I used to take a lot more adversarial approach to conversations and debates than I do now. I used to concern myself with proving why the other guy was wrong rather than thinking about what he was saying that might actually make sense and considering …

Rob: I’m not impressed.

Amen. But I hope you aren’t setting up a dichotomy between “people like you” and “people like us.”

When the Mamas and the Papas named their last album People Like Us even the self-indulgent 60s generation were embarassed and the album tanked. That was the direct reason, they were collectively embarassed by the title. “That’s not cool,” even they said…

>Travis: “Dude, I’m a Calvinist.

I was speaking to a general audience. But just saying you’re a Calvinist, these days, doesn’t hold the same amount of water as it used to. Doug Wilson and confederates claim to be Calvinists. If I called myself a Democrat I’d expect someone to call me on it.

>Just out of curiosity, who are the “we” in the Reformed world that give “no quarter” to Wright, etc?

Oh, how about all the Reformed/Calvinist theologians that have written articles and books refuting NPP, FV, and AAT, all of which movements draw on or claim Wright as an influence. For church documents check out the recent document put out by the OPC.

Or just read the Westminster Standards or Three Forms of Unity, or Calvin himself and the defining Reformed theology throughout the 17th century.

>I’m not exactly sure how you can criticize the “world” for judging doctrine based on the behavior it produces.

No, my point was one should make the Word of God the standard for doctrine, not your perceived goodness or badness of human beings. There are many pitfalls in making human beings your standard for what is biblical doctrine not the least of which is if you refuse to accept said biblical doctrine you can always find something to criticize in a fellow human being to justify that. Make the Bible your standard. The Westminster Confession of Faith was accompanied by biblical texts, not notes from people attesting to the good behaviour of the divines that drew that document up.

Dude, I’m a Calvinist.

Just out of curiosity, who are the “we” in the Reformed world that give “no quarter” to Wright, etc? Your definition of true Christianity narrows and narrows when you realize there are solid Reformed folks entirely willing to give Wright an ear.

I’m not exactly sure how you can criticize the “world” for judging doctrine based on the behavior it produces. Surely Jesus taught that as well. Wouldn’t want to group Jesus in with “the world,” now, would we?

Finally, it’s really entirely absurd to take your form of doctrine, apply all the warnings against false teaching to anyone who doesn’t agree, and think you’ve proven your point. Once again, is it your version of Calvinism that makes you so arrogant?

Brad, I understand your dilemma. Look up the White Horse Inn. For a grace-centered Reformed Baptist, see Alistair Begg. Those are some guys worth learning Reformed Theology from.

John, I meet with the current pastor of that church on a semi-regular basis. I’m quite certain the pictures remain down.

You feel Calvinism – i.e. pure, apostolic biblical doctrine – is not ‘right’ or ‘logical’ because God’s wisdom is foolishness to man. You resent people who are bold in defending the truth because the very notion of there being truth to defend assaults your sense of what is ‘right.’

And the assumption that Calvinists defend the truth unaware of how people see us or think about us is silly. Of course we know the world – including Christians who can’t currently see or accept the doctrines of grace – thinks we’re stuck in some “un-self-aware” box not knowing how funny or disgusting (or pick your adjective) we sound to the world. Of course we see all the self-justifying that goes on (“I used to be right where you are, guy, believe me, been there done that…”); and of course we see how the world does things like choosing to judge biblical doctrine by the behaviour of human beings (“I think you’re mean therefore I will never believe biblical doctrine as it’s presented in the Bible – what you call “Calvinism” – because if you believe that then it’s not worth believing…”)

You just need to see that we Calvinists don’t fight indiscrimately. We confront vigorously people, groups, influences that are assaulting critical points of Reformed Doctrine – by however sophistic or roundabout manner – simply because we know they know when they attack Reformed Doctrine they are attacking the truth.

Notice our response to Arminians is very different from our response to a Norman Shepherd/NPP/FV/Wright et al. Our response to the former is debate and counsel. Our response to the latter is give no quarter. Jesus won’t either. God will have vengeance on false teachers; meanwhile those who can see and accept biblical doctrine defend it so that others can come into it…

I’ve not given up; I’m still reading and listening. However, I examine the two camps and think, out of these two doctrinal systems, who looks and sounds more like Jesus? As you say, you’d figure that right doctrine would start creating a picture of Jesus at some point. How long must we wait? I’ve got to tell you, based on that measure, my vote rarely goes to the reformed watchdogs.

I know that we all are imperfect pictures of Him, so I keep reading and listening to the “truly reformed” camp. I know that these folks aren’t stupid, so I want to find out why everyone feels so “graced” about Limited Atonement. But I probably have more patience that most. I wonder how many people have been driven from Christ entirely because they simply walked off from this whole argument in disgust?

bs

You see the assumptions in your post? Calvinist value doctrine more. Calvinists are the true defenders of pure doctrine. Calvinists need to “counsel” people who don’t believe in Limited Atonement. Why are these things assumed? Why don’t Arminians value doctrine? Because they disagree with Calvinists?

“The Spirit of Truth is needed.” Fine. But how is that defined? You put yourself in a big circle when you say, “Reformed doctrine is right,” then say that the Spirit of Truth backs you up, and then accuse others of sophistry and not listening to the Spirit (all the while being adamant cessationists, I might add!).

Great article Travis. I’ve bookmarked it.