The New calvinist.: From Time.

Original article can be found here.

If you really want to follow the development of conservative Christianity, track its musical hits. In the early 1900s you might have heard "The Old Rugged Cross," a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of "Shine, Jesus, Shine." And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are...well, hark the David Crowder Band: "I am full of earth/ You are heaven's worth/ I am stained with dirt/ Prone to depravity."

Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.

Like the Calvinists, more moderate Evangelicals are exploring cures for the movement's doctrinal drift, but can't offer the same blanket assurance. "A lot of young people grew up in a culture of brokenness, divorce, drugs or sexual temptation," says Collin Hansen, author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists. "They have plenty of friends: what they need is a God." Mohler says, "The moment someone begins to define God's [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist." Of course, that presumption of inevitability has drawn accusations of arrogance and divisiveness since Calvin's time. Indeed, some of today's enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians. Skirmishes among the Southern Baptists (who have a competing non-Calvinist camp) and online "flame wars" bode badly.

Calvin's 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin's latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country's infancy.

Paul Washer-God's Love Undeserved

The Most Important Paragraph in the Bible

This is a great sermon, one of the best I've ever heard.

Period.


Powered by Podbean.com

Credo?

I was on a friend's blog today where he is doing single paragraph credo's (i believe.) I was reading them one by one, when his entry on July 15th caught my eye, "Credo-on Limited Atonement."

Heres an excerpt of his blog

"Instead of limited atonement,
some have re-labeled it as a definite atonement-
that is that Jesus died for a specific group of people.
These Calvinists point to the elect
as that “definite" group in favor of limiting the atonement.
On this one, I part company with historical Calvinists
and plead for 1 John2 where John writes that
Jesus did not only die for our sins but for the sins of
'the whole world'."

I have two comments to make about the above statement.

1. Definite atonement is a better word, for Christ died for his elect in a very definite way. He went to the cross for his bride, he was crushed by God the Father for their sins. Christ went to the cross to die for his elect. It was their sins that he paid for. Isaiah 53:11 states that Christ, 'will make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities'. Note it is the people whose iniquities are bore that are accounted as righteous. If Christ died for 'the whole world' in the same way, then all would have their sins bore by Christ and hence accounted righteous. Which the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.

2. Calvinists only use the phrase "Limited atonement" because if fits with the TULIP acronym.
Most of the opponents to Reformed Theology try to say that Calvinists limit what Christ did on the cross. We proclaim that Christ really saved sinners, that his work on the cross secured his elect. His sacrifice didn't just make it possible for people to come to him (hence guarantees nobody's salvation), but it made it certain that those he died for... would come.

Intolerable.

''That a man should rob me of the gospel,
is bad enough;
but that he should impregnate me with his poisonous doctrine,
is intolerable.''
-C.H.Spurgeon

Atonement.

Last night I was reading in Wayne Grudems Systematic Theology and was once again brought to tears when pondering the Atonement. Chapter 27 of his Systematics is all about the Atonement of Christ. The part that I was reading was on the Cross, what happened there. He categorized it in four parts. 1.Physical Pain and Death, 2. The pain of bearing sin, 3. Abandonment, 4. bearing the wrath of God.

Each one worse then the next. As bad as the pain of the cross was Jesus took on our sins. All of his very being must of been repulsed by this, his whole life on earth he detested sin, in the pre-incarnate he hatted sin, and now he became sin. As if becoming sin wasn't bad enough, it caused him to be abandon. The closeness of the Father was was gone, he faced the guilt and punishment of million alone. finally he boar our wrath for us. He faced my eternal punishment and drank it dry, not only for me, but for millions of the elect.

