RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Wheaton College names Philip Ryken president
According to a report on Christianity Today’s website, Philip Ryken, the pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, has been named president of Wheaton College, a prominent Christian liberal arts college near Chicago. Ryken, a 1988 Wheaton graduate and the son of Wheaton English professor Leland Ryken, succeeds Duane Litfin who retires as president this summer. Ryken became a pastor at Tenth in 1995 and was named senior pastor following the death of James Montgomery Boice in 2000.
Earlier this week, Kenneth Starr was named the new president of Baylor University, a large, private Baptist-affiliated school located in Waco, Texas.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top164 Comments to “Wheaton College names Philip Ryken president”
Thumbs up! It will be good for Wheaton to finally have a President who is not shaped by premillenial dispensationalism (and all of its fundamentalist accoutrements).
Report comment to moderator
Gosh, having had so many premillenial dispensationalists as Presidents, Wheaton College must have been a terrible place!
Report comment to moderator
I just looked at a page “explaining” premillenial dispensationalism.
http://pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/what_is_the_doctrine_of_premille.htm
This strikes me as nonsense, though I suppose it is as good o bad as all the other religious nonsense.
In the end, all that is certain is death and taxes, though I really doubt that Hitler or Stalin paid taxes. Anybody know if they went through the motions? In the end, they did manage to die, thank goodness.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus,
They now have a president who is devoted to the teachings of John Calvin -
Report comment to moderator
I like Kenneth Starr, I don’t know of Philip Ryken.
Report comment to moderator
Really? Cool!
Report comment to moderator
A great loss for Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia with its great history of preachers like Barnhouse, de Gangi, Boice and Ryken. With a Ph. D. from Oxford and name recognition and Wheaton connections he will do well. Seems to be bit of a huff and fuss that CT may have broken a news embargo for the scoop.
Report comment to moderator
I’m surprised, and do think it’s a loss for Tenth Pres, but a gain for Wheaton.
Report comment to moderator
No, I think not.
Devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ is the answer, not John Calvin – Philip Ryken puts his emphasis on Calvin.
Report comment to moderator
Wasn’t Hudson T. Armerding a Calvinist?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria’s right. We are supposed to follow Jesus. No one should put Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Menno Simons, or any other man above Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
I meant to write that it is going back to following Apollos or Paul.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent point Kyle -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Your comment betrays your unfamiliarity with both the content and tenor of Dr. Ryken’s preaching.
Rarely, if ever, do his sermons fail to point to Christ and His gospel. Not only that, but Jesus is presented front and center. Though Ryken is a Calvinist, he never, ever allows these leanings to eclipse our Savior and I suspect he would be the first to apologize should you cite specific examples.
There is a time and a place for theological disagreements. I doubt the forums here are lacking venues for Calvinists and Arminians to argue these fundamental issues.
But, please, let’s make an effort to avoid sweeping generalizations about brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s uncharitable, counter-productive, and a rather poor reflection on the aforementioned Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Dr. Ryken’s departure will be a loss for Tenth and a great gain for Wheaton. His ability to clearly and humbly teach the Scriptures is accompanied by his exceptional heart for pastoral care. We will miss him.
Perhaps we could more profitably use this time first by thanking God that He draws together men who disagree in order to bring Himself glory and advance His Kingdom, and then by becoming familiar with matters before commenting so that we don’t risk ignorantly and unfairly dishonoring godly men with whom we disagree.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t “know” Phillip Ryken well (I edited one book of his), but have heard a few sermons, highly respect his father, and have a tremendous amount of respect for James Boice–this is a man with very large shoes to fill, and from what little I know, he has filled them well. And yes, he’s a follower of Jesus, not someone who puts Calvin “above” Jesus. (I don’t know of anybody who does that, actually! Anybody who does so is probably not a Christian at all.) To have such a man as Wheaton’s choice speaks very highly of where Wheaton is right now.
Report comment to moderator
Ryken has written a book “What is a True Calvinist?” – that is where he stands, …. it could have read, but didn’t “What is a True Believer in Jesus Christ?” ….. but he didn’t – it’s all about being a “Calvinist” –
I’m very familiar with Calvinist doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus Christ was and is not devoted to the teachings of premillenial dispensationalists.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, the editor should reread her posts before posting, and I spelled his name wrong. But Ryken is a good man and a good choice for the school, though his leaving will be a second large loss for the church in the last decade.
Report comment to moderator
And other men have written books about dispensationalism, Victoria. Your point?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
My point was that having a doctrinal system is hardly disqualification for being president of a Bible college. If it was, then holding to dispensationalism should be a disqualification as well, and Dallas and Moody would never have presidents. It’s pretty much impossible not to have a “system” of doctrine of some sort, and having one is not disqualification for academia or the pastorate.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
It goes back to, Jesus died for the whole world, that’s something Calvinists have a real tough time understanding.
Report comment to moderator
No, Victoria, not a tough time “understanding,” but a tough time “believing.” But I think this is neither the time nor the place to argue his theology. If he were a dispensationalist, would you be saying he shouldn’t have a system of theology? Did it bother you to see Charles Ryrie publish books on dispensationalism?
I personally would be quite concerned to see someone sworn in as president of a Bible college who claimed not to have a system of doctrine–it would mean he probably makes it up as he goes along, and it would be hard without very intensive grilling to discover whether he is orthodox. This is an orthodox believer with a good name. Whether or not one agrees with his system of doctrine, he is a fine choice, a very fine choice.
Report comment to moderator
The reason reformed Christians have a hard time understanding it is because it isn’t biblical. Reformed Christians are Biblical Christians.
Victoria — you often tend to use a man’s views to define yourself. Your anti-Calvinist!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Have a good evening and I hope you enjoy the Lord’s Day tomorrow.
Hopefully the snow will at least hold off here in central Iowa long enough so that we can easily get back and forth to church tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus dying for the whole world isn’t Biblical NOPM?
Report comment to moderator
Because one is NOT a Calvinist does not mean they having no doctrine – It simply means they don’t agree with Calvin, and they most certainly don’t stylize themselves as anything other than a Born Again Believer or Christian Believer – it’s the identification as “I am a Calvinist” which is a man who at the end of his life most certainly did not represent the teachings of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
But Victoria, nobody is “only” a born-again believer or a Christian believer. Even if one has determined all one’s doctrine oneself, with no teacher other than the Bible, that person still has some sort of systems of belief. (And I wouldn’t recommend that method!) But by the time a person is speaking of the Trinity, one is using sources outside the Bible (since that word itself is never used in the Bible).
You yourself can’t claim to be only a born-again Christian with no system of doctrine, since you are a dispensationalist. I am a Reformed believer (raised dispensational, and rejected the system when I studied it). You and I each have a system, systems that differ from each other, but both systems that someone else developed. Reformed Christianity has a much longer history than dispensationalism does (and is definitely not based only on Calvin), but we both have systems of belief. It’s more important that both of us are Christians than what the details are . . . but I surely wouldn’t want our church to invite someone to preach based only on the word “Christian.” He could be a Catholic or even a Mormon and call himself a Christian. I want to know more clearly what he believes–and yes, that means what “system” of theology he holds to, though it may also include the points at which he differs from the system he holds to be most true.
