- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostSession 6 - Question and Answer
- Next Post »Session 8 - Al Mohler
Session 7 - R.C. Sproul
- 03/03/06
- 40
This has been an encouraging week. It has been a powerful week. I have learned a lot this week, but perhaps more about service than anything else. I have seen young men, so often the type of people who are proud, joyfully traveling with older men in order to serve them. I have seen a whole church commit itself to the service of thousands of people who are strangers to them. I have met leaders within the North American church who shown not a shred of pride, but have asked me, “How can I serve you?” I have been shown such love and have seen countless examples of God’s love in action. I have seen men who have become the message they study and preach. I have been honored to stand in the presence of so many humble, godly pastors, teachers and leaders, some who preach in the largest churches in the land and others who serve in tiny congregations you and I may never hear of. I have come to a deeper understanding of and love for this body of Christ.
This evening we have the great privilege of listening to the teaching ministry of R.C. Sproul. R.C. has long been a stalwart of the Evangelical church - one who is widely respected for his dedication to the cause of Christ. John MacArthur says, truly, “he is a hero to all of us.” His contribution to the defense of the gospel and the spread of the truths of the gospel of grace are almost unparalleled in our day. I look forward to learning what God will have to say to us tonight through the preaching of the Word.
As his text Dr. Sproul read Romans 1:18-25. This afternoon Dr. MacArthur asked the panel during the question and answer session what is the most serious challenge facing the church. They all answered and then Al Mohler stated correctly that all of the other men’s concerns had a deeper problem: the nature of truth. Many people are wondering whether there even is truth and whether it is worth searching for. This situation was, of course, predicted by Francis Schaeffer who wrote about “true truth.”
Historically there have been times when people have questioned the very concept of truth. Prior to the Reformation, people waited for truth to be decreed to them by Rome. This was destroyed in the Reformation. In the seventeenth century, Descartes began searching for a foundational premise for truth - some truth that would be so foundational that do doubt it would be to affirm it. Descartes came up with “I think, therefore I am.”
This evening Dr. Sproul will get back to foundational truth. He will take us to one of the most foundational truths taught by the Scriptures, one that is so important we ignore it to our everlasting peril and the peril of the sheep pastors are called to serve.
Verse seventeen is almost universally regarded to be the thematic verse of the entire epistle. Paul spends the rest of the letter expounding and explaining this righteousness of God. He speaks about a revelation of the righteousness of God - the righteousness that He makes available to us by faith. Paul instantly departs from this positive note and, in verse eighteen, speaks about another revelation and this is the one we will look at tonight. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” The wrath of God is spectacularly unpopular and pastors seem to seek to shield their people from having to contemplate such a negative, pessimistic idea as the wrath of God.
At the time of the Great Awakening the theologians and pastors developed a theology of wrath so that the preaching of this period was defined by speaking of the depravity of man and the wrath of God against man. The nineteenth century gave us liberalism which denied the depravity of man and thus the wrath of God. The twentieth century turned against the optimism of this and again took seriously the wrath of God, but said that this was merely an expression of the demonic within the being of God - the “shadow side” of God.
Paul is talking about a disclosure that comes from God and it is the disclosure of wrath. We should notice here the word Paul uses for wrath. This word, when transliterated into English, becomes “orgy.” The connection to wrath is the emphasis on unbridled passion. What God is saying here is that His wrath is not a mere disturbance, not a slight displeasure, but an absolute fury. God is livid. He is, in a supernatural way, irate about something. When the Scripture tells us God is this angry about something, we need to listen up and learn what it is that can possibly provoke this loving, longsuffering deity to such anger.
We do not need to speculate because God gives us the answer. God’s wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. God’s anger is not irrational. He is not manifesting His rage in an unjust manner. This is righteous indignation because the object of His anger and wrath is ungodliness and unrighteousness. In our culture, the prevailing suggestion towards God is that if He is really loving and good there can be no room for wrath. “But if God is really righteous and sin is really sin, God cannot not be angry.” A judge who is not angry at evil is not good. God’s wrath is not arbitrary or whimsical or irrational.
Paul mentions two things: ungodliness and unrighteousness. We could believe that Paul is speaking of two distinct sins, but this is not the case. It is almost universally agreed that Paul is expressing a single sin that is, by its wickedness, is both unrighteous and ungodly. It is both a blasphemous and unethical response. So what sin is it that is both ungodly and unrighteous that has so provoked God’s anger?
Paul says, “...who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” There is the sin - the universal sin. The sin that every human being in the world commits. The force of the verb translated “suppress” is that there is a truth God reveals to the whole world and that this truth is willfully suppressed and pushed down by all human beings. All human beings will not have God in their thinking. It is like a giant spring or coil. It takes all of my effort to push down, but I am determined to push it down and I have to work to keep it down, because if I take the pressure off, it will spring right back at me, right in my face. God hates it when people suppress truth!
The most fundamental basis of human guilt for which the gospel is the only remedy is the universal sin of fallen humanity of suppressing the truth of God.
