Roger Olson takes it to the Neo-Reformed here.
Thanks for the heads-up, Vee…
March 17, 2009
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- March 17, 2009 at 7:29 am
- Category :
- Calvinism
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
mikescape
%d
March 17, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Oh well, another boring debate on TULIP….yaaaawwwwn!!!
Oh I see Mike, you pay lip service to “praising God” for what He’s doing through the Reformed movement….buuuuut not really. I figured that you probably were more on the “Reformed folks are in a false movement bandwagon” that Hunt and Bryson seem to be. Did you throw away your Spurgeon too???? In the words of one Calvary Pastor, “Throw away my Spurgeon?????…over my dead Arminian body!!!!!”
I seem to remember similar criticisms of Calvary when they were on the cover of Time. When they were the big movers and shakers of something then they got hit as well..(those dirty hippies are smoking dope naked in trees and reading their Bibles…). I guess we never learn our history. Whenever God brings revival the establishment flinches, sets up straw-men, etc, etc. Now it’s time for the Reformed movement to get their licks I guess.
But it’s all rather boring….
March 17, 2009 at 1:51 pm
…huh?
March 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Sorry for the rant…I was probably rambling a bit (I think I had too many of your previous posts stacked on the brain). Didn’t mean to spew…
The moral of the story Mike is that when you typically refer to the Reformed Movement it’s a slam…typically a mischaracterization of the broader movement and the sentiment found there.
Olson’s article basically criticizes the tactics of younger hyper Calvin-nazis who don’t reflect the careful, thoughtful sentiments of it’s leaders (i.e. Packer, Lloyd-Jones, Piper, Driscoll, Mahaney etc).
My concern for you is that you pay lip service to the notion that this revival is a good (God) thing but then revert back to the Dave Hunt/Bryson mentality of the dreaded “darkside of Calvinism” in tone. A sentiment that is expressed pretty systematically at your Pastor’s Conferences and Bible Colleges.
Is it even a little hypocrital? When Dave Hunt starts out one of his talks by saying….”Oh John Calvin was pretty similar to the Taliban…he killed many people in his religious zeal.” Heard it with my own ears at CCBC.
I’m not hearing that kind of thing out of these Reformed leaders. Dave Hunt has been called a prophet by even Chuck Smith…”If there’s a prophet alive today then his name is Dave Hunt.”
Help me to understand a bit….is Calvary contributing to civil discourse or are they adding fuel to disunity?
Again, sorry for my spew…
March 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Nope.
When I refer to Reformed Christianity, I’m generally neutral.
When I refer to or am specifically trying to pick a fight with the newbreed Reformed, yes, I’m intentionally provocative.
And when I refer to even the paleo-Reformed who equate their tradition with orthodoxy, with true Biblical faithfulness, and who equate any and all who disagree with the Canons of Dort as being subchristian, then yes, I’m intentionally provocative.
I’ve been very clear that I love the writings and teachings of much of the Reformed branch of the family tree, Shane. But I will NOT hesitate to point out that it’s more than slightly disingenuous for a Calvinist to slam us po’ iggnit nukkle-draggin’ “Semi-Palagians” and then turn around and cry foul when an informed Arminian points out what he perceives as inconsistencies in the Reformed position.
Olson’s article was very well written and pointed out, in very clear terms, that it is at least uncharitable for Calvinists to persist in referring to Arminians as “semi-Pelagian” and mischaracterize what Arminianism actually teaches, and at worst is just downright unchristian. ESPECIALLY when those same Calvinist cry bloody havok when an Arminian mischaracterizes Calvinism.
What’s good for the Arminian goose is good for the Calvinist gander, bro…and that’s not being inconsistent on my part to point that out. I can appreciate and applaud a movement (whether Calvinism or Arminianism) without surrendering the right to examine that movement critically.
March 17, 2009 at 3:56 pm
That all makes sense. And I agree that we can and should point out error even in good movements….but what do you think of my last question?
Is Calvary helping or hurting this need for civil discourse?
March 17, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Shane,
Hello black, meet kettle.
The real question that everyone else (besides you) in Christiandom is asking is, “Are the CALVINISTS helping or hurting civil discourse?”.
March 17, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Well, there is certainly a shuddering aversion in CC to most things Calvinist.
…except of course for approved Calvinists like Spurgeon.
It’s unfortunate, since as I’ve said before, a lot (thought by no means all) of your best scholarship comes from the Calvinist side of the aisle.
But Pete brings up a very good counter; almost every Calvinist I’ve read and/or heard spares no verbiage mischaracterizing Arminians (and just non-Calvinists in general), setting up straw men and then knocking them down with verve and aplomb…all the while crying foul when an Arminian misrepresents Calvinism.
