Four years ago, Christianity Today ran an article, “Young, Restless, Reformed.” In it, the author Collin Hansen covered a phenomenon that has been around for the last decade: The return of many young Christians to the Reformed doctrines. He interviewed quite a few pastors and young church members who came out of Charismatic and “seeker-sensitive” churches, who now embrace the doctrines of Calvinism. Hansen saw this return as a less-advertised, but much larger and more pervasive phenomenon than the “emergent church” or the “seeker-sensitive church.” He believed the comeback of “Calvinism” was “shaking up the church.” He pointed to the popularity of the old Puritan authors among the “new Reformed,” and especially among the young. The old-fashioned Puritanism of the 17th and the 18th centuries seemed to be the ideological fuel behind this Calvinist comeback. Many of the Puritans’ works were being reprinted because of the renewed interest in them. A professor at Gordon-Conwell even said he suspected “young evangelicals gravitate toward the Puritans looking for deeper historic roots and models for high-commitment Christianity.”
This was highly encouraging. Everything good the Western world has today – the concepts of liberty, rule of law, superior work ethic, charitable organizations, entrepreneurial spirit, thrift and long-term investment, etc. – it owes it to the Reformed theology and those who applied it in practice. When the time came for liberty to be defended throughout the Western world, and especially in America, it was Reformed and Puritan preachers who encouraged populations to defend their freedom under God, and it was Reformed and Puritan laymen who first manned the battle stations against oppression. And it was Reformed and Puritan leaders who worked to build the West to a just and prosperous society, and to spread the ideas of liberty to the rest of the world; everyone else followed their example. So, if Collin Hansen was right in his assessment of the pervasiveness of this Calvinist comeback, then we had back again the historically proven solution to America’s descent into socialism, paganism, political turmoil and economic recession.
But whatever hopes one could derive from that Calvinist comeback that Hansen saw, they would have been completely extinguished in our experience of the last two years. In a time when our society is struggling to preserve everything America once proudly stood for – everything that the Puritans handed down to us through the generations – these “new Reformed” of Hansen failed to materialize when their influence was most necessary. Since 2008, in our intense cultural wars against those who want to subvert America, the churches declared as “Reformed” by Hansen are nowhere to be seen. Whatever “fuel” they may have borrowed from the Puritans, it has failed to produce the “black regiment” of Reformed preachers responsible for the First American Revolution. We don’t see these new Reformers taking the lead in a Second American Revolution. If the First Revolution was called by King George, “The Presbyterian Rebellion,” there is not a single bit of reason today for Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or the other would-be tyrants on the left to talk about “the Reformed uprising,” or the “Calvinist Tea Party.” Far from being the spiritual or ideological heirs of the Puritans, the pastors mentioned in Hansen’s article are very careful today never to mention anything relevant to the cultural battles of our time.
Why is it so? How come such a large and pervasive movement to return to our theological Reformed roots fails to produce the proper Reformed practical response? Shouldn’t a Puritan mind produce Puritan practice, individually and socially? If the early Puritans gave us America, shouldn’t modern Puritans restore America to what it was meant to be? How do we resolve this contradiction?
The answer is this: There is no contradiction. Hansen is wrong. What he believes is a “Calvinist comeback” is not. What he sees as “Reformed” pastors and believers are not. Hansen’s definition of “Reformed” is truncated. The reason we don’t see Puritan practical response is because there is no Puritan theological influence in the churches he interviewed. He only sees the surface. The essence is not Reformed.
When looking for “Reformed” churches, Hansen uses the TULIP – the five-point acronym for Calvinism – as his measuring rod. If a church believes in the TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints), if it teaches it, if it has made it the central point of its doctrine, Hansen believes it is “Reformed.” TULIP is mentioned, directly or indirectly, more than 20 times in the article. It is the inspiration for some of the interviewed converts to Calvinism in the article. Some of the important “Reformed” churches have special courses and teachings on the TULIP. Others are preaching it boldly from the pulpits. TULIP is the beginning and the end of what Hansen defines as “Calvinism.” If a church is focused on the TULIP, it is Reformed, he thinks.
