Driscoll’s New Calvinism

Time magazine has called ‘The New Calvinism’ (whatever that is exactly) the third most influential idea changing the world right now. In response, Mark Driscoll has produced his list of four ways in which the New Calvinism is different to the Old one. For the sake of the discussion, let me repeat them below:

Four Ways ‘New Calvinism’ is So Powerful

  1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
  2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
  3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
  4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

So that you have the full picture, Driscoll has also posted entries about what loving all Christians means and doesn’t mean, and about the importance of keeping the gospel central. All of this has been followed up by some short bios on some fairly old Calvinists who, I assume, were actually new in their day too (e.g. Athanasius and Augustine).

At one level, it’s a pretty shrewd political manoeuvre. The general public’s understanding of Calvinism (where they have any understanding) is not fantastic. The Time article captures the vibe:

It will be interesting to see whether Calvin’s latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country’s infancy. [emphasis mine]).

So Driscoll’s attempt to distance what he is teaching from public misperceptions is, in one sense, timely and wise. However, I for one am lead to ask whether the instrument he has used is too blunt—in the way that a chainsaw is too blunt to peel tomatoes with.

My main question is what exactly does he mean by the ‘Old’ Calvinism? As far as I can see at the moment, it is anything that ever called itself Calvinist that doesn’t fit Driscoll’s four points. But I am having trouble understanding why Driscoll has chosen the four points that he has.

Let’s take his first point. It seems to me that he has characterized the Old Calvinism in terms of Fundamentalism versus Liberalism because his desire is to get to cultural engagement. That is the pay dirt for Driscoll. But this ignores all sorts of issues. Firstly, the fundamentalists became fundamentalist, at least in part, because of their reaction to Liberalism. And their cultural situation was nothing like ours. In the US at the turn of the century, America was effectively mono-cultural, in as much as most people thought of themselves as Christian, with Christianity being part of the public discourse. So what would you do when you are part of a world where people are calling themselves Christian, but are disobeying the gospel and rejecting the atoning work and Lordship of Christ? At least one good biblical response is to separate from them (e.g. 1 Cor 5:9-13, Rom 16:17, Titus 3:10). It is, at least, possible that separatism, in their context, was precisely the right action. They needed to declare that what others called ‘Christian’ was not Christian at all. I am not claiming that those tendencies haven’t left us 100 years later with a real problem that now needs to be addressed; some people have failed to appreciate the fact that the world has now changed and that the culture does not describe itself, even in the US, as Christian anymore. But Driscoll’s comment suggests that both groups have failed equally. This is an assessment I find very hard to accept. Cultural engagement is not all that the gospel has to say (and we’ll come back to this in a later post).

However, his first point is not where my greatest disappointment lies. My greatest disappointment lies in his third and fourth statements. What exactly does Driscoll mean when he says that cessationists are fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit? I suspect that what he means is that they don’t share his understanding of the way the Spirit works in God’s world today. And I am almost positive that that understanding involves the Spirit’s work in giving words of knowledge and such things. Why do I say this? Well, because every thoughtful cessationist (yes, there are thoughtless cessationists, just like there are thoughtless non-cessasionists) I have ever met or read does believe in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. They believe in the miracle of God-given new birth that comes about through the power and presence of God’s Holy Spirit as he changes people by his word. And they believe in the power of God’s Spirit in putting to death the old man and enabling the Chrisitan to live God’s new life in righteousness and holiness. So if this isn’t the presence and power of the Holy Spirit that Driscoll is talking about, what is he talking about? I can only conclude it involves such issues as words of knowledge, or spiritual intuition that he has spoken about in a number of other places. But if that is so, then on what biblical basis does this become the defining thing about the presence and the power of the Spirit?

