"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."
Bob,
Having read your further explanation, I am unconvinced. I am not sure you are properly representing MacArthur. Your use of terms like “precommitment for justification” are, IMO, what is confusing the issue. I am not an apologist for MacArthur. It’s been years since I read what he has to say about it. And it will probably be years more. But you make it sound as if he denies justification by faith alone, and I think that is a misrepresentation. The issue is the nature of saving faith. It is not whether faith alone saves. As I said also, I don’t know enough about Piper on the point at issue.
But, I think it unwise to broadbrush a whole group based on those two. I think Driscoll has far more sway than MacArthur. I think Mahaney does. I think MacArthur is viewed by most of the “new Calvinists” as a little stiff and old-fashioned. They are much more persuaded by Sovereign Grace, Mars Hill, etc. I think the charge that “it is not sovereign grace but diminished grace” doesn’t measure up to the reality of it. I am not a big fan of “new Calvinism.” So I am not bothered by critiques of it. I just think perhaps some more caution and nuance is necessary in what you are saying.
Having read your further explanation, I am unconvinced. I am not sure you are properly representing MacArthur. Your use of terms like “precommitment for justification” are, IMO, what is confusing the issue. I am not an apologist for MacArthur. It’s been years since I read what he has to say about it. And it will probably be years more. But you make it sound as if he denies justification by faith alone, and I think that is a misrepresentation. The issue is the nature of saving faith. It is not whether faith alone saves. As I said also, I don’t know enough about Piper on the point at issue.
But, I think it unwise to broadbrush a whole group based on those two. I think Driscoll has far more sway than MacArthur. I think Mahaney does. I think MacArthur is viewed by most of the “new Calvinists” as a little stiff and old-fashioned. They are much more persuaded by Sovereign Grace, Mars Hill, etc. I think the charge that “it is not sovereign grace but diminished grace” doesn’t measure up to the reality of it. I am not a big fan of “new Calvinism.” So I am not bothered by critiques of it. I just think perhaps some more caution and nuance is necessary in what you are saying.
Bob,
I fail to see how Grace Community’s defense of what they call http://audio.gracechurch.org/filetransfer.asp?id=2624&fn=Lordship%20Sal…] Lordship Salvation is not a clear understanding of “by grace you are saved through faith” or in any way places preconditions on justification and assurance. Am I missing something?
I tend to agree with Larry; it’s an issue of the nature of saving faith.
I fail to see how Grace Community’s defense of what they call http://audio.gracechurch.org/filetransfer.asp?id=2624&fn=Lordship%20Sal…] Lordship Salvation is not a clear understanding of “by grace you are saved through faith” or in any way places preconditions on justification and assurance. Am I missing something?
I tend to agree with Larry; it’s an issue of the nature of saving faith.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Bob,
Your post was a great read, superiorly thought out.
Your post was a great read, superiorly thought out.
Rant?
Didn’t really see the article as a rant. Wasn’t Dr. Masters using a book recently written on this topic? This seemed to promt the article. You may disagree with that author or even Dr. Masters view of Puritan piety, but I didn’t think it was fair to refer to this as a rant.
Worldliness?
I believe that an emphasis on a simple “list” of worldly things can seem pretty shallow and that the heart is vastly more important to God than the hand. However, is it not best to say that worldliness begins in the heart (1 Jn 2:15), but usually manifest itself outwardly (Rom 12:2 “conformed to the world” & 1 Jn 2:16)? Sure, someone could refrain from all “worldy” things and still have a corrupt heart, but wouldn’t an un-worldly heart want to be able to distinguish what “the world” is so as not to be conformed to it? It has to be more than just love and affections. 1 John 2:15 says to love not the things in the world. Do we not have a responsibility to distinguish some of these things?
I don’t want to misunderstand anyone, but I would like a clarification. Ken said that “worldliness is defined in terms of the heart and affections.” To fully apply this logic about worldliness, would you really say that anything not specifically called sin in Scripture is fine to enjoy as long as our heart and affections are right? Would it not be more exegetically accurate to say that worldliness is defined (according to 1 Jn 2:15-16) as loving three distinct things - lust of flesh, lust of eyes and pride of life?
Didn’t really see the article as a rant. Wasn’t Dr. Masters using a book recently written on this topic? This seemed to promt the article. You may disagree with that author or even Dr. Masters view of Puritan piety, but I didn’t think it was fair to refer to this as a rant.
Worldliness?
I believe that an emphasis on a simple “list” of worldly things can seem pretty shallow and that the heart is vastly more important to God than the hand. However, is it not best to say that worldliness begins in the heart (1 Jn 2:15), but usually manifest itself outwardly (Rom 12:2 “conformed to the world” & 1 Jn 2:16)? Sure, someone could refrain from all “worldy” things and still have a corrupt heart, but wouldn’t an un-worldly heart want to be able to distinguish what “the world” is so as not to be conformed to it? It has to be more than just love and affections. 1 John 2:15 says to love not the things in the world. Do we not have a responsibility to distinguish some of these things?