But when a person says he’s a Calvinist, that’s only a different way of saying he’s a Reformed believer. It is not saying he worships Calvin or places him above Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
I think there is slight but significant difference between saying that a person agrees primarily with Calvin or Luther or [insert your favorite Christian leader] and saying that one is a Calvinist, a Lutheran, or whatever. Perhaps it is a bit picky, but it is much better to say that one is a follower of Christ rather than a follwer of a particular theologian or leader. It’s all there in I Corinthians.
Name any Christian figure, and I can probably state points of agreement and points of disagreement that I have with that person. That’s because I follow Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I did not question your understanding of Calvinist doctrine. That is beside the point. I questioned your familiarity with Dr. Ryken’s scholarship and preaching on the whole.
I have indeed read the book you mentioned (What Is a True Calvinist?). It has been a while, but, if I recall rightly, it warns Calvinists against elevating any theologian above Christ and any theology above the gospel.
This dialogue raises an interesting question:
If a man writes a few books clarifying a system of theology, does it not also matter that he preaches hundreds of sermons centered around the gospel itself and continually invites people to the cross without discrimination or qualification?
Faulting a man for the former while dismissing the latter is more than a little myopic, regardless of affiliations.
God does not demand my theology be perfect before He bears fruit through me. I pray He will allow me to wisely show similar consideration and grace to others as He leads them in His service.
Shall we agree to disagree?
In Christ,
…
Report comment to moderator
NOT TRUE, ….. I did exhustive research by myself regarding the Deity of Christ. One does not have to look for the word Trinity, because it isn’t there, and neither is Bible, or other words. This might be difficult for you to comprehend, but I have done, my own endless research regarding Jesus being GOD the Son.
The system I use is the Word of GOD, …. HE is the only way ….. that is the only way.
Report comment to moderator
The above post should include Trinity as well.
Report comment to moderator
SamDan09
I don’t follow Calvin, that also means I question those who do, considering the life John Calvin lived regarding the punishment for those who didn’t believe in infant baptism and the Trinity.
Those who become indoctrinated with Calvin, overlook everything he stood for regarding the punishment of others.
When I was a very young adult, attending a church which was Calvinistic, I listened with great interest to all the messages, and found myself using my concordance during those times to check facts….. what I found didn’t add up, the Scriptures contradicted what the pastor was preaching. I spent a lot of my time in study – therefore coming to the belief I have now.
When I did enough research regarding Calvin and Martin Luther I was very disappointed then shocked. How could these things not be brought out in the open, why the secrecy? – and why the excuses for their behavior, and what Luther wrote? The reason was they forgot what Christ said and preached. Christ would not have thought it right to kill another because they didn’t believe HE was Deity, or that the Holy Spirit and HE were not what we now call the Trinity – or those who didn’t believe in infant baptism. Luther who hated the Jews, …… what Bible did these men study to come to such conclusions?
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15
Report comment to moderator
You might try using “myopic” and its accorded definition upon your shortsighted reasoning regarding my post.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I’m fairly sure nobody on this blog would describe himself as a “follower” of Calvin. I wouldn’t. I have read only a very few pages that he wrote. That his life didn’t match up perfectly to what it should have been does not in itself discredit what he believed and taught, and it most certainly doesn’t discredit modern Reformed believers.
BTW, you didn’t catch what I was saying about the Trinity. I merely pointed out that the word isn’t in the Bible, so by the time a person would state even the most basic “creedal” statement, “I believe in the Trinity,” he is showing that he has read (or heard) sources outside the Bible itself in developing his theology. We really can’t avoid having others influence our theology–nor should we try to avoid it, because we are members of Christ’s body, not lone ranger believers.
Kyle A., I more or less agree. I would primarily describe myself as a Christian. By denomination, PCA; by belief system Reformed. If a person asks if I’m a Calvinist, I’ll say yes; evangelical, yes; fundamentalist I’d say “define it and I’ll tell you”; dispensational, no . . . and so on.
As to the word “Lutheran,” well, it’s a denomination, and a denomination of those who went as far as Luther went with the Reformation, but not as far as Calvin. I don’t see any other good, clear words to say that other than their using the denominational term. It may not be the best term, but “Baptist” may not be the best term for those who believe in immersion either–it simply is the term we understand. I frankly have a bit more problem with churches using terms like “Calvary” in their church name, and then regularly saying “Here at Calvary,” and losing some of the significance of the name thereby. I knew of a church named “Church of the Resurrection” that used “Church of the Res” informally, which sounded pretty disrespectful to me. But really, whatever the name, it will be limited.
Report comment to moderator
SamDan09, sorry about the “welcome” here. There is no way at all to be “understood” by certain posters on here, and most of us don’t bother to try, most of the time. I’m off myself.
Report comment to moderator
It saves a whole lot trouble to recognize that Christianity is based on a myth that is thousands of years old. However, it keeps a number of people busy and occupied, and perhaps distracted from other activities where you might get into more mischief.
Go on picking the fleas and mites out of your fur.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Proverbs 27:15
(You also might want to meditate upon 1 Tim. 2:12, and 1 Corinthians 14:34.)
Report comment to moderator
You find it necessary to explain what Baylor is, but not Wheaton?
Now that’s weird.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I’ve pointed that out on THIS BLOG numerous times.
Below is the list I’ve posted over and over again on this blog. Number two is just for you.
WELCOME? - am I to understand that we as posters on this blog are to be SILENT, and agreeable as to what we believe – nay, that’s not what my belief in Jesus Christ is about at all.
Cheryl, you interact all the time with my posts, disagreeing and giving your views just as I with yours. LOL
Report comment to moderator
I was an admirer of James Boice and while I’m not as familiar with Philip Ryken, I have enjoyed is devotional volume “He Speaks to Me Everywhere: Meditations on Christianity and Culture.”
Sounds like a good choice — and a godly one — for Wheaton.
Report comment to moderator
IN REFERENCE to the “WELCOME” –
REGARDING “Website Policies” listed below the thread:
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I didn’t think you didn’t know “Trinity” wasn’t found in the Bible. I said that to make a point, that none of us gets “all” our theology only from reading the Bible (and that we wouldn’t be guaranteed orthodoxy if we did). But never mind; the point was probably too deep to be easily understood.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I’ve posted that list so many times I can’t number it…..
It wasn’t deep, as you didn’t make a point.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Victoria, she did make a point. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn’t make it not so. I’m pretty sure that anyone else reading Cheryl’s posts would be able to recognize and restate her point.
Report comment to moderator
Ree
No – no point made –
You and I have been down the road of Calvin, Servetus before, therefore it’s difficult for you to say anything but what you’ve said in you post.
