I used to be a Charismatic. Not any more though, thanks to some thorough study on the Bible. At first when I realized that the Charismatics were in error (Whether you believe me or not!), I did not believe the Spiritual Gifts had ceased.

I think the most important issue is not whether the gifts have ceased, but whether people who claim to have them truly do have them. It is strange to see charismatics today arguing for fallible gifts, because to me, men are fallible and God is not. Translated, it means the "gifts" they claim to have are man-made and not God given, for God would give things that are perfect. Take for instance, Jesus.

When I come up against a Charismatic, I don't present Cessationism to him like I present the gospel. Rather, I ask him to prove one simple thing: Are your "gifts" God-given? That's the most important issue.

Another problem I see is that of people who claim on going revelation from God. One ridiculous example I heard was by a women preacher who said God asked her to take of her jacket, swing it about while dancing and revival would come to the church. Whoopee.
Sometimes, it is important to remember this: If we can't even study the Bible first, how is God going to trust us with new "revelation"? This kind of teaching tends to undermine the authority of the Bible. New revelation can come from the "Spirit". Sometimes I wonder what spirit they refer to.

I tend to dislike it when they refer to the Spiritual Gifts controversy as a debate. I prefer to think of it as one side being in error and the other one who must correct it. Correction then, is the main point that matters.

One thing that I agree with the Charismatics is on the subject of Revival. Like them, I believe that the Church desperately needs revival. I pray for it all the time. But prayer is only a precursor to action that will bring revival. I disagree, however, on what revival is. Most charismatics believe revival comes with signs and wonders. I believe revival comes with sound doctrine, followed by a burning desire for evangelism and missions. You can read more about this in my "Plea To Charismatics".

In the end, I believe that if we can't even get it right about the church at the basic, ordinary level, how are even going to handle the spectacular, extraordinary level?

Those of you who are smart enough, I hope you do realize that this is a parody. And not mockery. Take it all in good humor. I also realize that Michael Spencer (I think) has been offended by some of this. I apologize as well. But, like I said, it's nothing personal.



_____________________________________________________

Q: Are you a Calvinist?

A: Ya know, I would really, really like to be called one, but I think I'll pass.

Q: Why are you no longer a Calvinist?

A. In the good old days, I always had to give inquisitive folks the proper definition of Calvinism. I get lazy. Therefore I pass. Take, also, for example Evangelical Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, PCUSAers, OPCers, BPCers and PCAsses who are all Calvinists with similar views on some kind of monergism. But when you move just a few inches off this common ground, chaos ensues. Like whether we should immerse or sprinkle.

Calvinism is like a big apartment house where a lot of families live. Some of the families are people I identify with. Some of the families are people I want nothing to do with, even though Jesus told us to love our neighbors. After almost 14000 years, I think I need to find another place to live. One with cheap rent. I am not disassociating from everyone in the house or everything they believe, I just need my own place. I get bigger, ya know. Too much McDonalds, I suppose...

Oh, and some of the nut cases won't let me have any peace and quiet.

Q: So you are being bullied out by nut cases? Isn't it immature to change your entire label because of a few whacked out crazies?

A: Good point, but I think the problem is larger than the Whitites (Aomin-ers) who attacked me in April '05. It's the larger profile of Calvinism in evangelicalism. Just one example. When I came on board, J.I. Packer, Timothy George, and John Piper were representative of my kind of Calvinism. That was cool, because they were cool. So, I suppose that was cool. I could fit and feel authentic in that mix. Today, Calvinism is [Unnamed party], John Macarthur, Al Mohler and a lot of very angry young men defending all kinds of fundamentalist yahooism. Thanks to them, I can't fit and feel authentic anymore. Damn McDonalds. The profile and "flavor" of the movement has changed in significant ways (Or, how I want it to be, and since it's not my way, I guess I'll take the highway), at least as I perceive and experience it. It is no longer a basic grid, but is coming to include all kinds of things: mandatry hostility to public schools (or Homeschooling Onlyism), culture wars (or so what with Homos?), rejection of other Christians (a.k.a. Seperation), Young Earth Creationism (Also known as why-I-don't-like-AiG), ridiculous intimidation and defaming of good people (Like N.T Wright) writing and reading theology outside of the "approved list", though I don't even now if such a list exists. What the heck. It's my way. I don't fit. More McDonalds problems. It's starting to feel like a crusade against the rest of the church. As if the ones in the 11th Century weren't enough.

