"The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world."
Peter Masters just said everything I have been thinking. I Amen the whole thing.
I asked Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church (mentioned in the article) and http://teampyro.blogspot.com/ Pyromaniacs what his response to the article might be. He sent me this (which I reproduce with his permission, BTW)-
Given Dr. Masters’ stature, his age, and his history of usefulness for the cause of Christ, I’m happy to let him have his say without feeling the need to argue with him on the points where I disagree. As you note, he makes some valid points and says vital things no one else is saying. Like you, I can’t agree with him on every detail of the worship issue completely, and I certainly wouldn’t place the importance he does on matters of style per se. (The doctrinal content of our singing and the mindfulness we pay to the lyrics is of much more importance in my judgment than the question of whether we’re being accompanied by instruments or not.)
Anyway, he has given a message on this subject at every conference I have ever attended with him. In his mind it’s the most vital issue facing the church today. No one is likely to change Dr. Masters’ mind on that, so all anyone in your position (or mine) can do is listen with an open heart, glean whatever edification we can from his lectures on the worship issue, and be thankful to the Lord for the way He has used Dr. Masters.
If Dr. Masters had come to central London and taken the pulpit of a thriving church and let it die while making worship style the one issue he was passionate about, even while his evangelistic testimony in the community completely diminished—then we might be justified in taking him aside and suggesting that his priorities are upside down. But since the opposite is the case, and he took a historic but nearly-dead congregation and shepherded it through a season of growth and fruitful evangelism, so that it is now full every Sunday, I think he is entitled to speak his mind on the worship issue, and I’m thankful to the Lord for all He has accomplished through Dr. Masters.
I’m also deeply grateful for Dr. Masters’ own faithfulness and clarity on all the crucial doctrinal issues of our time.
Given all that, I have no trouble listening to him with great profit even when I disagree. I just have to keep all that in clear perspective.
Hope that helps.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Thank you for posting the response from Phil Johnson. I didn’t know who Peter Masters was, so I have to admit my first response was not so charitable, and Mr. Johnson’s response gives me some balance to my perspective. I still think some of the basis premises that Dr. Masters it operating from (ex - that contemporary music is inherently wrong) are wrong, but, as I would say of many of the people that I grew up with, it seems that Dr. Masters is a very godly man, and even those of us who may not see noncessationism and ccm as wrong would do well to heed what he says and be aware of the excesses that can easily happen.
The article raises some good points and echoes some of my own concerns. I’m surprised, though, both at what it did and did not say.
He did focus on a small number of (imo) highly subjective areas - the music employed at Resolved, for example. One can’t know what Jonathan Edwards or Calvin would have thought of such a thing, since they did not live in a context that had that as an option. He also focused on his complaints to the extent that they appear to be the totality of these men’s ministries. There is a lack of balance to such an assessment. John MacArthur doesn’t normally preach to Resolved-style worship. John Piper’s ministry contacts extend far beyond Driscoll. Josh Harris does more than encourage people to be Christian rappers. Some perspective seems wanting. Are none of their practices in line with historic Calvinism?
But equally strange is the number of areas of true discontinuity that he did not mention. He does not bring up (or I missed it) the general disregard for the Reformed understanding of the law, especially the sabbath and the prohibition against images of Christ. He does not bring up the abandonment of the regulative principle of worship. He does not mention MacArthur’s dispensationalism.
So, the article struck me as being strange, perhaps majoring on the minors and ignoring the majors.
He did focus on a small number of (imo) highly subjective areas - the music employed at Resolved, for example. One can’t know what Jonathan Edwards or Calvin would have thought of such a thing, since they did not live in a context that had that as an option. He also focused on his complaints to the extent that they appear to be the totality of these men’s ministries. There is a lack of balance to such an assessment. John MacArthur doesn’t normally preach to Resolved-style worship. John Piper’s ministry contacts extend far beyond Driscoll. Josh Harris does more than encourage people to be Christian rappers. Some perspective seems wanting. Are none of their practices in line with historic Calvinism?
But equally strange is the number of areas of true discontinuity that he did not mention. He does not bring up (or I missed it) the general disregard for the Reformed understanding of the law, especially the sabbath and the prohibition against images of Christ. He does not bring up the abandonment of the regulative principle of worship. He does not mention MacArthur’s dispensationalism.
