology that didn’t match the caricature I had been presented with. It was a warm, biblical, God centered theology.
Upon graduation I took my first ministry position in PA at a Baptist, seeker type church. I know I had Reformed leanings at this point, but had come to grips with pieces of the Reformed tradition beyond TULIP. Through reading, a lot of reading, the whole system of theology began to come together. I was greatly influenced by the likes of John Piper, DA Carson, RC Sproul, Gerstner and Horton. As I came to grips with the theological system, it also began to affect my orthopraxy. This lead to an eventual break from that church and a calling to the church I currently serve at.
Initially, the problem of human responsibility as it relates to God’s sovereignty was the biggest hurdle. As I worked through that, thanks to Gerstner and Edwards, the next issue was infant baptism. Honestly, I still have to swallow hard before I admit to people, especially my parents, that I’m a paedo Baptist! I am still working through several questions (i.e. the law and it’s relationship to the Christian) and am looking forward to the chance to study more at Covenant Seminary this August.
This would be a great thesis/dissertaion project. Wait, don’t steal it, I want it!
16. Chris Hutchinson
June 14, 2007
11:30 PM
For me, believe it or not, it was through reading a lot of CS Lewis.
He did such a good job of putting HUMILITY at the center of the Christian life, that when I was trying to figure which system best defended and supported Christian humility, it was clear to me that it was Calvinism.
This, despite our the fact that for many, arriving at an understanding the doctrines of grace often leads to pride instead. Ironic and sad.
Of course, it also helped that I began attending Fourth Presbyterian in Bethesda, MD under the preaching of Rob Norris. And the fact that my IVCF in college was almost exclusively Calvinistic in its leadership for a number of years.
Finally, when I started reading and loving Edwards, the deal was sealed.
17. matthew lipscomb
June 14, 2007
11:31 PM
As you began to understand Reformed principles, what were your greatest and most pressing questions about this system of theology?
1) Which parts are biblical and which parts are merely reactionary idological posits - expressed as fortifications against herestical Pelagian assaults..
2) I started studying Calvinism as part of my research on the idea of “Glory Production” and how we produce glory - especially in relation to the idea of a Divine Romance and implications of a Soteriology built upon such an understanding
What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?
1) Limited Atonement - Christ not for all
2) Irrisitable Grace - can’t say no
3) Calvinism’s disdain for Negative Theology; the Eastern Orthodox term for the acceptance of “unknowables” or existent spiritual paradoxes
4) that it negates the idea of a Divine God romancing His creation; and giving us that right to serve and love Him out of choice: Divine Romance
What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?
1) Listening to a number of lectures online, a diverse assortment of books and challenging a number of calvinist leaning associates
2) Learning from the Calvinist Blogsphere (filtering through all the ‘backpatting’)
3) A.W. Tozer - knowledge of the holy expressly articulates my position of God’s soverignty affirmed in the impartation of choice capacity.
Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?
1) I do not understand how Calvinists moderate the radical implementations of limited atonement -as to through some articuate endeavor somehow preclude that God does not send you to hell.
2) I submit that Calvinism as it is presented and articulated in modern theology represents an oversimplification of dialectic dynamics which are unmistakeably present in authentic doctrinal truth - in other words: there are seeming oppositional truths or statements marked out which may seem to contradict; yet - it is my belief, now - are contradictions that necessarily express themselves in the strata of the limited human cognative expereince, yet are full and true in the divine nature as they are in true and authentic spiritual reality; put another way, we bastardize theology when we force it to conform to a “system” that makes sense to our sensibilities and we forget that authentic spiritual dynamics potentially posit themselves as foolishness to us.
How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?
1) Growing, and getting better - but still much to learn.
2) I am accused of being a crypto-armenian by my calvinist freinds, and a crypto-calvinst by calvinsts; but it is, as asserted above, my belief that God is soveriegn and he does choose, but that we are given that choice as well. Your failure to understand that within your mind does not constitute heresy on the part of those who accept spiritual paradox as a reality.
3) I see Calvinism as a great tool, but it has limited application; especially as a foundation. By this I mean, it is excellent at mapping out both truth and error; and especially error that is manefest by the well-intentioned but secondary heretical response to a primary heresy. I.E. rampant societal alcoholism is bad - but changing the church’s doctrinal position on alcohol consumption to gnostic dualist manechian delusions are not any better - if not potentially worse. I see Calvinism and Prohibition as mutual problems with the same father: carnal reason reacting as a Reationary Force to a Theological/Societal abuse(s)
Closing Remarks
1) Calvinists should avoid any temptation towards “backpatting” each other over the increased notion of intrest in their theology, especially amoung young people, as the reality of such an increase in the amount of attention is not because Calvinism is a great idea or systematically correct, and everybody is just now waking up to that reality; to take that perpective is a disasterious mistake. The real reason for the increased attention towards Calvinism is that there is a huge vaccume in Evangelical Christianity in regards to Systematic Theology or put better - there is a pervasive absence of Dogmatic Theology. What we are now witnessing is the aftermath of the Postmodern storm which said that Dogma does not matter, but that rather Schliermacherian Experiencial faith is our foundation. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time; and a number of young people are not fooled at all. They are looking for theology that is complicated, confrontational, and articulated - they are looking for something that they can sink their teeth into because they are sick and tired of drinking milk and eating crossants. They want to skip the latte and order a Prime Rib with a guinness. For all those looking into the representationally-dogmatic system of Calvinism; there are tons of others going into Cults that offer structure and articulated systems and there are even those who are embracing mystery and paradoxical assertions; wake up guys - the best selling book now is “the secret” and it’s pure metaphysical, new age garbage - and millions are drinking it down. We need revival - don’t mistake a blip on the radar as some kind of great awakening. The ship is sinking - to celebrate an intrest in Calvinism is to spend one’s time rearrangeing the deck chairs on the Theological Titanic. There are profound theological problems and we cannot afford to earmark the aftershocks thereof as seemingly good things; we need to realize what them for what they are; acts motiviated by profound spiritual hunger and a foundation that is absolutely and critically both broken and insolvent.
