Mark “Blankety-blank” Driscoll comments on Time Magazine’s having named New Calvinism the third biggest idea that is changing the world at this particular time.
He then names four ways in which “New Calvinism” differs from “Old Calvinism.”
I couldn’t help but to comment on his fourth point:
Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.
Yeah.
Like calling non-Calvinists “Semi-Pelagian.” That builds lots of bridges, to say nothing of goodwill. I feel incredibly loved.
Seriously, I’ve said it before, I dig Driscoll.
But he’s got something a bit stronger than “intentional cultural relevance” in his pipe if he thinks he’s building bridges with us poor, unwashed Semi-Pelagian peasants…
mikescape 
March 12, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Yeah, I don’t like it when they throw the semi-pelagian card out on the table as their trump card.
March 13, 2009 at 6:09 pm
They lose me altogether when their current obsessions in Christianity amount to a whole load of terms and words which they barely know how to spell, let alone how to define… Read the first two pages of ‘The Screwtape Letters’… Its interesting to read CS Lewis’ take on the strategy of getting man away from fundamental, meaningful absolutes, and into the obsession with classifying everything intellectually.
Seems to me that if guys like this are using words that don’t appear in the Bible, they’ve already lost the ideological battle, as it were.
It also strikes me that they have far too much time on their hands, on the coin of people who are far too poor to have their hard-earned cash frittered away, in getting high on their own perceived intellectual prowess.
I doubt many of them would last five minutes in a locked room with a genuine Christian academic of the last hundred years, let alone the thirty seconds they’d last before being put to shame as being utterly irrelevant and floundering in pseudo-intellectualism by the Apostle Paul.
March 14, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Steve–I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from here. One one hand you’re putting Driscoll (or Reformed folks) down for using “a whole load of terms and words which they barely know how to spell, let alone define” and “using words that don’t appear in the Bible” and this results in losing “the ideological batttle.” But then you refer us to Lewis–who just happens to be one of the greatest intellects of the 20th Century. Help me out here!!??? I don’t think you can have it both ways.
As far as losing the “ideological battle” are you referring to culture here? Because that was really the whole point of the article in Time. Reformed Theology is driving a new revival of young, urban church planters all across the world. Reformed Theology is actually making the bigger dent (as it were) than traditional Arminian “fundie” religion. So instead of losing the battle–folks like Driscoll are winning it. At least in terms of evangelizing.
You seem to want to take anything “intellectual” out of the faith—but then you referred to the Apostle Paul as being someone who might be able to set us all straight on these matters. I’m I understanding you right here? Is it okay for Paul to talk a little theology but not the rest of us?
Typically the Reformed camp DOES try to stay within the Biblical parameters in their teachings. Thus, the big emphasis on Expository Preaching and even Verse by Verse Teaching.
Mike–I would agree with you to some extent. Reformed folks have done a bad job of communicating their beliefs with passion and humility. But this all works both ways. Calvary Chapel is on the record in saying some pretty nasty things about the Reformed side. Dare I say the name Bryson or Hunt? I know that many within Calvary disagree with these two “theologians” but they have shared prominent platforms in Calvary–from speaking at Pastors Conferences to speaking at their Bible College.
If Ebony and Ivory are going to have harmony then let’s praise God when God is at work. Right now Reformed Theology is impacting culture and on the rise (let’s all say PRAISE GOD!!!). And God has also used (and is still using) Calvary Chapel (let’s all say PRAISE GOD!!!!!).
We’ve both had our moment on the cover of Time, now let’s rejoice with what God is doing and pray for more movements of His Spirit.
Next time when Driscoll baptizes a few hundred ex-gay, ex-punk rock radicals then let’s cut the guy a little slack and rejoice with him. God is certainly at work!! I thank God for him and his ministry!
May 25, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Thank you for your post, I couldn’t have said it better.
March 14, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I never said I didn’t rejoice in his ministry – in fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve gone on record saying pretty much the opposite.