So, the article struck me as being strange, perhaps majoring on the minors and ignoring the majors.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I love Dr. Masters. I have visited the Tabernacle in London and really appreciated the truly vibrant, evangelistic spirit of that historic church. Dr. Masters is a godly man and a good expositor of the Word. I have great respect for his work and character.
This article, however, reads more to me as a rant than a defense of biblical piety. it shows genuine frustration and concern for the evangelical community. I am concerned too, but not with the same things Dr. Masters mentions in the article.
This article is about music, plain and simple. Dr. Masters has a strong opinion, based on his understanding of the Scriptures. He is very clear as to what he thinks of contemporary Christian music as evidenced by descriptors like “seriously distorted,” “worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic,” “revelled,” “thunderous,” “inept,” “awkward,” “immoral drug-induced,” etc.
As always, Dr. Masters, like anyone else is entitled to an opinion and has certainly earned a right to be heard. In fact, I would argue that every Christian NEEDS to come to personal conclusions in matters like music. I thoroughly understand Dr. Master’s point of view. And in some points, I agree. I am thankful that, unlike many who share Dr. Master’s opinion, he does not make this a test of separation or “secondary separation.” Listen to his argument. Listen to his rant. Appreciate his concern for holiness in the Church. And approach the subject of music with discernment and love. God has seen fit NOT to set a standard for us in this area; so let’s all do our very best to please Him in our musical choices without demanding universal compliance to our opinions.
This article, however, reads more to me as a rant than a defense of biblical piety. it shows genuine frustration and concern for the evangelical community. I am concerned too, but not with the same things Dr. Masters mentions in the article.
This article is about music, plain and simple. Dr. Masters has a strong opinion, based on his understanding of the Scriptures. He is very clear as to what he thinks of contemporary Christian music as evidenced by descriptors like “seriously distorted,” “worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic,” “revelled,” “thunderous,” “inept,” “awkward,” “immoral drug-induced,” etc.
As always, Dr. Masters, like anyone else is entitled to an opinion and has certainly earned a right to be heard. In fact, I would argue that every Christian NEEDS to come to personal conclusions in matters like music. I thoroughly understand Dr. Master’s point of view. And in some points, I agree. I am thankful that, unlike many who share Dr. Master’s opinion, he does not make this a test of separation or “secondary separation.” Listen to his argument. Listen to his rant. Appreciate his concern for holiness in the Church. And approach the subject of music with discernment and love. God has seen fit NOT to set a standard for us in this area; so let’s all do our very best to please Him in our musical choices without demanding universal compliance to our opinions.
Brian McCrorie Indianapolis, IN www.bowingdown.com
It is a remarkable church history - The Tabernacle. And I appreciate Peter Masters staying right within the vein of the Tabernacle’s rich history. Look what Spurgeon had to say about the culture of his day. Look what he had to say about drama, theator, etc.
I don’t mind when Peter Masters or any other older fundamentalists (OF) share concerns about worldliness or share misgivings about resurgences. Jeremiah shared all kinds of misgivings about the resurgence under Josiah during the days of declension.
Btw, with our B.B.C. 2009 theme on love, I hope to order copies of the booklet, “The Goal of Brotherly Love” (1994) by Peter Masters for all the folks in our church family. I have enjoyed a number of the booklets written by Peter.
I don’t mind when Peter Masters or any other older fundamentalists (OF) share concerns about worldliness or share misgivings about resurgences. Jeremiah shared all kinds of misgivings about the resurgence under Josiah during the days of declension.
Btw, with our B.B.C. 2009 theme on love, I hope to order copies of the booklet, “The Goal of Brotherly Love” (1994) by Peter Masters for all the folks in our church family. I have enjoyed a number of the booklets written by Peter.
… about Masters’ rant.
First, like many fundies, Masters appears to define worldliness in terms of music, showbusiness, and outward appearances. Exegetically, worldliness is defined in terms of the heart and affections (1 John 2:15-17). Therefore, it is entirely possible for traditional and conservative music-loving Christians to be worldly in their musical tastes … if they love their music for the wrong reasons … or if they love themselves because of their conservative stand … or if they think God loves them (more), or they are more acceptable to Him because of their musical tastes! Masters apparently does not recognize this biblical description of worldliness.
