Home Depot Theology: “You Can Do It. We Can Help.”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

I was struck by one line of a very good article in The Christian Science Monitor this weekend. The story highlights the “new Calvinism” which is on the rise today, and focuses on Mark Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C. The contrast between a biblical, Calvinistic ministry and the prevailing “Home Depot theology” of evangelicalism today could not be painted more starkly. I encourage you to read the article as it will be a blessing and encouragement to you.

Here are a few snippets:

Today, [Calvin’s] theology is making a surprising comeback, challenging the me-centered prosperity gospel of much of modern evangelicalism with a God-first immersion in Scripture. In an age of materialism and made-to-order religion, Calvinism’s unmalleable doctrines and view of God as an all-powerful potentate who decides everything is winning over many Christians — especially the young…

…

Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help. Epitomized by popular titles like Joel Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential,” this message of self-fulfillment through Christian commitment attracts followers in huge numbers, turning big churches into megachurches…

…

More broadly, the Calvinist revival reflects an effort to recast the foundation of faith itself. From conservative evangelical churches to liberal new-age groups, the message of much modern teaching is man’s need for betterment. Not New Calvinism; its star is God’s need for glory. And the gravity of His will is great: It can be denied, but not defied.

Many conservative Christians who dislike some of the doctrinal emphases of Calvinism have to at least be happy that a more biblically-based ministry model is catching on today. Give the article a read and let me know what you think. Feel free to comment on the “Home Depot theology” descriptor too. Doesn’t that just describe exactly what is wrong with the seeker-sensitive, market-driven Christianity that evangelicalism is promoting?

Phil Johnson on Standing Firm

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

…And let me add this: if you do abandon Arminianism and become a Calvinist; if you leave one eschatalogical position and take up another one; if you undergo any major doctrinal shift””don’t suddenly act like that one point of doctrine is more important than all others. Don’t blog or talk about it constantly to the exclusion of everything else. Spend some time settling into your new convictions before you pretend to have expertise you frankly haven’t had time to develop.

I think the tendency of fresh Calvinists to become cocky and obsessive about the fine points of predestination is one of the things that makes Calvinism most odious to non-Calvinists. Don’t do that. It’s not a sign of maturity, and you’re not truly steadfast in the faith unless you are truly mature…. (from Phil Johnson’s recent post: “Stand Firm“)

This fits right in with my recent doctrinal disagreements post and Jason’s “words of warning“. I think everyone who has had a major shift in theology, is always open to the pendulum swing and a general unstable perspective on all things. This tendency is something to be aware of and to guard against.

Does this mean we should all have a stable eschatology or all points figured out on every doctrinal position? Does it mean we should pontificate and criticize others not exactly like us? No. We shouldn’t be tossed by the wind, but neither should we root ourselves in something that isn’t connected to solid ground.

For those who are still developing in their pursuit of a stable and correct theology. Don’t rush things. Take your time. Be slow to talk and aim for wisdom. Take Phil’s advice. Study your Bible first, books second, and blogs last.

I’m sure I’ve been guilty of not heeding this advice in the past. But by God’s grace, I’ve become settled on many things. And I’m not afraid to say when I’m not! May God continue to shape and mold us all.

Seriously, check out Phil’s article, it will be worth the read, and let me know what you think.

Four Millennial Views Explained: A Helpful & Free E-Book on Eschatology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I’m never one to turn down a chance to open the proverbial “can of worms”.  I’ve gotten myself in heaps of trouble on my blog and elsewhere over the years.  (In fact I started a group blog on KJV Onlyism, so you know I have no sense left in me!)  So, on the heels of my recent post, “Doctrinal Disagreement (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue“, I thought it might be good to test the waters with a post on eschatology.

I recently came across an excellent e-book explaining the four primary millennial views (yes there are four) that was a joy to read.  Even if I didn’t lean amillennial, I think I would have appreciated the clarity with which Dr. David Murray, professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, MI) explained the four positions: amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism.  The freely available e-book (download it as a .pdf or view it at Scribd), is laid out in a question and answer format complete with pictures — helpful pictures (there’s not many diagrams or end-times charts, unfortunately 😉 ).

This little book (57 pages but much shorter if you took out the pictures and repetition) is well worth your time, if only to help you see where the areas of disagreement are.  Knowing where we disagree will highlight how much we really do agree about.  Knowing why others hold to their views also allows us to see that our opponents may just revere the Bible and love Christ as much as we do.

I wish end-times theology wasn’t so divisive.  In reading through this, I was reminded afresh of the focus believers need to maintain on both this present earth, and Christ’s grand accomplishment which transforms our entire experience as well as on the future hope we have laid up for us in heaven, which will be realized with the re-creation of everything into a new heaven and new earth. Surely we can all agree on that.

