Riffs: 06:15:09: Dr. Peter Masters Rips The New Calvinism
June 15, 2009 by iMonk
Read: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness by Peter Masters.
The current reformed and Calvinist revival loves Spurgeon, as well they should. It’s a regular feature of the most influential new-Calvinism web sites and ministries to quote Spurgeon for and against whatever the issue of the week happens to be. Spurgeon’s face is as much a brand logo of the new Calvinism as you will find.
Spurgeon’s church, The Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, is still in business, and that church has a prominent pastor, Dr. Peter Masters, who has a very influential voice for Calvinism across the pond. Dr. Masters isn’t a major voice in America, but many of the Calvinists you like, especially of the Macarthur variety, have been to the Tabernacle and preached at Dr. Master’s conferences.
His newsletter is still The Sword and Trowel, an obvious indicator that it remains the voice of Spurgeon’s kind of Christianity. It is not an exaggeration to say that Dr. Peter Masters sees himself as a successor to Spurgeon’s brand of particular Baptist Calvinism, and he writes and preaches with this responsibility frequently in view. Be careful. I am not saying Dr. Masters claims any of the authority of Spurgeon, but he does not run from representing his views on Biblical Calvinism as in line with the Calvinism and overall theology of Spurgeon.
So, if you will, please take a cold drink, follow the link to Dr. Master’s column on the current condition of American Calvinism, and when you’re done, return to this web site for a few observations.
In short, Dr. Masters calls out the new Calvinists, from A-Z, for compromise and abandonment of true, Biblical Calvinism. It’s the biggest throwdown within the current Calvinistic family I’ve ever read, and I’m stunned that no one- particularly at Challies, Between Two Worlds or Teampyro- has picked this one up. If I’ve missed it, my sincere apologies.
Who gets tagged as a compromiser? Sheesh. Who doesn’t get tagged?
Called out are……everybody. Driscoll. Piper. Mohler. People associated with Macarthur. Mahaney. T4G. Resolved.
Here’s the meat of the piece. (The “book” he references is Colin Hanson’s Young, Restless and Reformed.)
Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, show business atmosphere created by the organisers.)In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretized by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.
C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.
It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitude conference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.
One of the mega-churches admired in the book is the six-thousand strong Mars Hill Church at Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll, who blends emerging church ideas (that Christians should utilise worldly culture) with Calvinistic theology.
This preacher is also much admired by some reformed men in the UK, but his church has been described (by a sympathiser) as having the most ear-splitting music of any, and he has been rebuked by other preachers for the use of very ‘edgy’ language and gravely improper humour (even on television). He is to be seen in videos preaching in a Jesus teeshirt, symbolising the new compromise with culture, while at the same time propounding Calvinistic teaching. So much for the embracing of Puritan doctrine divested of Puritan lifestyle and worship….
A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.
If Masters were in the states, we’d say he’s selling fundamentalism. The call for separationism from anything not independent Baptist and fundamental; the insistence on excluding contemporary music and anything remotely Charismatic; the concern that anyone following the Puritans be…..Puritan in style and message. All of this is recognizable as fundamentalism.
Masters is upfront with his issues: Puritan theology divested of Puritan “lifestyle.” No compromise with the world means putting a host of issues, like dress and charismatic worship, into the category of essential matters.
Does the critque of someone like Peter Masters matter to American Calvinists? Probably not very much to the Young, Restless and Reformed who are listening to Piper at Resolved right now as I am typing. But Masters is raising the issue of the shape of true reformation, an issue that the eclectic, cafeteria-style new Calvinists would like to avoid.
It’s not just the issues that separate mainstream Calvinists from people in a bunker in Wyoming. It’s the issues that separate the OPC and the PCA; the issues that differentiates Mark Driscoll from Mark Dever; the issues that cause John Macarthur and John Piper to have such radically different views of Mark Driscoll.