Q: What about Tim Keller and other more politically correct Calvinists? Why not identify with them?

A. I think Keller represents a kind of hopeful "post-Calvinism" (okay, okay, I admit Post-Modernism. There! I said it.) in the sense that he is open and affirming, not a polemicist. In other words, politically correct. Yeah! That's cool. Missional. Open to the Emergent Church and other heretics. Apologetics over polemics. Church planting rather than church splitting. Christianity over unregeneratety. Using dichotomies and framed questions instead of honest classification. I really hope his kind of Calvinism grows and I really appreciate him. My way, not the highway!

But honestly, I identify with so-many non-Calvinists and evangelical PCUSA types, it would be hypocritical to say I am a "Calvinist" in the current atmosphere. Os Guinness and Ravi Zacharias for starters. Mark Driscoll. Todd Bolsinger. Mark Roberts. Capon. Eugene Peterson. So many of those who only know how to read N.T. Wright. If you know anything about Calvinism these days, you will understand why I'm not just on the back lot, I've left the farm before I'm lynched. It's my way, to emphasize it for the 100342384th time.

Q: So are you giving up on all Calvinists? Removing yourself from them? Going your Way?

A. No, not at all. I will still read books by Calvinists, go to conferences, enjoy sermons and worship with Calvinists. For instance, I still identify strongly with The Founders Movement in the SBC, even if I am not in sync with everyone else who might be part of that movement. But yes, I shy away from Calvinists, don't read (No, condemn) their books and don't feel the zing in their sermons anymore. *Shrugs*

I still believe the majority of what I wrote in "Why Calvinism is Cool." I have changed my perception of some Calvinists and some trends in Calvinism in America. I do see some problems that I did not see at the time I wrote that essay, particularly with sectarianism and becoming too identified with the culture war.

I would just say I am a Reformation Christian. The Five Solas are more important to me than TULIP, though I still identify with some aspects of TULIP strongly. Just not all. That's why I don't hold to the TULIP anymore. And that's why I'm not a Calvinist. Duh!

Q: Limited Atonement?

A. I think that's an example of asking for a kind of loyalty to a construction that doesn't catch my interest anymore. From certain angles, some scriptures line up with it, but it's all forced exegesis. But the universalism of the mission and Gospel of Jesus are so overwhelming, I can't see where you use "limited" in any sense that is helpful. Or maybe you can. Like in the amount of people who go to heaven.

Q. There are ways around those issues. Many self-identified Calvinists use those short-cuts.

A: And that says to me that the label is just too important. Reformation Christian works fine. It's just a short cut to Thomas Merton.

Q. So are Calvinists bad?

A. Definitely. I would not now affirm the vast majority of the pro-Calvinist material I have written. In fact, I'm going through right them in the blog, deleting them for all eternity. It's caught up in the culture war, and I am very concerned about that, because I don't like being labeled a homophobe or a pro-lifer. And, yeah, it is unfortunate to see young people caught up in highly polemical, non-essential debates within Calvinism in a day when we need our young theologians helping us engage and missionalize the culture and the unreached world. There, I can sound orthodox anytime.

Bad isn't the word. Boring is often the right word. Especially when they don't go my way. If I have to go around some of these classic Calvinistic debates one more time I think I'll crack up, you know, like Humpty Dumpty. I will tell anyone, "I am bored with the vast majority of what Calvinists want to talk about," and frankly, I'm ashamed to have spent so much time reading and talking up some of these topics. Ashamed, ashamed. Ashamed of people like Spurgeon, Whitefield and all the other Calvinists out there!


Q: Why don't you just go with what scripture teaches. Period?

A. I think all of us go with what we believe scripture teaches, but I'm honest enough to say that the whole experience of being a Christian is more complex than just reading the Bible and joining a church. It's your life, not the ACT. There, I can be philosophical too. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the scripture AND in the believing community are realities that take us to different places as human beings. It's not relativism. It's simply the recognition that in the Christian experience, relationships and communities are important. That's why people like McLaren who go my way are cool!

One of the problems I am currently having is that I'm meeting more Calvinists who are arrogant absolutists about where the church exists (They obviously don't know it's here on earth!), and have come up with an ecclesiology where having elders is as important as the resurrection (Too bad for them). I always pursue what scripture teaches, but scripture brings me to Jesus, who is not the sum total of 58 doctrines mixed together. I find Jesus in communities, in the writing of people like Wright and Capon, and in the wider church, some of whose theology isn't A+. Or is it the other guy?

