Clark/Driscoll Old/New Calvinism Dust Up in the Blogosphere

[ZackF]

At the risk of making an unfair comparison, this attempt by Driscoll to shoot down other Reformed ministers (granting him the title for the sake of the argument) in order to boost his own freshness/hipness is starting to remind me of another so-called Reformed minister a few years ago who began insulting, mocking, and calling out Reformed folks from the pulpit. I don't know if Driscoll has ever done this, and I hope he has not, because this is surefire way to drive a wedge and burn bridges in the Reformed community. Plus, I doubt seriously if he wants to be associated with the name Steve Schlissel.

The fact that the Mars Hill folks took down the initial blog post and replaced it with a tamer one is to their credit, In my humble opinion.

In his book "Confessions of a Reformission Rev" he speaks about some guys in his church who were Theonomist and that these hyper-Calvinist were upset because he wouldn't baptize their babies. I haven't seen him name any names but at least in this criticism he indirectly is taking potshots at Bahnsen and Rushdoony. I don't believe he was calling Paedobaptist "hyper-Calvinist" but the way the sentence is written you are left wondering but even so in the very least he is calling Theonomist "hyper-Calvinist".

He's actually come out and repented of the language and some of the things he said (particularly the WAY he said them) in that book. He's grown quite a bit over the past few years.

Didn't Piper publicly rebuke him a couple years ago at a conference and Driscoll accepted the correction.?

 

[ww]

At the risk of making an unfair comparison, this attempt by Driscoll to shoot down other Reformed ministers (granting him the title for the sake of the argument) in order to boost his own freshness/hipness is starting to remind me of another so-called Reformed minister a few years ago who began insulting, mocking, and calling out Reformed folks from the pulpit. I don't know if Driscoll has ever done this, and I hope he has not, because this is surefire way to drive a wedge and burn bridges in the Reformed community. Plus, I doubt seriously if he wants to be associated with the name Steve Schlissel.

The fact that the Mars Hill folks took down the initial blog post and replaced it with a tamer one is to their credit, In my humble opinion.

In his book "Confessions of a Reformission Rev" he speaks about some guys in his church who were Theonomist and that these hyper-Calvinist were upset because he wouldn't baptize their babies. I haven't seen him name any names but at least in this criticism he indirectly is taking potshots at Bahnsen and Rushdoony. I don't believe he was calling Paedobaptist "hyper-Calvinist" but the way the sentence is written you are left wondering but even so in the very least he is calling Theonomist "hyper-Calvinist".

He's actually come out and repented of the language and some of the things he said (particularly the WAY he said them) in that book. He's grown quite a bit over the past few years.

Ok thanks I'm late to the party as I've been reading his books in chronological order. I'm now on "Vintage Jesus" then on to "Vintage Church". I've already completed "Radical Reformission" and "Confessions of a Reformission Rev". I can say that Driscoll's writing style as with his style of speaking is intriguing and entertaining in the very least.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

\"I dont mean to be harsh but Ive heard so many people say he is a modern Spurgeon,etc-and he couldnt be farther from that. There is precious little doctrine in his sermons\"

Come on!?

[video=youtube;--iC5KHqaZk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--iC5KHqaZk[/video]

[video=youtube;pK65Jfny70Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y[/video]

[video=youtube;13c1MH9Dj4w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13c1MH9Dj4w[/video]

[video=youtube;7IuiUOapK1w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IuiUOapK1w[/video]

[video=youtube;s_MLUuNKjZU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_MLUuNKjZU[/video]

I'm glad you posted this, Jon. I'm no huge supporter of Driscoll, but I have listened to enough stuff to know that someone saying Driscoll is light on doctrine either has his fingers in his ears, hasn't been on YouTube or hasn't attended the church. In fact, it's called SLANDER.

People, we need to get primary source material when criticizing someone, not secondhand. ANYONE could take a trip to Driscoll's YouTube channel and look at the plethora of videos (28 on theology and doctrine including the ones posted above which affirm all five points) on multiple topics, usually answered from the perspective of scripture.