It’s worth saying here that I am not a cessationist. But I am highly skeptical of much that passes as miraculous in the wider Christian world, and therefore some have accused me of being practically cessationist. I would prefer to call it biblically skeptical. Jesus was profoundly skeptical about belief based on miracles (e.g. John 2:23-25, Matt 12:38-39, Matt 24:24). Furthermore, the book of 1 Corinthians (the darling book of most people I know who promote miracles and signs) is, in fact, profoundly uninterested in the externally miraculous. The whole book is about the fact that the Corinthians’ apparent miraculous spirituality is almost entirely devoid of gospel spirituality. If Paul is looking for a sign that the Spirit is at work, it is that the Christians love each other and act with godliness. I believe that God can (and sometimes does) do all sorts of things that are contrary to our normal experience of nature. But I am equally convinced that the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament points to the signs of the work of God’s Spirit in the apparently ordinary, but spiritually extra-ordinary, work of bringing people to Christ and transforming their lives in holiness. I think that there are many cessationists who share something very close to my position.

All of this makes me ask the question about point 4. Driscoll says in a later post that your opinion on spiritual gifts is not a primary Christian issue. In fact, according to his analogy, it is not about national boundaries, but state boundaries (i.e. it is a disputable matter on which Christians may disagree). If that is so and, according to point 4, the New Calvinism is about bringing Christians together, then why on earth is being not cessationist one of the defining characteristics of the New Calvinism, as he states so clearly in point 3? I can’t help thinking that Driscoll has hopped onto the Time bandwagon without thinking seriously enough about what he is saying. His comments may be politically savvy, but they are not theologically or historically helpful. If the New Calvinism is defined by Driscoll’s four points, I’m not sure I’m a New Calvinist, no matter how much I agree with his desire to seek God’s glory by making Christ known. Maybe I’m just an ordinary Calvinist?

29 thoughts on “Driscoll’s New Calvinism

  1. Paul, I agree with you that it is odd and ironic that a ‘new Calvinist’ wanting to build instead of burn bridges (point 4), seems to caricature and trash his ‘old Calvinist’ friends who might be cessationist or just more sceptical about free and easy claims of the miraculous. (See my own response to his charge on this topic when in Sydney here.

    I would just add that Driscoll’s style in these short sharp blows he strikes (as with many of the 18 points in Sydney) also illustrates the weakness of hyperbole in preaching to shock.

    I know (following Phillip Jensen and others), we often say that balanced preaching is boring preaching. I know we often promote the use of hyperbole to make a point and arrest attention. And hey, didn’t Jesus do it!?
    However using the claim of hyperbole or generalisation will not do as a cover for misrepresentation or carelessness, especially if you are making the sweeping generalisation to put others down and boost your own camp up.

    Misrepresenting others and carelessness with facts actually falls into the category of bearing false witness. In my view there is nothing praiseworthy about it and it’s hard for me to see any excuse.

    Sweeping generalisations better be accurate generalisations.

  2. I had similar “reservations” when I read Mark’s post.

    On one hand it sounded like a bit of a cheer for the likes of himself, Grudem, Piper et.al. (ie those that now-a-days call themselves Reformed Charismatics).

    On the other, his quirky definition of cessationism, sounded more akin to ‘hyper-dispensationalism’.

    But it may be that, being who he is, he just can’t help being a little provocative and stirring the pot and get his readers thinking. As has been the case here – good post and good point – being (apparently) ordinary and spiritually extraordinary lends itself more to a humble gracious approach to matters of evidential experiences – IMHO smile

  3. I think Driscoll wasn’t in great form with that post, and in a follow up post he did say the distinction of Old Calvinism New Calvinism was a bit of a false dichotomy and the main issue was the gospel.

    I don’t think it was some political masterstroke. I think lots of the blogosphere commented on how confused or confusing he was. Most confusing for me was who he meant by the Old Calvinists (I blogged on this).  I think he saw the reaction by a stack of people and backed down a bit by conceeding it was a false dichotomy.

    That’s not to say the issues raised aren’t extremely important and don’t warrant discussion. Just saying that we should be slow to bludgeon the guy with one sloppy post. What was that wise thing I read recently about being generous. We are friends – right?

  4. Good comment Mike Kellahan. I’d hate it if someone wrote me off because of one sloppy post. I would imagine that everyone who blogs has written things they’ve thought better of after publishing – perhaps the Sola Panel included?

  5. Is it really just one sloppy post?
    Have his subsequent posts clarified anything about whom he was describing as ‘old Calvinists’? Has he retracted or apologised for any of the gross generalisations he made about them?