I grew up being told that our church was the only one that was a true church and we were the only true Christians. They were wrong, and the current version of the same crowd is wrong as well. Wrong, wrong! But not me. Noooo, I'm right. Right, right! Shame on those who call me wrong!

Not far back, the Emergent Conversation had prepared a response to criticisms of their movement. I waited awhile to see what were the initial reaction to their response was, and now, I felt it was my turn to give a reply.

First off, may I say that I am less than satisfied with their "response". In my judgement, it wasn't really one. Secondly, may I say that this is no full-length critique of Conversation. As I am still going through and critiquing the material the Emergent Conversation comes up with (And their material is voluminous, considering a lot of them are blog posts!), I shall reserve a more thorough (And one that I will brand as complete) critique of the movement. Thirdly, I will try to be evenhanded as possible- That is, to not to be hyper-critical of unessentials as well as to correct bad critiques of the Emergent Movement. I have always tried to be as fair as both sides as possible, though I never claim "neutrality" in what I say.

This response has been written by some of the biggest names in the Emergent Conversation, thus, I assume they represent the movement in entirety. I will only be critiquing the "meat" of this response, that is, what I judge to be the "real" response to recent criticisms and not the unimportant parts.

The response opens with a few expressions of gratitude for criticisms that they had received that I shall skip, to arrive at this:

"...we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic
Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history..."

Let me unpack this:

• The Emergent Conversation does believe in truth and that truth matters contra to those who claim they are relativists.

• Radical relativism and arrogant absolutism are both absurd and dangerous. I'll critique this statement in more detail later.

• They affirm the historic Trinitarian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history.

The first and last points I will leave out of this critique first; my interest lies with the second point. They say that radical relativism is dangerous. I agree. But what disturbed me was that McLaren, in his article "The Three Postmodernisms: A Short Explanation." writes:

"The third kind of postmodernism is what we might call “emerging postmodernism.” It can’t be fully defined yet; it may be decades away from mature definition. But it moves beyond the four characteristics described above.

1. It sees relativist pluralism (the irrational idea that all opinions or views are equally valid) as a kind of chemotherapy intended to stop the growth of modern reductionistic rationalism (the oppressive idea that all reality can be reduced to mechanisms that the mind can understand via validation by the five senses). In order to kill the malignancy, the patient has to take dangerous medicine that would prove poisonous if taken in too high doses or for too long."

Sure, McLaren called relativistic pluralism "irrational", but what is interesting is that he considers it a medicine. It is not even close to one, rather, it has been destroying everything good ever since it infected civilization. At the risk of sounding too dramatic: It is a disease that must be stopped. And, with McLaren calling this disease medicine, I am shocked, even if he sees it as a "short term" treatment.

As for their condemnation of "arrogant absolutism", I agree that there are wrong kinds of absolutism, but since I don't believe absolutism is "arrogant", in any kind of form. It may be wrong, yes, but arrogant? I don't think so. I'm not very sure either at what they call arrogant absolutism, be it a dogmatic proclamation or something else. But if it is the former, then when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." he must have been rather arrogant to say so.

Moving on, we come to this:

"Ninth, we felt we should offer this encouragement to those who, like us, do not feel capable of living or explaining our faith in ways that would please all of our critics: if our work has been helpful to you, please join us in seeking to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by not becoming quarrelsome or defensive or disrespectful to anyone – especially those who you feel have misrepresented or misunderstood you or us. As Paul said to Timothy, “The Lord’s
servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, patient when wronged.” In addition he warned Timothy not to develop “an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction.”

Well, I agree, though there is a difference between useless and essential polemics. But what about Jude when he asked us to contend for the faith?

"We believe it is better to be wronged than to wrong someone else; the Lord we follow was gentle and meek, and when he was reviled, he didn’t respond in kind."

Matthew 23 gives us a good idea of how Jesus responded to the religious leaders of his day. I don't recognize it to be meek or gentle, rather, it was rather...rude. Thus this statement is utterly wrong.

"Instead of engaging in fruitless quarrels with our critics, we urge those who find our work helpful to pursue spiritual formation in the way of Christ, to worship God in spirit and truth, to seek to plant or serve in healthy and fruitful churches, to make disciples – especially among the irreligious and unchurched, to serve those in need, to be at peace with everyone as far as is possible, and to show a special concern for orphans and widows in their distress. We should keep careful control of our tongues (and pens or keyboards), and seek to be pure in heart and life, since this is “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless.”