Yeah, his church doesn't look like 1746. Oh well. Get over it. Calvin and Driscoll did a lot more reaching out (both to the culture around them as well as among other believers) than most of what I've seen pass for 'reformed' around here (holed up in your micro-denomination and cursing what you perceive to the darkness). And though all he's doing is planting and watering like the rest of us are supposed to, he's been used greatly of God to reach more than a few thousand folks who would have otherwise not come across biblical truth.

Tell the truth...even on people you disagree with.

 

[Jon 316]

yeah, his church doesn't look like 1746. Oh well. Get over it. Calvin and driscoll did a lot more reaching out (both to the culture around them as well as among other believers) than most of what i've seen pass for 'reformed' around here (holed up in your micro-denomination and cursing what you perceive to the darkness). And though all he's doing is planting and watering like the rest of us are supposed to, he's been used greatly of god to reach more than a few thousand folks who would have otherwise not come across biblical truth.

amen!!!!

 

[Rich Koster]

As I have said earlier, we should pray for, encourage and send healthy suggestions to people like Mark Driscoll. Does he have faults? Yes....so do you and I. Is he the perfect pastor? No, neither are any others. Here is a person in a high profile position that can swing totally Reformed or totally insane. The determining factor may be good mentors, encouragers and prayer on his behalf.

 

[ww]

As I have said earlier, we should pray for, encourage and send healthy suggestions to people like Mark Driscoll. Does he have faults? Yes....so do you and I. Is he the perfect pastor? No, neither are any others. Here is a person in a high profile position that can swing totally Reformed or totally insane. The determining factor may be good mentors, encouragers and prayer on his behalf.

That's why I've always been encouraged by his relationship with Piper however Driscoll like anyone in his position is going to have a very tight circle of those who he trusts and is willing to submit for accountability.

 

[ZackF]

As I have said earlier, we should pray for, encourage and send healthy suggestions to people like Mark Driscoll. Does he have faults? Yes....so do you and I. Is he the perfect pastor? No, neither are any others. Here is a person in a high profile position that can swing totally Reformed or totally insane. The determining factor may be good mentors, encouragers and prayer on his behalf.

That's why I've always been encouraged by his relationship with Piper however Driscoll like anyone in his position is going to have a very tight circle of those who he trusts and is willing to submit for accountability.

Right! What pastor doesn't have a tight circle for accountability?

 

[Jon 316]

Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?

 

[ZackF]

Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?

What bashing are you speaking of? The comments linking Piper to Driscoll are complementary.

 

[Jon 316]

Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?

What bashing are you speaking of? The comments linking Piper to Driscoll are complementary.

Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of another post where Piper got a roasting as well. It may be in this thread, I cant remember! (too much PB time I think!)

 

[ww]

Is anyone else getting fed up with all the Driscoll/Piper bashing that is going on?

I don't think all criticism is created equal. You may want to qualify which criticism you consider "bashing" and which criticism you see as Biblically warranted.

 

[Jon 316]

I don't think all criticism is created equal.

Agreed...

 

[semperveritas]

Iam not bashing him. I commended him for his stands he takes especially in the liberal Seattle area. I just said there was precious little "reformed doctrine" Of course he has doctrine. Doctrine is teaching. Arminius, Wesley, Warren,etc all have doctrine. Nobody is bashing Driscoll here. We are merely saying like R Scott Clark- to bash old school calvinism and claim to be the bethe newer improved model when at least while I was there and another year in his church plant by my house, heard precious little of Gods sovereignty or an emphasis on the doctrines of grace in particular. He is still a great man of God being used in a niche here in Seattle a lot of churches are not reaching out to. He doesnt compromise on the central teachings of the Bible and yet all that said I dont consider him reformed. I consider Macarthur much more soteriologically reformed-at least he is old school enough to talk about in the pulpit regularly. That is all I am saying. No slander involved. Just an observation but I guess 2 years in the Acts 29 churches here in Seattle mean Iam ignorant of his teaching ministry unlike people in the midwest who have seen a few you tube videos.