“For what may be known of God is manifest in them.” When God speaks of the revelation of Himself to every human being, He is not talking about a vague, dim, obscure, hidden, cloudy idea. What God is saying to us is that His revelation of Himself is clear, manifest. So clear, so manifest you can’t possibly miss it. This text is the death blow to all agnosticism. Paul is saying that this revelation is clear, so we cannot blame God for not making Himself more clear. No one will be able to say on the last day that “the student didn’t learn because the teacher didn’t teach.”
“Since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen.” There are no contradictions in the Bible, but there are paradoxes. In this verse we see that God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen. How is this possible? That clear, manifest revelation makes itself know through the things that are made. I can’t see God, but I see the works of His hands, for the heavens declare His glory and the firmament shows forth His excellence. His invisible attributes are clearly known and revealed through the visible.
Every person on the planet knows that God exists, that He is eternal, that He is immutable, that He is self-existent, and that He is holy. This leaves people without excuse. What does Paul have in mind? What excuse does he anticipate? What excuse does every sinner harbor in his heart that he will use on the day of judgment? “If only I had known...” “I had no way of knowing...” Every unrepentant sinner is depending on using the excuse of ignorance to get them by. But Paul says that the clarity of God’s self-disclosure to every human being, leaves every human being without excuse.
Now we are getting to this foundational premise. “Because although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were they thankful...” When we contemplate the sinfulness of our humanity and ask what it is about our corruption that is so hateful to God, the foundational sin of the human race, is the sin of idolatry. It is there in the beginning. It is in the hearts of all those who stem from Adam’s sinful race. It is not that God is mad that they shut out this revelation of God, or that they shut out the light. The sin is that the light got through so that despite knowing God, they refused to acknowledge God. The fundamental sin is the refusal to acknowledge what we know to be true. It’s not that we don’t know God - it’s that we don’t honor Him as God! We honor Him, not as God, but in the way we want to honor Him. We honor Him as a bird, a totem pole, a golden calf, or some other idol.
“Their foolish hearts were darkened...” Do you ever wonder why it is that many of history’s titanic intellects managed to come to radically different conclusions? The answer is simple: If you begin your system of thought by refusing to acknowledge what you know to be true - if you start with a lie - the more brilliant and consistent you are in following that premise, the further from truth you will go.
“Professing to be wise, they became foolish...” It is the fool that says in his heart “there is no God.” In biblical categories, foolishness is not a question of intelligence but of one of a mind that is darkened and that embraces a lie. He claims wisdom despite being foolish. What can be more foolish than to have a clear manifestation of God and exchange that truth for a lie?
The essence of idolatry is found in this concept of an exchange, a swap, a trade - trading one thing for another. You’re trading the glory of the unchanging, holy, omnipotent God for the glory of a bird or a totem pole. No wonder the prophets made fun of the pagans of their day! This is what we do, though perhaps in a more sophisticated way. We use our minds to cut away God’s righteousness, holiness, sovereignty, and wrath, and we give people what they want to hear.
“Our propensity for idolatry is the most foundational, basic sin of the human heart. It is not instantly cured by conversion. There is nobody who has a perfectly biblical understanding of God, and to whatever degree we have discounted the biblical God, we have replaced God with a creation of our own imagination.” If you are in ministry and are not proclaiming the whole counsel of God, and are thus hiding the truths of God, you are exposing yourself to the fury of God.
“What our churches need more than anything else is worship. Worship where the hearts and souls of the people are lifted in a spirit of reverence and awe as they contemplate all that God is. Nothing less will do.”
Amen.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (40)
Tim, I hope you (and others reading this who are here for the conference) have planned to stay for Sunday services, for it is the culmination of all we have planned for this week. It will be a great privilege for the Body of Christ at Grace Community Church to join you pastors in fellowship and worship, capped by the afternoon Communion service. Don't miss it!
I have been traveling today up to Ohio to minister this weekend--one of the reasons I could not attend this great Shepherds Conference.
The great disappointment for me personally apart from missing the fellowship of good friends, co-laborers, mentors and family was not to be there tonight to hear R.C.
What a treasure this dear brother is to the body of Christ. THE finest expositor in the world today-- His blend of biblical knowledge in exposition, his exegetical grasp of any text, and the fathomless wealth of redemptive history all woven together to "give the sense of it to the people" is a rich blessing.
Thank you Tim for these notes, but I can hardly wait to hear the real thing. This message seemed like the fitting benediction to the conference.
On a personal note, I would covet your prayers; I will speaking about 4 hours at a mens conference on the theme of "The Marks of a Man of God." I am also leading worship on Sunday morning for two services and preaching at both services as well. Sunday evening will conclude with a worship concert and the message will be on the theme of "The Worship Driven Church."
Grace and peace,SteveCol. 1:9-14
I am here at the conference for my first time. Have waited 14 years to see Dr. Sproul in person after devouring nearly all his books and cassettes since then. What a joyous thing it was today to hear and see him. My heart breaks because of his frailty, this titan of the Word, this lion, and like Aslan, he (Sproul) is no tame lion. Water behind the pulpit tonight helped him roar once more a few times.