2) Arminians would to well to study Calvinism, because it is ultimately all about the sovereignty of God; and a study in that (even if it is dialectically isolated, therefore potentially misguided in theolgical eventually outworked theoloigical posits [ie limited atonement]) can only do the spirit good. But Calvinists would do well to mediate on the idea that God affirms His own sovereignty in the granting of free agency to his creation and that ultimately that love freely intially expressed and mediated and responded to by choice is the only kind of Love that God desires to recieve from His creation. We serve Him because is His worthy - not because we were programmed in eternity to do so; the programming that is there calls us to that, and makes it natural (once that abilty is re-imparted) but we can refuse him; as many mortals and angelics have also) True Love always inheres in necessary reciprocity; You have to choose to love if you are really loving someone. It was Christ’s destiny to die on the Cross, but He could have refused - but He did not; and that makes the affirmation of His love for us all the more glorious.
-matthew lipscomb
18. Brendt
June 14, 2007
11:50 PM
I’m only going to answer one question (at least for now) as it’s the most important (and troubling) to me:
How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?
Apply? Very. As Matthew said “Calvinism … is ultimately all about the sovereignty of God” and recognizing God’s sovereignty at new levels is revolutionary.
Understand? I’m getting there.
Defend? Um, no. Nor will I. Ever. The “defense” of Calvinism does more to turn off our Arminian brothers and sisters than any actual part of the belief system. This is dangerously close to “causing a brother to stumble”, creates unnecessary division in the body, and frankly is a waste of time.
19. Andrew
June 15, 2007
12:41 AM
I joined the Reformed camp five years ago, after spending the previous year as the lone contender for Arminianism in the frequent debates came up in my Romans & Bible Study Methods class (sophomore year of high school).
I became passionate about Reformed theology my freshman year at Cedarville University, mostly due to the influence of my RA at the time, who was and is the godliest young person I know, and now a best friend as well. He suggested that I read Piper’s Desiring God, and from then on my case was terminal.
20. Butterchew
June 15, 2007
12:53 AM
Brendt says: “Defend? Um, no. Nor will I. Ever. The “defense” of Calvinism does more to turn off our Arminian brothers and sisters than any actual part of the belief system. This is dangerously close to “causing a brother to stumble”, creates unnecessary division in the body, and frankly is a waste of time.”
I’m glad you’ve come to this conclusion. I’m not a Calvinist, although I attend Mark Driscoll’s church, which is.
I do not spend my time trying to change the Calvinistic slant of my church, while at the same time I observe Calvinists trying to push Calvinism onto Southern Baptists, in spite of the fact that their theology differs.
My perception is that Calvinists spend their time trying to convert the converted to the particulars of their theology. My perception is that the Baptists, through their strong missionary efforts, are a large denomination and the neo-Calvinists see them as the biggest fruit on the tree for plucking, in spite of the fact that the Southern Baptist denomination’s growth was not the product of Calvinistic effort.
While I have nothing against people holding to Calvinistic theology, I, like all Christians, have a legitimate concern and interest in the practical outcomes of the new Reformed movement.
Bluntly:
1. Dominionism. Christian Reconstructionism.
2. Intolerance and intellectual intimidation.
3. Power-politicking in the church.
And fourthly…well, I’m afraid to say it.
I’m sure everyone is thoroughly disgruntled by now, which is fine, I guess, since at least one or two Calvinists are mad at me at any given time lately.
21. phil
June 15, 2007
6:59 AM
Tim,
Great questions! I was first convinced of Reformed Theology after my pastor preached through Romans 9-11 many years ago. It was for me like the sunrise, showing God’s Sovereignty in all its splendor; this made me love him more.
Sadly, my pastor latere embraced “Free Grace” theology and now rejects the doctrines of grace. As I studied the Scriptures more, I became more convinced of them. I ultimately had to amicably depart from that church, which was very difficult, because I had attended there for 20 years (ever since becoming a Christian), and had many family members and dear friends there.
Regarding secondary sources, many sermons by preachers mentioned above were helpful in solidifying my understanding. I must say, however, that RC Sproul’s book “Chosen by God” was the most helpful in answering my questions during my initial struggles.
Defending Calvinism for me is mostly a struggle in that I need to brush up on Scripture memory— not remembering the verses I need until later. For those hurt by unkind Calvinists, I would just like to say that our arrogance actually proves our first point: We are all affected by our sinful natures, and our pride exemplifies that. Forgive us, and realize that our arrogance demonstrates why we need a Savior to declare us righteous, for we’ll never get there by our own merit. For Calvinists, I’m reminded of Josh Harris’ “New Attirude” message: “We must love, live and defend the truth, not as those who are right, but as those who have been rescued”.
Still struggling some with limited atonement (I have an intellectual agreement with it, but can’t explain some Scriptures which seem to speak to the contrary). I just ordered John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”, which I understand is one of the most helpful books on this doctrine.
Thanks for such an edifying blog, Tim! KEep up the good work! In Christ,
-Phil
22. Marc
June 15, 2007
9:24 AM
Before I begin I also want to define “Reformed” as meaning basically agreement with TULIP and the five Solas. I am still struggling with Covenant vs Disp , etc.
The first time I seriously gave this any thought was when my Mom asked me one day if I believed we were chosen. I sort of stammered something and my Dad said “well, it’s all over the Bible”. I think they had been debating the issue and I found myself in the middle.