The truth that Hansen missed is that TULIP is not the essence of the Reformed theology. Of course, the doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints are an important starting step to the immense body of theological truths called “Reformed theology.” It follows directly from the greater concept of the Sovereignty of God. It correctly describes the fallen state of man and the work of God in saving the individual. When we look up to God to give thanks for what He has done for us personally, we think “TULIP,” even if we never knew the term or never understood it.
To summarize, TULIP is the acronym for the “mechanism” of our personal salvation. And that’s it. Nothing more than our personal salvation. But Reformed theology encompasses immeasurably more than just personal salvation. And when a church makes TULIP the summa of its theology, that church is not Reformed. Yes, it has taken the first step to becoming Reformed, but it is still far from the goal.
The Puritans whom the “new Reformed” like and claim to follow would be deeply surprised that someone would focus the whole of God’s Sovereignty on the salvation of individual human souls. That would seem rather selfish to them – it would look as if God’s Sovereignty is made to serve man’s needs, rather than man’s salvation serve God’s plans. The salvation of individuals has never occupied such a high status in the thinking of the Puritans; the Kingdom of God and its righteousness has. The Puritans did understand that God’s plans were top priority over the salvation of individuals; the Pharaoh and his hardened heart were a favorite sermon topic for many a Puritan preachers. They did not see God’s sovereignty only in salvation but in damnation also, and in many more things. Their evangelism did call to individual repentance and righteous walk but they understood that preaching salvation was only milk (Heb. 6:1–2). There were more “solid-food” areas of knowledge and practice that deserved much more attention.
Hansen’s article mentioned those of the young “new Reformed” who came out of “seeker-sensitive” churches and became Reformed. But how much has changed for these people? Yes, the theological justification for their faith has changed, no doubt about it. They don’t believe they earn their salvation anymore. But have their priorities, or their motivation changed? Not at all. Both in a “seeker-sensitive” and in a “new Reformed” environment the focus is on ME and MINE, what God has done for MY salvation. The beginning and the end is the personal salvation, and that’s it. In a very real sense, the “new Reformed” are simply a theologically correct version of the “seeker-sensitive” movement: the selfishness of the quest is still there, except that now it uses better theology. This focus on the self, on the needs of ME and MINE would have seem a gross misinterpretation of God’s Sovereignty to the Puritans of old, and they would hardly recognize themselves and their ideas in the “new Reformed” movement. It isn’t their legacy, and the obsession with personal spiritual welfare was not part of their mind and culture.
What was the legacy left by the Reformers to the future generations?
It was not churches full of believers who earnestly study theology only to revel in their personal salvation. In fact, with two exceptions – Scotland and Hungary – the early Reformers didn’t leave us any lasting churches at all. It was not intellectualized sermons of elaborate psychological verbiage that pick on every feeling and every emotion a believer may have. It was not courageous sermons on irrelevant topics of peripheral importance to our age and culture. And it certainly wasn’t a belief in a God who is only sovereign to save individuals, but nothing else.
Their most lasting legacy was on the cultivation of societies, whole cultures based on the practical applications of Reformed theology, from top to bottom. Geneva, Strasbourg, Holland, England, Scotland, Hungary, the Huguenot communities in France and later in North and South Carolina, the Oranje-Vrystaat and Transvaal. Societies that became light to the world, an embodiment of Christ’s liberty and justice for all. The Reformed believers of earlier centuries built a civilization that influenced the world permanently. They changed the world not by the selfishness of the focus on salvation but by the obedience of teaching the nations and building the Kingdom of God.
It was cities on a hill that they left for us as a legacy, and it is the “City on a Hill” motif that best characterizes the Reformed theology today, not TULIP. Whether Calvinist or Arminian, or Christian or non-Christian, everyone today in America – and not only America – is a witness to their success of building that “City on a Hill.” The Puritans that Hansen talks about did not arrive to these shores to find the perfect TULIP theology. They did believe in God’s Sovereignty over salvation, yes, but they believed in much more than that. They knew they were predestined to be God’s chosen vessels to manifest God’s Sovereignty over the cultures and the societies of men by building a new civilization. “The kingdoms of this world have become a Kingdom of our God” had a very specific meaning for the Puritans, and that meaning was what characterized their view of Sovereignty.