Thank you LORD for this dear, dear hero. Please give him many more years of health and fruitful ministry.
Coupled with this, Tim, was the illustration of a certain minister, 30 years ago that had come to Dr. Sproul and told him that he was going to re-make the church into an event that was "relevant, seeker-sensitive" and engaged the culture. Dr. Sproul stepped aside from the pulpit after describing this encounter lifted his Bible and issued the challenge, "I defy anyone! to show me in the scriptures where anyone other than a Christian is seeking God! ANYONE!" (pause for effect)What an evening! The air was filled, no the entire grounds were filled with the presence of God. I was in the basement of an adjacent bldg and could feel His presence as the exposition of scripture by one of the greatest theologians and preachers of "our time" was given to us whether in person or across a projector. As was talked about in the Q&A, the "New Reformation" that Dr. Sproul has called for is here and the men that were gathered for this event are witness/participants in it.
Sharon, your kindness and those who have worked so hard to serve us was very much appreciated by me and by all who were here. It made the conference immeasurably pleasurable. May God bless and keep you and yours till He comes or until He calls you home.
My heart breaks as I read of the wondrous events of this conference. I find myself drawn to the expression of Paul, being "as one untimely born." I only pray that I have not lived to see the end of the great ministries of these powerful and faithful men of God. If it be Your will, O Lord, let me hear the gospel of Your wondrous grace from the lips of men like MacArthur and Sproul despite the many years of my foolish disbelief.
Tim - Forgive me for disrupting the love fest, but I must say that the air of mutual admiration and self-congratulation (bordering on self-righteous) of these speakers are simply over the top. I've read MacArthur and listened to dozens of his sermons (Sproul too) and while he deserves credit for his sense of urgency and orthodox message, why do he and his followers think it's their job to tell everyone else how to do church? I'm growing weary of MacArthur's holier than thou attitude. He never hesitates to inventory all the doctrinal errors of others, but let's not forget that he stubbornly adheres to the theological fiction of dispensational pre-millinialism and for years denied the doctrine of eternal generation. Obviously, I've not attended this conference and have not read all your postings, but I wonder - how many speakers exhorted you to do ministries of mercy? What percentage of this conference was devoted to the persecuted church and coming to the aid of our brothers and sisters who are suffering for Christ? It seems to me that MacArthur, Sproul and Dever are far too focused on matters doxilogical while minimizing, if not ignoring the diaconal. I know of a young man who attended a church pastored by one of the featured speakers at the conference and he noted that no one in the church seemed to notice that one of the largest homeless shelters in the nation was located only blocks away from the church. When do events like the Shepherd's Conference become a form of idolotry?
Tim,
Again, kudos for the great work you've done this week.
I have more books by Sproul than any of the other folks at the conference. I've referred many people to Essential Truths of the Christian Faith over the years. It's been years, but his teaching series on the holiness of God still rings in me.
The reason I'm posting is that I'm flabbergasted that Francis Schaeffer was mentioned by Al Mohler. I thought Schaeffer had been relegated to the dust bin by the current leadership in Reformed circles. Can someone clue me in on this? Has the trend of putting him in the "outsider" camp been reversed? How do people square his calls for greater social action and environmental concern with the fact that these topics are rarely talked about by Reformed leaders?
Tim,
GREAT JOB! I really feel as if I have had the next best thing to being at the conference through your blogging. As far as the comments by Jim Hale, it just sounds like a case of very sour grapes. For someone who accuses MacArthur of a holier-than-thou attitude, he sure doesn't seem to get it for his own attitudes. Hey, if you don't like MacArthur and the speakers, why hang out here? The rest of us are truly appreciative of these bothers' ministries. Thanks again, Tim!
Rob
"I thought Schaeffer had been relegated to the dust bin by the current leadership in Reformed circles."
My goodness. You never stop bashing the Reformed folk, do you? Yeesh.
In regard to Jim Hale's comments:
Seems to me Jim is overlooking a couple of very key things as he bashes MacArthur's eschatological perspective and another pastor's church for supposedly overlooking a homeless shelter.
Large numbers of people credit MacArthur, Sproul, Mohler, Mahaney, etc. for making the message of salvation clear to them. I know, because I listened to literally hundreds of such testimonies during baptism services at MacArthur's church, and I know people whose lives have dramatically changed as a result of the ministries of the other men.
What's more, the Shepherds' Conference by and large focuses on building up pastors on the core essentials of ministry, which is to stay true to the gospel and teach the Word. Without these essentials, you won't have people coming to Christ and performing Christian service in the first place.
These are the core essentials, and the most vital part of fulfilling the great commission that Jesus gave us. If these men are carrying out these responsibilities, then is that not commendable?