I encourage you to give this little primer a read through.  Then feel free to speak up for your view of choice in the comments.  I want to close with a passage that was referenced all throughout the paper and which seems appropriate here:

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.  (2 Pet. 3:11-13 ESV)

Dr. Murray has additional resources at his blog, such as animated time-lines of the various viewpoints (and wow does this fellow have an accent!).  Don’t forget to feel free to dig in to the can of worms in the comments section below!

[HT: Nathan Bingham]

A Resurrection-less Gospel?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Adrian Warnock (an influential blogger whom I’ve had in my blogroll for quite some time here at Fundamentally Reformed) has a new book out this year (from Crossway) on the Resurrection. I plan on jumping into this book between now and Easter. It is entitled Raised with Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything.

In an online interview at ChristianityToday.com, Adrian had this to say about the resurrection.

It is interesting that most Christians talk about the Cross often, and yet we seem to only speak about the Resurrection at Easter. I have also noticed that there is a big contrast between our preaching today, which tends to assume the Resurrection while emphasizing the Cross, and the preaching of the book of Acts, which does the exact opposite, speaking far more about the Resurrection and how it has saved us. Charles Spurgeon noticed this neglect in his day as well, and argued that if our preaching better matched the book of Acts, we would see more people become Christians.

But it is not just preaching. When speaking about the gospel to unbelievers, before I got into studying the Resurrection, often I would bring them to the Cross and leave them there without even mentioning that Jesus had risen again. I am now convinced that if we do that we have only done half of the job. Without explicitly proclaiming the Resurrection, we have not declared the biblical gospel at all. We must also explain the implications of this event. If our understanding of how Jesus saved us makes the Resurrection almost an optional extra, it is clearly deficient.

I found that quite insightful and correct. His words here make me more eager to jump into the book. In my years in extreme fundamentalism, I heard quite a few truncated gospel presentations. I fear this tendency to make the Resurrection a footnote to the gospel is shared by many other segments of evangelicalism today, as well.

Check out sample pages at this link, or go ahead and get the book. I gave a fuller excerpt of the interview over at CrossFocusedReviews.com. Read the whole interview at ChristianityToday.com.

Doctrinal Disagreements (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue

~ Bob Hayton ~ 13 Comments

I just finished listening to the audio from the recent Standpoint Conference held at Southeast Valley Baptist Church in Gilbert, Arizona this past month. The conference was geared toward “young fundamentalists” and centered on Biblical fellowship (koinonia). Several of the messages were very good, and I plan to share some of my thoughts and commentary in the coming weeks.

The speaker for the last session was Mike Durning (a fellow ShaperIron member). His topic was: “How can Calvinists and not-so-Calvinists have Koinonia?” The message is worth listening to, as he hits on some important issues, particularly with relation to how bitter the Calvinism debate can get.

Toward the end of his message, however, he really hit the nail home. After mentioning that in the Bible church he pastors, at one time both a 5 point Calvinist and a very Arminian-leaning fellow were on the elder board together, he moved on to spell out some thoughts I find very important. I’m sharing my attempt at transcribing this section of the audio. I’ll give you the excerpt and encourage you to get the audio (it’s free) and listen to the whole thing.

Our church has been home to charismatics before. We politely insist that they not speak or pray in their imagined heavenly language. If they despair at someone for going to a doctor or, you know, they try to say that all sickness is of the devil, then we instruct them and if necessary we’d ask them to leave. But why close the door to helping someone grow in their understanding of Scripture?

We even had a charismatic on our board of deacons before, which is saying something because I preach against charismaticism a whole lot more then I would ever touch the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. What’s wrong with them being with us, though? They worship with us, they hear the Word, why cut them off?

Our church has been home to historic a-mil guys, pre-trib pre-mil guys and everything in between. Our church has been home to dispensationalists and covenant theologians. Our church is home to both cessationists and some soft-cessationists, a few non-cessationists.

Do we have a taught position? Sure. And some of these things I teach far more firmly then I teach the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. But those who truly know Christ and show up are welcome. And they’re our brothers and sisters.

Listen guys, once we know we’re dealing with believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. Did you catch that? If we know they’re believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. That’s the mindset.

You don’t have to march in lock-step with me to worship at my side. You don’t have to cow-tow to my view point to sit in my pew. You don’t have to agree with all things that I believe in order to work with me.

Is there a standard? Sure. Is unity based on a core of doctrine and practice? Sure. But to insist on 100% conformity to my viewpoint in order to fellowship, is arrogance — not separatism.

So, what do you think? I for one, think he is absolutely correct (when it comes to secondary matters). Let me know if you agree or disagree.