Second, Masters seems to describe all contemporary Calvinism as worldly. In doing so, he seems to cut men off from the very doctrines he claims to embrace. Perhaps this is why many have referred to his essay as a rant. Rants offer much in terms of lobbing grenades from a distance, but little in terms of biblical solutions to a perceived problem that in reality is not related to Calvinism (but to methodology).
Third, Masters seems to confuse some contemporary Calvinists with Calvinism. As fundamentalists should know, ideas rather than men define a movement or theological system. While some Calvinists may embrace contemporary methodologies, Calvinism has never been about men or methodologies; it has been about ideas. Masters apparently is oblivious to this important distinction.
First, like many fundies, Masters appears to define worldliness in terms of music, showbusiness, and outward appearances. Exegetically, worldliness is defined in terms of the heart and affections (1 John 2:15-17). Therefore, it is entirely possible for traditional and conservative music-loving Christians to be worldly in their musical tastes … if they love their music for the wrong reasons … or if they love themselves because of their conservative stand … or if they think God loves them (more), or they are more acceptable to Him because of their musical tastes! Masters apparently does not recognize this biblical description of worldliness.
Second, Masters seems to describe all contemporary Calvinism as worldly. In doing so, he seems to cut men off from the very doctrines he claims to embrace. Perhaps this is why many have referred to his essay as a rant. Rants offer much in terms of lobbing grenades from a distance, but little in terms of biblical solutions to a perceived problem that in reality is not related to Calvinism (but to methodology).
Third, Masters seems to confuse some contemporary Calvinists with Calvinism. As fundamentalists should know, ideas rather than men define a movement or theological system. While some Calvinists may embrace contemporary methodologies, Calvinism has never been about men or methodologies; it has been about ideas. Masters apparently is oblivious to this important distinction.
Ken Fields
I guess I am a bit startled by the almost wholly negative response to Dr. Master’s article here. I think it reveals we don’t really grasp the point he is making. The sovereignty of God extends far beyond soteriology and his article I believe makes some good points. There is something wholly disjointed and puzzling about much of the worldliness that exists in the worship and lifestyles of those that claim to have such a high view of God.
Ken, While scripture might define worldliness in terms of the heart and affections primarily I think we are really selling things short to think that worldly affections don’t affect things like music, showbusiness, and outward appearances. Masters, who is a calvinist BTW, does not confuse contemporary calvinists with Calvinism, the whole point of his article is that contemporary calvinists are really no calvinists at all. I might not state it in quite those terms, but the general thrust of his article seems to hit home IMO. People want God’s sovereignty in their soteriology but not in their sanctification or worship.
Ken, While scripture might define worldliness in terms of the heart and affections primarily I think we are really selling things short to think that worldly affections don’t affect things like music, showbusiness, and outward appearances. Masters, who is a calvinist BTW, does not confuse contemporary calvinists with Calvinism, the whole point of his article is that contemporary calvinists are really no calvinists at all. I might not state it in quite those terms, but the general thrust of his article seems to hit home IMO. People want God’s sovereignty in their soteriology but not in their sanctification or worship.
[Ryan] People want God’s sovereignty in their soteriology but not in their sanctification or worship.Ryan,
This is an incredible assumption, IMO. What do you base it on?
Brian McCrorie Indianapolis, IN www.bowingdown.com
Brian,
Let me reword what I said. Perhaps that will help communicate my point. I posted quickly and did not realize how that sounded.
As I see these men’s ministries, God’s sovereignty is exalted and controlling (in a good way) in their understanding of soteriology, but it seems to me (and as I understand him, Dr. Masters as well) that God’s sovereignty does not seem to govern to the same level their worship and aspects of their sanctification. There is to me an incredible inconsistency between the preaching and the music at most of these ministries.
Masters wrote: “Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world. You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.”
Let me reword what I said. Perhaps that will help communicate my point. I posted quickly and did not realize how that sounded.
As I see these men’s ministries, God’s sovereignty is exalted and controlling (in a good way) in their understanding of soteriology, but it seems to me (and as I understand him, Dr. Masters as well) that God’s sovereignty does not seem to govern to the same level their worship and aspects of their sanctification. There is to me an incredible inconsistency between the preaching and the music at most of these ministries.