My Dad encouraged me to buy a Macarthur Study Bible and things have never been the same.
Since that time I have studied Macarthur, Sproul, Spurgeon, Tozer, Pink, Edwards, Packer, Horton, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney and many more.
But I have been encouraged and influenced mostly by Piper (read many of his books and listened to all of his sermons on Romans) and the Monergism web site.
And guess what?? It is all over the Bible!!
23. Larry
June 15, 2007
9:44 AM
I’ve only been ‘reformed’ for about two years. Prior to that I was what you’d call a typical American ‘evangelical’ (Southern Baptist) for most of my life (I’m 45). However, I was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the kind of teaching I was hearing from the pulpit (self-help, how to raise better kids in three easy steps type stuff rather than expositional preaching of the Word) and with the emphasis on facilities and programs so common in large Southern Baptist churches. As a result I began to look for books which held a very high view of scripture and teachings that viewed the health of a church as a function of the spiritual maturity and health of the members rather than the number of bodies in the seats.
What I found was that those type books were most often written by Calvinists. I read R.C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer, John McArthur, the puritans, etc. Also being very interested in history, I began to read about the reformation. I found out for the first time what the real issues were that led to the reformation and was shocked to see that the theology I’d been taught most of my life was more like the theology Luther was protesting against than it was like the protestanism awakened by the Reformation.
To make a long story short, all these things (and others) combined were used by God to bring me to a place where I embracee the Doctrines of Grace. It was almost like a second conversion really, my theology changed so radically. My family and I are now in a Reformed Baptist church and I’m continuing to grow in my understanding of the Biblical Gospel - thanks be to the Lord!
24. Truth Unites...and Divides
June 15, 2007
10:13 AM
I first heard about Calvinism when I was working with the college students in my church and one of the deacons told me that I should be aware of the Arminian-Calvin divide. He was Arminian. I read point and counter-point in ever-deeping spirals. I told him I leaned towards Calvinism. He was not happy. He complained to the Pastor. The Pastor said that it was okay, that I was analytical in my thinking and that most analytical Christians are Calvinists. My arminian deacon friend who’s quite intellectual himself was not happy again.
Also, I think all the points are logically inseparable. You accept 1 point, then you’re a 5-pointer I.e., a 5-point Calvinist or a 5-point Arminian. No such thing as a 3-point Calvinist.
Lastly, the doctrine that’s still hard for me to wrap my head around is the Perseverance of the Saints. Eg. Let’s say our host Tim Challies does a Virginia Tech massacre (heaven forbid!). While we’ll never know for sure his eternal destiny, that won’t stop others from speculating. Some will say that he’s going to heaven… Perseverance of the Saints. In response, others will say that that idea is perverse. Some will say that Challies will spend eternity apart from God. This will cause TULIP folks to wonder about the “P” part. They’ll say, “I guess he didn’t persevere because Tim really wasn’t a Christian because if he was he wouldn’t have done this massacre and he’d still be going to heaven. So he must never have been a Christian in the first place.” In all honesty, that makes no sense to me.
Pax in Christ.
25. Jeri
June 15, 2007
10:35 AM
For anyone who wonders whether Southern Baptist history isn’t firmly rooted in Calvinistic soil, you might want to read this little book, “A Quiet Revolution-A Chronicle of Beginnings of Reformation in the Southern Baptist Convention.” Ernest Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen show that the roots of Southern Baptist life are Calvinistic, and they tell the history of what happened in the 1920’s that brought about the “downgrade” in the U.S. The current resurgence of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist convention is a recovery of the sound theology of early Southern Baptist leaders like James Boyce and John Broadus. It’s a truly fascinating book. It can be ordered or read online at http://www.founders.org/fpress/quiet.html
26. Brandon Lucas
June 15, 2007
11:47 AM
My conversion to reformed theology can be found at the link to my blog below, if you are interested.
http://peculiarpilgrim.wordpress.com/2007/01/08/road-to-reformation-part-2/
27. Gary Horn
June 15, 2007
12:26 PM
Hi Tim,
I was introduced to Reformed theology when I began attending Bethlehem Baptist Church (the church where Pastor Piper preaches) four years ago. I was separated from my wife (for the second time) at that time. The “Doctrines of Grace” are responsible for saving my marriage.
Predestination and election are troubling, terrifying doctrines. But they’re in the Bible. Facing these things honestly, for me, has increased my humility and awe and gratitude to GOD.
28. jtfws
June 15, 2007
1:36 PM
I’m encouraged to see the humility evident in many of these comments. I would describe myself as essentially Reformed as far as my theological sympathies go, but that’s about as far as I want to take it. Why? Because my personal affection for just about every self-proclaimed Reformed-type that I meet has an inversely proportional relationship to their zeal for Calvinism, Puritanism, and all things Reformed.
Put simply, a great many Reformed folks that I meet seem to be so right that they must be wrong. They can parse out doctrine to the nth degree. But in their zeal for doing so, I find that most of them have forgotten the point of correct doctrine in the first place: to facilitate right relationship to God and the world. Many Reformed types are simply too right for their own good. In hyperbolically believing the right things, they’ve been led to believe in the wrong way. So if my doctrinal excellence leads me to arrogance, while I may be great at loving God with “all my mind,” I missed some pretty important points elsewhere. But this kind of sectarian, quasi-fetishistic arrogance is just what I see all over the place — in the self-congratulatory Reformed blogosphere (there are of course exceptions, like Challies), in Reformed talk radio, in conversations with people who just looooove TULIP.