My point is that he’s being somewhat disingenuous claiming to build bridges while demolishing birdges by his Calvinistic hubris in bandying about the “semi-pelagian” canard RE: us non-Calvinists.
‘S’all I’m sayin’, is all…
March 14, 2009 at 9:01 pm
You’ve been very generous to other movements Mike. My concern is probably more with Calvary as a whole. I do think that Driscoll is pretty generous though. He often uses Calvary as a case study in revivals and movements. He actually has a lot of respect for Calvary. More so than many of the rabid Reformed types that sometimes find their way into Acts 29. I have found myself defending Calvary at times within Acts 29.
Oh well…God bless you as you prepare to teach the word tomorrow…God bless!!!
May 25, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Yes I have heard Pastor Mark..thank you Shane
March 15, 2009 at 4:42 am
Hmm…
Steve’s words struck me as a bit dangerous. First because a lot of those words he’s probably referring to (and I do know I’m being assumptive here) actually are in the Bible (ahem, justified, propitiation/expiation, etc., which are some precise terms that when used properly are actually proper translations); a lot of foreign-seeming words we actually inherit from Latin, a maligned language that ahistorical people forget was quite dominant for exchange, scholarship, etc., all the way into this century, many of the Reformed theological terms actually come out of the Latin Vulgate(!) (propitiation is one).
I wonder what he’d do with “trinity”, “begotten”, and etc.? No offense Steve, but you’ve excised yourself from any discussion when you show a hand like that. Another thing the Reformed folks tend to know about: they don’t despise learning (see 2 Peter’s warnings about that), and when one pays careful attention to the NT, there’s even a bunch of legal abstractions throughout the NT from Greek judiciary language, fluffy cloud-level words through Romans, concepts of compatibilism expressed by Paul, and a whole lot of other abstractions. Those who think otherwise, show they aren’t paying attention!
Said in love, (by the way).
March 16, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Here’s a link for ya…
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Calvinism-Roger-Olson-Joins-Scot-McKnight-in-Taking-it-to-the-Neo-Reformed
March 18, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Mike,
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Calvinist in the Christian old of Abraham Kuyper, Thomas Chalmers, Charles Spurgeon, and RC Sproul. I also grew up Arminian.
That established, can you do a post explaining how Arminianism is not semi-pelagian? I will accept that Arminianism is not a direct decendant, but how are they not at least first or second cousins?
March 18, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Paul – sure: this is a very good treatment of the issue, taking on MacArthur on a similar issue (Johnny Mac accused Arminians of being Semi-Pelagians): http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/365
March 18, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Here’s another one: http://evangelicalarminians.org/node/35
May 25, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Mark “Blankety-blank” Driscoll Why do you call him this?
Pastor Mark has said he should not use bad language and repented from using it.He has said this openly and on his blog.
May 25, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Why does Driscoll persist in calling non-Calvinists “Semi-Pelagians”?
At least from my end, it’s a tongue-in-cheek reference to him. Even though he’s toned down his language, his rhetoric and choice of turns of phrase and subjects remains…shall we say…controversial.
I still like him; I just don’t like everything about him.
May 25, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I don’t remember him using that term. In fact he recently talked on this and said you can be a non Calviist and go to his church.
Tongue and Cheek….If you where to pray for him do you refer to him as “Mark “Blankety-blank” Driscoll”
Please consider what this tongue and cheek implies…
May 25, 2009 at 7:24 pm
This is the best review of on this subject of C Vs A done By Mark Dever
Having attended a number of meetings of pastors in the last few months, and having read everything from Rob Bell’s Velvet Jesus to John MacArthur’s Fool’s Gold, I have been able to give a lot thought to the colloquiums, conferences, alliances, and denominations that bring pastors and churches together. What is bringing pastors together? What are they grouping around?
I think the most basic practical division among evangelical pastors today does not occur between the Calvinists and the Arminians; it occurs between those who pursue faithfulness and assume relevance and those who pursue relevance and assume faithfulness. Surely, both camps will claim to value both faithfulness and relevance. But attend the conferences and read the books of the “pursuers of faithfulness,” and you will hear a lot about “faithfulness in preaching the gospel” or “building your church on the Word.” Attend the conferences and read the books of the “pursuers of relevance,” and you will hear about “understanding today’s generation” and “communicating to today’s culture.”