 

[Edward]

how many exceptions can a Presbyterian minister take to the WCF (or insert your denomination/confession here) and still be considered "Reformed"?

Discuss.

It depends on the exception(s). In many cases, one would be enough to disqualify him; in other cases, several might not (although I'd be hard pressed to come up with an example that would support my second point.)

 

[the particular baptist]

precious little of Gods sovereignty or an emphasis on the doctrines of grace in particular.


2 years in the Acts 29 churches here in Seattle mean Iam ignorant of his teaching ministry unlike people in the midwest who have seen a few you tube videos.

Check out any one of his sermons Mars Hill Church | Sermons , you will be hard pressed to hear one and not hear of God's sovereignty and doctrines of grace. He has publicly said he is a 4 1/2, with his view on atonement being identical with Richard Baxter's.

From reading your previous posts it sounds like you have a personal beef with the man, i could be wrong.

Im not a fan of Driscoll's, i would not attend his church if i lived on the same block, he definitely has foot in mouth disease, and i am looking forward to him maturing and begin practicing the spiritual discipline of self control with respect to his tongue. He has an issue with pride that is obvious to many, so pray for him, that God would break him in a million pieces if need be to conform him to the image of His Son, and that he would not further bring reproach to himself, family, church, and most importantly our Lord with careless and thoughtless (self-promoting) words.

 

[AThornquist]

[Driscoll's] view on atonement being identical with Richard Baxter's.

True, he does not hold to limited atonement. He holds to unlimited limited atonement, which is why he is a "4.5 pt. Calvinist." He had a chapter about it in his latest(?) book. I think the chapter name is "My daddy the preacher" or something like that. It is an interesting (and not commonly accepted) view, to say the least. John Frame also holds to it.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

calvinistic soteriologically?... kind of (maybe 3 points)

No slander involved. Just an observation but I guess 2 years in the Acts 29 churches here in Seattle mean Iam ignorant of his teaching ministry unlike people in the midwest who have seen a few you tube videos.

Your firsthand experience differs from one of my friends (he posts on the board I'm an admin on and came out this way back in the middle of last year) who is currently at MHC.

Your 'maybe 3 points' comment was inaccurate and a misrepresentation of what Driscoll publicly teaches.

Your 'very little doctrine' comment doesn't match up with the words of my friend who currently is at the church, nor does it match up with the bulk of what Driscoll has made publicly available on his blog, YouTube Channel and on their website.

Mind you, I don't appreciate the 'bashing' of 'old school Calvinism' either and I think his initial 4 points he posted are pretty wrong (I was actually in the process of writing something on that topic to post on my site, since I believe that much of what he said was erroneous), but that does not give one license to be untruthful about what the man teaches.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/exc...s-individuals-helping-us-moderate-both-41951/

4. Above all, we must be tireless in upholding the good name of our neighbor at all costs even if we're critical. Christ demands it of us toward our enemies and especially toward those that name Christ.

and

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man

I think you've failed to do so in your representation of Driscoll.

 

[semperveritas]

point taken. Just telling you what I heard and didnt hear. No personal beef. Still have many friends there. I just dont consider him reformed. I have only heard him say he didnt believe in limited atonement and never heard much about irresistible grace in the reformed sense. So take it for what its worth. I havent read his books. So if I violated the 9th commandment it was out of ignorance.

 

[Parsifal23]

I agree with what R. Scott Clark says it seems like so many people are just too happy to have an "calvinist" who seems relvent to the culture at large. Even if he is not really an Calvinist I think Mark Driscol's view of The Atonement alone disqualifys him as an Calvinist.

At the risk of making an unfair comparison, this attempt by Driscoll to shoot down other Reformed ministers (granting him the title for the sake of the argument) in order to boost his own freshness/hipness is starting to remind me of another so-called Reformed minister a few years ago who began insulting, mocking, and calling out Reformed folks from the pulpit. I don't know if Driscoll has ever done this, and I hope he has not, because this is surefire way to drive a wedge and burn bridges in the Reformed community. Plus, I doubt seriously if he wants to be associated with the name Steve Schlissel.

