In A 2004 Article by Jeff Robinson...

Robinson quotes Gary Knapp, and although the circumstances of such a quote saddens me, the quote itself I find encouraging and worthy of reflection in light of postmodernism and the churches taken captive by the waves of culture and individual subjectivism as the basis of reality and truth. The Resurgence website supplied Robinson's article. I would encourage you to read the whole article, for it concerns the compromise of a popular megachurch.

In the article Knapp says (though the italics belong to me),

"Despite how [some] might define and understand postmodernism and the church, I think the classic definitions apply to Mars Hill and churches like it..."

"Truth for them seems to be more subjective and experiential than a product of a worldview developed by means of an interaction with God's Word, an interaction that often requires rigorous exegetical study and a measured reflection upon the results of that study."

Daniel Akin on "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility"

This is an edifying article on Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility from the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In it he addresses how should Southern Baptists respond to the issue of Calvinism as the subtitle indicates. Read it here...

A few thoughts...

1. As is well known, Calvin did not codify the five points of Calvinism. Akin is absolutely right in pointing this out. They were codified by his closest associates, students, and colleagues who lived in that historical setting - as a response to the disciples of Arminius at the Synod of Dort.

2. In reading some of Calvin's commentary on key passages where the systematized version of Calvinism is at stake, I would argue that Calvin was in fact a Calvinist. Regardless, Calvin was not the first Calvinist, nor is he the first to identify in fetal form the "doctrines of grace". Calvin was fond doctrinally of Augustine.

3. Calvin had no historical reason for codifying or expounding exhaustively the doctrines of grace and, hence, he did not attend to them extensively in his writing. He dealt more with buffeting the Church against the heresies of the papacy, than writing treatises on definite atonement, for example. This, in part, may explain the lack of written evidence concerning Calvin's Calvinism.

4. But we would also be wise to give attention to the codifying of his thought by those who were closest to him, so long as it is in accord with the doctrine of Christ and, thus, biblically balanced as Akin ably states.

5. Beyond these points, I find Akin's assessment of the "five points" well and good, and his pastoral and practical considerations concerning "biblical balance" necessary, edifying, and encouraging. In particular, I wholeheartedly agree with and admire his admonition towards a Godwardness (Point 1), Christ-centeredness, Biblicist position (Point 7), and, as somewhat of an overflow of these things, a fiery evangelical heart and prowess for sinners in this world.

6. I also "Amen!" his call to address these issues with discernment in teaching our congregations. I long to implement a Christian learning/ training center in the mainstream ministry of any church that God would providentially lead me towards. He gets a "Hallelujah!" for making mention of it in the context of youth ministry in order to prepare them for the secular bombardment that awaits most of them. My agreement in these areas is most especially an agreement with God's Word and the injunction to equip the saints for the work of ministry.

7. Lastly, to quote Akin, "Is there a place for differing positions on the issues of election, the extent of the atonement and calling, as well as how we do missions, evangelism, and give the invitation? I am convinced that the answer is yes. Further, I believe we will be the better for it theologically and practically as we engage each other in respectful and serious conversation." I concure with great expectation of further discussion.

8. And in keeping with my nature, I'll add something else after I've written, "Lastly...": Read Spurgeon's quote! In the words of Lloyd off of "Dumb and Dumber" - "It's a good one!" And may God be glorified in Jesus Christ - the J. C.!

Desiring God Staff on 2 Peter 2:1

Much has been made of 2 Peter 2:1 -

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

- and whether or not it defends an indefinite atonement (or that it opposes the view of definite atonement). An article was posted on the issue of this verse at the Desiring God website on January 1, 2007 - "Does 2 Peter 2:1 Deny Effectual Atonement?" I find it helpful and challenging. My aim is to engage in edifying discussion over key texts, as it is my hope that in your reading of this article you will feel compelled to comment and converse. The first issue in the article seems to concern the context; the second issue stems from Grudem's cross reference between 2 Peter 2:1 and Exodus 2:1, that Peter is pointing his audience to the Exodus of Israel; the third issue is that of language - is "the Lord who bought them" referring to Jesus or to God the Father in reference to Deut. 32:6; the fourth issue arises out of the question of reality vs. appearance in relation to those who deny the Master.

Beyond this, however, I find something more compelling. If you hold that this text denies definite atonement, I would lay the burden of explanation upon you. What does this text really mean by the term "bought". Do you really think that what "bought" means in this text is that those who deny the Master, when they die, will be saved if they die in their denial? Of course not - I hope! If those who deny Christhave been bought by Christ, but they are not saved in the last day, what does "bought" mean? Do you think that what this text means is that those who were bought will be in heaven if they do not believe in Christ? Again, of course not! Then what does bought mean? It means that He made a sufficient payment for those who deny, but not an effectual payment for them - unless they turn and believe, in which case Christ effectually bought them - His atonement really paid for them. If you would say that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all but effecient towards those who believe in Him, then (being reformed) I have no problems with that interpretation - we agree! It is not what the proponents of the contrary position affirm that I have a problem with, but what they deny (and what I happen to find taught in Scripture). In other words, every one is stuck with a limited atonement unless you are a universalist (and completely unbiblical) - it just depends on how you limit it; either in number or actuality, scope or power, etc. Regardless, the real issue hangs not on the atonement but on election - how is the atonement applied or where does faith come from? What makes the difference between those who deny and those who believe? 2 Peter 2:1 in no way denies the effecting of the sacrifice of Christ, but concerns its sufficiency. It term bought here does not negate what the reformed view calls for - please offer your thoughts...

Good Article by Kyle Vaughn from "The Resurgence" website

"The Digital Age--A New Dark Age? A Look At How Christianity Can Speak To Those Lost In A Storm of Information"

Great article with information on the Enlightenment, postmodern, and post-literate movements, how these movements have impacted the Church and how Christianity masters the reason - faith paradigm, the highest knowledge being that of God, the understanding of ourselves being in Him, as well as our salvation. Truth as it is revealed by God in Christ reigns preeminently.