This doesn't mean there isn't a place for meeting the needs of the homeless, etc. There IS a place for that. And back in the years I was active at Grace Church, we DID (and I'm assuming we still do) have ways in which we help the homeless. My wife and I, in fact, were part of such a ministry, in which we took certain individuals grocery shopping, covered the cost of the food, and took the individuals back to wherever they resided. Homeless people would be given temporary work they could do to earn money. And this was all done QUIETLY--not trumpeted to the world so that the Jim Hales might give their nods of approval.
So, Jim, before you criticize others based on a mere blog report, check on the facts. There's a LOT that happens behind the scenes that you don't know about.
As for the homeless shelter near the one church your friend visited, did your friend take the time to inquire about that? Is it possible the homeless shelter had a philosophy of outreach that made it unfeasible for the church to support it? There's usually a lot more to any given situation than meets the eye.
Tim,
I'm not bashing the Reformed folks. I just said very nice things about Sproul and the fact I recommend his books to new Christians. I liked what MacArthur said about the definition of a true church (though I thought he left out an outward focus.) Carey Hardy's session sounded great and I agree with what he says about legalism. And I just gave you kudos for the fantastic job you're doing on blogging the conference. Plus, as someone whose basic theology stems from old line Lutheran, I'm in the Reformational camp, too, even if I'm not a strict Calvinist as it's expressed today. If I'm bashing Reformed Protestantism, then I'm bashing myself.
Schaeffer has been on the outs in Reformed circles for a while, even though most would claim he's Reformed himself. Much of what he argued for has been downplayed or abandoned altogether (political involvement, environmental concern, etc.) Schaeffer was very strong on engaging culture, especially the arts, by taking a more middle ground approach to art critique and such. What I hear from the Reformed leaders today runs counter to that, yet that was a strong foundation to Shaeffer's theology. (He'd definitely be on the other side of the rationale for the architectural design aesthetic that Grace Church elected to choose, for instance.)
I've never once heard MacArthur, Mohler, Johnson, or any of the strong voices in the Reformed Baptist camp quote Schaeffer. That Mohler does is highly surprising to me. If the tide of opinion on Schaeffer is turning, that would be important news in Reformed circles.
Isn't it surprising to anyone else?
I certainly haven't gathered that Schaeffer is 'outside the camp' in Reformed circles.
Listening to Reformed leaning Internet audio and reading article for years, I've noticed Schaeffer's name comes up from time to time. His fingerprints are on lots of stuff that I see online.
I read 'The Great Evangelical Disaster' as a 20 year old College student and it really made me think. Schaeffer was right on in his predictions, though I'm thankful for a Reformed, thinking reaction among a lot of younger folks who were in elementary school when Schaeffer died.
This is a good topic for investigation, though. Perhaps Tim should do a post. Maybe Franky Schaeffer's over-balance might be a good starting point!
Bibliomaniac-- Why is it ok for MacArthur and his followers to bash just about everyone else (Charismatic Chaos, etc), yet be so thin-skinned when your positions are criticized? MacArthur spends way too much time focusing on what everyone else is doing wrong when he has yet to offer a coherent defense of his seriously flawed eschatology. As for all that his happening quietly "behind the scenes," why is this so? Why does a Bible believing church have to do mercy ministry behind the scenes? What percentage of the topics at the Shepherd's Conference were devoted to justice and mercy according to the Micah mandate? According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, more than 200 million Christians are actively suffering persecution. How many speakers addressed the need to make their congregations aware of this? I suppose the fact that the Church is going through the worst persecution in history is not a "core essential" of "building up your pastors."
Jim Hale,I am concerned for you when I read your comments above because there seems to be an overall air of bitterness in them. Rather than address specific issues with which you disagree, you also included muliple ad-hominem comments about these men.
Where is the self-congratulation you are referring to?Sure, there is mutual admiration, but where is the self-righteousness you accuse these men of having? I am pretty sure these men unashamedly affirm that righteousness is by faith alone. What evidence do you have that MacArthur is being 'holier-than-thou' at this or any other conference? What is your basis for the accusation that Sproul, Dever and MacArthur are 'minimizing, if not ignoring the diaconal'? Is this your assessment of their entire career in the pulpit?
The reason I ask these questions and point out all these personal comments about these men, is because I don't think it has any constructive value whatsoever. If you disagree with something they have said or even how they shepherd their churches, then I would recommend that you point those things out...but stick to defending your position instead of bringing into question the character and motives and intentions of these men. It just doesn't come across very well when you question the men themselves, rather than questioning something they are doing or saying.
Finally, you say that MacArthur 'stubbornly' holds to pre-millennialism, and for years denied the doctrine of eternal generation (did you mean perseverance of the saints?). The fact that MacArthur no longer denies this doctrine shows me that he is teachable...and what is so bad about that?
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with these men on points of theology, matters of faith and practice, etc...but I would urge you, Jim, and others to make sure that when you do disagree, you can back it up with the truth of Scripture, and that you DON'T make it personal.
I can discuss and debate matters of theology, doctrine, etc., all day long with a person/people and leave at the end of the day still friends with those whom I just had major disagreements.