Having the vision of the City on a Hill, the Puritans were much more concerned with the legal and cultural issues of their societies than with the psychological and philosophical issues of man’s existence, as it is with the “new Reformed.” Justice and righteousness was their priority, not over spiritualization and mystic experiences. They developed law codes, economic theory and practice, social organization, education, and science. They did not worry about the minutest irrelevant details of the personal spiritual life of a Christian. They saw value in incarnating the truths of God in their culture, not in internalizing theology. Their view of the world was one whole, under the Law of God, spiritual and material, church, family, and state, mind and matter, law and grace. They wouldn’t be able to grasp the dualism of the modern “new Reformed” churches. “Covenant” was for them not a religious term. It was the building block of all relationships, spiritual and temporal, and all covenants – in the civil realm, the marketplace, church, family, or school – were to imitate that supreme covenant between God and mankind in Jesus Christ.
That’s why when John Witherspoon declared that liberty to worship and economic and political liberty were inseparable, he wasn’t declaring a new doctrine. He was only proclaiming what he had learned from his spiritual fathers, from Augustine, through Calvin, to Mather and Edwards. And when Witherspoon’s disciples got together to become the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, this was a truly Reformed act, a logical outcome of the doctrines of the Reformation. And in order to make sure we understood it, they left us their admonishment and advice, to obey God in our nation-building just as we obey Him in our personal life, family, and our church-building.
And those that today want to be Reformed, cannot limit themselves to the comfortable thought that God gave them personal salvation. Reformed means the Sovereignty of God over everything—all of man’s life and thought and action, including man’s society and culture. Therefore, Hansen’s “new Reformed” are not Reformed at all. They are simply another, theologically correct version of a man-centered religion.
So next time when Christianity Today wants to look for a Calvinist comeback, the key phrase they should be looking for is not TULIP. They will know the return of Calvinism by these: City on a Hill, Comprehensive World-and-Life View, Teaching the Nations, the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ over every area of life, Christendom, Dominion under God’s Covenant. The article should be titled: “Dominion-Oriented, Historically Optimistic, Reformed.” Anything else will be only an empty imitation of the legacy of the Puritans, not true Reformed.
A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman. If you would like Bojidar to speak to your church, homeschool group or other organization, contact him through his website: http://www.bulgarianreformation.org/ 
I really enjoyed this post…. I often find AV artciles stimulating since it comes from a direction I do not readily think in… I do want to ask, and I hope I am not too late…. Is the Oranje-vrystaat and Transvaal good examples of reformed worldview having a beneficial effect of society.
I ask this because I live in South Africa, and one of the major issues that faces us is trying to seperate true reformed theology from the systemitised racism of the Apartheid era. So I was wondering if using the two places above as examples is really a good idea.
Perhaps this was a time when rascism as we know it was not yet practised, but if so, I think it is helpful to explain that, otherwise we may shoot ourselves in the foot by associating with that which we do not want to…
Any thoughts?
My recent post Great Departures From ‘Organised-Religion’
Your concern, Tyrell, is very valid. Racism is paganism that we need to condemn and separate from.
Oranje-Vrystaat and Transvaal haven't always had Apartheid. As a matter of fact, it was British colonialism that created the legal precedent for the Apartheid, not the Reformed Dutch tradition. There were other Dutch colonies around the world, and none of them practiced anything like Apartheid. On the other hand, under British rule, Apartheid was practiced in different legal forms in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rhodesia (before it became independent; the segregation laws were abolished in Rhodesia when it became independent, contrary to Marxist claims), Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania.
So, no, Apartheid has nothing to do with the Reformed tradition of Oranje-Vrystaat and Transvaal.
Mr. Marinov, You sir, apparently don't know what a metaphor is (yankee textbook). Your travel, whether in the north or south really has nothing to do with knowledge. Your reliance on one man, Mr Ben House to provide your understanding of one aspect of American history can be remedied easily by expanding your reading list. Mr House, a man I don't know nor have knowledge about may well live in Texarkana, Ar, he may not be a yankee, but I am begining to think you may well be from Alpha Centauri. Your conservation certianly points in that direction. You Sir would make a good yankee!