    Further, it seems at least on the topic of attributing the motive of fear of the Holy Spirit to cessationists, this is a pretty settled criticism by Driscoll. I’d say he’s being consistent here with this accusation, given what he said to us when he was in Sydney.

  6. Don’t these responses actually prove Driscoll’s point?

    I’d share most of the concerns already expressed but Mark’s foundational point is that OC (Old Calvinism – although I’d probably use a different term) was <i>reactionary</i> towards culture where as he is trying to <i>engage</i> (critically, one would assume) with culture.

    My guess is that he picked these various points simply because of the congruence between convictions he holds and issues that are currently popular within the Christian world. That’s just smart PR isn’t it?

    All of this forces us on to the classic ‘in the world, but not of it’ every generation wrestles with. Isn’t it true that our reactions all express some concern over Mark Driscoll’s ‘playing to the crowd’ – but if so that is exactly the point he is making. OC haven’t engaged… well, up ‘til now?

    To me MD’s stuff comes over as a bit <i>lite</i> but I think that is partially because his concern is primarily evangelism – namely he is more concerned with what non-Christians think about what he’s doing than what other parts of the church think. That doesn’t mean that he’s going to change the gospel to suit their preferences, but it does mean that, in the words of James in Jerusalem, Mars Hill will not make it difficult for gentiles to turn to God.

  7. Hi Mike and Sam,

    I agree entirely. And I have certainly posted things that needed to be changed or more carefully nuanced in light of conversations with others. I have no problems being generous to Driscoll, and I think of him as a brother.

    However, I do think it is fair to call on him to clarify the substance of his original claims in light of the various criticisms of his original post. The clarification that Driscoll posted, that I think Michael was referring to (http://theresurgence.com/dead_guys_week) basically just says that Old and new isn’t helpful, because there are some really old guys who held to the perennial truths of the faith.

    That’s all well and good, but he hasn’t said anything about whether his four points represent what is perennially true. He certainly hasn’t retracted any of them that I can find. Given the nature of the things he has said, I think we need a little more clarification.

    For example, are all cessationists ruled out of belonging to the New Calvinist tribe or not?

    I don’t have any problem with people making mistakes and needing to clarify or retract. I just don’t think his clarification deals with the guts of the criticisms against him (see also http://eardstapa.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/reformed-and-reforming/, http://www.inlightofthegospel.org/?p=4301). If he’s wrong, that’s fine. But for mine, he needs to explain a little more about how and why he was wrong.

  8. Hi John,

    I am not sure that I’ve understood what you meant by: Don’t these responses actually prove Driscoll’s point? Could you clarify for me a little?


  9. Hi John,

    I am not sure that I’ve understood what you meant by: Don’t these responses actually prove Driscoll’s point? Could you clarify for me a little?


    MD: You guys are too reactionary to culture.

    Us: MD, you’ve sold out in order to appeal to society. (i.e. we are reacting to him!)

    <i>For nuance see post above!</i>

  10. Hi John,

    Thanks for the clarification. It helps me to understand what you’re saying. But I’m not quite sure that your understanding of my position is quite correct.

    When you put these words in our mouths

    Us: MD, you’ve sold out in order to appeal to society. (i.e. we are reacting to him!)

    I’m not sure that they’re my words (although I am happy to hear why you think they are).

    What I thought I said was that I think he’s wise to try and deal with the misperceptions that people might have about Calvinism. I just think that the way he did it sacrifices the truth (historically and theologically). And I don’t think that sacrificing the truth for the sake of PR is all that helpful (and I think Driscoll, on the principle at least, would agree).

    So, in response to your comment about us reacting to him, I guess I want to ask why my post is reactionary rather than engaging? Is listening to what he is trying to say and then saying I disagree automatically reactionary? Could it be engaging?

    I wouldn’t have a problem if Driscoll’s stuff was lite. I think we need to try to talk to people where they’re at. But I don’t think lite and wrong are in the same category.

    To put it another way, as far as I can see in the Bible, playing to the crowd is all about removing irrelevant barriers to belief, but it’s never about being untrue. And that means that engaging the culture is about being part of people’s lives and then critiquing the world in light of God’s truth. After all the gospel is the call to repent and put your trust in Jesus.