Masters wants to be representing the “old line” of English Calvinism that culminated in Spurgeon and led to a resurgence of Calvinism in Britain under Lloyd-Jones and Banner of Truth. Instead, he comes off advocating a kind of “Calvinistic bunker;” trying to avoid any contact between the Christian and the culture.
In his day, Spurgeon had a great deal in common with Mark Driscoll. His popularity was of the superstar variety. His language was often described as “racy,” with no implication of profanity, but with a good deal of shock on the part of the religious establishment. Spurgeon’s preaching style took him out of the church and into public venues, where he became one of the few preachers to ever have someone in his audience trampled to death by a panicked crowd. Hyper-Calvinists and traditionalists found Spurgeon to be a dangerous innovator. Spurgeon might have identified more with Masters than with Driscoll, but the younger Spurgeon would have understood Driscoll.
In the future, don’t be surprised if a significant number of the young reformed follow the interpretations and style of men like Peter Masters back into the ghetto reformed theology sometimes seems to prefer, and don’t be surprised if some of today’s reformed heroes lose some of their luster in these kinds of contentions.
Reformed Christianity’s uneasy relationship with fundamentalism has been going on for a long time. At times, the reformed and their fundamentalist cousins are on the same page, but other times they couldn’t be more different. One doesn’t have to look far to find major league reformed blogs that flirt with fundamentalism one moment, then repudiate fundamentalism the next. Is it possible to detect a bit of frustration on Masters’ part toward men who he has judged as “with him” at one time, but who now seem far too tolerant of the other team.
The association of some Calvinists with fundamentalist ideas about culture and separation is nothing new, but a call-out from someone as prominent as Peter Masters is. It will be interesting to see if any of the leaders of the “new Calvinism” respond to Masters’ case.
For myself, I appreciate Dr. Masters’ zeal for a Christian community that reflects the totality of his own theological commitments. This is one of the great strengths of fundamentalism. Unfortunately, this community is not Jesus-shaped, but shaped into the image of a history of pure reformed practice. Once again, we see the tortured quest for the true church, this time identified as those who have renounced teeshirts and loud worship bands.
Those who fall into the center or the boundaries of the “truly reformed” are nervous that others are engaging culture with Christ and the Gospel rather than with the ideal of a pure, separated reformation. When Christ engages culture, there is a separation- a separation of what is essential to the Gospel from what may be engaged, appreciated and used within culture. There is a quest to put the Kingdom above any form of the church in culture and history, a quest that is never completed, but which is seen in the kinds of ecumenical Calvinism many have come to appreciate.
The question of faithfulness to the Gospel, scripture and the example of a faithful church is always relevant and needed. But not every answer is equally faithful to Jesus himself. Would Jesus stand apart from Christians with bands, tee shirts and Charismatic friends, and stand with those who confess the Puritans as model Christians? I do not think so. They would not matter as much to him as they do to some advocates of relevancy, and they would not offend him like they do Dr. Masters.
A Jesus shaped spirituality has to make these choices and live with the results. Following Jesus doesn’t take us into the bunker or make us so much like the world Christ cannot be seen. But our distinctiveness isn’t “the Puritan Lifestyle.” It’s the Gospel and the Christ-centered life it produces.
I really appreciate your thoughtful piece on this subject. Some other blogs have actually been personally abusive towards Dr Masters.
Phil Johnson did write a little response to someone who asked him, I think it is on sharperiron. Essentially he said ‘I can love and respect PM without agreeing with everything he says’.
I wish it were the same for more folk, but I think that culturally this article seems more harsh on your side of the pond than on ours. We are also prone to name names more, I believe.
I agree with some of your take Imonk, but coming from a fundie background as well, you know that they say one doesn’t have to become like the culture to engage the culture, and even though I think fundie tactics and hangups can cause some undo focus on non-essentials, they have been succesful at engaging the culture at times on their own terms without “t-shirts and worship bands.”