I don’t want to misunderstand anyone, but I would like a clarification. Ken said that “worldliness is defined in terms of the heart and affections.” To fully apply this logic about worldliness, would you really say that anything not specifically called sin in Scripture is fine to enjoy as long as our heart and affections are right? Would it not be more exegetically accurate to say that worldliness is defined (according to 1 Jn 2:15-16) as loving three distinct things - lust of flesh, lust of eyes and pride of life?
Jason,
I don’t think anyone has insinuated that worldliness is limited to the heart or affections. But biblically speaking, that’s how God defines worldliness.
Our affections drive our actions. What that means is that the heart is the root of the issue here, not the behavior. People can have right behavior and a wrong heart. So, like foolishness is bound up in the heart of the child, so worldliness is bound up in the hearts of people.
So what is “worldly” music? What is “worldly” showmanship? Is classical music “worldly” because the vast majority of its composers and musicians are driven by a “worldly” worldview?
Biblically speaking, being conformed to the “world” (Romans 12:2, ESV) … has to do with the world’s mold … or a worldly philosophy (i.e., I am god). The Bible presents no list of “worldly” actions; only “worldly” affections!
Also, what are the “things in the world” from 1 John 2:15, ESV? My vehicle … my home … my money … my children? Loving the things in the world is not worldliness … it’s the result of worldliness!
Sorry for my discombobulated answers and questions … I’m on my way out the door!
I don’t think anyone has insinuated that worldliness is limited to the heart or affections. But biblically speaking, that’s how God defines worldliness.
Our affections drive our actions. What that means is that the heart is the root of the issue here, not the behavior. People can have right behavior and a wrong heart. So, like foolishness is bound up in the heart of the child, so worldliness is bound up in the hearts of people.
So what is “worldly” music? What is “worldly” showmanship? Is classical music “worldly” because the vast majority of its composers and musicians are driven by a “worldly” worldview?
Biblically speaking, being conformed to the “world” (Romans 12:2, ESV) … has to do with the world’s mold … or a worldly philosophy (i.e., I am god). The Bible presents no list of “worldly” actions; only “worldly” affections!
Also, what are the “things in the world” from 1 John 2:15, ESV? My vehicle … my home … my money … my children? Loving the things in the world is not worldliness … it’s the result of worldliness!
Sorry for my discombobulated answers and questions … I’m on my way out the door!
Ken Fields
Some of the things you listed could certainly fall under the lust of the flesh / eyes and pride of life categories. I would say that although the applications of these could differ for different people, there are some things that could be applied consistently to all of us. Sure, it is hard to apply it to music…but can it be applied to some music? I believe so. I hear what you are saying about classical and other conservative types of music and agree that a person must be consistent when applying whatever filters he chooses to employ.
How about this definition from D.A. Carson (not an exact quote) - worldliness is anything that makes sin look normal and easy and makes godliness look abnormal and difficult (from one of the 9marks interviews). I like that and think itis a fair way of saying that there are certain things in society than can be accurately described as worldly.
How about this definition from D.A. Carson (not an exact quote) - worldliness is anything that makes sin look normal and easy and makes godliness look abnormal and difficult (from one of the 9marks interviews). I like that and think itis a fair way of saying that there are certain things in society than can be accurately described as worldly.
Some of you might have caught that the quote was not from D.A. Carson - I knew something wasn’t right. It was actually from an interview (not 9Marks, I messed all up) with David Wells. Here is the exact quote, “Worldliness is that system of values in any given culture that makes sin look normal and which makes righteousness look strange or alien. It’s what gives public affirmation, public credence, public approval to fallen human life.”
[Jason Boling] Some of you might have caught that the quote was not from D.A. Carson - I knew something wasn’t right. It was actually from an interview (not 9Marks, I messed all up) with David Wells. Here is the exact quote, “Worldliness is that system of values in any given culture that makes sin look normal and which makes righteousness look strange or alien. It’s what gives public affirmation, public credence, public approval to fallen human life.”Jason,
Good thoughts … I love that quote from Wells. I think it is from a Desiring God video.
My concern is that many fundies define worldliness exclusively in terms of music, dress, hair length, television, movies, etc., while never addressing the cause and core of worldliness—the heart. That’s what Wells is discussing in the video. Worldliness is not trite, like pants on women or makeup on ladies or certain styles of music or worship. As you said, it’s much more serious than that: it’s anti-god affections and desires and philosophies that result in man giving himself over to sin.
Thanks for the interaction, Jason.
