YMCA- Young Moderately Calvinistic Anabaptists

[PuritanCovenanter]

Yes, Driscoll seems to gather antagonism and rightly so in many cases, and then Piper and Macarthur get grouped in with him. Then, rather than focusing on Driscoll's statements, these statements by one person then attract critiques of not only him but anyone who associates with him as proof of the dangers of New Calvinism. I am not sure the movement is as monolithic as some would think.

And that is part of the problem. And that is some of the critique Gerrald has of that strain of congregationalism.

While it may not be monolithic it sure has some of the same tendencies and dangers. Especially when it comes to the law of God and how they view it. When it comes to the charismatic emergent part the dangers even become more apparent.

I do agree that using the anabaptist term as it is noted historically is not done properly in my opinion. It has too much baggage with it to be associated with the Confessional Baptists. That is why the 1644 LBCF was authored so that there would be no confusing of the Particular Baptists with the Anabaptists of the Reformation.

 

[Pergamum]

What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?

 

[Reformed Rush]

What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?

Sorry, but I am having trouble determining your "type", as you put it.

What indeed do you mean by "our type?"

Are you NCT? And what is your purpose on PB?


Am I wrong?

How wrong?

Why wrong?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?

I personally think we should refer to ourselves as Reformed Baptists. It is a modern term that developed in the mid 1900's. It is even defined. I do not think we should refer to ourselves as Reformed in the sense of the Reformed church. I explain this in a recent blog entry that I made in response to many Calvinistic Baptists who were offended that they were not to be acknowledged as Reformed Theologians by Dr. R. Scott Clark. You can read it here.
Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology - The PuritanBoard

 

[Pergamum]

What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several \"Particular Baptists\" too that believe in this new-fangled \"New Covenant Theology\" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?

Sorry, but I am having trouble determining your "type", as you put it.

What indeed do you mean by "our type?"

Are you NCT? And what is your purpose on PB?


Am I wrong?

How wrong?

Why wrong?

NCT is New Covenant Theology.

Many calvinistic baptists believe this. Reisenger promotes this and many others by saying that Jesus in Matthew 5 gave a new law than Moses. NCTers are anti-sabbatarian as well. Some of those calling themselves "Particular Baptists" also believe in this as well.


To familarize yourself with New Covenant Theology, see these books:


Amazon.com: Tablets of Stone and the History of Redemption: John G. Reisinger: Books



Amazon.com: New Covenant Theology: Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel: Books


Richard Barcellos gives a fine defense of the Biblical view here:


Amazon.com: In Defense of the Decalogue : A Critique of New Covenant Theology: Richard Barcellos: Books

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?

Sorry, but I am having trouble determining your "type", as you put it.

What indeed do you mean by "our type?"

Are you NCT? And what is your purpose on PB?


Am I wrong?

How wrong?

Why wrong?

Pergy is not NCT. He is a confessional Baptist holding to the 1689. Our "type" has to do with how we are to be defined and recognized.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Calvinism Old and “New” Heidelblog

Molly Worthen on Mark Driscoll (and Calvin) Heidelblog

 

[Reformed Rush]

What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several \"Particular Baptists\" too that believe in this new-fangled \"New Covenant Theology\" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?

Sorry, but I am having trouble determining your "type", as you put it.

What indeed do you mean by "our type?"

Are you NCT? And what is your purpose on PB?


Am I wrong?

How wrong?

Why wrong?

NCT is New Covenant Theology.

Many calvinistic baptists believe this. Reisenger promotes this and many others by saying that Jesus in Matthew 5 gave a new law than Moses. NCTers are anti-sabbatarian as well. Some of those calling themselves "Particular Baptists" also believe in this as well.


To familarize yourself with New Covenant Theology, see these books:


Amazon.com: Tablets of Stone and the History of Redemption: John G. Reisinger: Books



Amazon.com: New Covenant Theology: Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel: Books


Richard Barcellos gives a fine defense of the Biblical view here:


Amazon.com: In Defense of the Decalogue : A Critique of New Covenant Theology: Richard Barcellos: Books

I am thoroughly familiar with NCT, and thank you for verifying your theological position.

 

[buggy]

As a young guy who learnt a lot from New Calvinists, I have to say that even among them there are some differences. For example you have Joshua Harris, Piper and Driscoll who are not cessationist (and even among them they are different). MacArthur is cessationist and a little bit leaning on fundamentalism in some aspects.