Humility is of course sacrificed by many theological systems. But it strikes me that the intellectual rigor which characterizes the Reformed tradition makes a lack of humility a more insidious danger for us, because it arms us with all sorts of ammunition as to why all other Christians are stupid and ignorant. That can’t be good. The strength of the system, in this case, is also its weakness.
This isn’t meant to be a diatribe against Reformed theology or Reformed believers, so I hope nobody will feel personally attacked. As I said, I adhere to the former and count myself among the latter. Moreover, I’m sorry for the tangent. This didn’t answer Tim’s questions. But given the broad concern of the post with “being Reformed” and the direction the conversation was taking in the comments, I thought I’d toss this observation out (it’s been brewing for a while) for the consideration of the elect. (Close with a little Calvinist joke, haha.)
29. Elizabeth
June 15, 2007
1:39 PM
I’m not a full-fledged Calvinist, but I am much more open to the idea than I was a few years ago. As a 22-year-old recent college grad, I definitely fit into the ‘young, restless and reformed’ category. How did this happen? Honestly, when I first heard about Calvinism (in jr. high or highschool) I thought it was absurd, but then I began to be friends with people who are Calvinists, listen to sermons by them (this has been happening more recently—Mark Driscoll, especially) and read articles, etc. online. It also seems to me (I realize I’m basing this on my limited experience) that the Calvinistic sermons I hear seem to be meatier and much more in depth.
Like I said, I’m not a full-fledged Calvinist. Limited Atonement is something I don’t fully understand, and I’m sometimes confused by parts of election. However, the sovereignty of God is something that I found fairly easy to understand. I distinctly remember Mark Driscoll’s sermon series in Ruth that pointed out God’s visible hand of miracles and invisible hand of providence.
30. Dallas Pymm
June 15, 2007
1:55 PM
Let’s see if I can help.
“As you began to understand Reformed principles, what were your greatest and most pressing questions about this system of theology?”
-Why is it that I had never anything what so ever about this at the church I was attending?
-Why is it that I had actually been taught the exact opposite was true?
-How can all of this be true and God still be loving and just?
What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?
-Man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty.
What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?
-First started off with reading Biblical texts that I was challenged on by friends of mine.
-I then tried to prove it wrong by reading TULIP(many Calvinist has been made by others trying to prove it wrong), I came away saying wow, Arminianism is heresy and Calvinists seem to have a point.
-I then was in denial and wanted to get away from the debate and just read scripture…well…it is everywhere in scripture.
-Reading the scripture texts and notes from God’s Passion for His Glory did me in. I was forever turned to the so called Dark Side.
Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?
-Of course, I always wrestle with Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty, but the Bible certainly does not wrestle with it. It proclaims both and as a result so do I.
How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?
-Not bad, but not great. I need to not get so heated when talking with some of my family members about it. I respond to heat with heat, instead of remaining calm. What do I have to get heated for, it is right there in God’s word right?
31. Sewing
June 15, 2007
4:05 PM
I only came to Christ this past January, but God had been calling me for some 18 years prior to that. At first, I had no concept of a soteriological system, but within just a couple of weeks, quite by accident, I discovered the satirical, Reformed “Tominthebox News Network,” and from there, PyroManiacs. What struck me is that here were intellectually rigorous, conservative Christians: not borderline liberal secularists, washed-up evangelicals, or mindless fundamentalists. Even though I did not yet know anything about Calvinism, I was hooked by the fruits of folks who embrace that doctrine. I wanted to know more, and quickly started learning all I could—primarily online, and especially through TeamPyro—about soteriology.
Without a doubt, the ONE point I struggled with was the idea that God in His sovereign Will chooses His elect, and that those not chosen are without hope of redemption. But I already had evidence of how He works in my own life, because I knew it had been He all along who had been calling me; as time went by, it became clearer and clearer that it had not been I who’d just willy-nilly “made a decision for Christ,” but He who had drawn me ineluctably into finally surrendering myself to His Will.
All along, however, what I did not realize is that I had been receiving Reformed education for a year IN MY OWN CHURCH! It only sank in after our church hosted a conference with John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and J.I. Packer among the speakers, and I heard Piper’s session on total depravity. Thereafter, all the pieces fit into place: our senior pastor is an expositor whose favourite pastors are Jonathan Edwards and John Piper, who quotes Ephesians 1 in his personal testimonial, and who’s explicitly mentioned such topics as election, perseverance of the saints, God’s sovereign grace, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism in his sermons. And as a Jew, I could only have been saved because this pastor preached THROUGH Romans, and when he got to Paul’s olive tree metaphor in Chapter 11, he preached on from the postmillenial standpoint that led me to repent and be saved a week and a half later.
In His sovereign Will, GOD LED ME TO A REFORMED CHURCH TO BE SAVED!
32. Dave
June 15, 2007
4:05 PM
This is my struggle…not with Calvinism (one man’s approach to how God seems to work), but rather with those who believe it “in theory”, but routinely just can’t seem to get their everyday lives and normal everyday vocabulary to match. I am constantly amazed by very intelligent self-proclaimed “5 pointers” who, when they speak and pray publicly, contradict themselves with their words and don’t even know it!!!
It seems to me at times, that Calvinism has become the new Christian “idol”, fails in it’s intention to properly train and discipline it’s subscribers as to how it is practically to be lived out, and most importantly fails to recognize how the dogmatic (and often condemning approach in attacking the Biblical beliefs of other Christians) influcences the intended audience.
My observation: Brainwashed Christians are never effective witnesses for Christ. One must both embrace and live it out for it to be a real faith system.
33. Dallas Pymm
June 15, 2007
4:17 PM
“I am constantly amazed by very intelligent self-proclaimed “5 pointers” who, when they speak and pray publicly, contradict themselves with their words and don’t even know it!!!”
