The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum "The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness"

We are all in agreement that "worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music" does not honor God and has no place in public worship. But again, does that give us the right, indeed the responsibility to proscribe a speaker who participates in a conference where such music is sung?

John MacArthur is mentioned by name in this article. He has evidently spoken at conferences where such music is sung, and where C.J. Mahaney has also spoken. As I mentioned in my original post, I agree with Dr. Masters' observations. But I feel that it is very risky to therefore conclude that John MacArthur, "reject[s] the concern for the personal guidance of God in the major decisions of Christians (true sovereignty), thereby striking a death-blow to wholehearted consecration."

Please understand that I am not attacking Dr. Masters nor those who defend this article. I am simply asking if anybody else is uncomfortable condeming John MacArthur, not to mention the other new Calvinists mentioned in the article, solely on the basis of their participation in a conference where Christian rock (or whatever it's called) is part of the event or because C.J. Mahaney has also participated.

Yes I agree, however sometimes how we say things can have a bearing on whether or not someone will take our concerns seriously.
I have been guilty at times of saying the truth in a way that seems more self righteous, than genuinely caring for them.
It really didn't matter that my motives were correct; I just didn't say them in a way that came across properly.

Over the years, I have listened to quite a few Reformed teachers/preachers and for the most part they all were in basic agreement about doctrine. However, I can tell you that some of them I have come to respect the way they communicate these truths. They are very gifted in the area of humbly showing truth in a way doesn't unnecessarily attack the individual. Instead they state truth uncompromisingly, yet in a way (as an example) that shows what the Scripture says on an issue and asks them if their actions line up with this.
Yet on the other hand, there are some that although stating truth, what comes out more strongly than the truth, is what seems like a condemning attitude.

Let me share something that happened to me a few years ago, where I let the Word of God and the Holy Spirit do the convicting, rather than anything else I said that might get in the way.
I was having a conversation with someone who had made a comment something to the effect of: "It is not my fault God made me gay".
Since this person mentioned God, I asked him if he believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. When he answered yes, I then asked him if he would answer a few question related to Scripture passages. One of these passages I asked him to exegete was from Romans chapter one where it talks about homosexuality. His answers were all in keeping with the context of the Scriptures themselves and I am happy to say that over the next few weeks of talking, he repented and the weeks following he set out to repair some of the damage his lifestyle had caused. On a sad note to this, his wife left him, but he told me that he was ok with it, because at least now he could live with himself and walk with God.
We continued to converse for almost a year and if I a good judge of character, I saw a huge change in this man. Unfortunately, for whatever reason I lost touch with this man. I still think and pray for this man when I remember.

I have to say that although I believe God used me to reach this man. I think I learned at least as much about myself and the attitude I want to be consistent with, as I was able to help him.
I am not always consistent, but at least now I have a reference point in which to return to.
I could have gone with gun a blazing, but I doubt it would have had a positive affect; either where I am concerned, or he is concerned.

Tom

Yes, MacArthur was mentioned by name in the article. But further, it was mentioned that one of his staff was deeply involved with forming one of these outreach groups which includes much of what Dr. Masters criticized as worldly. The issue I think is a very simple one. MacArthur is a well-known figure, for better or worse. And like most of these individuals who have made a name for themselves, they have their groupies, er 'followers', that like sheep will accept just about anything he says as true and/or anything he does as God-honoring. Now, I am NOT implying you are one of his faithful followers. I'm simply stating the reality of things.

Thus, by his participation in these conferences, etc., he is implicitly giving his approval of all that goes on in them. IF... IF he does not approve of all the things that go on in these conferences, nor does he agree with how the sponsors/speakers conduct themselves, he is obligated to come right out publicly and state as much, i.e., he needs to disassociate himself from these other leaders and their methodologies. IF, however, he has no scruples as to the type of music played, the language used, the display of commandment-breaking apparel and manners, etc., then Dr. Masters' inclusion of him is more than justified. I personally know of at least one individual on MacArthur's staff who denies the Second Commandment has any application to representations of Christ, God, etc., and it only forbids the worship of idols. In short, he fully approves of Jesus t-shirts, actors portraying Christ in plays and movies, and all such blasphemous things.