It is probably a good thing that BM didn't give the source of the citation about the "kingdoms" becoming a Kingdom of our God because the better sources are translated, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, & of His Christ." Does it make a difference whether or not it is "kingdoms" plural or "kingdom" singular? Perhaps, to some, it does not, but then, where it takes place in the prophetic time line, supposing it is a straight line, might make a significant difference. Of course, I don't know Reformed eschatology, but what follows is God's judgment, & if Reformed thinkers have been using this passage very long, then they have been waiting a long time for what follows. (Rev.11: 15 – 18) I don't see a whole lot of dominion taking type stuff going on in the following chapters, at least, not by the Kingdom of God on Earth.
I would also like to point out that not one pre-Nicene writer taught any of the tenets affirmed by the acronym "TULIP." Poor Jesus, Apostles, & Holy Spirit, they were all such pathetic teachers that not one Early Church writer taught even one of those five tenets. After hundreds of years, Augustine got the truth about salvation partly right, & then, thousands of years later, finally, Luther & Calvin got it perfectly right – Oh, thank God for those two end-time prophets! But, of course, that was only with respect to Apostolic doctrine; it wasn't until the American experiment that we finally have Apostolic practice in its purest form – thank God!
I appreciate everyone's concern for justice & righteousness in the world, but that starts with the Kingdom of God: with individuals who are living just, righteous, & merciful or loving lives as Jesus taught in word & deed. However, Paul taught us not to judge those outside the Church, but rather, we judge those inside the Church. How do we keep from judging outside the Church when we become part of the state? How do we become the light & salt, when we are the chain & axe? How can we be merciful, when our civil duty requires us to follow the letter of the law? Which laws will we choose to believe & obey, & which will we neo-Pharisaically choose to apply & enforce?
No, Christians are not permitted to use every means to preach the word. We all know what "every means" really means; it means just what Augustine, Luther, Calvin & other Evangelical & Catholic liars did in fact do: harass, persecute, torture, & murder those who did nothing more than deny their heretic doctrines, & the fact that they could do such things proves beyond a doubt that their theology was inspired by their untrue father. Anyone armed with Scripture & right reason would never condone or do what they in fact did, & those who apologize for them & seek to emulate them share in their apostasy which infected all of Europe & the world with their unrighteousness, violence, & war.
Today, the Dominionists want to do more than just preach; they want to control every part of your life, but with this proviso: you will have freedom of conscience to practice your faith as you see fit just like the founding fathers intended in a pluralistic state that celebrates equality & freedom. I'll believe they mean that when I believe Muslims mean it. People who have power have a tendency to exercise that power even in ways that they would deny that they would ever use it, but here, I think, in the above, we have a kind of Dominionist manifesto, & so, the rest of you should know what they really have in mind – you will comply; resistance is futile, & because they have God on their side, they will think they are doing God service when they oppress you.
Their City on a Hill is a city in decline. They are trying to deflect the truth about themselves on to others. If they can just control others, then they will be able to build God's Kingdom. If you look at Scripture, you will find that God was able to control the sin of others just fine without our help. He flooded the Ancient world, but preserved His faithful. He rained fire down on Sodom, but saved Lot. He delivered Israel from Egypt distinguishing between His people & the Egyptians. Somehow, God's people keep getting duped into thinking God needs their help or needs to to things man's way. God have mercy on them for they know not what they do, & they know not from whence their Help comes.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak."
Ignatius (A.D. 110): "They that are carnal cannot do the things that are spiritual…Nor can the unbelievers do the things of belief."
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners…No good thing dwells in us…For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit…Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God…He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life…Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold…Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly."
Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace."
Origen: "Our free will…or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner."
Eusebius (A.D. 330): "The liberty of our will in choosing things that are good is destroyed."
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Clement Of Rome (A.D. 69): "Let us therefore approach Him in holiness of soul, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father because He made us an elect portion unto Himself…Seeing then that we are the special elect portion of a Holy God, let us do all things that pertain unto holiness…There was given a declaration of blessedness upon them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord…Jesus Christ is the hope of the elect…"
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "We are elected to hope, committed by God unto faith, appointed to salvation."
Ignatius: "To the predestined ones before all ages, that is, before the world began, united and elect in a true passion, by the eternal will of the Father…"
Justin Martyr: "In all these discourses I have brought all my proofs out of your own holy and prophetic writings, hoping that some of you may be found of the elect number which through the grace that comes from the Lord of Sabaoth, is left or reserved [set apart] for everlasting salvation."