  11. <b>Quote from John</b>
    Us: MD, you’ve sold out in order to appeal to society. (i.e. we are reacting to him!)

    <b>Quote from Paul</b>
    I’m not sure that they’re my words (although I am happy to hear why you think they are).

    What I thought I said was that I think he’s wise to try and deal with the misperceptions that people might have about Calvinism. I just think that the way he did it sacrifices the truth (historically and theologically). And I don’t think that sacrificing the truth for the sake of PR is all that helpful (and I think Driscoll, on the principle at least, would agree).

    I’m sorry Paul if this is a bit of a red-herring. I’ve got to go so this will be brief. Feel free to just ignore this if it isn’t helpful.

    On the one hand I pretty much agree with your analysis and your desire to <i>engage</i> with what Mark is saying.

    On the other hand I’m surprised that you can’t see my comments on how this looks. To say that MD is sacrificing truth for the sake of PR seems to me exactly the same as saying that he has sold out to appeal to society.

    You may well be right. My point was just the irony of the dialogue. MD has accused us of being overly suspicious of engaging with culture. And when he does that we respond by being suspicious of his engagement with culture.

  12. Paul and panel, how would you define Calvinism (if you don’t mind me asking)?

  13. Paul
    yes – it is fair to call on Driscoll to clarify the substance of his original claims but you’ve gone much further than that.

    To take up just the cessationist point – You condemn Driscoll’s view that the defining thing about the presence and the power of the Spirit are issues such as words of knowledge or spiritual intuition.

    The problem is – he did not say that. You inferred it from his silence. You say you don’t know who he is talking about but you suspect you know what he means. You then assert what you say is the only possible conclusion. You then want him to defend himself against these claims which he never made.

    I don’t think that that is a fair or generous reading of Driscoll’s post. 

    Now to be clear on this – I don’t know what Driscoll meant & I hope he does clarify it. I think what he wrote was confusing. It may lead you to ask some of the questions you do. But lets not put answers in his mouth then condemn him for them.

  14. Hi John,

    Yes, I do see what you are saying and I agree, in some ways to respond automatically makes me look like one of those outdated Old Calvinists. I just don’t know what that means. Does it mean we never comment or respond? I guess I am hoping that if we try and do it fairly and helpfully then it will be seen for what it is? (I can always hope right!)


    Yes, your point is well taken, we do need to respond to what he is actually saying. I guess I made my point because I have heard the cessationist line from him in a number of different contexts now and explained in some detail. So I guess I felt that his post was a reflection of a broader theological perspective that he has articulated elsewhere. But I agree, we need to let him respond and clarify.


  15. Michael – in the new spirit of generosity – I wonder if you could avoid putting words into Paul Grimmond’s mouth and condemn him for them.

    I don’t think Paul ever, in either his post or his comments, “condemned” Mark Driscoll.

    Generosity means we should be fair in the use of our rhetoric.

  16. Hi Adam,

    Thanks for your question. This could well open a whole other can of worms. One of the classic definitions of a Calvinist is someone who accepts the five points summarised by the acronym TULIP.

    1) Total Depravity
    2) Unconditional election
    3) Limited atonement
    4) Irresistible grace
    5) Perseverance of the saints

    You can find a helpful summary here: http://www.scionofzion.com/grace4.htm

    There is some dispute amongst some about point (3), which I think is the reason that Driscoll (and many others) call themselves 4 1/2 point Calvinists. I have considerable sympathy with him on this point but I understand why full limited atonement guys (like Sandy Grant for example) end up with their position.

    In sum, the points are supposed to reflect the biblical idea that salvation is all of God, that he chooses who will be his and he works in them by his word and Spirit to make them his and bring them home on the last day. It is a position that emphasizes the sovereignty of God in his plans for the world and in his salvation worked in human lives.

  17. Paul
    thanks for response
    could you give links to some of the places Driscoll articulates his position on the Spirit or Cessationism. It might also help if you could give links to the well thought out cessationists you refer to. This is an important issue & I’d appreciate being able to consider it more.

  18. Paul, you are right that many people would define a Calvinist as one who accepts ‘TULIP’ (as you mentioned I do).

    However we should make clear that the ‘TULIP’ summary was not from Calvin, but came after his life from some of his followers in response to the later teachings of Arminius, which denied Calvin’s strong view of God’s sovereignty in election and of the debilitating effects of our sin.