Report comment to moderator
I, for one, greatly appreciate Victoria’s steadfast defense of sound doctrine and the simplicity of the gospel. Though she is probably too humble to admit it, I’ll go ahead and say it: Victoria is the Athanasius of the internet age. Victoria contra mundum!
Victoria shepherds the pages of WorldMagBlog with a gracious and Christ-like spirit, despite her “tough love” being continualy misunderstood, sometimes even scorned by immature believers. But Victoria’s love is as patient as it is true. Can any spiritually discerning Christian really doubt that it comes from Christ?
Victoria, your reward is in heaven. Hypocrites and heretics slander you at the peril of their own souls. Blessed are you among women!
Report comment to moderator
CT,
Drop the junk about “Athanasius” the Greek patriarch of Alexandria and leading defender of Christian orthodoxy against Arianism. – you have no idea what you’re talking about, anymore than you exhibt your understanding of your favorite THEME “the Loving Parent Argument” which you trot out in every anti-abortion thread, to try and prove they are more thoughtful, kind than allowing an infant to be born alive.
Report comment to moderator
Hehe #49, I know you’re just joking Victoria.
Keep up the Lord’s work!
Report comment to moderator
Get a grip CT – all the twisting of Scripture won’t accomplish your goals.
No matter how much we Christian Believers disagree we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ, that is the difference you don’t understand.
Report comment to moderator
The truth of God, the love of Christ, and a sense of humor! This girl has it all. Move over Proverbs 31!
“Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Your anti-Calvinist screeds have driven a number of people from this Blog, Cameron and her husband to name two. Most of us have been down this same road with you last summer during the Calvin 500 celebration. Your rants are becoming very wearisome for many of us, so like many, I too ask you in Christian charity to give it up.
Report comment to moderator
While I have tended to agree with Victoria in this thread, I do want to say that Cheryl has made excellent points and it appears that Victoria did not follow what Cheryl wrote. Cheryl’s main point was that a person can read only the Bible and still have heterodox beliefs, and that a person can read sources outside the Bible to help arrive at orthodox beliefs. It is a valid point and indisputable based on our mutual experiences, I think.
Those who are so touchy about Calvin should take stock, I believe. You seem to be reinforcing the point that Victoria is making. If Calvin is above criticism, then he is being put in the place of Jesus. Only Jesus is above criticism. Only Jesus is perfect.
To Victoria I say that Calvin was not all wrong. From what I know of you, I would guess that you are in agreement with him at lesat 50%, in regard to his theological system. Hardly any Christian theologian is completely right or completely wrong. I think it is enough for you to point out Calvin’s personal failings and (as you see it) his errors. The rest of what you write seems like an ad hominem argument and one aimed to provoke other people.
Report comment to moderator
Calvinism: Jesus died for those whom he had previously chosen. The folks he chose to choose him would think that they had done the choosing. But they were chosen to be the choosers.
Sorta reminds you of The Matrix, no?
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, has anybody on here said Calvin is above criticism? No, I think we’ve said Calvin isn’t the point; Jesus is. If Calvin’s doctrine is true, it’s true in spite of the man (as is true for all of us, even the apostle Paul). There is very good reason to believe Calvin had no authority whatsoever in the “extermination” for which he is so famous (he wasn’t even a citizen in Geneva, let alone judge or executioner), so I won’t debate that issue either way. But Calvin never was “the point” anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, nobody has said it. Victoria criticizes Calvin, people react strongly against that criticism. It seems to indicate that they regard Calvin as above criticism.
I think I am mostly saying the same thing that you are. Jesus is who matters. Calvin was right on many doctrines, despite his personal flaws or (perhaps) errors.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Prior to Luther, no one had fully developed the apostles Paul’s teaching on forensic justification and imputed righteousness–doctrines that you, no doubt, believe and hold to with all the conviction of your heart. Doctrines that you rest in for your salvation of your soul. (Even if you don’t use this theological terminology to understand them.) Do you honestly believe that, apart from the teachings of others who were heavily influenced by Luther and the subsequent Protestant Reformers, you would have figured these things out for yourself? Do you really think that, if you had been born into a theological environment like the one in which the Reformers lived and breathed, that you would have discovered all by your lonesome that you would be judged righteous by God based upon Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to you?
Report comment to moderator
I’d heard that even Calvin said once that our (meaning anyone’s) theology is probably only 80 percent “right” in hitting the precise mark — that we all will get some things wrong (not the major things that Scripture teaches plainly, mind you, but some of the other side issues that stir up debate).
Report comment to moderator
(From Kyle in #57): Victoria criticizes Calvin, people react strongly against that criticism. It seems to indicate that they regard Calvin as above criticism.
I don’t think it follows that some regard Calvin as “above criticism” at all.
I’ve heard these issues debated frequently in other venues and believe me, it can be done in a way benefits and educates all concerned, even if minds are not ultimately changed. It should be a discussion that helps us to go deeper, to consider the mysteries of God and depth of the gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
It’s not that people regard Calvin as being above criticism. The problems, for me at least, are that
a) Victoria seems to regard it as so that flaws in Luther and Calvin render their teachings as ipso facto false;
b) Victoria is wholly unaware that her own beliefs and sensibilities are formed not by Scripture unbound by time and place, but also by the point in history in which God has providentially placed her. She’s unwilling to acknowledge that she is at least as prone to the blind spots of her own age and the sinful inclinations of her own heart as they were to theirs;
c) Victoria is, I believe, sinfully ungrateful to the Protestant Reformers for the role God gave them in her own faith journey.
Her criticism of these men is like a girl who heaps nothing but contempt upon her own earthly father for whatever his flaws, both real and imagined, with no sense of the honor due him by virtue of who he is and what he’s done for her.
Report comment to moderator
Ad hominem is often times used when it has no application – the definition – - Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: – - In this case you misuse it.
There are parts of what Calvin believed that were correct, I have never disputed that. My argument has never been, nor will be to provoke anyone regarding Calvin’s arrogance when he made the statement that he had exterminated Servetus.
The parts which have concerned me, are these; Those who continue to find excuse in Calvin’s behavior which in essence was to see to it that someone was killed for not adhering to infant baptism or belief in the Trinity. The next item would be last year when the 500th Birthday of Calvin was celebrated, there were a large number of men gathered (a video and thread on this blog) together, a clip was made of the opening remarks and one of the first things on the menu was to mention Calvin and Servetus and the men all laughed….. this might be a small thing to others, but it spoke very loudly about the attitudes of the men who took part, laughing over Servetus – there were about 10 on the platform.
Ivan – As far as TJ is concerned he left over another situation – Cameron and I had a long posting last spring regarding Eternal Security, and other doctrinal issues. I certainly had no hard feelings towards eithr TJ or Cameron, only that we disagreed over doctrinal issues. Accusing me of people leaving the blog because of my posts is not true. Peter Leavitte left and so did Outkast, both men who I have missed, no one seemed to have supported them as they were ridiculed for no reason except to disagree with a few individuals.