Next, MacArthur certainly wouldn't be the first to come under fire for doing something without much fore-thought which caused people to complain. Think of James Packer... now who in the Reformed camp doesn't appreciate how much good that Packer has done over many decades? Think of his books, Knowing God, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, An Introductory Essay to the 'Death of Death in the Death of Christ', etc. But who can't forget his signing of "ECT"? And then there was his endorsement of the liberal Peter Kreeft's book, Ecumenical Jihad. However, at least Packer didn't approve of Roman Catholicism, nor did he agree with Kreeft's book, but where MacArthur stands in regard to the things being criticized by many that take place in these conferences, groups, and the main figures behind them is yet unknown to most of us.

Lastly, we are living in a day, it seems, where "giants" are falling away from the faith to varying degrees. There are those who were once highly-respected conservative professing Christians who have denied the faith entirely. There are others who have forsaken the faith once delivered to the saints and embraced Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. There are men/women who were 'notables' even within Reformed circles; Presbyterian, Baptists, Congregationalists, who lately have denied Sola Fide and embraced NPP, FV, Shepherdism or one of the other morphs of this damnable heresy. There are those who have attacked the divine inspiration of the Bible by teaching a new hermeneutic that will allegedly bring new light to our understanding of what the Bible really teaches, etc., etc., ad nauseam. So, let's not let our allegiances blind us to the fact that such things can and do happen even to the best of men. Generally, these "slides" don't happen in an instant but rather they happen gradually, in little steps which sometimes go unnoticed. Is John MacArthur one of those among many who is on a downward slippery road? I haven't a clue. But what I do know is that I am not so naive to think that John MacArthur is exempt from falling away, even completely. It is God Who raises up men and Who brings them down.

Let our eyes always be fixed on Jesus and not on earthly men.

In His grace,

However, your "story" (aka: experience) has nothing relevant in it that would address all those other things which I brought up to you in my reply. And even in the quote from my reply above, I didn't mention anything about HOW one is to expose another's sin. I simply stated what Scripture teaches in regard to how we are to deal with sin in another's life. Put negatively, we are not to allow a brother to go on sinning when we are privy to it. Loving the brethren includes confrontation and counsel.

So, are you going to answer those other matters in my reply to you? Or, are you going to avoid them? I seem to recall that you often chide the dissenters who visit here for not answering questions posed to them.

Looking forward to your OBJECTIVE response.

Sorry Pilgrim

I have not got time to put in anymore time on this issue.
I am going on vacation to Hawaii for the next two weeks.

Tom

Tom,

That's okay! Enjoy your 2 weeks in Hawaii.

And when you return, I'll still be here, D.v., patiently waiting for you to respond.

Hi Pilgrim

Sorry my response took so long, I have been studying the issue a little more.

I am just going to give a fairly short answer at this time as I really don’t want to spend too much time on the issue. Saying that, I do not want to leave the impression that I think the matter is unimportant, because it is.

Do I believe that wearing a t-shirt with a picture depicting Jesus on it is breaking the second commandment?

Yes I do.

Do I believe that someone who wears such a t-shirt is living an un-Godly life and perhaps is not a true Christian at all?

Maybe, maybe not.

We all sin and sometimes it is done out of ignorance, rather than a deliberate intent to sin.
What is certain is such a person needs to be taught from Scripture the will of God regarding the matter and how to obey Him and apply it.
I also believe that although we should not water down the truth, we should be careful in our approach with the person. Being careful not to insinuate that we are calling into question their sincerity in why they would wear such a t-shirt.
I have been successful at this in the past by asking the person to exegete a particular applicable passage of Scripture. In that way, I am not so inclined to become overly judgmental in my attitude.
As things progress, depending on the person’s response a judgment can be made on how to proceed further.

Tom,

Thanks for your response. Now, the question most relevant to this thread is, "Are those who are teachers involved in these various "neo-Calvinism" conferences, meetings, churches, etc., more culpable being what they are; teachers? (Jam 3:1-3). And, can we therefore excuse them, in one sense, for committing sins of ignorance or should we assume that they are knowledgeable of these matters and their doctrines and/or practice is done knowingly and willingly?

