The discussion regarding the viablity of reading the Scriptures from a monocovenantal framework continues. Proponents of the view include Scott Hafemann, W. J. Dumbrell, while most Reformed folk and Niehaus disagree. Dr. Jeffrey Niehaus has kindly contributed to that discussion with a clarifying comment here and the discussion has continued here.
Tag: Reformed theology
Piper: Should Arminians Be Allowed to Teach?
The ancient Arminian/Calvinist hornet’s nest has been stirred. In his Resurgence address, Piper commented:
Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace.
Piper clarifies in a follow up blog post:
What is not precise here is the implication of the word “should.” “The less Arminianism should be tolerated.” By way of clarification, I would say: In an Arminian institution, Arminians should be allowed to teach. But in institutions that regard Arminianism as defective view of God’s grace, they should not be allowed to teach. Or, more broadly, in an institution that thinks the truth is better served by having advocates of Arminianism and Calvinism, both should be allowed to teach.
Newsweek on Keller; Keller on Newsweek
Newsweek profiles Tim Keller.
The reporter writes about visiting Redeemer: “There’s nothing sexy here. There’s no rock band, no drop-down theater-size video screen, no 100-member gospel choir—just a few chamber musicians and a couple of prayer leaders to help the congregation along in its hymns. The crowd at Redeemer Presbyterian is overwhelmingly young, single, professional and—for lack of a better word—sober.”
Here’s the conclusion:
Like so many New Yorkers, Keller is a misfit. He’s a megachurch pastor who doesn’t like megachurches. He’s an orthodox Christian who believes in evolution. He emulates the Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards and loves a good restaurant. He’s an evangelist who relishes the power of doubt. New York is the perfect home for such an idiosyncratic Christian: “I’m probably an overeducated guy who makes things too complicated for a lot of people,” he says. As it is for all New Yorkers, the question for Keller is whether he—or his vision—will ever be at home anywhere else.
(HT: Z)
Update: Tim Keller writes in with regard to the comments to this post:
We should be charitable to the writer on the issues mentioned. They are pretty minor. Yes, it isn’t my first book, but the last one was over 20 years ago. I don’t preach at all 5 services–I preach 4 and every week someone from the preaching team preaches the fifth one. I wouldn’t in the least style myself a new C.S. Lewis (who would want a new one when the old one is still so great) but she got that from publicity copy written by well-meaning people at Penguin. I wouldn’t want to characterize myself as another Rick Warren but she likes Rick and wouldn’t see that as a negative statement. I believe in the historicity of Gen 1-11 and Adam and Eve and I don’t believe in young earth-creation or six 24-hour day creation, but, as far as she’s concerned, that means I believe somewhat in evolution. She’s not used to the fine distinctions on these things we make inside the church. Also, I’ve never lived anywhere near Georgia (but maybe I’ve spent so much time in the airport it’s affected my accent!) And even the statement that my book disappointed her in comparison to my preaching is actually true—I’m a better speaker than writer, and always will me. That was more a compliment to the preaching than a criticism of the book.
Despite this list of nits to pick, it was an overall positive, even warm article, especially considering it comes from someone whose beliefs are so different. The writer clearly likes the church and appreciates the ministry in many ways. So I’m glad for her efforts.
HT:JT
Contemporary Value of Calvinism (according to Kuyper)
This is the final reflection in my series of posts on Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism.
Considering the contemporary value of Calvinism, it is interesting to note that when confronted with the claims of modernism (Scopes Trials etc.), Kuyper asserted that Christians failed to offer a substantial and coherent answer due to absence of a “unity of life system”. This unity of life system is indeed crucial if we are to thoughtfully and seriously engage the multifarious ideologies propagated by the thousands of cultures present in the global village.
The phrase, unity of life system, expands our understanding of Weltschauung, encompassing its inherently integrative ability. Kuyper points out three main conditions necessary for a complete life-system: 1) our relation to God 2) our relation to man 3) our relation to the world. Beginning with our relation to God, Kuyper reasons that we must start our thinking where the consciousness of all life has its unity- theologically in God and existentially in drawing near unto God.
Calvinism and Man, God, and the World
Concerning these three conditions, Kuyper states: Relation to man – Calvinism views man both positively and negatively. The glory of man is that he has been made in the image of God, yet the image has been disfigured through the fall. According to Calvinism these two things are held in common by all men. Relation to the World – Paganism places too high a value on the world and Romism, especially in Monasticism, places too low a value on creation. Contrary to Romism, Calvinism does not argue that the church is to rule over all other areas of life, the sciences, education, etc. Instead of the particular grace associated with salvation, it is God’s common grace that reaches the world over, through which he “relaxes the curse.”
Calvinism vs. Modernism & Postmodernism
It could be argued that Modernism (or Post-modernism) has provided the necessary worldview to deal with cultural, social, and political issues, therefore rendering the Calvinistic one unnecessary. However, as Kuyper lucidly points out, Modernism develops its worldview in reaction to God. Its entire system, although pragmatically driven by the Scientific Method, is philosophically errant, producing an aberrant of view of God. This is reflected in Modernism’s claim that God is: 1) somehow removed and disinterested from the inner workings of the world he created (Deism) 2) handicapped in his ability to infallibly communicate with his creation (Liberalism), or even worse, 3) the rejection of God as our ultimate reference point in substitution for the sole substance of reason (Descartes).
Whatever the philosophical origins of the Enlightenment, it is clear that at the philosophical level there was an attempt to repudiate the God of the Bible with rationale of man. Modernism asserts a negation of God, Calvinism assumes the existence of God and finds our dependence upon Him.
Postmodernism, on the other had, relatives God. Driven by the hermeneutic of suspicion, PM renders all notions of God as unreliable, as relative and therefore empties them of power and meaning. We are all telling different stories about God that, though the contradict one another, can possess meaning for their respective cultures. The problem with this worldview is, of course, its instability.
Calvinism Responsible for Human Flourishing?
After asserting the three conditions necessary for a coherent Weltschauung, Kuyper argues for the positive contributions of Calvinism to mankind in general, pointing out that it is through Calvinism and the spread of Christianity that peoples of the earth intermingled and shared culture and ideas, advancing human flourishing. From Judaism to present day Calvinism (New World, Africa, etc.) he argues that it was the tenants of this brand of the reformed faith that led to the political and social advance of human rights and scientific discovery. It is interesting to note that Christian Historian Kenneth Latourette makes a similar observation in his chapter on “The Expanding Effect of Christianity.” However Latourette does not limit these sources of these contributions to Calvinism, but perceives various Protestant groups to be instrumental in accomplishing global reform. In short, Kuyper’s contributions to the source of integration and a coherent Weltschauung are massive. Although we have been limited in our exploration, hopefully, this final post has provided enough insight to whet the appetite for more of Kuyper.
[1] Kuyper reflects his deep understanding of the necessity of drawing near unto God in his devotional, Near Unto God. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997).
[2] Ibid., 30
[3] Ibid. 24
[4] Kenneth Latourette, A History of Christianity, Vol. II (Peabody: Prince Press, 2003), 967.