Irenaeus (A.D. 198): "God hath completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto eternal life…Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever."
Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "Through faith the elect of God are saved. The generation of those who seek God is the elect nation, not [an earthly] place, but the congregation of the elect, which I call the Church…If every person had known the truth, they would all have leaped into the way, and there would have been no election…You are those who are chosen from among men and as those who are predestined from among men, and in His own time called, faithful, and elect, those who before the foundation of the world are known intimately by God unto faith; that is, are appointed by Him to faith, grow beyond babyhood."
Cyprian (A.D. 250): "This is therefore the predestination which we faithfully and humbly preach."
Ambrose Of Milan (A.D. 380): "In predestination the Church of God has always existed."
Augustine (A.D. 380): "Here certainly, there is no place for the vain argument of those who defend the foreknowledge of God against the grace of God, and accordingly maintain that we were elected before the foundation of the world because God foreknew that we would be good, not that He Himself would make us good. This is not the language of Him who said, 'You did not choose Me, but I chose you' (John 15:16)."
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
LIMITED ATONEMENT
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "[Christ speaking] I see that I shall thus offer My flesh for the sins of the new people."
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "He endured the sufferings for those men whose souls are [actually] purified from all iniquity…As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of carious forms, so Christ served even to the cross for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by His blood and the mystery of the cross."
Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men…Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary…promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many."
Tertullian (A.D. 200): "Christ died for the salvation of His people…for the church."
Cyprian (A.D. 250): "All the sheep which Christ hath sought up by His blood and sufferings are saved…Whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ shall only escape…He redeemed the believers with the price of His own blood…Let him be afraid to die who is not reckoned to have any part in the cross and sufferings of Christ."
Lactantius (A.D. 320): "He was to suffer and be slain for the salvation of many people…who having suffered death for us, hath made us heirs of the everlasting kingdom, having abdicated and disinherited the people of the Jews…He stretched out His hands in the passion and measured the world, that He might at the very time show that a large people, gathered out of all languages and tribes, should come under His wings, and receive the most great and sublime sign."
Eusebius (A.D. 330): "To what 'us' does he refer, unless to them that beleive in Him? For to them that do not believe in Him, He is the author of their fire and burning. The cause of Christ's coming is the redemption of those that were to be saved by Him."
Julius (A.D. 350): "The Son of God, by the pouring out of His precious blood, redeemed His set apart ones; they are delivered by the blood of Christ."
Hilarion (A.D. 363): "He shall remain in the sight of God forever, having already taken all whom He hath redeemed to be kings of heaven, and co-heirs of eternity, delivering them as the kingdom of God to the Father."
Ambrose (A.D. 380): "Before the foundation of the world, it was God's will that Christ should suffer for our salvation…Can He damn thee, whom He hath redeemed from death, for whom He offered Himself, whose life He knows is the reward of His own death?"
Pacian (A.D. 380): "Much more, He will not allow him that is redeemed to be destroyed, nor will He cast away those whom He has redeemed with a great price."
Epiphanius (A.D. 390): "If you are redeemed…If therefore ye are bought with blood, thou are not the number of them who were bought with blood, O Manes, because thou deniest the blood…He gave His life for His own sheep."
Jerome (A.D. 390): "Christ is sacrificed for the salvation of believers…Not all are redeemed, for not all shall be saved, but the remnant…All those who are redeemed and delivered by Thy blood return to Zion, which Thou hast prepared for Thyself by Thine own blood…Christ came to redeem Zion with His blood. But lest we should think that all are Zion or every one is Zion is truly redeemed of the Lord, who are redeemed by the blood of Christ form the Church…He did not give His life for every man, but for many, that is, for those who would believe."
Remigius (A.D. 850): "Since only the elect are saved, it may be accepted that Christ did not come to save all and did not die on the cross for all."
Anselm: "If you die in unbelief, Christ did not die for you."
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
IRRESISTBLE GRACE
Barnabas (A.D. 70): "God gives repentance to us, introducing us into the incorruptible temple."
Ignatius: "Pray for them, if so by they may repent, which is very difficult; but Jesus Christ, our true life, has the power of this."