I have found this to be more true of self-proclaimed free willers than anyone else.
34. Sewing
June 15, 2007
4:21 PM
By the way, I have to agree with JTFWS that it is quite possible to become arrogant with Reformed doctrine. Anyone who claims to be a Calvinist should be humbled by the mere idea that there is NOTHING that we can do as totally depraved men and women to save ourselves. God owes us NOTHING.
I hope my own comment didn’t come across as boastful…I’m just exuberant right now because the Holy Spirit has only just led me understand all this just in the last few weeks.
35. Kim K
June 15, 2007
4:45 PM
I was born and raised in an RCA church and started attending catechism classes in 1st grade, so Reformed theology was the only thing I knew until I left home and moved to a place with no Reformed churches. My husband and I have been members of a SB church for the past 17 years and in the last few years have come to see the utter weakness of the doctrine (at least as it is expounded from the pulpit.) I guess for several years we thought exact doctrine was just a matter of preference - kind of like what color carpet to put in the sanctuary. Sure we had an opinion but everyone’s opinion was more or less valid.
Over the last few years we have come back to our “roots” (thanks in part goes to great sites like this one) and have come to love and appreciate the reformed teachings of our youth. Last year we lost our 17 year old son and were incredibly comforted by Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. I think the Lord was preparing us for this loss, which would have been much harder to handle without a clear understanding of the grace of God.
36. Wyeth Duncan
June 15, 2007
6:53 PM
“What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?”
I came to a Reformed understanding of Christian doctrine gradually—bit-by-bit—over time, beginning with my conversion, about 27 years ago. The primary source informing my understanding was Scripture, since probably all the teaching I heard in church was Arminian. I got used to “swimming against the current”, but the result in my theology was a mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism (probably 3/5 of the TULIP).
My journey into full-fledged, 5-point Calvinism was a result of reading Scripture (particularly the gospel according to John and Paul’s epistle to the Romans) and books by two modern authors: John Piper and the late James Montgomery Boice. About 7 years ago, I read Piper’s The Pleasures of God (the first Piper book I ever read). In that book is a chapter entitled, “The Pleasure of God in Election”. That did it, for me! What Piper wrote just made sense, when compared with Scripture. Piper answered questions I had but was afraid to ask in church. For the first time, I understood “Limited Atonement”, as Piper clearly proved the doctrine (to my mind, at least) from the Scriptures. Two other books, both by Boice, only helped solidify my new-found commitment to Calvinism: Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace? and The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (completed posthumously for Boice by Philip Ryken).
37. dprocket
June 15, 2007
11:31 PM
Interesting topic and question. I don’t know if I an appropriate person to answer this question because I do not consider myself to be “Reformed” although I closely read Reformed authors/techers/preachers and feel extreemly familiar with the doctrines of the Reformers and the current Reformed camp.
First of all, why I do not consider myself “Reformed”. Technically I would consider myself reformed in the sense that I am much closer to the Reformers than what they broke away from, however since “Reformed” today, to me, essentially means: Cavinistic and Amillenialism, I can not stand in this camp.
I consider myself a 4.5 point Calvinist but completely reject the eschatology (or lack thereof) of the Reformed folks. I find it interesting that those who claim to be Reformed have pretty much maintained the “default” position when it comes to eschatology. I also find it interesting that current giants in the Reformed camp all but ignore eschatology. I agree with MacArthurs comments to start the Shepherds conference that “this stuff needs to be discussed”. While I can’t agree with everything MacArthurs says, I think he is spot on when he says that this topic is all but ignored. Why is a topic that is so prevelant in The Word so ignored?
38. Sewing
June 16, 2007
12:26 AM
After writing up my original comment, I should qualify and say that my pastor is either amill or classical postmill (Edwardian, not Finneyite, social gospel, or reconstructionist), but I’m not quite sure which yet.
39. BrianD
June 16, 2007
8:01 AM
It started for me after the Lord used The Way of the Master to wake me up from easy-believism. I started listening to Todd Friel’s radio show, which is now Way of The Master Radio, and began hearing names like MacArthur, Sproul, Piper and a host of others. I wanted to know what these guys believed about the gospel and began being exposed to the doctrines of grace. Piper’s teachings and Romans 9 probably sealed it for me but Sproul’s book, Chosen By God helped me make the most sense of it. Since then, I see the doctrines all over the Bible and it is amazing to me how I could have ever read it before and glossed over it. I guess that’s where pressupositions get in trouble.
Having been raised where you lose your salvation at the drop of a hat, I struggle with my own assurance. It’s easy for me to see my sin without seeing the cross, but God is slowly helping me trust his grace. One of the difficulties I have with this system of theology is the fate of my children. I have 4 between 2-10 years of age and I certainly suffer anxiety worrying about them.
I’m thankful that God has shown me the truth in his word. I’ve never seen God as massive as I do now. He is truly a great God and I look forward to one day basking in the glory of the Son in eternity!
40. Morris Brooks
June 16, 2007
9:43 AM
Growing up Methodist and then joining an SBC church I had a natural resistance to the doctrines of grace, but after studying the Scriputres I finally had to surrender to the overwhelming weight of Scripture. My understanding has been sharpened by R.C. and Gerstner, but I am neither a convenentalist nor a dispensationalist.
Being both Reformed in soteriology and Southern Baptist awakened me to the problem of decisional regeneration that is rife in the SBC. However, in God’s sovereignty He saves whom He saves by the means through which He choses because the truth is the truth whether it is spoken by an Arminian or Reformed.
41. Dan B.
June 16, 2007
11:31 AM
I grew up in Kentucky and had been in the Arminian way of thinking all my life—I even remember while at Asbury College having a VERY heated discussion with a friend that one could not be missions-minded and a Calvinist! Yet the Spirit had been preparing me for the introduction to the doctrines of grace along the way.
