How many of the “truths of Christianity” should we be able to find “in nature” or to be “reasonable”? This is a key question that needs to be answered before most other questions can be tackled. My epistemology is that of the great philosopher-theologian Gordon Clark, “the Bible tells me so.” ALL truth can only come from the Word and what can logically be deduced from the Word. No truth can be found in nature. All that can be found in nature is empirical and inductive – and is thus a house built upon the sand that is subject to Hume’s “problem of induction”.

Is Christianity verified through reason or in nature? The underlying axiom of Christianity and indeed of all epistemology is sola scriptura. God’s Word can not be verified; rather the Word and logic verify everything else. In a sense nature is verified by Christianity, the Word and what can logically be deduced from the Word. Psalm 19:1 notes the heavens declare the glory of God. However, my view (and Calvin’s) is that Psalm 19 is David praising God, not David bringing forth a general theory of revelation. Without the Word there would be no way of knowing that God created the heavens. The Word is not self-contradictory, and in that sense is not contradicted by reason – but it can not be proved by reason, as reason requires an underlying axiom, and the only axiom not built upon sinking sand is that the Bible is the Word of God.

I think (and hope) this may be nothing more than a misunderstanding. This post was in response to a charge made by a “fundamentalist” (and, by “fundamentalist,” I mean those who literally go by “fundamentalist”). The charge being made was that it was because of the popularity of the ministries of these men (who are not “fundamentalists”) that young “fundamentalists” were becoming Calvinists. I was trying to show in this post that this was not always the case. There is certainly nothing wrong if a young believer becomes a Calvinist because of the teaching of these men. I was simply trying to show that this generalization was not always correct. In other words, the context of the post is important; I’m not sure you were aware of it; perhaps that helps.

Nor I am not saying that the ministries of these men are fads purely and simply. And certainly the gospel is not a fad. A fad is a “temporary fashion or notion.” The draw of a fad is based on its popularity, though fleeting. The draw of a fad, if anything, is not spiritual. But even the draw of good things (not the things themselves) can become “contaminated” by faddishness. People desire it, not for the thing itself and the spiritual (or otherwise) virtue it contains, but because it appears to them that others are latching onto it, and they desire to be a part of the group. And I have noticed is that in some respects there has been elements of this kind of draw among these ministries. Even in saying this, however, I would not go so far as to say that if the so-called “faddishness” is a factor in drawing these young men that it completely annuls any spiritual benefit for them. Nor does it disqualify their Calvinism. It does, however, make the strength of their commitment to Calvinism suspect, if, for no other reason, I would suspect that Calvinism will become “un-popular” at some point and time. The fleeting appeal will wane. In other words, if their confession of the “Calvinistic” doctrines is based on the popularity of the doctrines, one can’t but wonder what will happen if or when Calvinism becomes unpopular.

In other words, if we latch onto an otherwise good thing simply because it is popular, we are only setting ourselves up for disaster. If anything, our commitment to any doctrine or moral principle should be because of the unending truthfulness of it, not because it is popular or unpopular. Theology should be (as much as is possible) built on an unshakable and permanent foundation, not the whims of the vain age in which we live.

Psalm 28:9 Save thy people, and bless thine inheritance: feed them also, and lift them up for ever.

I’m always excited to hear stories about how God has opened His people’s minds and hearts to His truths and attributes. For me my journey was influenced by my father, Pink, Tozier, Spurgeon, as well as Piper and Washer. Probably Washer’s “shocking message” was the first thing that awoken me, so to speak, and subsequently became hungry for more like him. At the time, I didn’t even realize he was a Calvinist and it was the preaching of all these men that allowed me to kind of “back in” to Calvinism. I, like you, didn’t want to be called a Calvinist, until I realized that it merely saved time to concede that I was indeed a Calvinist.

The real reason for my post is to take issue with your (and a few of the others on this board) attitude towards “younger fundamentalists”, specifically Piper/MacAurthur/Keller/Mahaney, for lack of a better term, fans. You stated that their ministries are theological fads (faddishness, I believe you called it) yet in the same breath cede that they preach a true gospel. You have this theological snobbery aura about you that is really disheartening; as if someone who came to the doctrines of grace by way of Piper or the like is some how inferior to the way in which you came to believe in the doctrines of grace.

I assume that the reason you’ve made the distinction is because there are possibly unregenerate people following the ministries of popular Calvinistic preachers, because they’re just that, popular. But we’re always going to be having those in the church that “were not of us”, whether it’s Bethlehem Baptist or the presbyterian church down the street with 50 members.

I don’t doubt that you esteem the men you spoke about, but you should not minimize the wonderful and powerful ways God has used these ministries to change lives and hearts. You say that Spurgeon was a major influence on you, and I have no doubt that in Spurgeon’s day there was a “faddishness” (note I don’t like that term) to his ministry as well.