For all who are interested, the Wells video can be downloaded for viewing here: http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_wells…
Ken Fields
Hey guys! I know that many have read the article by Masters and can see that the opinions vary. I would like to point out that Masters is talking about more than methodology, and yet methodology is where he focused his most pointed attacks. He is appalled that people would conduct a conference in honor of a puritan and yet conduct themselves in a manner which (he believes) is the polar opposite of that which characterized the man’s life. Masters is saying that to divest the man’s manner of life from the conference is to deny the doctrines which he stood for. I think that may be a stretch.
The issue is not simply methodology, nor is it just about a new form of Calvinism. The issue is whether one can identify with men classed as “Puritan” while using contemporary methodology. Masters’ position is that not only is it not possible but that it is preposterous. The key is that this is MASTERS’ OPINION! It is not absolute truth. It is one man’s opinion. Some may embrace his point of view and that is ok. Some may vehemently disagree with Masters and that also is ok. What is not ok is for us to ignore the facts.
My personal stand is more in line with the men that Masters criticized than with Masters himself. However, I think that, as a man with much experience and passion, Masters has pointed out what he believes may be the undoing of this movement. I was angry at first glance through the article, but now must admit that I see some very valid points.
1. If we are to claim the lineage of the great puritans we must also strive to emulate their lifestyle.
2. If we are to survive as a group we must also take into account our brethren who may differ with us.
3. We must also follow the Scriptures which tell us to do all things decently and in order.
These points I concede. The following points however I would also like to make.
1. Stating that methodology different than one’s own preference is part of a “seriously distorted,” “worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic,” “revelled,” “thunderous,” “inept,” “awkward,” “immoral drug-induced,” is akin to slander.
2. Portraying men who have many years of faithful service to the Gospel as those who would be considered enemies of the cross is unacceptable.
3. Assumptions that all who attend these events are in complete agreement with all that is said and done at them is also not profitable.
4. Of the men Masters mentions many are friends because of their agreement with cardinal doctrines of the faith. These same men often challenge each other on the points where they disagree. (E.g. Ligon Duncan is constantly being questioned about paedobaptism by Mohler and Maheney, and Maheney is questionened often by his friends on his non-cessasionist views.)
The fact that Masters published an article pointing out all of the areas he disagrees with and none of the areas that would give cause for hope prove it is a rant. However, as a man far wiser than me, I can glean wisdom even from his rants. I would also like to point out that, as a man with far more experience than I, it would be nice to see him use better logic, and back up his opinions with Scripture if he expects the younger generation to give heed and learn the lessons better than their teachers.
The issue is not simply methodology, nor is it just about a new form of Calvinism. The issue is whether one can identify with men classed as “Puritan” while using contemporary methodology. Masters’ position is that not only is it not possible but that it is preposterous. The key is that this is MASTERS’ OPINION! It is not absolute truth. It is one man’s opinion. Some may embrace his point of view and that is ok. Some may vehemently disagree with Masters and that also is ok. What is not ok is for us to ignore the facts.
My personal stand is more in line with the men that Masters criticized than with Masters himself. However, I think that, as a man with much experience and passion, Masters has pointed out what he believes may be the undoing of this movement. I was angry at first glance through the article, but now must admit that I see some very valid points.
1. If we are to claim the lineage of the great puritans we must also strive to emulate their lifestyle.
2. If we are to survive as a group we must also take into account our brethren who may differ with us.
3. We must also follow the Scriptures which tell us to do all things decently and in order.
These points I concede. The following points however I would also like to make.
1. Stating that methodology different than one’s own preference is part of a “seriously distorted,” “worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic,” “revelled,” “thunderous,” “inept,” “awkward,” “immoral drug-induced,” is akin to slander.
2. Portraying men who have many years of faithful service to the Gospel as those who would be considered enemies of the cross is unacceptable.
3. Assumptions that all who attend these events are in complete agreement with all that is said and done at them is also not profitable.
4. Of the men Masters mentions many are friends because of their agreement with cardinal doctrines of the faith. These same men often challenge each other on the points where they disagree. (E.g. Ligon Duncan is constantly being questioned about paedobaptism by Mohler and Maheney, and Maheney is questionened often by his friends on his non-cessasionist views.)
The fact that Masters published an article pointing out all of the areas he disagrees with and none of the areas that would give cause for hope prove it is a rant. However, as a man far wiser than me, I can glean wisdom even from his rants. I would also like to point out that, as a man with far more experience than I, it would be nice to see him use better logic, and back up his opinions with Scripture if he expects the younger generation to give heed and learn the lessons better than their teachers.
I agree with Brian McCrorie’s assessment of the article. When you boil it down, it is all about the music. Growing up as I did in a context where music was THE ISSUE (the Bill Gothard organization), I can understand why so many of the YRRs are sick of it. There is a tendency to discard entire movements because of musical tastes—which is exactly what Masters does in his piece.