I’m not excusing the Calvinist caricatures I’ve heard from within my own tradition. But it is instructive to note that many Calvinists are guilty of “reverse discrimination” on this issue…
March 17, 2009 at 8:33 pm
What I mean by Calvinists mischaracterizing Arminianism is the very thing that I’ve mentioned before RE: for instance Driscoll’s insistence on calling Arminianism “Semi-Pelagianism.”
That is EXACTLY as wrong-headed and uncharitable (and just plain wrong) as an Arminian slamming Calvinists for being fatalistic. BOTH sides need to chill out and take a step back.
March 17, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I’m tempted to say that a hard core Calvinist pointing the finger at Calvary Chapel, antecdotes and all, and trying to take the moral highground on divisiveness is the very height of hypocrisy…
but I won’t.
March 18, 2009 at 9:13 am
Whew! That was close!
March 18, 2009 at 9:42 am
So….is it hypocritical for you to point fingers at these bad Calvinists about being nasty…but then tolerate your own leaders (Dave Hunt and George Bryson, etc, etc) in doing the exact same thing?
I think you’re avoiding the obvious. You cry and denounce these younger Calvinists for being mean…but you seem to have no trouble listening to your own side do the exact same thing….and much worse.
Can you show me where Packer or even Driscoll have said anything close to the quote I gave you from Dave Hunt? What about Roger Oakland?
For the record, some see the term Semi-Pelagian and Arminian as synonymous. It’s not a slam, just a classification. I personally don’t agree with that but I don’t think that Driscoll is trying to slam…it’s just his term that he uses. Right or wrong, it’s nothing compared to what many of your leaders are saying.
I’ll wait in great anticipation on your corrective posts on Hunt, Bryson, and Oakland…
March 18, 2009 at 9:50 am
Who says I’m tolerating it?
Packer, no. Driscoll, yes.
Despite your assertion that “For the record, some see the term Semi-Pelagian and Arminian as synonymous. It’s not a slam, just a classification,” the appellation is highly offensive to us non-Calvinists. The “some” you refer to are Calvinists themselves. Referring to us as “Semi-Pelagians” – which is an inflammatory and gross misrepresentation – corresponds exactly to non-Calvinists slamming Calvinists for fatalism or absolute determinism.
So I reject the contention that, “[r]ight or wrong, it’s nothing compared to what many of your leaders are saying.” It is exactly comparable in tone, hubris, and uncharitableness as anything “my” leaders are saying.
March 18, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Again, I agree with you on the Semi-Pelagian thing…but I still don’t think it’s usually a slam when folks like Driscoll use it…but anyways…
So you put Hunt’s and Bryson’s comments on the same level of Driscoll’s??? So when Driscoll uses Calvary in his examples of great movements of the Holy Spirit–you think that’s on the same level of your leaders???? When’s the last time someone lectured on the current Reformed movement being a work of the Holy Spirit at one of your conferences??? Or are they lumped in with “word-faith, emergent, and other bad stuff” categories??? Let’s be honest here Mike.
Again, Mike, it’s time for Calvary to take the log out of their own eye before ragging on others. The stuff coming out of your conferences and colleges is well beyond what I’m hearing from even the most rabid, young, fire-breathing Calvinist….
My argument still stands. The leaders of the Reformed movement have dealt with these issues in a Godly and generous way…The official status quo in Calvary….not so much. As long as Chuck Smith and the boys tolerate the likes of Dave Hunt, the more credibility they lose.
Love ya…but it’s time you took your own log out!!
March 18, 2009 at 1:12 pm
No, it is a slam – whether the slam was intentional or not.
And yes, I put Driscoll’s comments on the same level as many of those (in reverse) from within my own tradition. I place Hunt’s and others’ statements on a level somewhat less egregious than that of many of the Calvinist pundits who come right on out and name Arminianism and such as being full-on heresy:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.htm
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/pribble/damnable.html
http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/universal.htm
http://www.truecovenanter.com/gospel/arminianism_nipped_in_the_bud.html
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heresyarmin.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Popular_Heresies_Arminianism.html
https://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=19167
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/jacobus-arminius-damnable-heresy-41718/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Arminianism/arminianism.htm
http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/article/0,,PTID307086|CHID559376|CIID1952510,00.html
http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/outlines/outline_00033_insidious_arminianism_in_local_churches_web.htm
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/RHNarmin.htm
http://www.ptiprototype.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.rtf
http://www.apuritansmind.com/JamesArminius/TeachingsOfJamesArminiusMainPage.htm
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Free%20Offer/chapter3.htm
http://www.the-highway.com/arminius_Godfrey.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html
Etc…
Etc…
Etc…
The Calvinist sites and literature equating Arminianism with heresy are legion.
Now, about that log…
March 18, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Keep in mind that critically examining a thing is not the same thing as attacking that thing. Calvinism is just as open to critical examination as is Arminianism or anything else – including the Calvary Chapel movement. If we get our underbritches all in a bunch every time someone critically examines our beliefs, no dialog at all will ever take place.
