Tag: Justin Taylor

Live at The Gospel Coalition Conference – 3

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Books, books, books!!! Lots of book tables at The Gospel Coalition Conference. I had the chance to help out at the Christian Focus Publications table for an hour, with my friend Shaun. I also received multiple free books and Bibles galore, as part of the conference.

Tuesday night, both of us attended the Band of Bloggers event. 150 bloggers met to discuss blogging and working together to advance the Gospel. We heard from well known bloggers like Collin Hansen who directs the Gospel Coalition blog, Justin Taylor, Tim Challies, and many more.

Everyone got about 17 books (they ran out at the end, so I ended up with 16) from publishers who sponsored the event. You can see the list of books here. Around our table were five other bloggers, some of whom are pastors: Pastor Mike Berry of HeartofaRebel.com, Pastor Eric Redmond of A Man from Issachar, Nick Rynerson of Gospel Community Culture, Pastor Deryck Barson of PrizingGod.com, and Pastor Caleb Billingsley of Redeemer Church blog.

It was fun to be included in the Bloggers event and meet other men who are passionate about disseminating truth through online media. Another blessing of the conference has been meeting a few of my readers who stop and let me know they’re blessed by my blogging. Three different people have stopped me and talked to me about my blog. It’s a joy to know that my labors are helping others. To God be the glory.

Be Careful about Bearing False Witness: John Piper, Rick Warren and Over-the-top Reactions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 20 Comments

John Piper’s ministry, Desiring God, will be holding a regional conference at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California April 29-30. Pastor Piper will also be speaking, apparently, at Saddleback Church on Sunday May 1.

Now, Rick Warren’s ministry raises some question marks for sure. Should the church be focusing on poverty and world peace so closely as an extension of ministry? Do some of Warren’s teaching methods and outreach efforts really cater to the “felt-needs” of the unchurched too much, to the point where the gospel is obscured? Does having the Jonas Brothers performing in concert reveal a total lack of discernment?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here about Rick Warren, but I haven’t talked with him either. What bothers me, is that many people are quick to point to John Piper’s speaking at Saddleback, and Rick Warren’s speaking at the Desiring God Conference in Minneapolis last Fall, and conclude that John Piper has sold out on the Gospel, and has compromised the faith.

I recently came across remarks by Ingrid Schlueter, a well-known watch-blogger:

Despite the countless and detailed warnings that have gone out over the last decade about Rick Warren and his distortion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, John Piper prepares to deliver his followers to the platform at Saddleback Church in an act of ultimate spiritual betrayal on April 29 and 30, 2011.

John Piper, perhaps more than anyone else who has been seduced by Dr. Warren through the years, is without excuse. Could there be a teacher more aware of what the Gospel actually is according to Scripture? Someone with a more thorough knowledge of the whole Counsel of God? Someone with more access to the best commentaries, the best theological instruction, the most devout and rigorous Bible teaching colleagues in the land? Yet he falls, and with him, takes innumerable sheep who will trust him to their own destruction.

“Ultimate spiritual betrayal,” really??? Piper is taking us to our “own destruction”??

In a Facebook conversation recently, someone mentioned that Warren taught a works-based righteousness. Another said Piper speaking at Saddleback would be “counter-productive to the gospel effort”. I respect the people who said these things, but I think they are swept up in a frenzy of mis-information, and well-intentioned paranoia.

Rick Warren is not a false teacher or a denier of the Gospel. He may muddy the waters signficantly, but he isn’t a devil or antichrist. He is just the latest incarnation of American revivalism meets pragmatism. His message is not strange. It might not be as clear doctrinally as some would like (although we don’t get to see all the doctrinal teaching that goes on at Saddleback, up close and personal). His preaching may not always be verse-by-verse exposition. But He does revere the Bible and preach a plain Gospel.

It is hard to judge people solely on one-liners given in front of a hostile interviewer. I’m sure Warren’s failed sometimes in articulating the gospel message clearly. In this interview at Fox News, however, I think he did a good job in presenting that Jesus is the only way, and that salvation is a gift — while still not coming off as being extremely judgmental and mean-spirited. But we don’t have to go by just his public media appearances. Here is a 13 minute video where he presents the Gospel, answering the question “What does it mean to begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?” Now his gospel presentation there differs little from many given around the country every Sunday. It’s not as clearly Reformed as some would prefer, and it emphasizes a “sinner’s prayer”. But it is still clearly a grace-based, Biblical, Gospel presentation.

I’ve read some of Warren’s reflections about his incredibly popular book, The Purpose Driven Life, where he admits to being Calvinistic in his doctrine, even. I watched his message delivered to the Desiring God National Conference last Fall. I thought it was full of helpful information and really opened up a side of Rick Warren I hadn’t hear much of before. I heard John Piper’s explanations about why he invited Rick Warren: here and here. I’ve also posted about the controversy at length before. (And I’m not the only one who thinks the reactions against Piper and Warren are seriously over-the-top.)

But for my part, Piper speaking at Saddleback, and having a DG Conference at Rick Warren’s church is far less a problem than having Warren come speak at his conference. The Conference is going to be John Piper speaking in three sessions about the essence of “Desiring God”. It will be a standard Piper conference focusing on the 25th anniversary of Piper’s hugely influential (and thoroughly Biblical) book, Desiring God. I am thrilled that many of the people at Saddleback may get to hear that teaching and be shaped by Piper’s emphasis on God’s glory. And then, Piper speaks at Saddleback, and he can give his message and say what’s on his heart. I’ve heard many a well-known Baptist fundamentalist even claim they’d preach at the Vatican if given the chance to preach the gospel. Why should Piper preaching at Saddleback’s pulpit be necessarily a compromise of the Gospel?