Disagreeing over Calvin is a touchy issue for those who admire, and following his teachings – it is always met with anger,….. but its just dandy to make ugly remarks regarding those who are Dispensational….. hey that’s a given…. double standard.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, not only was Servetus not killed for what he did or didn’t believe, I’m pretty sure that neither was anyone else within Christendom.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, I don’t quite understand your last comment. I suppose you are making fine-grained distinctions, but please explain.
Report comment to moderator
ENOUGH WITH THE LAME AND DIZZY CHATTER!
He has been my Pastor for the past 8 years, and he will be sorely missed.
God bless him, along with his dear family.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t worry Victoria, I’m sure Marlin doesn’t mean to include you in the remark.
Report comment to moderator
19th Century Theologian WGT Shedd wrote:
“The Calvinist appeals to the creeds of Heidelberg, Dort, and Westminster as the rule of faith, because he regards them as the accurate exegesis of the revealed Word of God. By the Bible these parties, as well as all others who appeal to the Bible, mean their understanding of the Bible. There is no such thing as that abstract Scripture to which the revisionist of whom we are speaking appeals; that is, Scripture apart from any and all interpretation of it. When, therefore, the advocate of revision demands that the Westminster Confession be conformed to Scripture , he means conformation to Scripture as he and those like him read and explain it. It is impossible to make abstract Scripture the rule of faith for either an individual or a denomination. No Christian body has ever subscribed to the Bible merely as a printed book. A person who should write his name on the blank leaf of the Bible and say that his doctrinal belief was between the covers, would convey no definite information as to his creed.”
Report comment to moderator
Below the proof that cannot be denied:
Ree, there is the proof – whether you or the rest of Calvinists want to believe it, or make excuses – there it is.
John Calvin supposedly had studied the Bible, which is evident in a number of his writings —- however the statements, and letters he wrote concerning Servetus and those he considered heretics and blasphemers didn’t line up with what Christ had said when people don’t accept the doctrine of the Bible. Calvin strode past what Christ and HIS Apostles said, making up his (Calvin’s) own rules.
Calvin wrote extensively, I’ve read many of his writings, however he didn’t apply the Scriptures to his own behavior, nor did he repent of his sin. Calvin would have done well to study the Scriptures, applying it to his own life, rather than giving advice to others which he didn’t intend to follow.
Report comment to moderator
“I, for one, greatly appreciate Victoria’s steadfast defense of sound doctrine and the simplicity of the gospel.” -CT
Since when is denying the Trinity consistent with “sound doctrine”? There is no “simpl[e]” Gospel if Jesus is not the second member of the Trinity, co-existent with and of one substance with the Father. After all, if Jesus is not who he says he is, then we should all just stay home and watch “Meet the Press” on Sunday. This simply gospel that Victoria, CT, and Kyle advocate smells a lot like a Christless social gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
If you’ve done so much studying, why do you not understand a basic point: “Calvinist” is a pejorative term generally used by those who seek to smear Reformed doctrine. We, the confessionally Reformed, merely refer to ourselves as being “Reformed”. And by that we mean that we believe that the Reformed confessions and catechisms are generally consistent with the teachings of Scripture. We are not adhering to the teaching of one individual, as you seem to suppose.
I’ll grant you that Calvin had his excesses and that he was wrong on some points. But that has no relevance as to whether the Reformed confessions and catechisms are generally consistent with Scripture. In fact, they were written long after Calvin, and are contrary to Calvin’s teachings on certain points.
Report comment to moderator
I have posted many, many, many times about the Trinity – I have always believed that the Trinity is true, and have posted endless Scripture to prove the point.
RSD – Where have you seen me post where I denied the Trinity? – you haven’t RSD – I would suggest that you read with more care.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, I have not discussed my view of the gospel at all. I got into the argument because I have a general distaste for picking some Christian leader as a hero and defending that person no matter what or bristling at any citicism of that person.
I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminianist nor a Wesleyan nor a follower of anyone but Jesus. That doesn’t mean I have a Christless gospel–quite the opposite. It’s all about Christ for me.
Report comment to moderator
Marlin Buckley – 65
I am sure you and your friends are fond of your pastor, he is probably a very nice man – however Marlin, I do not agree with his doctrine. I am sorry that Wheaton has chosen a man who is a Calvinist.
I have friends who are Calvinists, but it doesn’t mean we agree doctrinally.
Report comment to moderator
But Victoria, Wheaton had to choose a man of some doctrine. Why does Calvinism disqualify a man? I don’t get it, honestly. You personally disagree, but even in your disagreement, I’d hope you wouldn’t say Reformed belief is heresy . . . so why is it disqualifying? You are fiercely against heretics being killed for their heresy, but would deny orthodox fellow believers a specific job because you disagree with certain of their doctrines.
Kyle A., all of us stand on the shoulders of others who’ve gone before. Those who try hardest not to do so often end up inventing their own heresies, or reinventing heresies that have already been debunked earlier in church history. None of us should be the “followers” of anyone where they disagree with Jesus, but that doesn’t mean we can’t follow anyone where their doctrine lines up with Scripture. (Paul said, “Follow me as I follow Christ”–several times, though with varying wording. So unless we’d say that Paul was wrong to say this, it’s legitimate to “follow” someone who is following Christ, as long as we don’t continue to follow him when he doesn’t.)
Frankly it makes me a little uneasy when someone says, “I’m just a Christian, with no labels and no particular doctrines,” because often (I’m not saying this is the case with you; I don’t know) that means the person simply hasn’t studied enough to know precisely what he believes, and he’ll readily agree with any preacher who comes along and speaks well.
Report comment to moderator
Check out the blog which Marvin Olasky wrote last June for Calvin’s Birthday. He most certainly used the term which you find offensive —- “Calvinist”
Report comment to moderator
Christ Jesus was the Gospel, HE showed us the way – Doctrine is outlined in Scripture.
I don’t stand on the shoulders of anyone, we have Christ Jesus to look to, and read his words and his Apostles – The Bible is the source.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Considering that you have spent many, many hours studying the ins and outs of Reformed theology before coming to the conclusion that it is unbiblical, perhaps you might show a little grace to those of us who are still in the midst of understanding the doctrine. It seems in my humble opinion slightly hypocritical for you to spend massive amounts of time coming to understand these doctrines and forming your theological views, and then log into WorldMag and demand that people come over to your point of view based on a few blog posts.
So yes, by all means, state your opinion. Just don’t be surprised when no one converts. I am sure that you took the whole theological debate much more seriously than that.
Shoot, I’m a Neo-Augustinian-Reformed-Calvinist-Vossian-Kuyperian-Van Tilian. But by the grace of God, I haven’t devoted my life to any of them. I remain fundamentally a Christian, in spite of the fact that I do believe the teachings of Paul, and I have no idea what Apollos said. I also believe that the grace of God is enough to cover some bad theology, so regardless who of us is right, grace to you, sister.