By the time my wife and I moved to Virginia, and the pastor at a Baptist church (that was in the midst of reforming, which was an interesting process) began a year and a half expositional study through the book of Romans, it did click, and I saw it in Scripture. I admit that Limited Atonement was little difficult and seemed quite unfair, but within the context of God’s sovereignty, the Spirit helped me to see how glorious it was and that God’s grace was deeper and greater than I had ever imagined.
To me, I think that was the key—expositional preaching. I had NEVER had anyone go through a book like that, much less a chapter—if you’re skipping around, it’s easy to gloss over or even skip something that MUST be dealt with in the text. Every pastor deals with Romans 12:1-2, but how many deal with Romans 11? Or that some or most pastors deal with Romans 8:28, but do they go onto verse 29, or Romans 9? Seeing the book as a whole, and all of it within context helped me to see what I had not ever been presented before. Books such as Knowing God by J I Packer and Don’t Waste Your Life by Piper were also influential.
42. Shawn K
June 16, 2007
11:44 AM
The most extensive resource available for Reformaed Theology: www.monergism.com
43. Jeri
June 16, 2007
12:21 PM
KimK, we lost our son also (2 1/2 years ago) and just as He did for you, the Lord prepared us for this loss by introducing us to His sovereignty. He is good!
44. DLE
June 16, 2007
1:04 PM
I know this is a bit off topic, but Tim quoted the “Young, Restless, Reformed” article and it brought something to mind that troubles me.
We have some good friends in a large, popular, middle to upper middle class PCA church in an expanding suburban area in the Midwest. When they first started going to this church, nearly everyone there grilled them on whether they were five-pointers or not. Our friends noted that their inability to answer this question to the satisfaction of the askers terminated most conversations.
They then joined a small group in that church. Most of the people in that group were in their late twenties to mid-thirties, which aligns with the Hansen article in CT. After being in that group for more than a year, our friends left because they were discouraged at the rampant fatalism that seemed to afflict the members of the group. They noted this fatalistic attitude toward life afflicted many of the younger generation in the church, especially among the hardest five-pointers. That fatalism manifested in a belief that prayer cannot alter the course of one’s life, that all of life is set in stone and your lot is your lot, and so on. Our friends also noted that many of these younger folks had an antagonistic attitude toward people who did not buy into the same fatalistic beliefs. Having not been in a strictly Reformed church before, they wondered if this was commonplace.
I’ve seen this in spots within the Reformed community, especially in the most vocal younger Reformed adherents, most of whom are die-hard five-pointers. I guess the term that might apply here is “hyper-Calvinists.” Tim’s mentioned this term in the past and I wonder if the younger generation in Hansen’s article may be falling into hyper-Calvinism more so than the generation before them.
Is anyone else noting this trend? Is this a potential problem for Reformed churches as they transition these folks into positions of leadership? I’ve talked to some older Reformed Christians and they’re seeing this, too, but don’t know what to do about it.
Thoughts?
45. david
June 16, 2007
2:25 PM
DLE,
I see three problems in the situation you’ve described,(1) bypassing scriptural exposition and going straight to systemic theology, (2) focusing on the end of God’s decree and ignoring the means, and (3) impatience.
(1) Systematic theology has to grow out of Biblical exposition. Beginning by saying, “Election (etc.) is unconditional and here’s the proof . . . ,” and then expecting your claims to be automatically accepted, is backwards and it sets people up to resist your premise. Personally, I rejected Reformed theology presented this way because I could begin with my own presuppositions and do the same thing. I could convince myself of whatever I was predisposed to believe. It wasn’t until I was exposed to expositional teaching of Scripture that my own presuppositions began to crumble and I began to see the truth. I had to understand Jesus and Paul before I could accept Berkhof.
(2) God has not only decreed end results, he has decreed the means to those ends. Too often the decree overshadows the means in the teaching of immature Calvinists. Yes, God has decreed all that happens, and everything happens that he has decreed. But he has also commanded us to pray and evangelize, and this is not just busy work. It is the necessary means to his ends, not because he couldn’t accomplish his ends without us, but because he has decreed them to be so.
(3) Impatience—expecting people to accept what we believe quickly because we’ve explained it so wonderfully well, and, well duh, it’s obvious, stupid!
If I was faced with those methods and attitudes, I’d leave, too.
46. wayne
June 16, 2007
3:23 PM
i have to say that i fall within the young, restless, but not -quite (or yet)-reformed category. as a 24 year old in graduate school who grew up in a ethnic pcusa church in the south, was involved with an armenian-leaning ivcf chapter and an evangelical quaker church during college, was involved in an “missional” emerging-influenced evangelical pcusa church on the west coast for a year, and is now fellowshipping in a small formerly-czech-baptist-but-now-independent church with a reformed-ish pastor, i owe my discipleship and theological upbringing to older, more mature believers who represent a variety of theological traditions. i am personally very interested in investigating reformed theology even deeper, but i also get the sense that the answer to the question “what must i do to be saved” isn’t quite “accept 5-point TULIP to be your lord and savior” (irony intended).
i find that there is something incredible attractive in the emphasis reformed folks place on the sovereignty of God, and to paraphrase Louie Giglio, living for the glory of God and his great renown. i find the God-focused theology refreshing in our me-focused culture. however, parts of reformed thinking (or at least sub-culture) is difficult to accept, sometimes even repulsive. with the high emphasis on logic and right doctrine, where is room for mystery? without free will, what is love? what’s with the superiority vibe?
i find theology and differences between theological traditions (yes, calvinism is a theological tradition) very interesting, but in the end, the big question for me regarding theological particulars is, “so what”?
challies, thanks for posing your questions in this post, and thanks for your excellent, thought-provoking writings =)
47. Grace
June 16, 2007
8:23 PM
I am fit right into the young restless reformed category, and my ‘conversion to Calvinism’ story, which seem to rather popular around the blogosphere, is fairly simple.