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "Having sometime before convinced us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life, hath now shown us the Savior, who is able to save them which otherwise were impossible to be saved…Free will has destroyed us; we are sold into sin."
Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "Not of ourselves, but of God, is the blessing of our salvation…Man, who was before led captive, is taken out of the power of the possessor, according to the mercy of God the Father, and restoring it, gives salvation to it by the Word; that is, by Christ; that many may experimentally learn that not of himself, but by the gift of God, he receives immortality."
Tertullian (A.D. 200): "Do you think, O men, that we should ever have been able to have understood these things in the Scriptures unless by the will of Him that wills all things, we had received grace to understand them?…But by this it is plain, that [faith] is not given to thee by God, because thou dost not ascribe it to Him alone."
Cyprian (A.D. 250): "Whatsoever is grateful is to be ascribed not to man's power, but to God's gift. It is God's, I say, all is God's that we can do. Yea, that in nothing must we glory, since nothing is ours."
Arnobius (A.D. 303): "You place the salvation of your souls in yourselves, and trust that you may be made gods by your inward endeavor, yet it is not our own power to reach things above."
Lactantius (A.D. 320): "The vistory lies in the will of God, not in thine own. To overcome is not in our power."
Athanasius (A.D. 350): "To believe is not ours, or in our power, but the Spirit's who is in us, and abides in us."
Jerome (A.D. 390): "This is the chief righteousness of man, to reckon that whatsoever power he can have, is not his own, but the Lord's who gives it…See how great is the help of God, and how frail the condition of man that we cannot by any means fulfill this, that we repent, unless the Lord first convert us…When [Jesus] says, 'No man can come to Me,' He breaks the proud liberty of free will; for man can desire nothing, and in vain he endeavors…Where is the proud boasting of free will?…We pray in vain if it is in our own will. Why should men pray for that from the Lord which they have in the power of their own free will?"
Augustine (A.D. 370): "Faith itself is to be attributed to God…Faith is made a gift. These men, however, attribute faith to free will, so grace is rendered to faith not as a gratuitous gift, but as a debt…They must cease from saying this."
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
Clement Of Rome (A.D. 69): "It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?"
Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "Such a soul [of a Christian] shall never at any time be separated from God…Faith, I say, is something divine, which cannot be pulled asunder by any other worldly friendship, nor be dissolved by present fear."
Tertullian: "God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…For what is of God is never extinguished."
Augustine: "Of these believers no one perishes, because they were all elected. And they were elected because they were called according to the purpose–the purpose, however, not their own, but God's…Obedience then is God's gift…To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance in good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God."
Source: Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back into Grace (Grand Rapids, MI Baker, 2002), Appendix.
My recent post Lead SA- but which way
Mr. Marinov, contrary to the belief of some; puritans did not create America. You Sir, have read to many yankee textbooks. If I may suggest follow the example of the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11. Otherwise very clear thinking.
I don't even know what a "yankee textbook" is, let alone read it. I have been north of the Mason-Dixon line only a few times, and never read or picked up a textbook while there. 95% of my time in the US was spent in the South, between Texas and Virginia. I strongly rely for my understanding of the Reformed influence on American history on my friend and historian Ben House, and especially his book, Punic Wars and Cultural Wars. Ben House lives in Texarkana AR, and if he is a Yankee, I am from Alpha Centauri.
What a remarkable writer and thinker is Mr. Marinov. It is hard to pick out any three paragraphs within his essays without hearing the kind of sermon you'd long to hear in your own church. But forwarding his writings to friends who are looking to find His way in this world is the next best thing. And all of American Vision is a treasure in that regard.
So many times I hear about how God's sovereignty is for our salvation–and that's as far as sermons go. I never hear anything about how our salvation is for God's plan. It's simple, yet I don't here it often, if at all. Thanks.
Mr. Marinov, thank you so much for your article. I am a college student of twenty years old who grew up under the tutelage of my father, a pastor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. I am also an RA and Student Chaplain in a first year hall at my school in the South where few other Reformed Christians seem to reside. A stance that can be surprisingly difficult to take when everyone around you consistently tells you that you are prideful and narrow-minded for believing in the total sovereignty of God. I appreciate your thoughts and the defense that you offer for Reformed theology.