Report comment to moderator
The notion #1 that Wheaton is veering from dispensationalism towards Calvinism is strange. This varietal has been cultivated and bottled there for generations. The vintages may vary over the decades, but I’m sure that Calvinism is a major product line. Why wouldn’t it be?
Report comment to moderator
Hans, I don’t demand anything – everyone has a free will to believe as they wish – I post my beliefs and debate on this blog, and have been doing so for a few years. So when you say “a few blog posts” you aren’t correct.
Report comment to moderator
So, Hans, what is it like to be wrong?
Report comment to moderator
It’s not my job to check and see who does and doesn’t believe in Christ as their Savior – it is my responsibility to spread the Word of GOD – it is the hearers choice to accept or deny what they hear or read.
Report comment to moderator
Re: Victoria — Okay, I guess I didn’t realize that you had devoted so much energy to attacking Calvinism on WorldMag. However, knowing the typical climate of these sorts of theological debates, I will wager that you have won no converts, and in all likelihood, you have seen no one convert to Calvinism on these posts either. In light of that, it might be worth all of us questioning the value of spending so many hours debating this stuff online. I sense that this hasn’t been very productive for the growth of the Church, regardless of where you stand on this particular issue. I suppose when we get to watch hearts being transformed through the power of blog posts, then I will concede that this is all a very worthwhile pursuit. But perhaps I am naive.
Re: Mumsee — If it weren’t for the grace of God, being wrong (which is something I excel at) would be horrible. As it is, I love the God who first loved me and forgives me for my error in spite of my stubbornness.
Report comment to moderator
Hans,
For those of us who have not studied this differences, the debate is interesting to see how people I have come to admire for their love of the Lord, with such strongly opposing views, and the grace with which they discuss.
To your response to me: amen and amen. And because we know the tip of the iceberg of that forgiveness, we can extend it to those around us.
Report comment to moderator
Your wager doesn’t come into the equation, that is between an individual and GOD – only GOD knows whether or not someone has believed in HIS Son, or ….. someone has changed their mind regarding a sin they once thought wasn’t a sin. Hearts are changed ….. we don’t always see the result.
Whatever choice you make as to time spent on blogs and debate is up to you, the value is determined by each individual.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Did you miss my post #58? I’d definitely appreciate a response to it. And to add to that post, not only was Luther responsible for gleaning from Scripture a well-formed understanding of the doctrine of forensic justification, but God also used him to successfully bring the Scriptures in the common languages to the people. So if it were not for the work God did through the Protestant reformers, starting with Luther, you would not even be able to read the Scriptures for yourself so that you could discover all by your self your sophisticated and orthodox understanding of such things as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, the doctrines of forensic justification and imputed righteousness, etc.
Report comment to moderator
CT,
Although I’m not defending the execution of heretics, my distinction is hardly a “fine-grained” one. Heretics were convicted and executed not on the basis of the private thoughts rattling around in their brains, but for publicly disseminating what was believed by the given courts that convicted them to be heresy. Publicly teaching heresy was akin to treason in these societies. Because of modern ideas about freedom of speech, no one would be executed today in the West for, say, propagating Islam in the U.S., and attempting to implement Sharia law. And in our pluralistic society, such things are not as threatening to the societal order as they were to medieval Europeans anyway. But no such concept was even conceived of in any society back then, so it’s just ridiculous and anachronistic to condemn medievals on the basis of modernist ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Very true Ree.
But given the eternal dangers that heresies pose, I wonder why there’s on this thread not more sympathy for Calvin’s brand of justice.
But I do strongly object to you on one point: for suggesting that Victoria is being “ridiculous and anachronistic.” I like rather to think of Victoria’s writings as inspired interpretations of the word of God.
Report comment to moderator
It’s kind of silly to refer to it as “Calvin’s brand of justice,” (even though he did personally approve of the court’s conviction of Servetus–although not the cruel and torturous method of execution by which they used to execute him) considering the fact that not a single person was executed for heresy under Calvin’s leadership.
Yes, I know you do and that it amuses you no end. It’s really not that funny, though.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Ree, I didn’t mean to stepped on anything sacred here. Let’s refer to it as “Geneva’s brand of justice”.
(There does seem to be a lot of tension on this thread. You might give humor a chance–unless, of course, you think the topic is too serious.)
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
It is Martin Luther’s later life, when he wrote his hateful rants against the Jews – his inability to accept the fact that many Jews did not believe in Christ as the Messiah – Jesus saw that as well during his time on earth. Luther made claims that one could sin boldly –
GOD has always known where HIS Word was, and how HE intended it to be kept safe. I do know this, the so called “reformers” most certainly didn’t understand murder, or inciting others to hurt the Jews, OR making a mockery of sinning as did Luther. Those things are not in the Bible.
The Deity of Christ was written about by some of John’s disciples, which were available to read. You might want to look at these writings yourself, and then you can decide whether or not everyone was so dumb they couldn’t understand what Christ preached, and HIS disciples handed down regarding the Trinity.
This is what Luther wrote:
The last two quotes certainly cover Eternal Security for those who want to believe it. No where in Scripture is this taught.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps a bit more context on the Luther quote is helpful. I would say that Luther went too far in his speech here, but in context he is trying to lay stress on the grace we have in Christ. I could probably afford him a bit of grace and grant the point he is trying to drive home.
The Letter to Melanchthon ends with the famous “sin boldly” statement:
“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious?? sinners. Be a sinner and sin?? boldly,? ? but believe and?? rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world]? ?we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness,? ?but, as Peter says,? ? we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness?? dwells. It is enough that by?? the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.? ? No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins?? by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.?”
Report comment to moderator
The quote by Luther
Below we have two passages that don’t align themselves with the above statement from Martin Luther – he smugly makes a mockery of grace, and forgiveness -
Below is from James
All Luther is trying to stress is that the death of Christ is sufficient to atone for all our sins no matter how grevious or numerous.
I think he went too far in his speech, but I doubt very much that he was an antinomian.
Report comment to moderator
Someone has written: “Calvin wrote extensively, I’ve read many of his writings, however he didn’t apply the Scriptures to his own behavior, nor did he repent of his sin. Calvin would have done well to study the Scriptures, applying it to his own life, rather than giving advice to others which he didn’t intend to follow.”
It could easily be paraphrased: “_____ writes extensively, we’ve all read many of their posts, however they don’t apply the Scriptures to their own behavior, nor do they repent of their sin. ____ would do well to study the Scriptures, applying it to their own life, rather than giving advice to others which they don’t intend to follow.”
If someone such as Calvin was blind to his sin is it not possible for any of us to be just as blind. It seems that some proudly insist that they could not be blind.
Report comment to moderator
Fisherman – 94
All of your ___________, don’t make a point. Calvin was very willing to take responsiblity for Servetus death.
It is this constant lament of Calvinists, who hold a man up, and then wonder why Calvinism/Calvinistic teaching is QUESTIONED…. especially when Wheaton College puts a Calvinist, Philip Ryken in the Presidents seat, a Calvinist.