Nice piece. Great catch on Master’s comments and excellent reflection. Reading this I wonder how Master’s feels about Lloyd-Jones, who in my readings could be considered somewhat of a British predecessor to Mahaney (and maybe Driscoll) in America?
the most interesting thing, from my vantage point as a youth pastor in the Seattle area, is the specific attack on music genre and clothing. i am honestly surprised to see these two categories fall under attack. i wonder if there is a deeper theological argument that Masters could develop, and how Driscoll and others might respond. it seems Masters’ categorical definition of “worldliness” could include everything from food to hairstyle!
but having been to some Christian concerts and conferences, as much as it pains me to confess, i think Masters has a point. one presenter as the Creation Festival said, “all Christians need to quit being branded by the culture. we need to quit wearing Nike and Abercrombie, etc.” his solution, “come to my tent where i have a bunch of gear to replace your old, worldly stuff.” honestly.
so what is Masters solution?
Master’s is picking at nits if you ask me, at least when he goes to mentioning the likes of Piper, MacArthur, and Dever. Worldliness? Attached to these guys? C’mon, seriously.
His response to T4G: “[that it somehow allows] every error of the new scene [to] race ahead unchecked.” He wasn’t at the T4G I was at.
Maybe I’m just being a little over-sensitive because he’s picking on all of my heroes, but I’m having a hard to relating to where he’s coming from.
If there’s actually a problem with cessationists and non-cessationists agreeing on essentials and disagreeing on that then I’d rather have more “problems” like T4G. Perhaps the advantage of such a conference is that it gives a clearer perspective from which to refocus concern about doctrinal error on points more essential than the above?
That was a great article. Not that I agree with him, but wow does he lay it out (or lay the TR out).
I think it has not been discussed because the TR have nothing to respond to – they have to agree with him, in which case they have put on the sack cloth and ashes. Easier to ignore him and thus not deal with his logic
This is a good “check” for us regarding the topic of worldliness.
Separation is something my pentecostal friends often talk about, and my african-american church friends often talk about, but rarely do my hip calvinist friends talk about. I’m not in complete agreement with Dr. Masters (the line about hip-hop made me cringe) or with the views of some of my friends, but I greatly respect the fact that this topic is talked about. It NEEDS a part of the conversation of the young reformed movement.
He brings up a valid point about consecration and Romans 12:1-2. Which one of the superstar preachers would we go to to get schooled on this verse? And how does this work in the context of mixing it up with the culture?
I’m glad to get checked on this. I’m going to examine some areas of potential (unhealthy) compromise in my own life.
Mr Masters seems like an absolute joy to be around! He seems like the kinda guy you could have a beer with and listen to classic Dylan…
sharper iron picked it up (approvingly)
http://www.sharperiron.org/printpdf/7436
As an Orthodox Christian, the overwhelming majority of your article has no point of contact — until one reaches the final two sentences: “But our distinctiveness isn’t ‘the Puritan Lifestyle.’ It’s the Gospel and the Christ-centered life it produces.”
Yes, yes, YES! Absolutely, 100%, completely: the Gospel and the Christ-centered life it produces. That, my friends, resonates all the way down into the heart!
You are a gracious and fair reviewer, Sir Michael. It amazes me actually.
Great post! Masters had me engaged much of the time, substance trumps form unless you make form the substance. Too bad for him.
Another note, great insight on the vacuum that is fundamentalism and its power to cause “some of today’s reformed heroes lose some of their luster in these kinds of contentions”.
Finally, the “live it out” side of theology is never propositional anyway. Hit the streets and see “if you are in the faith”.
I’ve never been a fan of Calvinism, but this is the first time that I have heard of sanctification portion of it.
I can appreciate the need for that aspect, but the examples of worldliness seem odd. I would think that the frequency of new cars vs making the older ones last, etc. would make more sense.
“We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.”
