I had similar “reservations” when I read Mark’s post.

On one hand it sounded like a bit of a cheer for the likes of himself, Grudem, Piper et.al. (ie those that now-a-days call themselves Reformed Charismatics).

On the other, his quirky definition of cessationism, sounded more akin to ‘hyper-dispensationalism’.

But it may be that, being who he is, he just can’t help being a little provocative and stirring the pot and get his readers thinking. As has been the case here - good post and good point - being (apparently) ordinary and spiritually extraordinary lends itself more to a humble gracious approach to matters of evidential experiences - IMHO

Good comment Mike Kellahan. I’d hate it if someone wrote me off because of one sloppy post. I would imagine that everyone who blogs has written things they’ve thought better of after publishing - perhaps the Sola Panel included?

Don’t these responses actually prove Driscoll’s point?

I’d share most of the concerns already expressed but Mark’s foundational point is that OC (Old Calvinism - although I’d probably use a different term) was <i>reactionary</i> towards culture where as he is trying to <i>engage</i> (critically, one would assume) with culture.

My guess is that he picked these various points simply because of the congruence between convictions he holds and issues that are currently popular within the Christian world. That’s just smart PR isn’t it?

All of this forces us on to the classic ‘in the world, but not of it’ every generation wrestles with. Isn’t it true that our reactions all express some concern over Mark Driscoll’s ‘playing to the crowd’ - but if so that is exactly the point he is making. OC haven’t engaged… well, up ‘til now?

To me MD’s stuff comes over as a bit <i>lite</i> but I think that is partially because his concern is primarily evangelism - namely he is more concerned with what non-Christians think about what he’s doing than what other parts of the church think. That doesn’t mean that he’s going to change the gospel to suit their preferences, but it does mean that, in the words of James in Jerusalem, Mars Hill will not make it difficult for gentiles to turn to God.

Hi John,

I am not sure that I’ve understood what you meant by: Don’t these responses actually prove Driscoll’s point? Could you clarify for me a little?

Thanks,
Grimmo.

Hi John,

Thanks for the clarification. It helps me to understand what you’re saying. But I’m not quite sure that your understanding of my position is quite correct.

When you put these words in our mouths

Us: MD, you’ve sold out in order to appeal to society. (i.e. we are reacting to him!)

I’m not sure that they’re my words (although I am happy to hear why you think they are).

What I thought I said was that I think he’s wise to try and deal with the misperceptions that people might have about Calvinism. I just think that the way he did it sacrifices the truth (historically and theologically). And I don’t think that sacrificing the truth for the sake of PR is all that helpful (and I think Driscoll, on the principle at least, would agree).

So, in response to your comment about us reacting to him, I guess I want to ask why my post is reactionary rather than engaging? Is listening to what he is trying to say and then saying I disagree automatically reactionary? Could it be engaging?

I wouldn’t have a problem if Driscoll’s stuff was lite. I think we need to try to talk to people where they’re at. But I don’t think lite and wrong are in the same category.

To put it another way, as far as I can see in the Bible, playing to the crowd is all about removing irrelevant barriers to belief, but it’s never about being untrue. And that means that engaging the culture is about being part of people’s lives and then critiquing the world in light of God’s truth. After all the gospel is the call to repent and put your trust in Jesus.

Grimmo.

Paul and panel, how would you define Calvinism (if you don’t mind me asking)?

Hi John,

Yes, I do see what you are saying and I agree, in some ways to respond automatically makes me look like one of those outdated Old Calvinists. I just don’t know what that means. Does it mean we never comment or respond? I guess I am hoping that if we try and do it fairly and helpfully then it will be seen for what it is? (I can always hope right!)

Mike,

Yes, your point is well taken, we do need to respond to what he is actually saying. I guess I made my point because I have heard the cessationist line from him in a number of different contexts now and explained in some detail. So I guess I felt that his post was a reflection of a broader theological perspective that he has articulated elsewhere. But I agree, we need to let him respond and clarify.

Grimmo

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your question. This could well open a whole other can of worms. One of the classic definitions of a Calvinist is someone who accepts the five points summarised by the acronym TULIP.

1) Total Depravity
2) Unconditional election
3) Limited atonement
4) Irresistible grace
5) Perseverance of the saints

You can find a helpful summary here: http://www.scionofzion.com/grace4.htm

There is some dispute amongst some about point (3), which I think is the reason that Driscoll (and many others) call themselves 4 1/2 point Calvinists. I have considerable sympathy with him on this point but I understand why full limited atonement guys (like Sandy Grant for example) end up with their position.

In sum, the points are supposed to reflect the biblical idea that salvation is all of God, that he chooses who will be his and he works in them by his word and Spirit to make them his and bring them home on the last day. It is a position that emphasizes the sovereignty of God in his plans for the world and in his salvation worked in human lives.

Paul, you are right that many people would define a Calvinist as one who accepts ‘TULIP’ (as you mentioned I do).

However we should make clear that the ‘TULIP’ summary was not from Calvin, but came after his life from some of his followers in response to the later teachings of Arminius, which denied Calvin’s strong view of God’s sovereignty in election and of the debilitating effects of our sin.