    Secondly it is not accurate to reduce Calvinism to holding a strong view of God’s predestining sovereignty. For a start, Calvin does not deal with predestination systematically until a long way into his <i>Institutes</i>.

    So Adam, one might also point to the critical and authoritative importance of the Spirit and the Bible in God’s self-revelation, to the importance of union with Christ, and of course to the importance of justification by faith without works as other key organising thoughts in his work.

    Please check out the article by Scott Clark (Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary, California) here, where he makes the point that ‘old’ Calvinism involves much more than predestination…

    Imagine trying to play ice hockey with only a hockey stick. Now that is inarguably an essential piece of equipment for the game of ice hockey but it is only a start. Ice hockey is impossible with ice, skates, a puck, and a goal. Just as there is more to ice hockey than sticks so there is more to Calvinism than predestination. Genuine, old-school, 16th- and 17th-century Calvinism confessed doctrines of God, humanity, Christ, salvation, church (including the sacraments), and last things.

    Clark also makes the point that leaving aside predestination, there is stuff about Driscoll and Mars Hill that is not historically Calvinist. For example, that his view of the continuing work of the Holy Spirit is more anabaptist. Likewise, Calvin was a paedo-baptist, unlike Mars Hill’s position.

  19. Ian
    if you are looking for ungenerous rhetoric on my part I think you’d do better with the first comment where I said the post was ‘bludgeoning’ Driscoll. That wasn’t fair and I apologize for that piece of overblown rhetoric.

    I stick by ‘condemn’ though & leave it for others to judge if that’s ungenerous. It wasn’t intended to cause any offence and I regret if any was taken.

  20. Hi Mike,

    On the cessationist front, some people who would claim a cessationist position but speak strongly about the work of the Spirit in regeneration and holiness would be (1)historically, Hodge and Warfield (for some very summary positions see: http://www.the-highway.com/cessation1_Warfield.html on cessationism and http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aabbregen.htm on regeneration). (2) From a much more recent perspective, Richard Gaffin is a cessationist with strong views about the supernatural work of the Spirit in regeneration and holiness (e.g. http://www.the-highway.com/charismatic1_Gaffin.html – now because of some SPAM filter limits, I can only post a few links at a time in comments, so the second part of Gaffins article is exactly the same address with the numeral 1 replaced by the numeral 2). Hope that helps a bit.


  21. Thanks Paul,
    I will pursue those leads.

    The debate about the relationship of Calvin and the Calvinists is an old one. Who knew it would now become Calvin & Old Calvinists & New Calvinists?

  22. I am wondering whether the New Calvinism is just Calvinism made a bit more palatable for people brought up in the Arminian denominations in the USA.  Christianity is a different animal over there with different issues, and Driscoll probably functions there in a way that doesn’t translate here.  Perhaps we need an interpreter—we seem to making guesses about his meanings here.

  23. This is an interesting conversation that I have enjoyed reading. I hoped to say two things.

    1 – I liked MD more in his early days, before he got so into Calvin (among others). This is not because I think Calvin is bad, but rather that it makes it difficult to determine where MD is at. As has been illustrated on this thread, defining Calvinism is not always easy. I found it easier when MD just said what he believed, and we just compared it with Scripture. It also seems to be less emotive.

    2 – After MD visited and said those nasty things about the Sydney Anglicans the Sola Panel said they were going to revisit some of the stuff he said. I believe Phillip Jensen wrote something and it was going to be followed up. I remember the comment made several times that the worst thing would be to do nothing about his comments. I was just wondering when the follow up was going to come?


  24. Paul, I was directed to your post from http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/ weekly email that I receive. It was uncanny actually because I was listening to Phil Johnson’s Session from the Shepherd’s Conference 2009 about the language and behaviour of some folkes in Evangelicalism (Driscoll was mentioned). Mark’s heart seems to be in the right place, but his mouth is somewhere else I fear. By the way, I only just found out about your blog, and we (Timothy Fellowship) would like to link to your blog, you are most welcome to link to us if you wish (TeamPyro is a favourite of ours also).