I might, however, offer the additional suggestion that a great part of Reformed theology historically has been the emphasis on worship and how it is to be conducted. I grew up in a church that followed the Regulative Principle of Worship and that only sang Psalms , a practice that I know the Covenanters of Scotland did long before me, and that the New Testament church did long before them.
Worship was an immensely important issue for many of the great reformers, and I would even go as far as to suggest that if the wrongs of America are to be righted and reformed theology is to be on the front-lines of this change that it would be through the means of a Scriptural understanding and application of God-centered worship. I feel that it would be that emphasis if anything that would mark a return to Reformed Theology in the United States or anywhere else.
However, I am young so take my comment as you will. Thank you again for your post!
It may be, Ben, I don't know. I wouldn't bet my farm on a too heavy focus on formal worship as the main factor for cultural change. I am more inclined to see worship as everything we do rather than as special time for centering on a ritual. In my thinking if God meant ritualized worship to be that main vehicle for cultural change, He would have laid down very specific rules for it – at least as specific and unequivocal as is His Moral and Judicial Law. For the moment I see the Law as a more specific and usable tool for dominion and cultural change than the Regulative Principle; therefore I have grounds to see it as the main factor in that cultural change.
Of course, God does reveal more about His Word in history. If He reveals as much as to make the Regulative Principle more clear and unequivocal than the Ten Commandments and the attached Case Laws, I am ready and willing to replace social action with rutialized worship as the main factor of cultural change.
An excellent, thought-provoking article.
Reformed theology only begins at TULIP, and opposing Pelosi's excesses is not proof of Reformed political thinking. The City on a Hill is not the New York of yesterday or the Amsterdam of today, but something radically different. Abraham Kuyper – where are you when we need you?
I appreciate this article greatly, but I do have something to add. The Reformed theology we are talking about is, historically, the systematic beliefs of the "reformers," who were all over the European continent. Their beliefs were not set up in TULIP, but in the Five Solas, which covered every aspect of Christian/Protestant belief, including soteriology, or the study of salvation, which is where the five points of Calvinism ( Calvin was the first to put this belief into a systematic form, not TULIP, that was the Synood of Doort). So the author is correct that this involves God's sovereignty, but in every area of life and practice, as it says in the Scriptures, " He ( God) has given us everything we need for life and godliness." II Peter 1:3 So you see reformed theology means the beliefs of the Protestant reformers, based on God's Word, and His Word alone, for all of life and practice, to His glory and our great joy. Thank you for the article, very well done.
It seems to me that he was simply thinking the fallen world will grow increasingly worse, despite the superior powers you mention. His conviction was that God's word teaches this.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote:
"The world can never be reformed. Never! That is absolutely certain. A christian State is impossible. All the experiments have failed. They had to fail. They must fail. The Apocalypse alone can cure the world's ills. Man even at his best, even as a christian, can never do so. You can never make people christian by Acts of Parliament. You can never christianize society. It is folly to attempt to do so. I would even suggest that it is heresy to do so" (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "The Christian and the State in Revolutionary Times" p. 108).
If Dr. Lloyd-Jones believed this as a reformed and Calvinist, there is no wonder that many Reformed and Calvinist leaders at present day, can have the same sentiments Dr. Lloyd-Jones had. That is why I think we need to keep in "reforming the already reformed".
My recent post “Si no puedes matar el mensaje” Por- Daviel DPaz
You are right, Daviel. Unfortunately, even a great mind like Lloyd-Jones couldn't see the obvious contradiction in his thinking. I have never been able to understand what logic these men used to come to such conclusions. "We have the Holy Spirit, and we have the Reformed theology – the greatest spiritual and the greatest intellectual power in history – on our side. And with these two superior powers, we will always fail against the world." Seriously, what was he thinking?
Great article indeed. As a matter of fact, the City on a Hill mentality is almost impossible to have it, if we still are holding onto Premil and Dispensationalism eschatologies. These eschatologicals views are AT ODDS with the City on a Hill mentality. That is why we can perceive that the majority of Reformed and 5 point Calvinist such as the followers of John Piper and John MacArthur for instance, don't have the impact on culture they supposed to have. Why? Because they have the same kind of mentality that the great Martyn Lloyd-Jones had:
My recent post “Si no puedes matar el mensaje” Por- Daviel DPaz
I don't even know if I am a TULIP. Mostly, I think.