Report comment to moderator
Horrors! A Calvinist! Next thing we know they’ll be appointing a Mormon. Oh, the humanity!
Report comment to moderator
Maybe a point blank question is required.
Victoria, do you believe it is possible for you to be as blind to your sin as you claim Calvin was to his?
Report comment to moderator
I’m getting puzzled here. How would folks around here rank the following, from bad to worst?
a. Calvinism
b. Homosexuality
c. Dispensationalism
d. Divorce
Victoria, who would you trust more with your kids: an unrepentant Calvinist, like Philip Ryken, or a flamboyant homosexual? And suppose you had to choose a vice for yourself. What would it be?
Report comment to moderator
CT,
Few people here would rank all four of those things as bad. Most of us, including the unbelievers, would rank one or more as good.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
The deity of Christ is clear in Scripture, but it probably would not be quite as clear cut if it weren’t for a lot of background and context knowledge you and I have both learned from others. But certainly the full deity and full humanity of Christ would be much more puzzling without access to the exegesis of others and so would we, most likely, be puzzled as to how to fit together all the passages that, together, make up the Trinity. Not many would be able to grasp the Scriptural teaching that God is three persons in one in essence. But of course, I know you don’t admit this and, in fact, you aren’t even able to see it. You take for granted all the background knowledge you’ve absorbed throughout your life and you think you just figured it all out without any guidance.
My question to you, though, was specifically about our inheritance from the Protestant reformers, and Luther in particular. Were it not for him, do you honestly dare to claim that you would have gleaned the essential Protestant doctrines of forensic justification and imputed righteousness all by yourself with no input from others?
You still haven’t answered the question about whether you
Report comment to moderator
That would be something only you could ask of yoursel -
Report comment to moderator
For those who would exercise some well-deserved skepticism about Victoria’s portrayal of Luther, I recommend James Swan’s website. Although Mr. Swan is a Reformed believer and not a Lutheran, he’s spent the past 7 or 8 years or so researching primary sources on Luther in response to the Roman Catholic originated calumnies against Luther. This link takes you to a list of papers and blog posts on various topics about Luther. He by no means portrays Luther as flawless, but he does provide the context by which one can make an informed judgment about the things he said and did (and the things he didn’t necessarily say or do but is accused of having said or done.)
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
On post #101, please disregard the partial sentence at the end. That should’ve been deleted before posting.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 103
HATEFUL statements against the Jews are not within context of anything —- Hitler made the same ugly statements – is there someone to excuse that murderer?
HATEFUL statements which say:
Are none other that heresy…. we aren’t given a right to sin a thousand times a day fornicating as Martin Luther states.
All the excuses which little man makes to excuse these sins are no different than those who excuse Benny Hinn and others.
Report comment to moderator
I am so, so, so glad that Christianity is bigger than “me and Jesus.” Thank God for the church, including the accountability of being part of a body and not being left on one’s own to figure out truth and error. And thank God for the church fathers and saints and scholars throughout the ages. Without those in Hebrews 11, and their heirs, where would we be?
Report comment to moderator
Christianity ——-isn’t bigger than Jesus - HE is the way, HE is the reason our debt was paid on the cross. there is no Christianity without HIM, …. no blood shed for our sins, nothing.
Report comment to moderator
And let me see if I have this straight: It’s evil for Luther to be mad at Jews because they killed Jesus (however flawed Luther’s reasoning, that’s what it was), but it’s OK to be so upset at Calvin for approving the death of a heretic (not killing him–he didn’t do so; at most he approved of his death) that one can still be mad at “Calvinists” centuries later, and be upset when a college dares hire one?
Do I have it? It’s wrong to be prejudiced against Jews, but right and proper to be prejudiced against Calvinists?
Report comment to moderator
Christianity includes the church, Victoria. The church is His bride for whom He died. “Me and Jesus” isn’t Christianity. I never claimed that Christianity leaves out Jesus, just that it doesn’t leave out His bride. A one-person Christianity is a really sad caricature of the real thing–and I literally mean sad, and literally mean a caricature.
Report comment to moderator
I am not getting into the Calvin/Luther debate. However, I have difficulty in believing that Martin Luther was condoning “thousand times a day” sin in his statement in #110. I believe he was using an extreme example to express the efficacy of the blood of Christ.
I also didn’t read that Cheryl was saying that Christianity is “bigger than Jesus”. She said “me and Jesus”. Correct me if I’m wrong, Cheryl, but I assume you meant that Christianity is also community as we read in the Epistles. I’m sure that there are times when it seems like “me and Jesus” and “me and Jesus” is the foundation not to be ignored, but we are part of the Body of Christ, not little solitary wayfarers.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Do you read the Davidic Psalms? Did you know that David was a child of God and then committed murder? He repented sure, but really I’m not sure he is a trustworthy source of Biblical inspiration.
I won’t even start talking about his kids and wives — I’m not sure he ever repented of marrying all those women.
Report comment to moderator
I have not been on this site for a long time. It looks like it has become the “Victoria show”. I hate blogs that are taken over by one person as a personal sounding board. It makes me want to say “get a life!” Count me out as well, I will not be coming back– this blog ought to have a rule for maximum number of contributions per article.
Report comment to moderator
I think what Victoria is insistig upon is something someone mentioned way way up in the thread — that Calvin and Luther are theologians and all their fancy theology is no substitute for Jesus Christ himself. Jesus didn’t require all th fancy theology, just one thing: that we believe he is the way, etc.
We are all sinners, and we are all blind to our own sin. DonnaJ pointed out a book on grace in the Rants and Raves thread and quoted from it. It hit home for me, and I would bring those thoughts over here to this thread by saying that my dependence on God and knowing that dependence is not based on a man’s theology, just my own experience. So, in the end, for each of us, in a real sense, there is a “Jesus and me” thing going here, because ultimately, it all comes down to our own individual relationship with Christ. Does that eliminate the Church, the Bride of Christ, as a whole? No. But I can only be ultimately responsible for my own relationship with Christ, not anyone else’s.
Report comment to moderator
This was originally a post announcing that a well-respected Christian pastor had been named to lead a well-respected Christian university. Something we should celebrate, not trash.
Victoria: Over the weekend, you chose to turn this thread into a forum for your personal vendetta against Calvinism, showing complete and utter disrespect toward Dr. Ryken and his work (not to mention the disrespect you showed others on this blog). You could have noted your disagreement with his theology and moved on, but you just couldn’t leave it alone. (BTW, several others of you on here didn’t help matters by egging her on.)
So in short, cut it out.
Report comment to moderator
#113, #115, finally some sanity. I’m afraid I have to add a certain name to my do not read list. Her posts remind me of the “Church Lady” on SNL. I didn’t know I needed her to protect me from “the just shall live by Faith” Martin Luther.
Report comment to moderator
I apologize. One of my constant personal temptations is sinful sarcasm.