This post is a bit of a vent, I’m sorry. It might not flow all that well. I’m just saddened to see so many derail Rick Warren as being an “antichrist”. I literally read someone wish that Piper had called Warren out as exactly that, an “antichrist”. Or just as sad, consider how a commenter at Justin Taylor’s blog described Rick Warren: a “Gospel-betraying, Bible-hating evildoer”! This kind of reaction is over-the-top, and I believe it also “bears false witness” in direct violation of the 9th commandment. The kind of ill-will and judgmentalism displayed toward Piper and Warren is as detrimental to the Gospel and more so, than some of Warren’s public statements which are less than clear about the Gospel.

Revisiting Baptism and Young Children

~ Bob Hayton ~ 28 Comments

I’ve considered this question before. As Baptists, when should we baptize our children? A few blog posts recently give reasons why we should or should not delay baptism until our children are more mature (apx. ages 10-12).

First, Trevin Wax gave 4 points on his position relating to this question (which is that we should delay baptizing children until they are around 10 years old or so).

John Starke at The Gospel Coalition Blog then gave 4 reasons why we should baptize small children.

On the heels of these posts, Mike Gilbart-Smith at 9 Marks Blog posted his own “9 reasons why we should not baptize young children“.

For my part, I have a hard time getting around the household baptism passages in Acts. Presbyterians point to household baptisms as evidence of the batpism of small children and infants. Baptists demur and say these passages are silent about the age of children, and often give evidence that all the members of the households evidenced faith. Now, however, when it comes to young children old enough to express faith, Baptists are free to let these children wait in some cases years before affirming their faith through baptism? The very same passages in Acts where all members of a household (presumably including children) believe and then are immediately baptized, now have nothing to say about children below the age of 12. It’s one thing to assume the passages don’t refer to infants, now we are supposed to believe they don’t refer to children under 12? Just who should we include as being in the households of the Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer and others?

As Starke points out, “the Bible doesn’t seem to give us any examples of an un-baptized Christian”. Furthermore, Justin Taylor in linking to Starke’s post above, added this insight:

There is an irony in the discussion””namely, that Jesus tells us to have faith like a child, and we often tell children that they first have to have demonstrate faith like an adult.

All things considered, at the risk of being considered a closet Presbyterian, I tend to think that the symbolism of Baptism is as much about the objective work of Christ for us (washing our hearts clean), as it is about the subjective experience of our testifying to our belief in the gospel (being buried with Christ in baptism). What happens in Baptism is an identifying with Christ and a celebration of what He has done, ultimately, not what we have done. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for young children who have demonstrated faith in Christ. And since baptism doesn’t save, I am not persuaded by arguments for delaying baptism. I may not agree fully with Vern Poythress’ thoughts about how even 2 and 3 year old children can have saving faith, but I also think he has a point.

I’m interested in what my readers think about this. I understand that some of us find ourselves in churches with an official policy of delaying baptism. I’m not advocating that you disregard your church’s teaching on this subject. Please don’t misunderstand me. But I think a more biblical position is to accept the little children that come to Jesus, and allow them after a period of evaluation, to be baptized.

Those Five New Points of Calvinism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Almost everyone reading my blog is familiar with the acrostic TULIP as standing for the five points of Calvinism. Probably most of you know what each point stands for: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. Then the number goes down as to who knows what each point means. I would venture to guess that there would be disagreement over what people think “L” should mean, or what “T”, “I” or “P” actually imply.

If you’ve read any Calvinist literature, you have seen a recasting of the points. Some turn it from TULIP into ROSES (Timothy George), others like my former pastor John Piper, choose to consider the points in a thematic order rather than their order in the word TULIP. Piper’s pamphlet on the points spells the Calvinist flower: TILUP. I’ve seen books and essays advocate “efficacious grace” or “particular redemption” as opposed the the TULIP title of the point in question.

What very few of you who read this blog know, and what I just learned, is that the acronym TULIP is a very recent development. It apparently hails from the early 20th Century, first appearing in Lorraine Boettner’s 1932 book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. I just finished reading an article by Ken Stewart [pdf] which traces the development of TULIP [HT: Dave Doran]. Stewart rummages through the literary remains of the 18th and 19th Centuries in a vain attempt to find any use of our flowery acronym. He finds many treatments of Calvinism in the first half of the 20th Century totally bereft of any mention of TULIP as well. Stewart cites Roger Nicole as one who also noted the newness of the TULIP scheme. From his preface of the 40th anniversary edition of Steele and Thomas’ Five Points of Calvinism, Nicole states: “Ever since the appearance of Loraine Boettner’s magisterial The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination it has been customary to refer to the five points according to the acrostic TULIP.”

A couple months back, Justin Taylor entertained this same theme on his blog, and in the comments proof of the use of TULIP was given in a 1913 article of the New Outlook, which cites a Dr. Cleland McAffee as using the term as a mnemonic device in his lectures back in 1905. So that is apparently the earliest documented use of the TULIP acronym found to date.

Stewart’s piece is well worth the read, as he concludes with a call for Calvinism to be more irenic and pleasing in its tone, especially when interacting with the wider Christian church. So I guess true Calvinism, isn’t all about fives. I for one, would be glad to let the TULIP wither. I love the heart of Calvinism, but a strict adherence to five points that aren’t adequately explained is not helpful. This might be a good time for all of us to go read the original Five Points in their entirety– I‘m referring to the Canons of Dort, of course.

UPDATE: I forgot to include the link to Stewart’s article initially. Here is the link (it’s a pdf file).