I was raised in a very fundamentalist, Arminian background. You could choose God, and even after you were saved, you could lose your salvation, blah, blah.
Shortly after my conversion at age 16 of last November, I was reading in John, and ran across chapter 10. In my fairly simple reading of it, I became convinced that perservance of the saints was true, although my background would call it ‘eternal security.’ Now, I see that chapter in a different light (as I read more and more deeply) but I became convinced of Calvinisms truths fairly painlessly, actually. It was the only thing that fit the Bible, that made sense of all the passages that didn’t before. Amazingly, I didn’t have the emotional attachment to Arminism that many people have.
My primary exposure to Calvinism, before that, was probably Gene Cook’s show “The Narrow Mind”. I enjoyed his show and although I didn’t become a Calvinist until after my conversion in November, that’s where I put the pieces together from. Also, reading reformed blogs—-various—-I am very much an internet ‘convert.’ I do need to go now, and might add more later.
48. Alberto
June 16, 2007
10:33 PM
As a young teenage Pentecostal, I began to be interested in others of different churches. I became captivitated by the teaching of R.C. Sproul and listened to him as much as I could. I heard from him teaching which did not simply excite me, which Pentecostalism no longer did for me, but which satisfied my hunger for the Word of God. I was basically starving from a lack of expositional teaching in my Pentecostal church. I heard John MacArthur as well and became troubled by God’s sovereign election. I still remember feeling powerless when I heard Dr. MacArthur preach on how the destiny of our souls lie solely in God’s hand and choice.
By the way, firmly believing in the five points does not make one a hyper-calvinist. Hyper-calvinists don’t bother to do certaing things commanded in the Scriptures because they think they don’t have to do anything to bring about what God desires. James White has dealt with this and perhaps has some good material concerning it on his blog.
49. Aslan
June 17, 2007
12:30 AM
I grew up staunch southern baptist and thought only presbyterians were reformed and that they were all liberal eggheads….at least that was the impression i had after hearing the country preachers who came though preaching revivals After reading chuck colson I began to ask questions about this reformed thing, and then I started to root around in my church’s library looking for books on Romans. I began to notice that when preachers went through romans they parked on verses that were not really the core of the book, failing to really get into the meat of what Paul was saying. they seemed to skip a lot and didnt take things as literally as they said they did. I began to read John Piper and Voddie Baucham as a result of going to a Passion event and my heart was flooded as many answers to my questions flowed forth. Then, not long ago I heard some mention of this calvinism from the pulpit of my church in georgia (johnny hunt, nelson price, andy via liberty u ergun caner) and found their arguments against calvinism to be surprisingly poor and non-convincing, not to mention somewhat bitter and ill-informed. it became apparent they knew less about calvinism than I did, it appeared, from their arguments and it was clear those who believed in calvinism were not welcome at fbc woodstock and other likeminded baptist churches. I realized I had not been told the whole truth growing up southern baptist. I had let a bunch of jerks who were calvinists (along with my own baptist ambitions and friendships) keep me from seriously considering what was truly biblical. I had been listening more and more to john piper and al mohler and finally reluctnatly yet joyfuilly accepted that I had been wrong all these years. I also knew I could no longer attend my baptist church where my calvinism was labeled heresy there. so now I go to a presbyterian church which, despite its infant baptism policy, is more biblical in its theology and government than most southern baptist churches i grew up in. and i’m more welcome there than I am at southern baptist churches where its all about manipulating decisions rather than going deep with God.
50. afrikaner
June 17, 2007
9:11 PM
I grew up 35 years ago being taught the doctrines of grace. I knew little else from about the age of 15y. I was converted by the presentation of the gospel when I was about 10y - probably Arminian speaker - but what the heck - God used that vessel for His purpose. For a few years spent time in a church which really did simple topical preaching, but without substance. Turbulent teen years meant I ran around like any other red blooded male following the hormones but also trying to practice a righteous life. Thankfully was never really caught up in questions of losing salvation, or like …. i suppose I might be a bit simple.
Pressing questions:
Didn’t really have any …. seemed totally understandable when scripture interprets scripture.
What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?
None….
Resources?
Banner of Truth (I’m getting on and you younger blokes and sheillas wouldn’t know about how this organisation brought the old back to life, and I used to devour ‘reformed literature. I must also admit that in the later teen years it became a bit of an intellectual game between young people to be reading this stuff..)
Westminister Confession studies were also obligatory in my church at that time. Berkhof was our other textbook. The downside of learning systematic theology is that you never quite see the bible as the flow of history of redemption, even though covenant theology does to some extent teach this. The writings of Vos, and Goldsworthy have helped in the deficiencies left by an imbalanced teaching.
Contemporary: as a lot have said - Carson, Piper, White Horse Inn, Schaeffer (I know he’s not quite contemporary but at least he is ‘younger’ than Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, the Puritan writers),
Leading: sound men of the word who expounded the doctrines as they are clearly written in scripture.
Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?
I’m calvinist in soteriology but cannot get my head around how true Reformed churches (Dutch and Presbyterian) have devised their dogma of covenant. Grace doesn’t run in genes, yet interestingly many children of believers do come to faith.
How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?
I don’t have to defend the principles of the sovererignty of God in calvinism - scripture does it for me.
I’d love to be able to drop all the baggage of labels and just bask in the riches of grace upon grace …..