Report comment to moderator
the # count has changed, so just to be clear, I am in total agreement with Snoke, and WMB editor. And now I have reached my max 2 reply limit.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like a good way to quell discussion of any depth, I suppose, if that’s the goal. I’m not sure I get why that would be a good goal, though.
Report comment to moderator
Here in the electronic equivalent of solemn by-gone snowy Zurich (when Calvin’s measured tread echoed on the cobblestones of every narrow and winding street), if ye be not a Calvinist, speak softly, ever so softly; ’tis neither wise to yank the beard of a billy goat and snap thy fingers in his face, nor should thy feign to (overmuch) pull the tail of a tiger. He who hath ears, let him hear. Verily.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting, though, that the most agitated and shrill posts are almost always from the anti-Calvin crowd. I find those of the Reformed faith here to be reasoned and articulate, and for the most part admirably dispassionate and respectful.
Report comment to moderator
David committed murder, he repented of that sin – The Psalms are full of King David’s remorse for the sins he commited.
Repentance for sin is the answer for the forgivness of sin.
Report comment to moderator
King David’s repentance for his sins, including murder can be found throughout the Psalms – the difference between David and others is, he was repentant, and understood he was sinful.
Report comment to moderator
“dispassionate”?
Hopefully, the “preserved in Jesus Christ” progress in “zeal”, and not slide into “zleep”.
“For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them [that are] in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.” (Col 4:13)
Report comment to moderator
does he support the Presbyterian leadership views on sin?
Report comment to moderator
I sort of want to push a a point, Victoria, based on this discussion and previous ones we’ve had, but I’m mindful of the WMB Editor post so I’ll drop it.
I could easily be one those people mentioned who have been egging you on. I do find that I get frustrated with you on occasion and I tend to get sarcastic sometimes. I apologize for that.
Report comment to moderator
“Dispassionate” meaning self-controlled and maintaining a respect for one’s debate opponent. Just seems like that ought to be the goal for all of us.
Report comment to moderator
Dispassionate?
Oh, bummer. I thought it was a kind of theological school (or position) involving the doctrinal confluence of some kind of functional Dispensationalism with latter-day Passion week hermeneutics.
So, if your definition is correct, I guess there is no percentage in being anti-Dispassionate.
Report comment to moderator
Congrats to Wheaton. They take their presidential search seriously and no doubt have an excellent choice for the position.
Now, let’s pray for Tenth Presb that their search will be equally successful. Not too many things harder in life than filling a pastoral position. It can bring out the best and worst in a congregation.
Report comment to moderator
metanoia I am praying they find someone who love God, His Son Jesus and God’s Word. An is able to preach and teach the Word of GOd in the mist on fallen world.
that the man of God will be stand against the false teaching and the false god that is being pushed on to Churches like the Presbyterian by false christian. Who are declaring sin as being normal.
Report comment to moderator
donna
Thanks.
Signed,
Bottled up in joy unspeakable.
—–
“Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:” (1Pe 1:8)
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, this is a theologically sound Presbyterian church, not one that declares sin as normal. I don’t know if I have any pastors I respect more highly than James Boice, their previous minister.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. – thank you for that information. I have never heard of him or this church. My pray goes out to the church, that God will send them the right pastor.
Report comment to moderator
I’d also like to continue to push the point I’m making, but I’m assuming that the admonition from the editor is aimed at me, among others. It seems to me, though, that any thread that goes past 30 or so comments generally does so because the original topic leads to something else. There’s only so much that people can say in celebration of Wheaton appointing this pastor as their president, as far as I can tell.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, it would have been OK if the thread had remained short. From WORLD’s perspective, it’s probably a little embarrassing to post a topic like this and then hope the person being named doesn’t read it! If posters had said, “Oh, good choice–I liked his book such-and-such, and learned more about grace” or “I hope he’s as good as so-and-so, an earlier president at Wheaton” or just “Welcome to Illinois!” it probably would have been better than “He’s a dirty rotten Calvinist” “Is not” “Is too.”
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
I don’t think he would be harmed by reading this thread. Most folks who have been around very long are aware that there is discord in this area and it actually pays to know your enemy even when your enemy is a brother.
Report comment to moderator
No, Mumsee, I do think he’s “big enough” to handle it, but I’m not sure it’s the kind of professional, theological face WORLD really wants to present. (But Dr. Ryken, if you are reading this–I don’t use my last name on here, but I edited City on a Hill. Greetings from Nashville, where I’m now a freelance editor–my choice; don’t worry, I didn’t get fired. And I think your appointment to Wheaton is wonderful, and a sign of good things to come for the school.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
In keeping with Romans 14, I was hoping to bow out gracefully and silently with my last post.
But I can’t do that without properly thanking you for your kind welcome and your perspective. It took me a while to word this, but I’m grateful for your thoughtfulness as well as your timely reminder to leave the mind-changing and heart-softening to the Lord.
Though I have lurked here in the past, I was still surprised that the dialogue suddenly became so vituperative. I’m glad to see things turning around now. Sometimes I wonder what these discussions communicate to unbelievers who may happen across them.
So, thanks again, Cheryl, for seeing and ministering to the person behind my argument. It was nice to receive a little grace here.
Those of you commenting at the bottom of the thread who are curious about Tenth and Dr. Ryken’s preaching can visit http://www.tenth.org to check out the podcast and webcasts firsthand. And, while you can’t fully see the pastoral care from afar, do know that Dr. Ryken truly showed me what it means both to pastor with open arms and to step out of the way and let the Holy Spirit do His work.
Report comment to moderator
Samdan09, I wanted to thank you for that link. I am having one of those rare mornings in which I cannot get back to sleep, I woke up at 3 a.m. burdened by the cares and worries of life.
So I listened by Dr. Ryken’s sermon on Life in the Spirit. What a comfort. He certainly will be missed by his flock, I’m praying that the church will find a good and faithful successor as God in His Providence surely will provide.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I see what you’re saying, but the discussion has turned mostly to Calvin, himself, and not so much Dr. Ryken anymore. And any blog that allows comments will have discussions that will turn in all kinds of directions. By opening the threads up for discussion, it just doesn’t seem reasonable to me to try to keep those discussions limited to the kinds of comments the author was hoping for. But then, the online discussions I get involved in almost always end up off topic from the OP, so maybe I’m just trying to justify my own habits and maybe those habits really aren’t within the bounds of proper online ettiquette. I’m not likely to change those habits, though, unless I’m repeatedly told to stop–in which case, I’ll probably just lose interest in the site and leave. Which would be no great loss to the site, I’m sure.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, it didn’t “turn to” discussion of Calvin, though. It pretty much started that way. And I do understand that blog posts turn in all sorts of directions, but I would say that outright attacks of a brother in what is supposed to be a celebratory post don’t seem appropriate. If the post had said that some formerly Christian college appointed a Unitarian, or a JW, or a Muslim, then we can have a serious discussion about how far the college has fallen–but it seemed inappropriately nasty just because he’s a Calvinist, and if I were on staff at WORLD I would have been embarrassed.