Ah, that’s the kind of good, old-fashioned “there’ll be no butter in Hell!”-style preaching I haven’t heard for far too long
He gravely disapproves of the “young people revell(ing) in contemporary music”, doesn’t he? Mind you, I can’t say I blame him: hip-hop stylings done by contemporary Christian musicians? I’d pray for deafness
See, *this* is the kind of Calvinism on this side of the pond that I’m familiar with; the kind where elders on the Scottish isles make people take their washing off the line on Sundays because you shouldn’t be hanging out your laundry on the Sabbath, not your fancy new-fangled American kind of Calvinism where young people at ‘events’ look suspiciously like they’re enjoying themselves, not contemplating their latter end and the torments of the damned.
I think Masters misses it here. Just because a Calvinist that is a little contemporary in music and is a continuationist there not a ‘real calvinist?’ I know he never comes out and says they are ‘real calvinists’, but that is certainly what he implies, as if Spurgeon and Masters personal form of Calvinism is the only ‘true or pure Calvinism.’ How is MacArthur not Puritan in practice? Also, Mark Dever, who fits in with those others is certainly as puritan-like as Masters himself.
All in all, I think Masters does show a type of legalistic Calvinism that says indirectly, ‘There is only one real form of Calvinism and it is mine-and Spurgeon’s of course.’
Also,
He says they are soft on worldiness… WHAT! MacArthur, Mahaney, Piper, soft on worldliness? Does he know them at all?
As a Pentecostal (and I suspect, Arminian to some extent), I’m a conscientious objector in the “Calvinism Wars.” But it does seem like a ridiculous argument. Here’s Peter Masters saying that we need to worship and behave in a style from the 1870s, and on the other hand are the New Calvinists urging us to worship and behave in a style from … the 1970s.
And I wonder if any of them are asking God what He’d like us to do in 2009.
Well, to look on the bright side, I think it’s nice to see non-Calvinists coming to the defense of Calvinists here. Attacks like this from the outer extremes usually help us all see how much we really do have in common.
Matt Svoboda: He says they are soft on worldiness… WHAT! MacArthur, Mahaney, Piper, soft on worldliness? Does he know them at all?
Many in the Reformed camp would consider these guys to be fundamentalists.
A Jesus shaped spirituality has to make these choices and live with the results.
And the “results” might not be in for a few decades, and people a hundred years from now might ask, “what was all the fuss about?”
Uh……I generally delete all “occasional” posts after a few days. I’d prefer to have other things on the front page. Just an editorial decision on my part.
Anyone who would self-profess such an oxymoron as “Baptist Calvinism” should hardly be one to throw stones…
Despite being a Catholic with traddish leanings, I’m a secret fan of Spurgeon. I just have such a soft spot for the Victorian Christians and their writing/preaching style. Actually Masters’ essay reminds me of my other fave Victorian, J.H. Newman, who in one of his essays (while an Anglican) condemned the reading of novels as worldly and sinful. (Of course, Newman eventually wrote a short novel himself….)
That reference to Newman’s “essay” should have said “sermon.”
Jordan,
To say “Baptist Calvinist” is an oxymoron is a little ridiculous. It is as ridiculous, obviously, as saying that Spurgeon wasn’t a calvinist. Obviously, Baptists are not “reformed” in the sense of Eschatology, ecclesiology, etc. But there is a distinction in being “Reformed” and a Calvinist. A Calvinist holds to the 5 points of Calvinism. The Reformed are paedo-Baptist, Covenant Theology, Amillennial, Calvinists. etc. There is a distinction. Although, I say this as a New Covenant Theology, Amillennial, Calvinistic, Baptist.
Matt,
Please point me to anywhere in the proceedings of the Synod of Dort where the five “points” where identified as “Calvinist.”
