"We are reformed, but not old school, and don't baptize babies, don't hold to the regulative principle, and won't die on the hill of Limited Atonement, but hold a more unlimited/limited position, which upsets both sides of the debate. In the end, I hold to a high view of inerrant Scripture and am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics."Mark Driscoll in Criswell Theological Journal, vol. 3, issue 2.
Surprisingly, I guess Mark Driscoll would consider me in the same area of the Reformed camp on this issue. I am glad to see one of the top Calvinist Pastors in America has an open view (and consequently, more scripturally appropriate) of the theological construct he has chosen. I wonder how many have actually rearranged the furniture in their Calvinist house so radically?
This makes me hopeful for all the young Calvinists following Driscoll.
5 comments:
Rick,
I think there are a whole lot of us in the same camp as Driscoll--being Reformed and yet not neccesarily swallowing all that the Pres/Reformed camp offers. Matters of ecclesiology and baptism and the five points of TULIP are matters that, among the pastors I've known and the scholars I enjoy reading, are gray areas that many of us won't "die on the hill" for.
but yet for many inside and outside of the reformed camp those issues are what defines one as reformed.
interesting.
Mike,
Yes, for some, I think that's true. But I think of, say, a D.A. Carson--he's "Reformed" (he is published a lot in Reformed periodicals and journals), but he has Baptist roots...so his ecclesiology is Free Church (he teaches at the Evang. Free Church's seminary), he believes in believer's baptism (contra infant baptism), he has questions about Limited Atonement. And yet he is one of the most respected "Reformed" scholars in evangelicalism.
yeah that is true, i was refering more to the limited atonement than the issue of baptism. the first baptist confession was almost identical to the westminster confession - so being baptist and being reformed aren't really conta.
I'm "reformed" yet I believe in believer's baptism...I also believe in infant baptism. If someone comes to Christ and wasn't baptized as a baby, then they need to be baptized. If a child is born into a covenant family, infant baptism is proper, signifying God's blessing on the child and family.
As for limited atonement...I've never understood why this is so hard for Christians to understand, and I feel is the least controversial of the 5 points.
If someone is ushered into heaven, Christ's death was their subsitute...if they aren't allowed into God's eternal glory, they weren't justified by his death.
Isn't it that simple?
Post a Comment