Report comment to moderator
I tend to agree with REE. I think it could be different if the actual blogger got involved in the discussion, but that is pretty rare from what I’ve seen.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
I wonder if some reacted a certain way based on the Church He belongs to. An that fact that many of the old Churches seem to be abounding God’s Word. As I stated I have not heard of him so I could not question if it was good move or a bad move, so I asked a question.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy — Well, there are Presbyterians and there are Presbyterians.
Like many of the mainline denominations, there have been splits along the way. Thus you have the conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans (as opposed to the Evalgelical Lutherans who, despite what the name may imply, are much more liberal).
In the case of my denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterians, we began in the 1920s or ’30s (I can never remember which) when J. Gresham Machen, a professor of theology at Princeton, was ultimately excommunicated from the larger Presbyterian body in large part over the issue of foreign missions and how much of a role sharing the gospel should have (as opposed to providing physical aid alone).
Report comment to moderator
So (and this would apply to the PCA as well, which Dr. Ryken & Cheryl are members of), I suppose we’d say that our Presbyterian denominations hold to what the original Presbyterians believed in the first place. Issues such as whether gay marriage, for example, simply never come up because we hold so strictly still to the authority of the Scriptures.
What’s left of the mainlines, we’d argue, have allowed themselves to be somewhat pushed and pulled by the cultural trends of the day, beginning with a stress on what was known in the 1950s and on as the “social gospel” (stressing good works and not so much evanglism).
Report comment to moderator
donna j
the problem is some Christian are unable to seperate the different groups. They see Presbyterian, an they think of the group that has left God’s Word to chase the social gospel.
An the troubles me.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, that is true.
The PCA and OPC are very similar in beliefs and some time back had discussed a merger. I believe the OPC was based more in the northern states with the PCA more prevalent in the southern states. The PCA probably is a bit more contemporary in their worship than we are.
I’d like to see a merger at some point, have one larger conservative Presbyterian denomination might be helpful. (there are also other smaller conservative presbyterian bodies, the convenenters, etc.)
We all probably agree on 99% of the issues. And it’s the conservative branches that are growing while the mainline left behind is sshrinking, interestingly.
Report comment to moderator
Donna it is the with the Pentecostal. People want to put all of us under one roof. An have not idea what is the different between different Pentecostal denominations.
Report comment to moderator
Much of the difference with other conservative Presbyterians comes down to the minor issues for us I think — we split early on with a Bible Presbyterian group that wanted to outlaw alcohol. We believed the church should not forbid something Jesus himself partook in. I can’t remember what the ultimate sticking point was with the PCA/OPC merger, but I do know we share an in-house publishing service and SS materials.
End times views also come into play with some of the splits, we are definitely not dispensationalists (a system that developed later in church history).
If anyone’s interested: http://www.opc.org
Report comment to moderator
Interesting date I had once with a mainline Presbyterian minister. When I mentioned the conservative Pres. branches over a light dinner after a movie, he literally rolled his eyes in horror.
Report comment to moderator
I get a head acke every time I read the word dispensationalists. get flash back of College Class’s.
donna, the minor issues caues so of the biggest fights with in denominations.
Report comment to moderator
donna j – ha, ha
My brother-in-law wanted to get married in the same Church and by the same Minister that married all 4 of his sister.
Well the brides father told him and me, he would never set foot in the church of satan.
Report comment to moderator
152, sometimes sadly yes.
I do know we have pre-, post- and a-millennialists within our denomination, we don’t draw lines on that. But most of our clergy & members probably lean toward the post- or a- side of the end-times equasion.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J,
I’m glad to the Lord encouraged you — I guess that’s why he led me not to wait until morning to post (as I had considered).
Thanks for your prayers. God bless you and give you good sleep tonight.
Report comment to moderator
Now I am on the other, side most of our clergy & members probably lean toward pre, I lean towards post.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM: The “actual blogger” tried to take the rest of the weekend off after posting this and came back to quite a mess on Monday morning. As much as I would love to be drawn into all the conversations on here, I can’t, except when I have to bring in a mop and a bucket.
And DONNA J: And let’s not forget the Associate Reformed Presbyterians (my and TJ and Cameron’s denomination), a Bible-believing denomination with roots that go back to Scotland and a history that hasn’t had any real splits or reorganizations since 1820!
Report comment to moderator
I knew a Presbyterians Chaplian in the Army. We got into a praying contest. I got a base hit, when I came around to sore. I told him, us, Pentecostal, have the right ear of God. Well, he got a duoble, and when he came around to score. He told me, us, Presbyterians, have the left ear of God. An God hears better in His left ear.
Report comment to moderator
That’s right, I forgot about the Associate Reformed Presbyterians. I remember asking Cameron about that and I checked out their web page at the time. Don’t know if there are any on the west coast, however. ?
Report comment to moderator
There’s a fairly new ARP church plant in Irvine: Communion Presbyterian Church, pastored by Kent Moorlach. I met Kent last year at a conference and was impressed with his desire to start an ARP church in SoCal.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Mickey, looks interesting — and I see one of the members of our church, Christopher of apologetics.com, is participating in some kind of a sermon series there.
Report comment to moderator
More about the APR series that I received on Facebook today:
Christopher Neiswonger February 25 at 2:47pm Reply
The Apologetics.com “Too Heavy for Sunday Morning Sermon Series”
The Apologetics.com Staff has the honor of having been asked by Communion Presbyterian Church of Irvine, California to do an Apologetics.com Conference as a Sunday morning teaching series. We know that the usual take on Christian Apologetics, Philosophy and Theology is that it’s, “Too Heavy for Sunday Morning!” but not all churches are so soft around their Bible belt. So we at Apologetics.com have agreed to rise to the challenge of going where no Apologetics team has gone before… to Church! There will be sermons by Apologetics.com Staff followed by a generous time for Q and A and fellowship after the service.
At Communion Presbyterian Church of Irvine Sunday February 28th through Sunday March 21st 2010- 9:45 AM.
Week One: Sunday February 28th 2010:
Christopher Neiswonger- “Understanding Calvinism: A beginner’s guide”.
After Church Class: “Augustine’s influence upon the Church and why Protestantism is a particularly Augustinian theological tradition.”
Report comment to moderator
Read Joel Belz’s interview with Philip Ryken.
Report comment to moderator
[If anyone needs a break, this web bit is good for a short one.]
A PRETRIB RAPTURE FIRST !
Joe Ortiz’s “End Times Passover” blog (Mar. 9, ‘10) is now displaying (for the first time anywhere) a facsimile copy of the “kernel” of Margaret Macdonald’s 1830 handwritten pretrib rapture account!
The same history-changing account was found in the British Library and is catalogued there as “Margaret McDonald’s Vision.”
Historian Dave MacPherson, who has researched throughout Scotland and England, tracked it down and obtained a copy of the entire 1830 handwritten document which can now be viewed 180 years later.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!