Also, even more upsetting to me than the attitude that your are portraying is this statement:

“When a pastor or believer’s theology is the result of a fad, it should be the cause for significant alarm, even if that theology is correct.”

Question: If the gospel is the apex of theology and you have correct theology and thus a correct view of the gospel, then didn’t you just call the gospel a fad? (I’m sure you can find a way to wiggle out of that one, but I just want to encourage you to be very careful about how you speak)

Was the protestant reformation a fad? When/how do you determine that the gospel message is only superficially reaching the masses or God is doing a major work in our lifetime?

I hope you don’t feel like I’m trying to just beat you up here. Like I said earlier, I rejoice to hear of the work God is doing in our generation (and the next) and I want to encourage you to do the same. Please try and be more graceous and patient with those who are possibly not as knowledgable or mature as yourself, as I’m sure our saviour has been with you.

God Bless,

Micah

I preached a 3 point sermon today, so I’ll quickly do another one now.

1. “Bucer, or is it really, Kevin…” – Martin Bucer is in glory now, free from sin and theological wrangling and jangling.

Kevin, I’ve not met, but I’ve read some stellar work of his both at prophezie and reformedcatholicism.

2. A man’s identity, or whatever identity he lists for purposes of internet discussion, don’t establish pro, or con, the validity of his perspectives.

You may wish to read mine here.

3. Murder takes many forms. Of course, this would be apparent if one cared to read Matthew 5.

Best Wishes,

Bucer

http://www.godslambs.com/?page_id=2

These are all things the “Reformed Baptists” of the strict Montville and ARBCA variety simply get wrong, so, it may be like going through detox when one encounters the perspectives of http://www.godslambs.com for the first few times!

For Christ and Covenant!

Bucer

“Reformed Baptists” decrying other “Reformed Baptist” ministries as harsh, unloving, legalistic, theologically heterodox, and just downright weird.

I will loop back with some recommendations. Certainly the prior recommendation I referenced in this thread, from Robert Rayburn, pastor in Tacoma WA is absolutely vital for a proper understanding of how we view the covenant and our children (http://www.faithtacoma.org/doctrine/covenant.aspx).
If you are a parent, or may become one, or, have opportunity to encourage brethren who are parents, this treatment is crucial.

A great remedy for the nonsense spouted by Deformed Baptists particularly the more strict ones associated with Montville, Flemington, New Hampshire, etc., would be to simply read the Pauline epistles, particularly I Corinthians, with these kinds of questions in mind:

1. Why does Paul address people who have engaged in various taboo sins as “in Christ” as “saints” as “washed” etc., when “Reformed Baptists” would presume them all unregenerate and in need of a “deep, heart conversion.”

2. Why does Paul begin his letters addressing them to “saints”, “brethren”, “holy ones in Christ”, and then include THE CHILDREN OF THE CHURCH in these designations, viz. the instruction and admonitions he gives them? Why do Deformed Baptists excommunicate children, when Paul communes/includes them in the fellowship of God’s people.

3. There are helpful critiques of “Reformed Baptists” by other Reformed Baptists, viz. such books as “Shepherding God’s Flock” (Banner, I believe, put it out), and also, the book on eldership by Greg Nichols, Montville partly being in his cross-hairs in that book.

However, I should point out that the internecine critiques from other “Reformed Baptists” don’t get to the root of the matter. Since “Reformed Baptists”, even the more balanced one, have a wrong view of grace, a wrong view of the gospel, a wrong view of love, a wrong view of worship, a wrong view of the eldership, a wrong view of women, and such, such intra-family disputes, of necessity, don’t get to the real root of the matter. This is why I advise truly convinced Baptists, who have no plans of further study to discern whether their positions are in conformity with Scripture (vs. individualism and Enlightenment thinking), to avoid “Reformed Baptists” like the plague, and instead, consider the ministries of men like a D.A. Carson, or Mark Dever. They are soteriological Calvinists, and Baptists, but as far as possible from “Reformed Baptist”, a movement which thankfully is a contained virus, a blip on the dot of Christendom, soon to be extinguished….

A few good articles or a book you could recomend will help.

This is a comment from Brian
“Please, do not let comments like his prejudice any of Christ’s precious lambs from availing themselves of the ministries & the ministers which He has provided to our generation in what are designated as “reformed Baptist” ministries.”

I have to say that Bucer’s comments (which I highlighted on my earlier post) rings true to me from my experience at a Reformed Baptist church (Venice Center). Without love all the Bible verses in the world means nothing because they’ll be misapplied. (1 Corinthians 13:2 – If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.) This is what I call legalism and I’ve experienced it. I’m never regretted leaving my old church which didn’t have a clue how to practice it. Going thriugh the motions doesn’t cut it.