Secondly, what responsibility do we have in regard to such events and toward the participants, particularly those who are in authority of them if we believe there are grievous sins being committed against the Lord and His Church? Surely, violations of the Second and Third Commandments and of the biblical doctrine of worship are grievous, are they not?

In His grace,

Pilgrim

Certainly those who are teachers are more culpable. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not ignorant of the fact that what they are teaching is not biblical.
I have been a Christian long enough to know that there is not one Christian theologian or lay Christian that is 100% correct in their understanding of theology.
In my study of this subject I have read quite a few articles by Reformed believers and although for the most part all are generally on the same page when it comes to the second commandment. There are differences such as what constitutes as worship and what doesn't.
Some say that wearing a t-shirt that has a picture depicting Jesus on it may not be a wise thing to do. However, it may not be symbolizing the worship of Jesus. It may just be that the person wearing the t-shirt is telling the world where their loyalties lie.
This is just one example of some of the teaching I have found by Reformed people.
The fact that teachers are not perfect and can be wrong, makes it all the more important that other Christians come along side them when they believe them to be wrong to try to correct them.
I have read a few articles over the years, with the admission by the person writing that they had previously been in error and hope to now set the record straight.
John Knox used to cry and pray over his sermons before he preached them, lest he lead anyone astray. I believe this is the attitude every pastor/teacher should take.
But that doesn't necessarily safe guard 100% against error.

As to the approach that should be taken against error by a teacher. I favor a probing discussion before making too strong a judgment. But in the end, compromise of the Scriptures shouldn't be an option.
I will also say that sometimes the best person or persons to discuss this with the teacher, is someone who already has their respect.

Tom

So Tom,

You really think that men like John Piper, Mark Driscoll et al could be ignorant of the 2nd and 3rd Commandment and the historical discussions that have gone on for several hundred years concerning biblical worship?

It is true that no one is probably 100% correct on all matters of theology. But that doesn't negate the truth that truth is 100% correct and the Scriptures are the only source of truth. Most of these "teachers" at least claim to have studied these issues and have come to their respective views, right or wrong. The issue is again, for example, can those who are wearing these blasphemous Jesus t-shirts be excused due to ignorance? Or, must their error(s) be exposed and rejected and thus their theology of God, worship and the other areas of theology which these views/practices have a direct bearing be questioned? Secondly, should these men and their public conferences, programs, etc., be supported despite these very serious errors?

It is one thing, IMHO, to deal with the average professing Christian who may be truly ignorant of these things and who are open to correction and who have a teachable spirit. But it is a totally different matter when dealing with "teachers". Our Lord Christ had little patience or kind words to say to the "teachers of the law" in His ministry who were leading people astray.

Although anything but "ecclesiastically correct" in today's contemporary religious climate, Martin Luther's sentiments are nonetheless apropos:

And another favorite quote of mine of which the author is unknown to me is:

In His grace,

Pilgrim

I thought I was quite clear before, but perhaps you are just trying to "flesh out"(so to speak) more.


I didn't mention any names when I said those things. I think I also used the word "necessarily" when describing teachers understanding.
I am not a fan of Mark Driscoll and although there are things I like about John Piper, there are just as many things that I dislike. His misguided support of Mark Driscoll being just one of them.
However, seeing as how you have said the issue is the 2nd and 3rd commandment, am I to understand by what you have said that Mark Driscoll and John Piper are guilty of breaking these commandments?
I am not aware of either of them breaking them, but then again my knowledge of Driscoll is limited.

Let me state very bluntly, because perhaps I never said it strongly enough before.
I never said I support showing mercy to teachers, in fact I believe that what I said previously about going to these teachers in my previous posts shows this. I also want to state that sometimes it is necessary to rebuke strongly when one is sure it is needed.

Tom

Tom,

Perhaps your understanding of what the 2^nd and 3^rd Commandments teach is the problem? These two commandments encompass far more than what a superficial reading of them might suggest. For example, the 2^nd Commandment forbids the fabricating of any and all representations of the Godhead and/or its individual persons; Father, Son or Holy Spirit. And, it forbids the worshiping of these fabrications or using of them for the purpose of worship. This means that even trying to imagine what Jesus looked like; creating a mental image, is a grievous sin. Thus the owning, never mind the wearing of a Jesus t-shirt is blasphemy. The 3^rd Commandment addresses how one is to know, approach and worship God, although it has far more implications than these fundamental issues. Thus, the introduction and use of worldly things to entertain or "bait" people at these gatherings is in direct violation of this commandment.