I don't know what will happen to the New Calvinists, but IF they manage to write a Confession of faith and unify, I am very sure that they will last much longer.

 

[Pergamum]

Don't shoot me yet brother. I may have poor communication skills at times and engage in discussions with a passion, but I love the brethren here and don't believe Moses and Jesus were enemies or had any disagreements in Matthew 5.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 11:18:54 EST-----

Give it time, my charm will rub off on you!

 

[Iconoclast]

I was just downloading some sermonaudio sermons and came across this recent series that might weigh in here on this topic.
I have not listened yet, but here is a description of the sermon series.

If ever there were a jewel of gold in a pig’s snout, charismatic Calvinism is it. What should be a humorous and ridiculous oxymoron, “charismatic Calvinist,” is now a nauseating and repugnant reality. Charismatic Calvinists open the door for false teaching in the Calvinist church; they blemish the reputation of orthodox Calvinists; they expect legitimacy, thinking that their claim to be Calvinists insulates them from the charge of heterodoxy; they denigrate the primary work of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification, ultimately denying the scripture that affirms “of His fulness have we all received”; they inherently and unavoidably align themselves with the most despicable charletains of contemporary fundamentalism; they create a false expectation of sensational spiritual experience for young and naive believers; they are apparently unsatisfied and unsatiated with the primary work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification; they have pirated and defamed the phrase “sovereign grace”; and they are an embarrassment and an annoyance.

in light of this thread i am looking forward to listening to this; the sermons are by Hal Brunson;
SermonAudio.com - Charismatic Calvinists, Part 1
Charismatic Calvinists, Part 1

Charismatic Calvinists · 1 of 3

6/28/2009 (SUN)

ID 628091333239 Category: Sunday - AM

Upload Media

3 Charismatic Calvinists, Part 1
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • Charismatic Calvinists
First Baptist Church of Parker
100+ Play! |

SUN 06/28/2009
Sunday - AM






Available FREE Media © All media is copyright. Blog-This | Help

... stream. download. podcast. all free. all the time ...


Play Audio! (Streaming) 32kbps| 67 min. [3]


Download MP3 (16.1MB) Batch downloads • How?

 

[Pergamum]

Would you classify Piper as charismatic?

 

[Iconoclast]

I am confident that God's will is being acomplished despite any and all of the error's of believer's, myself included.. I am not as interested in trying to place each of these men in a label as much as I believe this error, is counter-productive to the gospel.
Personally I do not care for several of these ministries cited, but many express that God has used them for good. Looking at Piper briefly, I think what people relate to with Him is his passion,and apparent zeal.
About 20 years ago when I would speak in opposition to the teaching of many of the charismatic leaders- Swaggert, Jim Baker, etc, people would say who are you to speak against these men?
Where there is false teaching mixed in with true, false living is soon to follow.
Sadly this has been well documented by the failures of some of these men.
It was not their zeal, or sincerity that lead to the failure ,but sin and error.
If Piper has pure heart motives,yet leaves open a door of error in a time of testing I believe it will lead to much harm in the church.

With the OP I think many areas were covered very well. [ the anabaptist discussion aside, I agreed in the main with the OP]
Have you not had conversations with young professors who speculate because of these ideas suggested by some of these men. Sometimes I wonder whether or not as these ministries grow large that pragmatism enters in a bit, so as to seen more open, loving and welcome, but truth gets over-run with the error.
I have never seen where these ideas have led to more of a desire to pursue holiness, or holy service. It is more like a parasite the sucks the life out of persons infected by it. They turn away from the word,rather than toward it to a point of calling scripture -a dead letter! perverting and wresting Pauls words in 2 Cor.
I have no axe to grind on this, but I do not feel the need to just go along with every idea these men suggest. I am not commanded to.
To sum up, it is more like God has worked through all manner of teachers and teaching- from cults to RC, to get His sheep into the word. Praise Him for that. Nevertheless I would not endorse the errors of these false teachings as a means to draw people in

 

[ReformedChapin]

Would you classify Piper as charismatic?

I would just reading Let the Nations be Glad we see the idealistic stories and the miraculous events that Piper endorses about how missionaries "got a word from God." He seems to embrace some sort of direct revelation from God.

 

[Pergamum]

The Scottish Covenanters then, too, sound Charismatic.