Imagine a spectrum with “faithfulness” at one end and “relevance” at the other end. Most of us would recognize that locating ourselves at either extreme is wrong. At the far end of the faithfulness side of the spectrum we have a Greek Orthodox-like church that uses untranslated Greek in the church’s gatherings, as if physical proximity to the inspired language changes people like some sort of magical force. The power of the words is unrelated to people’s comprehension of them. As long as the content is correct, the church can set aside all worries about relevance!
At the other end of the spectrum is a church that wants so badly to relate to the world that it begins to value what the culture values, scorn what the culture scorns, even think in the philosophical categories the culture insists we think within. They quickly point to Paul’s example in 1 Cor. 9:19-23—”…I have become all things to all people…”—as their explanation for what, in the end, amounts to the erasing of all distinctiveness between them and the culture.
Of course, all of us intend to be at the middle of the spectrum, striking just the right balance between an utter faithfulness to the gospel and a piercing relevance in its presentation. I also suspect that most of us believe that we do strike this balance, or else we would alter our location.
What has struck me amidst all these conferences and colloquiums is that a church leader’s or a writer’s position on this particular spectrum has become more meaningful to his associations than where he sits on the Calvinist-Arminian theology spectrum. Suppose, for example, that we have four individuals:
Jake (Arminian and seeker-sensitive),
Wes (Arminian and faithful),
Phil (Calvinistic and seeker-sensitive),
and John (Calvinistic and faithful).
When it comes to the actual practice of doing ministry, it may be that John has more in common with Wes than he does with Phil, his fellow Calvinist. And it may be that Jake actually has more in common with Phil than he does with Wes, his fellow Arminian.
So Calvinistic Phil believes in the gospel and in Reformed soteriology. But he assumes that everyone understands what he means when he refers to the “gospel,” and so he spends all his time and energy attempting to be creatively relevant. On the other hand, Arminian Wes, who is self-consciously anti-Calvinistic, does not assume that everyone truly understands what the gospel actually is. Therefore, he spends most of his time in the pulpit emphasizing salvation through Christ alone, penal substitutionary atonement, the need for repentance in response to the gospel, as well as things like Scripture’s inerrancy and God’s exhaustive knowledge of the future. Wes is even willing to admit that the gospel is offensive to the carnal man, and so he doesn’t try to make excuses for it. Instead, he builds his church on this gospel by preaching it week after week.
While I would have some challenges working with either Phil or Wes, my guess is that I could more easily work with Arminian Wes, even though we disagree about the relation of the death of Christ to the non-elect.
I once took a walk with Don Carson on which he remarked, to paraphrase, that “the first generation has the gospel, the second generation assumes the gospel, and the third generation loses the Gospel.”
I am concerned that too many people who understand the gospel well are lazy with it. They are compassionless. And they are not sufficiently motivated to spread it. I fear that this indictment lands on me. So pray for me and Capitol Hill Baptist Church in this regard.
On the other hand, I am concerned about those who, in the name of evangelism, alter everything in their churches’ services to make the non-Christian feel more at home, all the while, ironically, assuming that everybody sufficiently understands the gospel. In other words, they don’t preach the whole counsel of God, and they do not speak week after week about God’s holy character, his holy wrath, his love made all the more astounding in light of his holiness, and his remarkable act of substitution on the cross. Like I already said, read their books and attend their conferences and you learn that they apparently think that knowing how to “be relevant” is the church’s major challenge. Holding onto the gospel, it would seem, is comparatively easy.
Consider what might actually be happening to the gospel message when all our effort goes into changing the “presentation” until we successfully yield a response from carnal man. Might we not actually be at risk of changing the message itself?
Pursue faithfulness and relevance. Know that the gospel is always relevant. Never assume the gospel is safely protected or understood.
(originally posted June 17, 2006)