I will not hesitate to hold Calvinism or any other belief system up to close scrutiny – including my own.
And it is insufficient to examine a belief system only from within its own parameters – so although Driscoll (for instance) might not mean to be exceedingly offensive when he refers to non-Calvinism as “Semi-Pelagianism,” that is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is offensive to those of us who aren’t Calvinists.
March 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm
You still didn’t deal with Hunt, Bryson, Oakland, Missler, etc, etc, etc.
Putting out random links from every tom, dick, and harry website does not demonstrate that the most prominent voices in the reformed movement are saying nasty things about your camp. Nor would I hold you accountable for every rabid Arminian website on the web…it’s not fair.
The folks that I respect and listen to are not slamming you as heretical. Disagreements are one thing…but slander and gossip are another. Driscoll DOES list Calvary as a work of the Spirit–Your side doesn’t admit the same about the Reformed side. Case closed!!!
Chuck Smith is still on the record as endorsing Hunt…..Unless you can show me where Smith has cut ties with one of the biggest gossips/slanderers in the church then my case stands.
The LOG remains….
And I’ll give you the last word….
March 18, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Shane, Shane, Shane…by equcting non-Calvinism as Semi-Pelagianism, your camp is accusing us of heresy. Semi-Pelagianism is heresy. You do the math.
You want big names who are consistently guilty of this7 Driscoll isn’t big enough for you? MacArthur and Packer both, it turns out, persist in equating non-Calvinism with Semi-Pelagianism – and, therefore, heresy.
What rolls dow the stairs and nohody cares…it’s LOG LOG LOG…:mrgreen:
March 18, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I believe we aren’t going to agree here…I told you would get the last word and there you have it…no answer on Hunt…but oh well…have a nice day!!
March 18, 2009 at 3:30 pm
You consider examining and discussing things like TULIP, Hebrews 6, and the fact that many (though not all) Calvinists persist in slandering non-Calvinists by the use of the “Semi-Pelagian” canard to be “another boring debate…yaaaaaawwwwwwn!”
I consider re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-rehashing Dave Hunt et al to be “another boring debate…yaaaaaaaaawwwwwn!”
Cuts both ways… 😀
March 18, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Here’re some things to chew on…you want big names in Calvinism that slander non-Calvinists as being Semi-Pelagian?
Phil Johnson does so here:
And can you get more insulting than Johnson’s assertion later on in that same article:
Note that he states by logical extension that Arminians aren’t comfortable with sola fide.
That would be news to any Arminian that I know.
Since you insist that we continue to revisit Hunt et al as if Hunt’s extremes somehow invalidate any of my positions, I await with bated breath your hearty renunciation of Phil Johnson and by extension John MacArthur and Grace To You.
Of course, you won’t; I wouldn’t, either. Though Johnson is decidedly uncharitable in his statements, he does have a lot that’s worthwhile to hear and consider. I like most of his stuff. I don’t let the fact that he’s just a product of his context and therefore he (quite wrongly) equates Calvinism with the Gospel in his mind, and therefore equates non-Calvinists with being (at best) subchristian get my knickers all in a bunch. I can appreciate the good, while disregarding the bad.
March 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Mike, typically when someone says you get the last word it needs to end there. You’re still going on and on and on.
It’s over..you fight what you see as sin with more sin…thus avoiding the Hunt, Bryson, Missler, etc. thing. You can’t have it both ways…that was the point and you never came close to dealing with it. If you can’t answer a direct question about Smith’s endorsement of Hunt, then it ends there.
Please, move on…and have a blessed day today!!
March 18, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Sorry, bro; you don’t get to define the rules of engagement here. The sins of Hunt et al don’t justify similar sins in Driscoll et al. This isn’t preschool, where we can point at the other guy and say, “yeah, well, he’s doing it too…” I’ve never defended Hunt et al, and to evade the point of Olson’s article by bringing up behavior in some non-Calvinists which are similar to the behavior of some Calvinists that he identifies and comments on won’t fly. The poor behavior of some non-Calvinists does not justify equally poor behavior on the Calvinists’ part.
And no amount of “Lookie here! Lookie here! Hunt’s a bad boy – don’t pay any attention to the skeletons in Calvinists’ closets – Hunt is the devil!” Jedi mind-trick handwaving will change that.
March 18, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Shane,
False.
The point was not “You can’t have it both ways”. The point was “Is Calvary Chapel helping or hurting the civil discourse?”.
As if there is such a thing with many Calvinists.
And you are fitting the stereotype to a T.
Instead, whatever happened to a pastor such as yourself fitting the qualification of 1 Tim 3, “A bishop must be gentle and not quarrelsome”.