"Then at last Jesus knew his suffering was nearing completion.He knew he had consciously borne all the wrath of the Father against our sins, for God's anger had abated and the awful heaviness of sin was being remove. He knew that all that remained was to yield up his spirit to his heavenly Father and die. With a shout of victory Jesus cried out, "it is finished!". Then with a loud voice he once more cried out, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And then he voluntarily gave up the life that no one could take from him, and he died. As Isaiah had predicted, "he poured out his soul to death" and "Bore the sin of many". God the Father saw "the fruit of the travail of his soul" and was "satisfied"." -W.G Systematic Theology

WOW.

The Words an inn, it's not our home.

"The world is but a great inn, where we are to stay a night or two, and be gone; what madness is it so to set our heart upon our inn, as to forget our home?"

THOMAS WATSON

God Alone.

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us
that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make
the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."

- John Owen

What Is the Hypostatic Union? From Desiring God

The term hypostatic union is much easier than it sounds, but the concept is as profound as anything in theology.

The English adjective hypostatic comes from the Greek word hupostasis. The word only appears four times in the New Testament—maybe most memorably in Hebrews 1:3, where Jesus is said to be “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” Here the author of Hebrews uses the word in reference to the oneness of God. Both the Father and the Son are of the same “nature.” Jesus is “the exact imprint of his nature.”

However, in early church discussions, as Greek thinkers tried to find agreeable terms with those who spoke in Latin, the word hupostasis came to denote not the sameness in the Godhead (God’s one essence) but the distinctness (the three persons). So it began to be used to refer to something like the English word person.

The Personal Union of Jesus’ Two Natures

So “hypostatic union” may sound fancy in English, but it’s a pretty simple term. Hypostatic means personal. The hypostatic union is the personal union of Jesus’ two natures.

Jesus has two complete natures—one fully human and one fully divine. What the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches is that these two natures are united in one person in the God-man. Jesus is not two persons. He is one person. The hypostatic union is the joining of the divine and the human in the one person of Jesus.

What Is the Significance?

Why bother with this seemingly fancy term? What good is it to know about this hypostatic union? At the end of the day, the term can go, but the concept behind the term is infinitely precious—and worshipfully mind-stretching.

It is immeasurably sweet—and awe-inspiring—to know that Jesus’ two natures are perfectly united in his one person. Jesus is not divided. He is not two people. He is one person. As the Chalcedonian Creed states, his two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Jesus is one.

This means Jesus is one focal point for our worship. And as Jonathan Edwards preached, in this one-person God-man we find “an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies.”

Because of this hypostatic, one-person union, Jesus Christ exhibits an unparalleled magnificence. No one person satisfies the complex longings of the human heart like the God-man.

God has made the human heart in such a way that it will never be eternally content with that which is only human. Finitude can’t slake our thirst for the infinite.

And yet, in our finite humanity, we are significantly helped by a point of correspondence with the divine. God was glorious long before he became a man in Jesus. But we are human beings, and unincarnate deity doesn’t connect with us in the same way as the God who became human. The conception of a god who never became man (like Allah) will not satisfy the human soul like the God who did.

One Person, For Us

And beyond just gazing at the spectacular person of Jesus, there is also the amazing gospel-laced revelation that the reason Jesus became the God-man was for us. His fully human nature joined in personal union to his eternally divine nature is permanent proof that Jesus, in perfect harmony with his Father, is undeterrably for us. He has demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still sinners, he took our nature to his one person and died for us.

A False Turn for Good

When a man, on some outward respects, forsakes the practice of any sin, men perhaps may look on him as a changed man; God knows that to his former iniquity he hath added cursed hypocrisy, and is got into a safer path to hell than he was in before.

War Within

"If sin be subtle, watchful, strong and always at work in the business of killing our souls, and we be slothful, negligent, foolish, in proceeding to the ruin thereof, can we expect a comfortable event? There is not a day but sin foils or is foiled."

As Owen says above, we need to be vigilant with waring against sin in our lives. If were passive we can be assured sin is not. So we must fight, but we are not alone. If we have come into the family of God, we have the Holy Spirit in us helping us and empowering us to ward of the sins which so easily beset us.

Paul washer