Noble, no doubt. But when you're standing on the railway tracks and a train is right about to smash you to bits, you can't make it go away my ignoring it. You have to respond to your critics, not turn a deaf ear on them. And what if those who were involved in the Emergent Conversation do succumb to their criticisms that have no proper response, (Be they wrong or right) and leave? What are you going to do then?

I will end here. This is by no means my definitive response to the Emergent Conversation. I acknowledge that their movement has many biblical concepts. However, in my judgement, I have come to find that the bad fruits of their movement far outweigh the good. My reply to their response had one simple reason- That they are not doing it right. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. But I believe, far more strongly, that they are wrong in aspects such as evangelism, epistemology and other "crucial" aspects of the Faith.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Phil Johnson spots my blog. What took him so long? :-P

And no, I don't think blogspotting will die...because many people are too lazy to write their own blog posts, thus they turn to blogspotting to fill in their daily quota of blogposts.

Steve Hays of Triablogue show he has done his homework on the Middle-East (Whereas people like Sproul hasn't!) by replying to an "Open Letter To Evangelicals".

Also, the Emergent Conversation has created a Board of Directors as it becomes more and more organized. Question to Emergents: Do you think the Emergent Conversation will become the very thing it condemns?

And Good Lord, have I committed the mortal sin of blogspotting?

Ironically, unlike for many other Calvinists, the doctrine of Limited (or Definite) Atonement was one of the easiest of all doctrines for me to accept (Perhaps Total Depravity got on my accepted list earlier though).

Despite the many, many attacks this doctrine faces from Arminians and Amyraldinians, I still think that Limited Atonement will still stand.

To properly get a firm grip on it, you will need to first understand the concept of the atonement. Once you do get what the atonement means, you will either have to face the fact of universalism if you advocate universal atonement or you will have to go to a Definite atonement. This is what got me convinced. Despite the many passages seemingly contradictory, I think those passages would be better used by a universalist, unless one is to sacrifice the proper understanding of the atonement.

I recommed these articles to help you out:

Limited Atonement by Greg Bahnsen

Extent of The Atonement: Answering Objections by Matt Perman

The Case For Definite Atonement by Roger Nicole

Individual passages you might be struggling with:

John 3:16

2 Peter 2:1

1 John 2:2

I hope this doesn't sound like an advertisement for the L in the TULIP! It is important to remember that a doctrine is supported by the amount of Bible verses and not articles written in it's favor.

Some people think I'm rather extreme. No! Never! Heh.

Okay, perhaps I am, in their mind. But people like me won't think I'm extreme, now would they?
I have always strived for that elusive balance: Holiness & Theology. Both I consider important, though more than always I have leaned toward the latter, probably because it's way easier to accomplish than the former.

But enough with that. I'm not a fundamentalist. I hate to call people heretics. I even dislike (God help me!) certain aspects of theology that I've still accepted because the Bible supports no other.

I often have been called nasty as well as nasty names. Perhaps. And if so, I ask for forgiveness. It was never my intention to sound that way. I always try my best to be loving, like Jesus did. Though then again, he didn't sound very loving all the time.

Perhaps this would be a good time why I chose the name Think Christ for my blog. Its meaning is twofold: To think like Christ, to do what he did, to teach what he taught, and to think of Christ, at all times and places. That's my goal (among many others), that I hope I accomplish.

First off, this is not just a list of websites, but also, blogs. To add a little more, this is also a review of them, be they good, bad or theologically incorrect. The first two terms speak for themselves- though the third one requires a bit more definition: This term is used for those who are (In my judgement) heretics. Why not use heresy then? Well, it wouldn't rhyme then, now would it? ;-)

Note: This list will keep on growing, so, keep checking!

The Good

The Church On The Threshold a.k.a. Monergism

This is probably the best Reformed/Covenantal resource on the web. Lots of great, great stuff. A place that you must visit!

Tekton Apologetics Ministry

One of the best apologetics sites on the web! J.P. Holding (Or his real name, Robert Turkel) writes with wit and sometimes, sarcasm against those skeptics! I fear though of, his (ab)use of context studies. It is a dangerous weapon in the untrained hands. Despite its flaws (Which I am willing to forgive!), it makes a good site overall.

Alpha Omega Ministries

The apologetics ministry of James White. Worth checking out for his blog alone, though he has written some good and great articles in defense of the faith.