But, I get 'thin-skinned' when I see faithful servants of Christ personally attacked. Make attempts to dispute and refute their doctrine (from Scripture, not from emotion)...but, seriously, the name calling and mud slinging doesn't edify anyone.
Jim,
I just have one question: If you so despise these men and the Shepherd's Conference, what are you doing here on this blog? I agree with Brian, there definitely seems to be a real air of bitterness with you, Jim. Honestly, that scares me more than any imaginary lack of mercy ministries these men supposedly don't have.
"See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no 'root of bitterness' springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled." (Hebrews 12:15 ESV)
Rob
Jim:
It's obvious you have a grudge against MacArthur and a bent toward the social gospel that de-emphasizes the core essentials I mentioned earlier, because you merely brushed aside those core essentials in your ranting about social issues.
I'm going to give very brief answers to your allegations, and while they could be expanded upon, they shouldn't need to be. If these replies don't satisfy you, nothing will, because obviously you have a worldview that no amount of dialogue is going to change.
1. Sorry to disappoint you, but contrary to what you say, MacArthur very rarely bashes others. I sat under many hundreds of his sermons. Very rarely heard individual names ever brought up. His expository preaching focuses so heavily on exposition. So, I can vouch for this firsthand. As for his stand on Charismatics and non-lordship people and Catholicism, those are rare exceptions that happened to receive widespread attention largely due to the books on those subjects.
2. I would not say MacArthur is thin-skinned. If he were thin-skinned, he wouldn't be taking such strong stands on biblical truth, inerrancy, the purity of the gospel, the true priorities of the church, etc. I fear the thin-skinned ones are the ecumenists and emerging types who have set aside doctrinal essentials and the gospel in the name of sensitivity and social justice.
3. When MacArthur has yet to offer a coherent defense of his seriously flawed eschatology? First, why are you so bent out of shape over a nonessential of the faith? Seriously, this must be a real point of contention for you when it shouldn't be. Second, scholars such as Mayhue and Dr. Robert Thomas have written lots of material that in fact supports MacArthur's views, and as you know, both work with him. Their writings deal well with those who contend with MacArthur. And finally, none of us should evaluate a person's ministry on the basis of their eschatological view. MacArthur and Sproul, who are quite far apart eschatologically, are quite close on what REALLY counts--the gospel.
4. Is there anything that dictates that a certain percentage of the seminars at the Shepherds' Conference should be devoted to the Micah mandate? Hey, social justice and helping the poor are important and good. But they're NOT the PRIMARY calling of the pastor. Note what the leaders of the church did in Acts chapter 6. They DELEGATED the work of caring for poor widows to whom? Deacons. Now, I ALREADY cited for you specific examples of Grace Church being involved in helping the needy. The fact is, things ARE being done. And I have to disagree with you about putting such ministries to the forefront. What's wrong with this kind of thing being done behind the scenes? Why should we trumpet it? I could give you more very specific examples of how the needy were cared for at Grace--examples that include even the highest levels of the leadership there--but I strongly suspect none of these examples would satisfy you. You want a conference intended for pastoral training to be wrapped around the Micah mandate. Sorry we don't meet your exacting standards.
5. I fear you missed the point I made in my earlier post. Bringing people to Christ and training them up in the Word are core essentials of the faith. When they are taught to LIVE IN OBEDIENCE to the Word, then the Spirit who dwells within them will compel them to help the needy. That's the ideal model.
As a former longtime member of Grace Church, your criticisms hold NO water whatsoever. I've been there, I've seen the evidence with my own eyes, and I've even been a part of helping in the very kind of ministries you claim aren't taking place there. Again, check on the facts, my friend, before you lash out.
Dan,
Having read a large part of MacArthur's writings, I have seen numerous quotes from Schaeffer. Schaeffer has been highly respected by every modern reformed author I know of. The only disagreement I have seen is with Schaeffer's promotion of political co-belligerance later in his life.
Monergism.com carries Schaeffer.
I guess I have no idea what you're talking about, since I have seen the opposite to be true.
Before I became a Christian, I would listen to MacArthur with much disdain. "This man may or may not be speaking the truth... but whatever he is doing appears to be a holier than thou, speak the truth without love approach."Ugh. By far, how wrong I was.
You quoted Sproul as saying: "If you are in ministry and are not proclaiming the whole counsel of God, and are thus hiding the truths of God, you are exposing yourself to the fury of God."
That is what their motivation is. Sproul, MacArthur... etc. They have a much needed fear of God that is MISSING in most churches. IT IS FAR FROM HOLIER THAN THOU attitudes. It is far more an attitude of humilty, of speaking the truth not only in love, but in fear of offending a holy God.
My Pastor (who is at the conference) said one Sunday, "If you think that I am preaching directly at you this Sunday... that I have somehow catered this sermon to point my finger at you, you are wrong. What you are experiencing is the conviction of the Holy Spirit within Expositional preaching."