In case you or others haven't grasped the crux of my and other's strong criticism of these men and the movements which are part of this "new Calvinism" it is the bifurcation of doctrine from life. Calvinism is simply not to be defined as nor constrained to the doctrine of soteriology, aka the "Five Points". Historic Reformed and Puritan Calvinism is a full-orbed world and life view. The doctrines of grace (Scripture) are first grasped by the mind but they MUST then have a transformation of one's heart and thus life. One cannot give assent to the holiness, majesty and sovereignty of God and then blaspheme Him by placarding an alleged picture of the Incarnate Son of God by wearing a Jesus t-shirt. One cannot confess that God is thrice holy and then approach Him with gross worldly music, language, attire, etc. This is not "fundamentalism", as some have charged Peter Master's with, but rather it is historic Calvinism. As a man thinketh, so does he...!!

Another commandment which is either slighted or even flatly denied is the sanctity of the Sabbath. The 4^th Commandment is decidedly one of the most unpopular and most desecrated commandments today, even within Reformed churches. The Lord's Day is almost totally ignored and transgressed in modern Christendom. This too is part of the "new Calvinism" movement.

John Owen was on the mark when he wrote, "The custom of sinning takes away the sense of it, the course of the world takes away the shame of it." My criticism and deep concern is that Driscoll, Piper, et al are teaching a false Calvinism, one that is greatly out of sync and agreement with the historic Calvinism of the past which the Reformers fought to establish and the Puritans suffered to maintain in both thought and practice. It isn't enough to embrace sound theology, especially when it is just the the "Five Points" (soteriology). One must LIVE that theology, which John Frame defined so succinctly as "The application of the Scriptures to all of life."

Lastly, it is my understanding that John MacArthur has distanced himself publicly from at least some of the practices that go on at these gatherings and which are part and parcel of these various groups within the "new Calvinism" movement. However, the question that needs to be asked is whether or not he will abstain from being a part of these conferences, etc., or even disassociate himself with the leaders of them?

For further reading on the Commandments, see below:

- The Second Commandment by Rev. G. Van Reenen
- Image Worship: The Second Commandment by Herman Hoeksema
- The Second Commandment by Arthur W. Pink
- The Second Commandment by Ernest Reisinger
- The Third Commandment by Rev. G. Van Reenen
- The Third Commandment by Arthur W. Pink
- The Fourth Commandment by Rev. G. Van Reenen
- The Fourth Commandment: According to the Westminster Standards by John Murray

In His grace,

Pilgrim

Actually I am well aware of what these commandments teach. But I think there is a more important matter that has to do with me.
Although in my heart of hearts for the most part I am in agreement with you on this matter. In reality however, other than in a forum such as this and a few other places, where I live I know of no Church that holds to a pure form of these commandments and for that matter other things that I have come to believe.
Therefore, unless I decided to stop fellowshipping altogether with others, then I am left with gathering with believers who I may not agree with on some issues (such as this), but who I am in agreement with on in areas such as the doctrines of grace.
I hope you see my dilemma. I am already accused of spending too much time on the internet as it is. This is a correct assessment of me, but I have yet to find other believers where I live (or even close by) who share my convictions.
Unless I am missing something, in order not to be hypocritical I would need to distance myself from almost everyone I know. This would leave me with fellowshipping only with people such as you, which can not take the place of assembling with other believers.

This is something that I really can’t share with anyone I personally know, because they don’t share these same convictions. I know God is not the author of confusion, so while I have been waiting for an answer that is livable. I am forced to live the best way I can on the mean time.
Sometimes I think that the best thing to do is to up and move to somewhere where I know others share most of my convictions. But I know that if I did, I would probably need to leave most of my family and friends behind. This just might include my own wife and even if she did go, she would be miserable.

I am sorry if I have gone off topic.

Tom