  25. Another resource for anyone wanting a fully orbed understanding on the “Cessationist” distinctive (which is often misunderstood by the very word which it given to it). See: http://www.gty.org (see “Resources” and then search sermons by Bible Book and go to 1 Corinthians 13 and 14)
    There are quite a few sermon’s to get through, but I guarantee the listener will thoroughly understand what is meant by Cessationism by the end.

  26. Hi All,

    I have been doing some more thinking and thought that I should at least respond a little more to Mike and Ellen’s comments.

    Mike wrote:

    To take up just the cessationist point – You condemn Driscoll’s view that the defining thing about the presence and the power of the Spirit are issues such as words of knowledge or spiritual intuition.

    The problem is – he did not say that. You inferred it from his silence. You say you don’t know who he is talking about but you suspect you know what he means. You then assert what you say is the only possible conclusion. You then want him to defend himself against these claims which he never made.

    I don’t think that that is a fair or generous reading of Driscoll’s post.

    I agree with Mike, that I did express myself tentatively, because I am keen not to put words in Driscoll’s mouth. However, I do want to present the other side of the coin.

    Driscoll meant to say something when he posted his comments. He meant most people to understand it. And my post is nothing more than a reasonably conservative exegesis of his words based on fairly broadly agreed understandings of the words ‘cessationist’ and ‘continualist’.

    My exegesis would be backed up by things he has said in places like Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Now I haven’t read it all, but I do know he makes a very strong case against cessationism in that book (and has a real go at the exegetical foundations of cessationism in 1Cor 12-14). The book speaks of a number of spiritual experiences such as visions, intuitions, words from the Spirit.

    Furthermore, Driscoll has made some comments along this line while in Sydney. According to him we are afraid of the power of the Spirit. Again they were comments that he meant to make and he meant to be understood. I am responding, I think, to what he could reasonably be thought to have said. If he says something different, then I will respond in due course.

    I guess what I am saying is that I am guessing about what Driscoll said, in as much as I am guessing about what anybody is saying. I think Driscoll has said certain things, in more than one context, and he expects us to understand what he is saying. If in time he says that’s not what he meant, then I am happy with that. But
    I haven’t seen any retraction of his cessationist statements anywhere that I can find and I think that my original ‘reading’ is based on a common understanding of the words he used. I guess that time will tell.

  27. Paul
    I agree with this
    1. Driscoll is no cessationist
    2. Cessationism means what you said; and
    3. Driscoll believes in words of knowledge, spiritual intuition (although even that needs nuancing)

    I disagree with:
    4. your conclusion that for Driscoll the defining marks of the power and presence of the Spirit are words of knowledge or spiritual intuition.
    If he does teach that then show us where.
    At Engage Conference last year he taught at length about the work of the spirit – the big emphasis was on regeneration and sanctification.

  28. Hi Mike,

    Thanks for your clarification, it helps me heaps to understand the difference between us. My logic was that if cessationism and continuationism fundamentally agree on the significance of the presence and power of the Spirit in regeneration and growth in holiness, then what is the difference between the two positions? It is the more miraculous (for want of a better term) spiritual gifts.

    However, it is possible that Driscoll is just saying that he doesn’t think cessationists really believe what they say they believe about the power of the Spirit in regeneration and renewal. If that is what he is saying, then I think it’s a slightly strange way of saying it, but I can see how he might be saying that.

    I guess we need to wait for him to make himself clearer on this point. Thanks for your patience and persistence in pursuing the issue.


  29. Enough – Man (including Driscoll) is not perfect (the elect are getting there).  We eat our own over every word or deed done – it is time our focus shift to false teachers and the unsaved.

    It is time for reformed minded theology to focus on the gospel – living and sharing it.  It is disheartening to read these post and see the “church” live up to the sterotype of its opponents.

    I subscribe to no denomination, not have any predisposed church background.  I follow Christ (via Word and Spirit) through worship, fellowship, study, missions, etc…  I love to follow teaching of Piper and Driscoll, my own reformed minded pastor, MacArthur, etc… are they perfect – no, slaves to righteousness – yes.

    It is time to encourage one another, and bury the pride that drives us to be theogically better than others.

    Let’s major in the majors – how about the 5 points?

Comments are closed.