DLE wrote: Schaeffer has been on the outs in Reformed circles for a while, even though most would claim he's Reformed himself.
Funny, I don't see this. In my home town is Covenant Theological Seminary, the seminary of the Presbyterian Church in America. The PCA, of course, is a church that follows Reformed theology. And Covenant is home of the Francis Schaeffer Institute. If that's "on the outs", I'd hate to see what it means to be "on the ins".
----bill
DLE
I know in blogging, emailing and the written word comes across as "terse" not have the communication advantages as oral communication.
In fairness, you should attend a conference. To judge from the blogging (while excellent) is not to be there and know the conference.
Many others with counter views to MacArthur have attended. Some have changed their minds on some issues and others have not. But they all left with a complete understanding and having been blessed by the time with God's under shepherds. I think if you talk to anyone who attended, they will all say it is very worthwhile. Even the cost of the conference is offset by the hospitality and gifts conferred.
Tim is sort of an example of this. While not holding counter views, he was more critical in the beginning of the confernce, but by the end could not help but speak of the eternal value of his attendance.
While there may still be issues unresolved to your satisfaction, there may be more understanding of your own position and the counter position. But men of maturity will be able to dialogue and you might even have some time for that while your there.
WFSEUBE,
You're right, Presbyterians do still hold Schaeffer in high esteem. I had directed this primarily at the Baptist camp (I did mention that in one of my posts) of which Mohler is one. That was why I was surprised, since the I've not seen much support from them. I should not have muddied that water--my mistake.
Rick,I'm sure being there is different. I know I learn primarily by asking questions, so such a conference would be valuable. If money weren't an issue, I'd love to go.
Don't get me wrong, either. I enjoyed what Tim wrote. My only major opposition was to the illogic I saw in Busenitz's position on modern day charismata. Plus, I thought MacArthur should have said more about the horizontal aspects of a true church. Somehow, those two points got a life of their own and got me painted a malcontent. Not my intention!
David,We've had different experiences. Yours may in fact be much better. I've not ever seen Schaeffer quoted by MacArthur or Mohler. True, I've not read everything they've ever written, but still. I was taken aback by Mohler's comment.
DLE wrote: I've not ever seen Schaeffer quoted by MacArthur or Mohler.
It doesn't take a lot of Google work to find several MacArthur and Mohler papers, etc. that quote or reference Schaeffer:
http://www.eternallifeministries.org/jm_reason.htmhttp://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1340.htmhttp://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?cal=go&adate=1%2F26%2F2004http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=2
Funny, both Google searches I did also returned critical writeups on both Mohler and MacArthur from your own blog, Dan:
http://www.dedelen.com/2005/05/arrogance-ignorance-and-i-dont-know.htmlhttp://www.dedelen.com/2005/07/macarthur-macarthur-everywhere.html
From your comments, perhaps if you got to know "reformed circles" a little better, these things wouldn't bother or surprise you.
----bill
WFSEUBE,
You did manage to find a few times that MacArthur and Mohler mentioned Schaeffer. Not huge analyses of his writings, but a couple mentions. In the two years that I've been following Mohler online, I had not seen any mention of Schaeffer. Still, I will concede your point. He has been mentioned previously, if not very often.
As to me being critical of Mohler and MacArthur on my blog, I think you are taking a bit of license by using the word "critical." I disagreed with Mohler on the issue of whether more pseudo-Christian cults exist today than in the early history of the Church. I also noted (like I did in my comments here on Busenitz) that Mohler's wiggle-room on what represents authoritative doctrinal truth is hard-to-follow from a logical perspective. Still, hardly a damning indictment of the man.
As far as my post on MacArthur, I was genuinely wondering why such a high percentage of bloggers were referencing MacArthur all the time, nearly to the exclusion of other great Christian writers. No slam on MacArthur! Only later did I draw the conclusion that this is because Calvinists are overrepresented in the Christian blogosphere and MacArthur is more "the go-to guy" in that quarter of Christianity than in some other circles.
Yes, I do disagree with MacArthur on the charismatic issue, but that in no way means I oppose the man!
DLE wrote: I think you are taking a bit of license by using the word "critical."
Fair enough. I'll modify my comment to read "mildly negative", after going back and reading word-for-word more carefully. Sorry about that.
BTW, I like the Python shot in the Mohler article.
NO ONE EXPECTS....(never mind)
----bill
I draw the conclusion that this is because Calvinists are overrepresented in the Christian blogosphere.
Hmmm??? Could this be that arminian theology is week on exegesis???
I don't mean to throw the discussion off what is being discussed, but is it just my mis-understanding or is Sproul advocating a form of presuppositionalism? I know that he would obvioously reject such a statement but when his statements are taken to their logical conclusions I believe we see a slightly different apologetic then what is set forth in "Classical Apologetics" (Gertsner, Sproul, Lindsay). I did not attend the confrence but had friends that did. What I heard really stood out to me. Maybe I'm not being fair since I did not hear the sermon, or the excerpts in context, but I figured this was something worth mentioning!