But I do know that I am very inspired by this article and agree wholeheartedly that the salvation of individuals is not the end of God's plan. It is more like a beginning.
So here's to Every Area of Life and Society.
My recent post Victory in Iraq
Awesome article, Mr Marinov.
I am one of the rare former Charismatic-turned-reformed people who got the 'City on a Hill' doctrine down, several years before being persuaded to TULIP. I heard Rushdoony speak before I read Loraine Boettner…
Terrific article, Gary. One wonders if it might be legitimate to trace our natural cultural decline to the progressive adoption of Dispensational Theology's focus on individual salvation and abandonment of the culture? Seems as if evangelism's focus since Finney became progressively individualized with each succeeding generation of evangelists, i.e. Moody, Sunday, Graham, et al. Was Finney exposed to Darby and his teachings?
My recent post Portrait Of A Man
Doug Frank's amazing book _Less Than Conquerors: How Evangelicals Entered the 20th Century _ is, alas, out of print. It deals with the several manifestations of a broken social order that cropped up among us a century ago: mysticism, fortune-telling, and fools' errands in particular.
Excellent article! The problem I believe lies in the fact that we have a mental acknowledgment of the doctrines, while failing to put them into practice (wich begs the question, "Do we have the right doctrine if we are not practicing it?" I do have a question for Mr. Marinov: If what defines a church is the following three things 1) Preaching of the Word, 2) Practice of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord's supper and, 3) church discipline, then where does the position that you hold fit into these 3 distinctives?
Nowhere. I wasn't defining "church," I was defining REFORMED.
I understand Mr. Marinov that you were not defining church but REFORMED however, are we not talking about Reformed among God's people – aka the church? Do you have truly reformed outside the church?
That's true. Although the definition you give for a church is for an institutional, i.e. visible church. The Scripture does allow for the reality of the invisible church, both in the OT and in the NT. Even if temporarily, a believer can exist outside of the visible church and still be part of The Church. Example: Elijah. Anyway, this is a different question.
Preaching of the Word (point 1) would be where the church has failed. We are used to think of "preaching of the Word" as something that is done Sunday morning to the members of the congregation. This is wrong. Preaching of the Word is what the Church should do every day to every person – believers and unbelievers – and to every institution, family, business, school, civil government. The Church's political action is preaching of the Word; its educational efforts are preaching of the Word; its economic and welfare services are preaching of the Word; setting up social, political, and economic agendas is preaching of the Word; calling people to resistance is preaching of the Word; maintaining social order is preaching of the Word. Every one of these social and cultural efforts are preaching of a word; if the Church is not there to do them – and preach God's Word through the process – someone else will be there to take over – and preach a different word.
This is where the Church has failed. And the pastors shouldn't complain of the proliferation of para-church organizations: they are the logical outcome of a church that has refused to preach the Word every day, to every aspect of God's creation, with every possible means.
For years I have used a simple test to determine whether a church is genuine or counterfiet.
Is Jesus Christ the central figure of that church?
If man, whether Pope, organization, pastor, or church board is the center, then that is man’s church, and not the Church that Jesus Christ established.
Absolutely! I go to a Baptist church where the TULIP is the basic understanding of salvation, but there is NOTHING about the worldview/government there. As a matter of fact we are all just kind of hanging on, waiting for "the end." So what's a body to do, now that I understand, and have been looking for five years, for a church that has the "whole enchilada?"
Bojidar,
I would point out the Sovereign Grace churches as an example of your article. These are basically Charismatic Reformed groups. The thing I've noted in interacting with them though is the lack of "city on a hill" mentality. Now, I have hopes of that at some point. These churches are heavy into Piper, Bridges, and the retreatist MacArthur but wouldn't lend a hand to Operation Rescue for instance. Now, I still have high hopes this will change. I always try to point these types to Gary(s) books etc. I think we should not give up TULIP is a start after all.
I am constantly trying to turn even my dispie friends into a correct understanding of God's Kingdom. We must plug away!
That’s what I’ve been saying to people and that’s why I love this guy! Great article Bojidar.