When I went to Westminster Seminary, for a time I thought I had died and went to Bob Jones University (which I narrowly escaped going to because I paid for my own college education and would not take out loans to go to BJU at my parent’s request). The ghetto mentality was oppressive at first – “we reformed people.” I kept looking around the room for who “we” was. It wasn’t me. I was reformed but not a “we reformed.” There was a suspicion of evangelicalism that disarmed me. By the end of my first year I knew that I couldn’t be in a reformed church, though I loved the theology. It was like the fundamentalism I had left in the tenth grade. There is something in me that says “flee” when I get too close to the reformed fire. And Masters reminds me why.
Jordan,
It doesn’t matter if it was at the Synod of Dort. In todays world there is a distinction. There are Baptist’s who hold to the 5 points of Calvinism, therefore, they are Calvinists. It isn’t difficult.
….it would seem to me that the final battle lines are now being drawn and defined..right down the middle of Christendom..a “bloody” show down of sorts is now immenient… the emergent fetus is soon to be born..and it is a “new thing”….on what side will we stand?…if it be of God who can resist it..lest we be found standing against God….
Matt,
I don’t mean to be difficult. It sounds as if we can agree that “Baptist Calvinism,” as well as the “5 points of Calvinism” are contemporary constructs (or at least later constructs) having little to do with John Calvin or, indeed, with historic Reformed theology (of which, as you note rightly, Calvin and certainly “Calvinism,” whatever that is, is but a part).
Even so, I stand by my assertion that “Baptist Calvinism” is oxymoronic, at least in a historical sense, but also in a doctrinal sense (i.e. “Calvinism,” as having any relation to Calvin’s theology would certainly include more than the famed “5 points” and would indeed have something to say regarding infant baptism).
iMonk, you are correct in your assessment that Dr. Masters is simply regurgitating fundamentalist complaints.
For those unfamiliar with the alight differentiations, I offer this:
Calvinist = that guy in church who takes himself way too seriously
Fundamentalist Calvinist = that guy in church who is completely insufferable and still insists on organizing witch hunts
Fundamentalist Calvinist Baptist = *shudder*
Admit it – wouldn’t you love to send this man to a megachurch on any Sunday and then read the resulting article? I imagine the plume of fire could be seen from space
I don’t know about the “shape” of the spirituality (an incomprehensablr term) but I do find that I agree with Dr. Masters completely.
You know, I had to laugh this afternoon when I saw all of my MacArthurite friends on Facebook had sounded the alarms and were scrambling reinforcements. I guess it’s not so much fun when the worldliness zingers start coming your way for once, is it?
i believe this is a case of people putting their traditons and belief system ahead of the essentials of the Gospel and of Jesus.
i lean toward Calvinism in my personal theology but as iMonk has stated,
“A Jesus shaped spirituality has to make these choices and live with the results. Following Jesus doesn’t take us into the bunker or make us so much like the world Christ cannot be seen. But our distinctiveness isn’t “the Puritan Lifestyle.” It’s the Gospel and the Christ-centered life it produces”
i admire the neo-calvinists in their efforts to concentrate their resources on evangelism and local church resurgence. that they strive to be Christ-centered in their preaching and that they want to engage the world to present Jesus and his Gospel. of course not everyone will agree with theologically or in terms of methods. but it does not mean one should belittle them just bec they are “puritan”.
one thing i love about this site is that it blows up my narrow-minded view of christianity and that having Jesus shape my life does often mean letting go of my long-held and highly-valued theology in order for me to see Him more clearly.
thanks for the insight iMonk.
alvin
….lol….that wasnt very Jesus shaped of you martha…but it WAS funny….
“i.e. “Calvinism,” as having any relation to Calvin’s theology would certainly include more than the famed “5 points” and would indeed have something to say regarding infant baptism).”
Agreed, but what most when 90% of people say Calvinism it IS the 5 points they think of, not Covenant theology, infant baptism, etc.
…an incomprehensablr term.
Yeeeha!
>>when 90% of people say Calvinism it IS the 5 points they think of, not Covenant theology, infant baptism, etc.