The fact that the Mars Hill folks took down the initial blog post and replaced it with a tamer one is to their credit, In my humble opinion.

In his book "Confessions of a Reformission Rev" he speaks about some guys in his church who were Theonomist and that these hyper-Calvinist were upset because he wouldn't baptize their babies. I haven't seen him name any names but at least in this criticism he indirectly is taking potshots at Bahnsen and Rushdoony. I don't believe he was calling Paedobaptist "hyper-Calvinist" but the way the sentence is written you are left wondering but even so in the very least he is calling Theonomist "hyper-Calvinist".

I wouldint call Theonomist Hyper Calvinists confused LOL) yes but hyper calvinists never. Besides Bahnsen was one of our greatest apoligests and Rushdoony for all his "blood and thunder" was a guy where you knew where he stood and that he came to that view by honest study and I can respect that even if I dont agree with the he comes to conclsouns.

 

[Josiah]

I agree with what R. Scott Clark says it seems like so many people are just too happy to have an "calvinist" who seems relvent to the culture at large. Even if he is not really an Calvinist I think Mark Driscol's view of The Atonement alone disqualifys him as an Calvinist.

 

[Scott1]

It's easy to lose one's bearing in stormy seas.

There is no such thing as "new" Calvinism. The system of doctrine is what is was when it was articulated by the great theologian himself, carefully studied and summarized later in places such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Ephesians 4

14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

We really must resist attempts to re-define it so that it becomes less clear, "broader" and more popularly acclaimed.

In a sense, it is flattering. The popular culture of the moment seems to want to be like us, but that is only a fleeting fancy... not a substantial change of heart. Arminian influenced theologies, dispensational ones, and nonconfessional communions... even charismatic/pentecostal ones who view pronouncements of their leaders on par or above Scripture. They seem to suddenly want to at least sound like us.

What we have is a coherent systematic biblical theology that is based on all-of-scripture interpreting all-of-scripture which binds us together in a community covenanted together to serve God in this world whose unity is grounded on doctrinal agreement, and is accountable to one another.

They do not yet have this. What many have is following the personality of a leader who may be coming to understand some of the glorious reformed truths for the first time but is not bound by them, does not understand all of them and how they fit together, nor is accountable by covenant for them.

They have not developed a practical faith in the perspecuity of Scripture. Let us not compromise that, ever.

Some are indeed trending toward a full "doctrines of grace," others are trending toward reformed theology... they are not there yet, but they seem to moving toward it. That can be a good thing and we must prayerful, supportive and patient with that.

We also must challenge attempts to re-define reformed theology. It absolutely is, at a minimum:

doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession

It may be more than that, and I would suggest it is, but it is never less than that... not at places called Mars Hill or anywhere else.

 

[ooguyx]

I was a member of Mars Hill (MH) and worked there for a while. I have to say that I began going there because I thought it was reformed, and it seemed that way to me as I was coming from a pentecostal background.

I think of MH as reformed little league. As for Driscoll, my personal opinion is that he is concerned with cutting a path and making a name for himself.

Also, concerning his Calvinism position here are his notes for "Unlimited/Limited Atonement" http://cdn.marshillchurch.org/media/2005/11/20/20051120_unlimited-limited-atonement_document.pdf -- what do you guys think?

 

[Pergamum]

Here is a good example of TR psychologizing:


Old School Calvinist Gairney Bridge

He writes:

"I was mildly miffed that the persons specifically mentioned in the article — John Piper, Mark Discoll, Al Mohler — are all Baptists. But then I realized this is the new Calvinism.."


Hmmm....people are coming to the true Gospel and he is miffed..... why? Because his own folks are not at the forefront..... instead, all those named as key leaders among the Calvinists are all Baptist (oh my, how awful)....WHY? Why are these Baptists all at the forefront, but the TR Presbyterians are not even mentioned? OBVIOUSLY, they MUST be doing something wrong!




I need to ask...why is it that the TR's are under-represented even when interest in calvinism and the doctrines of grace are making a resurgence in this country?

Should we be blaiming Piper, Mohler for this...or do TRs need to look at themselves?