Secondly it is not accurate to reduce Calvinism to holding a strong view of God’s predestining sovereignty. For a start, Calvin does not deal with predestination systematically until a long way into his <i>Institutes</i>.

So Adam, one might also point to the critical and authoritative importance of the Spirit and the Bible in God’s self-revelation, to the importance of union with Christ, and of course to the importance of justification by faith without works as other key organising thoughts in his work.

Please check out the article by Scott Clark (Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary, California) here, where he makes the point that ‘old’ Calvinism involves much more than predestination…

Imagine trying to play ice hockey with only a hockey stick. Now that is inarguably an essential piece of equipment for the game of ice hockey but it is only a start. Ice hockey is impossible with ice, skates, a puck, and a goal. Just as there is more to ice hockey than sticks so there is more to Calvinism than predestination. Genuine, old-school, 16th- and 17th-century Calvinism confessed doctrines of God, humanity, Christ, salvation, church (including the sacraments), and last things.

Clark also makes the point that leaving aside predestination, there is stuff about Driscoll and Mars Hill that is not historically Calvinist. For example, that his view of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit is more anabaptist. Likewise, Calvin was a paedo-baptist, unlike Mars Hill’s position.

Hi Mike,

On the cessationist front, some people who would claim a cessationist position but speak strongly about the work of the Spirit in regeneration and holiness would be (1)historically, Hodge and Warfield (for some very summary positions see: http://www.the-highway.com/cessation1_Warfield.html on cessationism and http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aabbregen.htm on regeneration). (2) From a much more recent perspective, Richard Gaffin is a cessationist with strong views about the supernatural work of the Spirit in regeneration and holiness (e.g. http://www.the-highway.com/charismatic1_Gaffin.html - now because of some SPAM filter limits, I can only post a few links at a time in comments, so the second part of Gaffins article is exactly the same address with the numeral 1 replaced by the numeral 2). Hope that helps a bit.

Grimmo

I am wondering whether the New Calvinism is just Calvinism made a bit more palatable for people brought up in the Arminian denominations in the USA.  Christianity is a different animal over there with different issues, and Driscoll probably functions there in a way that doesn’t translate here.  Perhaps we need an interpreter—we seem to making guesses about his meanings here.

Paul, I was directed to your post from http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/ weekly email that I receive. It was uncanny actually because I was listening to Phil Johnson’s Session from the Shepherd’s Conference 2009 about the language and behaviour of some folkes in Evangelicalism (Driscoll was mentioned). Mark’s heart seems to be in the right place, but his mouth is somewhere else I fear. By the way, I only just found out about your blog, and we (Timothy Fellowship) would like to link to your blog, you are most welcome to link to us if you wish (TeamPyro is a favourite of ours also).

Regards,

Nathin

Hi All,

I have been doing some more thinking and thought that I should at least respond a little more to Mike and Ellen’s comments.

Mike wrote:

To take up just the cessationist point - You condemn Driscoll’s view that the defining thing about the presence and the power of the Spirit are issues such as words of knowledge or spiritual intuition.

The problem is - he did not say that. You inferred it from his silence. You say you don’t know who he is talking about but you suspect you know what he means. You then assert what you say is the only possible conclusion. You then want him to defend himself against these claims which he never made.

I don’t think that that is a fair or generous reading of Driscoll’s post.

I agree with Mike, that I did express myself tentatively, because I am keen not to put words in Driscoll’s mouth. However, I do want to present the other side of the coin.

Driscoll meant to say something when he posted his comments. He meant most people to understand it. And my post is nothing more than a reasonably conservative exegesis of his words based on fairly broadly agreed understandings of the words ‘cessationist’ and ‘continualist’.

My exegesis would be backed up by things he has said in places like Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Now I haven’t read it all, but I do know he makes a very strong case against cessationism in that book (and has a real go at the exegetical foundations of cessationism in 1Cor 12-14). The book speaks of a number of spiritual experiences such as visions, intuitions, words from the Spirit.

Furthermore, Driscoll has made some comments along this line while in Sydney. According to him we are afraid of the power of the Spirit. Again they were comments that he meant to make and he meant to be understood. I am responding, I think, to what he could reasonably be thought to have said. If he says something different, then I will respond in due course.

I guess what I am saying is that I am guessing about what Driscoll said, in as much as I am guessing about what anybody is saying. I think Driscoll has said certain things, in more than one context, and he expects us to understand what he is saying. If in time he says that’s not what he meant, then I am happy with that. But
I haven’t seen any retraction of his cessationist statements anywhere that I can find and I think that my original ‘reading’ is based on a common understanding of the words he used. I guess that time will tell.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your clarification, it helps me heaps to understand the difference between us. My logic was that if cessationism and continuationism fundamentally agree on the significance of the presence and power of the Spirit in regeneration and growth in holiness, then what is the difference between the two positions? It is the more miraculous (for want of a better term) spiritual gifts.

However, it is possible that Driscoll is just saying that he doesn’t think cessationists really believe what they say they believe about the power of the Spirit in regeneration and renewal. If that is what he is saying, then I think it’s a slightly strange way of saying it, but I can see how he might be saying that.

I guess we need to wait for him to make himself clearer on this point. Thanks for your patience and persistence in pursuing the issue.

Grimmo.