Masters wrote: “Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world. You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.”
This is your great, great, great, grandfather’s Puritanism with many of the doctrinal flaws and little of the “pure.” Peter Masters rightly calls it Puritanism. A morphed Calvinism with soteriological flaws!
The so called “New Calvinism” has more problems than worship. It is fundamentally flawed in its Soteriology. MacArthur’s extreme statements and continued extreme emphasis regarding his “Lordship” gospel involves a salvation which confuses the works resulting from regeneration with the preconditions of Justification.
John Piper’s doctrine of “Future Justification,” now stated more clearly in his new book on the subject, is clear heresy that puts the assurance of salvation out of the reach of believers and actually makes justification the same as Augustine and Roman-ism. It is somewhat the same as the dual justification theory of Martin Bucer that was soundly rejected by the later reformers. In the latest issue of “Christianity Today,” there is a comparison of theories of justification between Piper and Wright, Piper appears less orthodox than N.T. Wright.
The lack of concern for these major soteriological errors appears to indicate that the so called “New Calvinism” movement is not a return to a concern for sound doctrine but an exercise in pseudo intellectualism and attraction to philosophical reasoning. There may also be a cultic like following of certain leaders with high media visibility and failure to properly discern what these men are really teaching.
An unclear doctrine of salvation does not exalt the sovereignty of God. The worship music problem would appear to be a real but lesser problem.
The so called “New Calvinism” has more problems than worship. It is fundamentally flawed in its Soteriology. MacArthur’s extreme statements and continued extreme emphasis regarding his “Lordship” gospel involves a salvation which confuses the works resulting from regeneration with the preconditions of Justification.
John Piper’s doctrine of “Future Justification,” now stated more clearly in his new book on the subject, is clear heresy that puts the assurance of salvation out of the reach of believers and actually makes justification the same as Augustine and Roman-ism. It is somewhat the same as the dual justification theory of Martin Bucer that was soundly rejected by the later reformers. In the latest issue of “Christianity Today,” there is a comparison of theories of justification between Piper and Wright, Piper appears less orthodox than N.T. Wright.
The lack of concern for these major soteriological errors appears to indicate that the so called “New Calvinism” movement is not a return to a concern for sound doctrine but an exercise in pseudo intellectualism and attraction to philosophical reasoning. There may also be a cultic like following of certain leaders with high media visibility and failure to properly discern what these men are really teaching.
An unclear doctrine of salvation does not exalt the sovereignty of God. The worship music problem would appear to be a real but lesser problem.
Bob,
I think you have misrepresented MacArthur’s position, and I don’t know enough about Piper’s to comment. But aren’t you confusing Calvinism as a broader idea with two men with whom many might disagree and still be Calvinistic in soteriology? Painting a whole group with two brushes that many might reject is not a valid argument against the doctrines of the larger whole.
Whether that larger whole is right or wrong is a different argument. But you have not actually made an argument against the idea, but perhaps (and I say perhaps) against two people.
I think you have misrepresented MacArthur’s position, and I don’t know enough about Piper’s to comment. But aren’t you confusing Calvinism as a broader idea with two men with whom many might disagree and still be Calvinistic in soteriology? Painting a whole group with two brushes that many might reject is not a valid argument against the doctrines of the larger whole.
Whether that larger whole is right or wrong is a different argument. But you have not actually made an argument against the idea, but perhaps (and I say perhaps) against two people.
[Ryan] Brian,Ryan, when you say that God’s sovereignty should govern our worship or govern our sanctification, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that we believe in God’s sovereignty in relation to salvation but practice more of a “free will” form of worship and sanctification?
Let me reword what I said. Perhaps that will help communicate my point. I posted quickly and did not realize how that sounded.
As I see these men’s ministries, God’s sovereignty is exalted and controlling (in a good way) in their understanding of soteriology, but it seems to me (and as I understand him, Dr. Masters as well) that God’s sovereignty does not seem to govern to the same level their worship and aspects of their sanctification. There is to me an incredible inconsistency between the preaching and the music at most of these ministries.
Masters wrote: “Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world. You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.”