 

[Marrow Man]

Ummm, Pergy, I don't think you read the OP very clearly. I am Gairney Bridge; that's my blog you're quoting, and I suppose that I am the one who is guilty of "TR psychologizing."

In my estimation, you have taken the quote out of context. No matter: you have provided the link, and folks can read for themselves. Better yet, here is the quote along with the following sentences (emphasis added); let folks judge for themselves if I have been disrespectful toward Baptist brethren:

I was mildly miffed that the persons specifically mentioned in the article — John Piper, Mark Discoll, Al Mohler — are all Baptists. But then I realized this is the new Calvinism (I’m assuming it’s not supposed to be new and improved). And I have tremendous respect for 2 of the 3 men mentioned, and that third one (Driscoll) at least intrigues me. We need to give credit where credit is due; these men have done a great deal to grab their churches and denominations by the collar and drag Baptists kicking and screaming back to their Calvinistic roots.

The phrase "mildly miffed" (not simply "miffed" -- I was using alliteration for rhetorical purposes) was simply an observation, nothing more, as one can see by looking at the entire quote. One would think that a discussion of Calvinism might at least include one modern follower who was not Baptist (e.g., a Tim Keller perhaps). I stated quite clearly that I have "tremendous respect" for the men mentioned. Calling someone "TR" (multiple times) is a very disrespectful term, however.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I was a member of Mars Hill (MH) and worked there for a while. . . . I think of MH as reformed little league. As for Driscoll, my personal opinion is that he is concerned with cutting a path and making a name for himself.

Also, concerning his Calvinism position here are his notes for "Unlimited/Limited Atonement" http://cdn.marshillchurch.org/media/2005/11/20/20051120_unlimited-limited-atonement_document.pdf -- what do you guys think?

Driscoll classifies himself (in the link above) as a modified Calvinist, i.e. he is soft on "limited atonement."

As I have stated before in another thread, his view is essentially the same dual reference atonement as that espoused by John Davenant (1572-1641), which stands precariously close to Amyraldism.

Unfortunately (in my estimation), I see this becoming the majority view in the New Calvinism, especially among Baptist-types, e.g. Piper et al.

 

[DMcFadden]

As one who has lamented the loss of a term that was quite meaningful to me in my youth, "evangelical," it is with a mixture of sadness and bemusement that I observe what is happening to the term "Calvinist."

Just as my orthodox inerrantist version of evangelicalism never received a patent, copyright, or trademark protection from the "powers that be," neither did the terms "Reformed" or "Calvinist." With people like Driscoll (quasi emergent), MacArthur (quasi or "leaky" dispensational) and Piper (quasi charismatic) on the scene taking up the banner of Calvin and replicating their own disciples in the mega numbers while some of the confessional Calvinistic groups continue to exist in the micro-Presbyterian instantiations, it is unlikely that people like Clark (a hero of mine, btw) will win the day. Even within the conservative Reformed camp there are factions, as evidenced by the threads regarding Frame vs. Clark, Horton, et. al.

Words change over time. Just as "neo orthodoxy" became a distinct movement separate from "liberalism" and "fundamentalism," the new-Calvinists may in time evolve into their own thing, even if it owes precious little to Calvin other than the name.

I lament this tendency and feel as if I am experiencing deja vu all over and over again with my own existential crisis with "evangelical." But, all of the fussing over what a REAL Calvinist is SUPPOSED to be will not change the fact that Driscoll and Piper will continue calling themselves whatever they want to call themselves and nobody can stop them from doing it. The "market" willl rule, as (sigh) always.

 

[Pergamum]

Ummm, Pergy, I don't think you read the OP very clearly. I am Gairney Bridge; that's my blog you're quoting, and I suppose that I am the one who is guilty of "TR psychologizing."