I remember once hearing Bill Gothard state with conviction that the reason God did not bless Spurgeon as much as he did Moody (where he got that idea I will never know) was because Spurgeon smoked. While I am positive Masters would not agree with that assessment, the more I read his article, the more convinced I become that this is exactly what he is doing to MacArthur, Mahaney, et al—he merely substitutes cigars for guitars.
I remember once hearing Bill Gothard state with conviction that the reason God did not bless Spurgeon as much as he did Moody (where he got that idea I will never know) was because Spurgeon smoked. While I am positive Masters would not agree with that assessment, the more I read his article, the more convinced I become that this is exactly what he is doing to MacArthur, Mahaney, et al—he merely substitutes cigars for guitars.
Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com
While music is prominent, I don’t think it’s accurate to say Masters only addressed music. He took on other behavior he considers to be worldly, too, such as “clubbing” and lack of commitment to church involvement and attendance, for example.
The comparison of music to cigars is not a good one either, in my assessment, because cigars are not to my knowledge used in an overt corporate worship activity as music is. While I think there is a conversation to be had and reasons a Christian can conclude he should not use tobacco, I also think it is possible to have an overall proper conception of and orientation toward God while indulging in tobacco. Music, as a means of communication, has a tremendous influence of shaping and directing that orientation and perception. It isn’t as simple as saying Masters’ is universally arguing against an instrument like people argue against smoking a cigar. Music factors in, but there is a bigger lifestyle picture that he is addressing, too.
The comparison of music to cigars is not a good one either, in my assessment, because cigars are not to my knowledge used in an overt corporate worship activity as music is. While I think there is a conversation to be had and reasons a Christian can conclude he should not use tobacco, I also think it is possible to have an overall proper conception of and orientation toward God while indulging in tobacco. Music, as a means of communication, has a tremendous influence of shaping and directing that orientation and perception. It isn’t as simple as saying Masters’ is universally arguing against an instrument like people argue against smoking a cigar. Music factors in, but there is a bigger lifestyle picture that he is addressing, too.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
While Masters does indeed mention other things besides music, it seems evident to me that music is what is “in his craw”.
Also, it was never my intention to say that cigar smoking is the same kind of issue as style of worship. My peeve is the tendency of some to write off entire ministries because of one or two aspects with which they do not agree.
The whole article reminded me of the infamous Dan Sweatt piece—minus the Arminianism and bad church history—where a preacher takes to task all the big names.
I feel the need to say that I agree with Dr. Masters that worldliness in the church is a problem of epic proportions. Based on my observations, however, I would humbly venture that music tastes have less to do with this than Masters seems to think. I will never forget a pastor telling me “Andrew, I have young people in my church who like contemporary Christian music, and when I talk to them, we have sweet fellowship. And, I have others in my church who hold the conservative musical convictions I have always held, and they are stinkers.” This has been my experience as well.
PS. Greg, the mental image of cigar smoking as an overt corporate worship activity made me smile.
Also, it was never my intention to say that cigar smoking is the same kind of issue as style of worship. My peeve is the tendency of some to write off entire ministries because of one or two aspects with which they do not agree.
The whole article reminded me of the infamous Dan Sweatt piece—minus the Arminianism and bad church history—where a preacher takes to task all the big names.
I feel the need to say that I agree with Dr. Masters that worldliness in the church is a problem of epic proportions. Based on my observations, however, I would humbly venture that music tastes have less to do with this than Masters seems to think. I will never forget a pastor telling me “Andrew, I have young people in my church who like contemporary Christian music, and when I talk to them, we have sweet fellowship. And, I have others in my church who hold the conservative musical convictions I have always held, and they are stinkers.” This has been my experience as well.
PS. Greg, the mental image of cigar smoking as an overt corporate worship activity made me smile.
Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com
Greg, the mental image of cigar smoking as an overt corporate worship activity made me smile.…and Spurgeon offered a smoke offering unto the Lord… :D
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]Nice!
…and Spurgeon offered a smoke offering unto the Lord… :D
Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com
I think this is one more example of how we can listen to a man of God concerning a subject but still come to different conclusions. There was a time in my spiritual walk when I thought that every time I heard a godly man speak I had to embrace all that he was saying without even a hint of disagreement. I changed my stance on that when I realized how varying the views are, even between very godly men.
Peter Master’s will probably go down in history as one of the great men of faith. I have greatly appreciated his ministry. I would initially disagree with much of what he had to say in this article. However, I think we must be cautious about quickly writing off someone of Peter Master’s spiritual stature. This article gives me some food for thought.
Peter Master’s will probably go down in history as one of the great men of faith. I have greatly appreciated his ministry. I would initially disagree with much of what he had to say in this article. However, I think we must be cautious about quickly writing off someone of Peter Master’s spiritual stature. This article gives me some food for thought.
Discussion