Brian McCrorie Indianapolis, IN www.bowingdown.com
Brian,
I can’t say it any better than Masters did already.
I can’t say it any better than Masters did already.
[Larry] Bob,MacArthur’s view of his Lordship gospel is made clear at the Grace Community Church website that lists this as one of their distinctive. It lists the characteristics. It should be easily recognized as a confused theology of the gospel. it is not a clear understanding of “by grace are you saved through faith.” His latest revision of his book “The Gospel according to Jesus Christ” continues with an extreme view of the preconditions of Justification and assurance. It has been rejected by two very well established scholars at The Master’s Seminary (who were former professors of MacArthur’s at Talbot) and the IFCA of which MacArthur is a member. It appears some young fundamentalists find this faith plus “hard to believe” gospel as attractive. Perhaps they, like MacArthur, have backgrounds that make it hard for them to fully appreciate grace. This may also be why they find John Piper’s theology attractive. It is not “sovereign grace” but diminished grace.
I think you have misrepresented MacArthur’s position, and I don’t know enough about Piper’s to comment. But aren’t you confusing Calvinism as a broader idea with two men with whom many might disagree and still be Calvinistic in soteriology? Painting a whole group with two brushes that many might reject is not a valid argument against the doctrines of the larger whole.
Whether that larger whole is right or wrong is a different argument. But you have not actually made an argument against the idea, but perhaps (and I say perhaps) against two people.
The theology of these two men is probably the most influential of the “New Calvinist” movement so it certainly is characteristic of most of these young Calvinists. The broad brush is properly applied.
Calvinism has had a prominent emphasis in the traditional Fundamentalist movement. However, in America it was often a moderate Calvinism. This moderate Calvinism was seen in many who came out of the old Northern Baptists. It has continued in emphasis with such schools as Central Baptist, Detroit Baptist, Calvary Baptist, Faith Baptist, and Baptist Bible, PA. It was present in the GARBC and the later Conservative Baptists which came from the FFB. This moderate Calvinism varied. Some were 5 pointers. Many were 4 pointers. Others were 4 point but with open ended views on irresistible grace v. free will. Many were Dispensationalists and therefore rejected the covenants of works and grace of Covenant Reformed theology. This moderated their view and appeared to give an additional balance in emphasis. Even the 5 point Calvinists, appeared to not make their Calvinism the capstone of their emphasis or ministry. There was moderation and balanced ministry. This cannot be said of the New Calvinist movement. Their Puritan Calvinism is often worn on their sleeves. Instead of a testimony of salvation in Christ there is often a testimony of their conversion to Calvinism. There is a militancy about their Calvinism that has caused splits in churches. Also, in contrast to prior student movements such as Campus Crusade in the fifties, sixties, and seventies, and the youth oriented Calvary Chapel movement of the Seventies and eighties, these are not large groups of new converts moving from paganism. They are Christians gathering to be indoctrinated and to become self absorbed in a certain emphasis of doctrine.
The recent Internet controversy regarding the FBFI and anti Calvinistic rhetoric involved a viewpoint that was misplaced and wrong. It ignorantly attacked all Calvinism in general. It should have been denounced. There are good Calvinists. However, the New Calvinist movement does not appear to be spiritually balanced or properly biblical. There are good reasons for young Christians to be cautious. There needs to be a warning regarding this movement and a call to use keen discernment in accepting what is being taught and advocated. Certain leaders have received inordinate adulation. Their teaching has been too readily accepted. the good has been praised but there has been a failure of discernment.
Young Fundamentalists who have been repulsed by certain kinds of Fundamentalist ministries may have good reason to flee from such. However, they must be aware that there have been, and are, fundamentalist ministries that are Biblical, loving, and worthy of their attention. There are good Fundamentalist schools such as those seminaries mentioned prior and good Bible schools such as Maranatha and Northland, and also Clearwater Christian College. There is a type of institution and ministry that should be avoided, but this is also true of most of the broader Evangelicalism. There are different kinds of Fundamentalism.
I write the above while acknowledging there may be much good in the ministry of John Piper and John MacArthur. They are good men of good personal integrity. They do declare a gospel that if believed would bring salvation to the soul. What is of dispute is their further explanations of the Gospel and its implications. Also some related doctrine. Both are 5 point Calvinists.
Discussion