Brandon
Castusfumus,
I would suspect that the reasons are not what you suppose.
I believe the Godblogosphere has an overrepresentation of Calvinists since--at least from my own wanderings around the Christian realm--the Calvinists I've known
1. Have had better (general) schooling2. Are more familiar with computers and tech3. Tend to be early adopters4. See the Internet as a forum5. Have more money and more leisure time to devote to pursuits like blogging
It's not always about how well one exegetes the Scriptures.
DLE,I must admit that as a Calvinist my sin is always before me and in that I repent in sackcloth and ashes. It pines my soul however that the militant stance in defending the truth is often seen in a negative light. As sinners we must hunger and thirst for righteousness and cannot give into the temptation to make our arguments in defence of the truth an attack on personalities. We must not alienate ourselves from those whom we are to be a witness. This also is a problem in which I struggle.
When did personal experience and opinion become the paradigm of truth? Did I miss that train?
DLE, what do you mean by "early adopters"?
"5. Have more money and more leisure time to devote to pursuits like blogging"
I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion when you, to make that kind of assertion, have done the very thing you, perjoratively, ascribe to "Calvinists". To form these assertions, one would have to either:1. Spend a lot of time on the Internet, hence giving one an appropriate ability to comment (self measured)2. Spend some time on the Internet but have the ability to draw conclusions and purport those conclusions as fact (or opinion)
I do admit the possibility I might be viewing DLE's comments in a negative light, but with that last comment," It's not always about how well one exegetes the Scriptures.", is clearly a conclusion to the above assertions.
DLE, please, if I am in error, illuminate me.
MHK
Mitch,
Look, I'm not trying to demean anyone. There was a comment made about my comment about the fact that the Godblogosphere has a much higher percentage of Calvinist bloggers than is represented in the entire sphere of Christendom. Reformed and Calvinist blogrolls are immense compared with some others out there. My argument here is that one cannot draw any correlations between the number of Reformed folks blogging and the rightness or wrongness of their theology, just as one can't make the same assertion about the lack of Arminians blogging and the wrongness of their theology.
That's pretty simple isn't it?
I've been on the Internet since 1981. That's no typo. I was on ARPANET before it transformed into the Internet. I've been a Christian even longer than that and hold a Christian Ed degree from Wheaton. I have long been an observer of the American Church and have been associated with both Reformed and Arminian churches for more than thirty years. I also worked in Christian camping ministry for a decade and was exposed to hundreds of churches and thousands of people from both sides of "the divide."
Here are my observations:
Every Reformed church I have stepped into in my life had money. Sometimes tons of it. One Presbyterian church I worshiped in for a couple years had a chauffeur's entrance and their choir was most of the Pittsburgh Opera. I was a member at R.C. Sproul, Sr.'s old church in Cincinnati and that church was rich by every standard of the word. When I was at Wheaton, a friend asked me to attend his PCA church and I was stunned by all the money that church had. They built whatever facilities they wanted anytime they wanted. Recently, while looking for a new church in our area, we visited a Reformed Baptist church whose lay leadership was a Who's Who of VIP's in town, all loaded. And in all these churches, the church parking lots looked like Lexus and BMW dealerships.
At every one of those churches, high tech was in. People knew gobs about computers and multimedia. Not only could the churches afford to buy the latest cutting-edge gizmo ("early adopters"), but they were constantly updating their equipment.
On the other hand, the non-Reformed, non-Calvinist churches I've been a part of or visited were lucky if they even had a building. Late model cars of any kind were not common on their lots. Their high-tech equipment was typically outdated or non-existent. Having worked in high-tech myself, it was hard for me to even find folks to talk about high tech with. Folks never had a lot of money, and the movers and shakers in town rarely darkened their churches' doors.
It goes beyond churches, too. The Christians I've worked with in high-tech were more often than not Reformed and not Arminian, even though the number of Arminians outnumber Reformed in this country.
I watch and I listen and I read. I've probably been to a thousand Christian blogs, and I know where people stand theologically. I listen to what they talk about, what they buy, the tech products they use. The Calvinist and Reformed bloggers are simply better educated from better schools; have more disposable income to buy high tech gizmoes, go on interesting vacations, and attend Christian conferences; are more knowledgeable concerning computers, and are simply more "with it" than non-Reformed, non-Calvinist folks out there in the Godblogosphere.
As for me, we do okay, but we're not rich. The Reformed Baptist church I mentioned let us know that we weren't swanky enough to fit in. I worked in high-tech for fifteen years and attended Carnegie Mellon University, studying in the Artificial Intelligence and Robotics department there. I was in an academic honor society while there. I transferred to Wheaton and finished my degree in Christian Ed. My Lutheran parents had their money run out and that was one reason I could not finish at CMU, but God took me in another direction anyway. As you can see, I'm not the "enemy" here.
My final comment was to the remark that Castusfumus made about there being so few Arminians in the Godblogosphere, and that perhaps this was due to their theology being indefensible. I simply offered other possibilities that had nothing to do with how well they exegeted Scripture.