In my estimation, you have taken the quote out of context. No matter: you have provided the link, and folks can read for themselves. Better yet, here is the quote along with the following sentences (emphasis added); let folks judge for themselves if I have been disrespectful toward Baptist brethren:

I was mildly miffed that the persons specifically mentioned in the article — John Piper, Mark Discoll, Al Mohler — are all Baptists. But then I realized this is the new Calvinism (I’m assuming it’s not supposed to be new and improved). And I have tremendous respect for 2 of the 3 men mentioned, and that third one (Driscoll) at least intrigues me. We need to give credit where credit is due; these men have done a great deal to grab their churches and denominations by the collar and drag Baptists kicking and screaming back to their Calvinistic roots.

The phrase "mildly miffed" (not simply "miffed" -- I was using alliteration for rhetorical purposes) was simply an observation, nothing more, as one can see by looking at the entire quote. One would think that a discussion of Calvinism might at least include one modern follower who was not Baptist (e.g., a Tim Keller perhaps). I stated quite clearly that I have "tremendous respect" for the men mentioned. Calling someone "TR" (multiple times) is a very disrespectful term, however.

Ha. Sorry Gairney Bridge.

If you are offended at being called a TR, I am sorry. I didn't know TR was offensive since I know many who self-identify in that way.


I think you're blog is well written and it has good stuff on it, by the way. I just couldn't help noticing the Presbyterian angst that us baptists are hijacking the name "reformed" and running off with it...who let us have the keys to mom and dad's car anyway?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ha. Sorry Gairney Bridge.

If you are offended at being called a TR, I am sorry. I didn't know TR was offensive since I know many who self-identify in that way.


I think you're blog is well written and it has good stuff on it, by the way. I just couldn't help noticing the Presbyterian angst that us baptists are hijacking the name "reformed" and running off with it...who let us have the keys to mom and dad's car anyway?

Just in the defense of MM Perg, I am not so sure it was the classification of TR that was out of line. It seems you smeared TR with adding another word with it. Also it seems you painted him in a light that wasn't full or necessarily true when you asked the question...

Hmmm....people are coming to the true Gospel and he is miffed..... why? Because his own folks are not at the forefront..... instead, all those named as key leaders among the Calvinists are all Baptist (oh my, how awful)....WHY? Why are these Baptists all at the forefront, but the TR Presbyterians are not even mentioned? OBVIOUSLY, they MUST be doing something wrong!

I am willing to bet MM isn't miffed people are coming to Christ. That just seems slanderous to me the way you ascribed motive.

I am also willing to bet the Presbyterian's aren't necessarily doing something wrong. If you understand the publishing industry you know that the publishers have a lot to do with who gets published. BTW, If I am not mistaken Sproul was the one who truly started getting Calvinism back on the map. It was a publisher's dream come true when he started writing his books.

 

[Marrow Man]

Apology accepted, Pergy, and no hard feelings at all on my part. For what it's worth, the epithet TR can be used in more that one way; ordinarily it comes across as a smear that one segment of Reformed folks uses at another. In all honesty, it seems that some use it in a similar vein to the way "puritanical" or even "Pharisaical" are sometimes used. After reading your followup post I see that you did not intend it this way.

Thank you also for your kind remarks about the blog. And just for the record, I am happy to let Baptists of the Reformed persuasion to borrow the car any time they like. I'll even take them to the car lot and co-sign the loan with them! That has nothing to do with the issue. Presbyterians do not have sole market rights to Reformed theology; there's plenty of room at the time and anyone who wants to dine on the such a meal is more than invited. The only thing I wary about is someone like Driscoll who may be wandering in directions that don't necessarily mesh with Reformed thinking. It was Driscoll who seemed to be hijacking the Reformed label (and I believe his lack of confessionalism, which I believe was discussed above, to be indicative of a potential problem); I don't see guys like Mohler and Piper doing anything of the sort.

 

[Pergamum]

TIM:

Accept another apology from me for ascribing motives for you. Yes, I am sure we are all glad that folks are coming to Christ. Confessedly, this is a topic that gets my pulse up and I am a Ready, SHOOT, Aim sort of person sometimes. Yep, I can be a real turd at times (but a turd covered in the love of Christ....picture that!)


p.s. can I still call myself reformed? I can remind folks that I am only "little r reformed" and you all can pray for me that I grow up to be a Big R Reformed."