51. Julie
June 17, 2007
9:50 PM
As you began to understand Reformed principles, what were your greatest and most pressing questions about this system of theology?
How the doctrine of “limited atonement” fit with Bible verses like John 3:16; whether divine election was a better fit with what I knew of God’s character; which system gave God the most glory.
What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?
Limited atonement, definitely, because the verses “against” it come easiest to mind.
What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?
Books: The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer and Pensées by Blaise Pascal. The most important resource was Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism, however. It was the first John Piper I’d ever read or heard, and before I read it, I was an Arminian; after I read it, I knew my Arminian days were numbered. Still had to work things out in my head, but that was when my heart knew Calvinism was absolutely true.
Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?
No, not really. I stayed relatively dispensationalist for a while after being quite staunchly Calvinistic in soteriology, but I’m pretty strongly covenental now.
How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?
Pretty confident. My heart knows it so well my head is forced to follow suit. :-)
52. Lisa writes...
June 18, 2007
2:31 PM
Interesting questions, and even more interesting answers—all fifty one of them!
I have described myself as a “stumbling theologian,” one who although I’ve been “in church” my whole life, had no idea what reformed or Arminian or Calvinist truly meant until a few months ago! All I knew of Calvinism was the whole predestination thing—which carried bad connotations.
As I studied God’s word in earnest, I began to embrace the truth of reformation theology—though I had no idea what I believed to be true had a name! I read Piper and MacArthur and Mohler and found an exalted view of Scripture and sovereign grace and the glory of God—all sadly lacking in my church current and past.
Enter the blog world and suddenly I discovered I might be reformed, Calvinist even. I am still somewhat uncomfortable with labels, especially as there are many, some of which have been thrown around in this discussion, which I still have no idea what they mean!
How confident am I in my own ability? Not so very, but I am eager to learn, and it is discussions like this that cause me to turn to the Word of God and seek after knowledge and cry out for understanding.
Thanks, Tim, for a thought provoking and faith building discussion!
53. E. I. Sanchez
June 18, 2007
9:24 PM
I’ve been reading Geisler’s Chosen but Free, and the response from James White the Potter’s Freedom..
In his book, Geisler asks: how made the devil Sin?
White doesn’t answer that question. I really want an explanation to that.
Another thing is: How do you avoid double-predestination?
And how do we reconcile human responsibility with choices given?
Edgar.
p.s. feel free to email me w/ some links.
54. Kristina
June 18, 2007
10:08 PM
As you began to understand Reformed principles, what were your greatest and most pressing questions about this system of theology?
I suppose one of the most pressing things for me initially was, if I embrace this way of thinking what was my responsibility? Coming from a background that pushed free will as the thing that faith often hinged on I felt it was important to understand my will in relation to God’s.
What aspects of Reformed theology most troubled you and were the most difficult to reconcile in your mind?
Probably the idea of Limited Atonement (still digging through Scripture on that one)
What resources did you turn to to help you explore the Reformed faith? Was it only Bible study that led you to Reformed beliefs or did you rely on secondary sources as well? Which were the most helpful resources (teachers, books, web sites, etc)?
Honestly, I’d never even heard of Reformed faith until I started researching the problems with the PDL I was having in my church. So the web played a big part in my learning, and the more I read the more questions I had and that drove me to Scripture so that I could begin to sort this all out for myself.
Slice of Laodicea, Emergent No, ERWM, and this site were the first sites I started reading that eventually led to me wanting to understand the way of Reformed faith more.
Are there still questions that remain? Are there certain aspects of Reformed theology that you continue to wrestle with or that you simply do not understand?
Still wrestling with Limited Atonement.
How confident are you now in your ability to understand, defend and apply the principles of the Reformed faith?
Not very, but I’m interested in learning and understanding more.
55. Dave Rusco
June 21, 2007
4:02 PM
As a Pastor of adult education in a Bible Church, the elders were discussing God’s involvement in 9/11 shortly after it happened. Seven elders were saying God was not involved in the death of those people. The other seven were asking how God could not be involved. I reasoned, how could the believers have died without God calling them home. I, and a group of teachers, began to meet to study Scripture to see what God is, and is not, in control of. Pipers wed site and books have been very helpful to me. Even though our study group and our findings were not well received in our church, I now understand “reformed” to be a good word, and Scripturally very sound. I now pastor a Bible Church and teach the grace and sovereignty of God very confidently.
56. Ken
June 22, 2007
8:27 AM
Edgar: Who made the devil sin? The fault lies within the devil, although since he was created a good being it is a mystery exactly how he fell. No theologian, Reformed or otherwise, has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation; God has evidently not chosen to reveal this to us.
On the question of double predestination, I recommend Dr. Sproul’s short but useful discussion in his book “Chosen by God.” I believe you can also find the article on certain web sites such as Monergism.
57. Phil
June 23, 2007
12:07 AM
I was first exposed to scriptural and reformed teaching through some Christian friends when I was in the Navy. And I also began attending an OPC church. I could not ignore what I was reading in the Bible, and hearing in the church. I was also influenced and challenged by the reading of a book by A.W. Pink entitled, “The Sovereignty of God.” There were some things to overcome, considering my Baptist background. There is so much depth in the Reformed perspective: The whole counsel of God, how the old and new covenants fit together, the doctrines of grace, Covenant Theology, the confessions of faith and catechisms, the holiness and sovereignty of God, and on and on. Unfortunately, in our modern evangelical culture there is little or no knowledge, appreciation, or understanding of Biblical doctrine, or the history of the church and its past great servants such as St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, etc. We live in a church age dominated by emotion, shallowness, worldly and business-oriented approaches that are dishonoring to the Lord and His Church. I’ll stop now, though more could be said. Salvation is of the Lord.