Make sense?
DLE,
I'm sorry, but I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life! I'm a "Reformed" pastor and I can assure you WE ARE NOT RICH! In fact, of all my Reformed aquaintances in the ministry, I can't think of any that even come close to your description of wealth (of themselves or their churches). I would expect better observations from a Wheaton grad. Please don't paint with such broad strokes!
Robert
Interesting observations DLE. I would think that they can only be somewhat valid at the locations you are in. I live in Las Vegas and I just left an Arminian church for a reformed church and have been to many of each category. The top three churches in wealth in my city are Arminian, while the poorest I have seen are reformed. I think many aspects, not just theology plays a role here. I would be careful in making broad generalizations from the locations you have lived in.
Thank you for your response, DLE. It did clarify your point.
Purely for conversation, if you don't mind, elaborate on the following:
"Look, I'm not trying to demean anyone."..."My argument here is that one cannot draw any correlations between the number of Reformed folks blogging and the rightness or wrongness of their theology, just as one can't make the same assertion about the lack of Arminians blogging and the wrongness of their theology."
I, perjoratively responded with:"When did personal experience and opinion become the paradigm of truth?"
You support, in a sense, your conclusions with your experience, which seems extensive.Both Robert and Dallas challenge that.
You sound angry? After looking at your blog site, I find it hard to swallow that you would fall into this experience/opinion-----conclusion scenario, in other words: my experience, coupled with my opinion results in a conclusion that is a paradigm of truth (not an overarching one, fer sure). You have done the very thing you responded so negatively too, a "correlation".
Mitch
I've lived in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, and California.
In each area I lived within those states, it was a Reformed Presbyterian Church (or in one case, a Reformed Baptist) that had the wealthiest congregation and the church with the most money. Without exception.
You're also more likely to find the CEOs and VIPs in those same churches. When I lived in Silicon Valley, Menlo Park Presbyterian had so many heads of companies in it that it read like a Who's Who in the computer industry. At the same time, my decent-sized, non-Reformed church had one VP from Sun and that was it.
Is this not true in other places? Perhaps. There are certainly some wealthy Methodist churches still out there. (Texas may be a state that violates this rule, too.) But when you start really looking around, more often than not Reformed churches are not struggling for cash, unlike some of their Arminian counterparts--you're absolutely not going to find a Pentecostal Holiness church at the top of the money heap!
Is this changing? Yes, it's starting to. Some of the megachurches we commonly mention are attracting wealth, and few of those are Reformed (Dallas, this must be what you're seeing in Las Vegas). In thirty years, things may very well be the opposite of now, but that's not how it has been for the last thirty.
And like I said, it's not just churches. I worked in Christian camping for a decade at both Reformed and Arminian camps, and you could always tell the difference just by what kinds of cars people drove into the camps and the material things folks brought with them. Since most of those camps were remote and drew from all over, it couldn't be blamed on one camp being in a rich area while another wasn't. Camps were a great equalizer.
I've been on both sides here. I stick by what I've seen.You can take what I've said for what it's worth. In the end, I was simply offering another explanation for a comment someone made.
Mitch,
Your post came in while I was posting the one that followed yours, so I just now saw what you wrote.
All I was doing was trying to say to Castusfumus that there might be other practical reasons why there seem to be fewer Arminians on the Web other than the fact that their theology is messed up and they can't defend themselves.
I can't understand how this got so out of hand.
I'm not angry, either. I thought the initial five points I made were pretty rational. Not sure why people have responded to them so strongly.
I think it finally sank in to my thick skull. You were making comments based on your personal observations and experience "to answer" someone else's assertion. You are not making the claim that these observations and conclusions are, in fact, truth. Just personal observations based on your experience.
Thank you for clearing that up.
MHK
"Some of the megachurches we commonly mention are attracting wealth, and few of those are Reformed (Dallas, this must be what you're seeing in Las Vegas)."
Correct. I am not sure what constitutes a megachurch, but I would say we have maybe 5 in Vegas and to my knowledge none are reformed. There are probably 5-10 that are on their way to becoming a megachurch as well. Odd thing is about Vegas, there is a huge mormon following. Their churches here are many and wealthy. A lot of the cites religious wealth belongs to the LDS cult.
I have observed that most of the reformed people I know like discussing theology and do so online. Where as not nearly as many of the Arminians I have meant like to do so. But, people have probably observed otherwise.
I was not present life in you programs but by reading through the comment those who attended wrote, my spirit and soul is greatly blessed. I want to say that the comment of these brethren alone have open my eyes to great truth and my appetide for truth is highly soak. Therefor I want to request that you kindly send me teaching materials for the forth coming pastors conference I am hosting in three weeks time or soon . So that we here benefit from you powerful teachings for ministers.My ministry is a NETWORK PROVIDING MENTORSHIP TO AFRICAN LEADERS. and RAISING DE SOLATIONS IN LAND AND CHURCHES Your ministry is Gods ordain