Challies

If you don't know who Challies is...well, nevermind. He is nevertheless one of the fiercest critics of popular Christianity around on the web, and, coupled with his book reviews, makes a site that you have to visit.

Pyromaniac: A Blog By Phil Johnson

Ah yes, Phil Johnson's blog. He happens to be the editor of MacArthur's books, and also a rather witty guy. Is it just me or does he resemble James White? A blog you should stop by.

Triablogue

The blog of Steve Hays. He has written lots of stuff from critiques of Catholicism to fiction and has had a rather unpleasant run in to Holding of Tektonics, previously referred to above. So you might say I respect him. He writes (at least I think he does) rather dryly, but I do appreciate his theological and philosophical insights.

A Puritans Mind

Not even close to Monergism in terms of material on the puritans, but a good site, nonetheless. The webmaster, C. Matthew McMahon has written some good articles of himself that are worth checking out. Like (almost) all Presbyterians, he happens to have a strong dislike of Covenantal Baptists, but no matter- at least for me =).

Emergent No

The name says it all. This blog is dedicated to critiquing the Emergent Movement, and happens to have one of the most fiercest comments against it I have ever seen. Carla Rolfe and co. must have some pretty strong mental (and spiritual) strength to take these criticism, thus, I respect them. Although I do not agree with all of their assesments, I do find them extremely helpful. A good site, if you're looking for some serious anti-Emergent material.

Desiring God

I had to mention John Piper. I have tremendously great respect for him, thanks to his wonderful integration of sound, strong theology with Christian living. Although I do not necessary agree with him on everything, he definitely is a great man of God.

Bible Centre

Shhhh!!!!! This site is awesome, despite violating copyright laws. No matter, we're Christians right? Heh. They have stuff you can never find anywhere else- Like the Kittel, the Expositors Bible Commentary and the famous Introduction to the NT and other great stuff. Okay, I confess, to use Mark Twain's words, "Not even God can find any sense in all the copyright laws in this world." Amen!

Founders Ministries

Calvinism & Southern Baptists mix well. Lots of great resources to be had here, check out especially the Founders Journal.

Biblical Training

Yet another great resource site. I wonder why Ron Nash hogs up the majority of the "Electives" section, though.

Christian Authors Database

An encyclopedia of the whos who in Christianity. A great resource.

Council On Biblical Manhood And Womanhood

In the age of political correctness CBMW has the strength to go against it. A lot of stuff in this site is an "in your face" to (evangelical) feminists. You can find the famous "Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood" here, as well as "Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth" (Recommended) and the "Gender Neutral Bible Controversy".

The Bad

Michael Spencer a.k.a. Internet Monk

I really liked this guy. Past tense. That is, until he started playing with the flames of Compromise and yelling out, "I'm not like you!" Duh. Do check his site for some good critiques of what's wrong with American evangelicalism once in a while though.

Brian McLaren

Dear Mr. Mclaren had to end up somewhere in this category. I like him not because he is theologically sound, but rather, he's provocative, though sometimes irritating. I recommend that you do read him, but read him discerningly and to understand the mindset of one of the most popular leaders of the Emergent Conversation.

Christian Think Tank

It's a great resource on apologetics, no doubt, though when it comes to theology I'm hesitant. This guy devotes an unusual amount of time defending his egalitarianism (And I don't like that, sorry) and if you still disagree on whether Glenn Miller should be in this section, then at least consider it here because of it's horrible design and layout (And this guy is an IT executive!).

The Interactive Bible

One word: Ugh. If you consider this site a great resource, consider again my deluded friend. From advocating baptismal regeneration and bashing the TULIP (And I don't mind it but at least do it well), you find it all here. Good vids on the Toronto Blessing, though.

Christians For Biblical Equality

Disagree with me if you like, but it's here to stay. I'd say (Like all others like me) that it's just feminism in disguise. And if there was any respect for them, I lost it all when they called Complementarians bedfellows with Darwinists.

The Theologically Incorrect

Outside The Camp

Heh, I pity this guy. If you're a Calvinist, I'm sure you know this rather popular hyper-calvinist site. But I thank the Lord he wasn't an Arminian, because if he was one...

Liberated Christians

Biblical Polyamory anyone? And this is what they promote. And they happen to be Christians, with some "exegesis" to support them up in their sleeves. Christian Swingers an oxymoron it is not, so they say. And Phil, why is this website NOT in your Really, Really Bad Theology Bookmarks?! Content Caution: I'm sure you figured out what it is.

More coming soon!