Then it’s a historically and theologically unhelpful term.
I’m pretty sure that debating “are reformed Baptists really Calvinists” is interesting, but it’s not where this post is taking us. Let’s stay on topic.
yes sir michael! pls have a separate post to clear all these labels…reformed baptist, calvinist baptist , spurgeon cult reformed church, first jonathan edwards reformed baptist, john piper church of passion etc…
it’s a very serious matter towards our relationship with Jesus….
Mod edit. The last sentence was too much.
You know, I pretty much disagree with all of Masters’ observations here, but I myself was thinking that it is kind of hypocritical that Mahaney is invited with open arms to Resolved despite MacArthur’s well-known stance of cessationism and yet ol’ John can’t even muster a nice word towards Driscoll. Interesting to anyone else?
I noticed that the only time “Jesus” was mentioned in the linked article was a disparaging comment about a teeshirt. Does the man imagine that he’s really calling people to Christianity? Then what the blazes happened to Christ?
Take care & God bless
WF
“We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.”
I couldn’t get this the mantra out of my head once I read the above quote:
“Electric guitars and drums bad, piano good…well, only the approved keys anyway.”
Got it.
As a neo-Puritan, New Calvinist (or whatever you want to call me) I wish we could first address the far more serious issues of Christians being really, really happy in Jesus so they’ll go preach the Gospel to their neighbor whom they currently hate, then we can start to worry about how 17th century worship techniques will make us better Puritans…
And seriously, why stop in the 17th century?! How’d they sing hymns in the third century? What did they sing? How about the first? And did you know the average first century rabbi preached for an average of about 2 minutes while the worship portion of “the service” was about 45 minutes?
The traditions of men are alive and well folks, alive and well.
End of rant.
Brad
It’s so strange calling myself “Reformed.” I think I am more of a Kuyperian/Augustinian brand, but I almost identify more with Catholics than all of the new Calvinists.
“The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.”
Careful there, Dr. Masters! That’s a bold statement to make while lecturing others on their doctrinal insufficiency!
“You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification.”
I bet this is true, one thing logically follows the other, and Calvinism is nothing if not logical. But I’m unclear why he’s equating Calvinism with Puritanism. I’d be grateful if someone clued me in here.
“Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly. One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, but very many more turned aside. Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving the cause compromised and scarred.”
Couldn’t resist one more comment. Dr. Master’s concerns are defeated by his argument. If the heart of the issue is indeed about what Dr. Master’s coined to be the “true sovereignty” of God then this “true sovereignty” is perfectly carried out by using Schaeffer’s oratory to save some, to drive away others and to plant seeds in the rest for future generations. It’s not as if God was caught off guard by any theological messiness, as Dr. Master’s seems to forget throughout his article.
My last comment and this one shouldn’t leave the impression that I’m unsympathetic to Dr. Master’s concerns. I’m not. I think the current view of the fourth command, for example, our lack of reverence for the Lord’s Day (though every day is the Lord’s Day) is pathetic in all Christian circles. That said, I get the impression that Dr. Master’s is looking for a fight in this article that doesn’t just make me squirm because I can’t take an admonishment, but seriously makes me wonder why he’s not rejoicing over the resurgence of so many young seekers who are willing to ask themselves far more serious questions about faith than whether or not they pass some “True Calvinism” litmus test.
Anyway, I can see why MacArthur & Co. is so found of Dr. Masters. Though they may disagree on the mechanics of this issue, the tone (that is a tone that doesn’t embrace 1 Cor 1:10-12) here is very much in line with what that wing of “New Calvinism” embraces, which is a tone I’m praying will ultimately be purged from Christ’s church.
Brad
yikes… I also think that MacArthur & Co. are fond of Dr. Masters too.
Aaron R., perhaps a good self-description would be a “Reformed Catholic.” See William Perkins, for instance.