Reformed Experiential Preaching

To the right, Spurgeon preaching to the multitudes


All too frequently, I come across conservative evangelicals that think that they are following in the footsteps of the Reformers and Puritans in their view of sermons and preaching; however, the more I read about their doctrine and practice, the more I'm convinced that we don't have a proper understanding of how experiential (aka 'experimental') they were.

Here are a couple of links I've found helpful as I've begun to explore Reformed preaching

Michael Horton on The Word as a Means of Grace (mp3). (Unfortunately, only a partial recording; however, it's still great.)

Joel Beeke on Experiential Preaching (mp3)

You can also listen to Beeke's lectures on Reformed expository preaching, which he delivered at Greenville Seminary. They posted at Monergism.com. I haven't gotten to listen to these yet, but I'm sure they're brilliant.

Calvinism 101. Total Depravity

I'm going to begin a short series on Calvinism in order to briefly define it. Then, I'm planning to move on to the 'doctrine of the church' (or ecclesiology) and demonstrate how Calvinistic convictions must influence the way we organize our churches. We cannot claim to be Calvinists, yet "do church" like an Arminian.

Total Depravity
Oftentimes, people think that this term means that people are as bad as they could be. That’s not what it means, though. Rather, it means that the totality of man is sinful. There is no part of man that is untouched by sin. By nature, our mind, desires, and will are corrupted and, necessarily, opposed to God. This pervasive sinfulness means that we are unable to submit to Him, because our minds hate Him and we will never have the desire to do so.

Eph. 2:1-3 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

Here’s an illustration:
Imagine rolling a ball across a perfectly flat surface. There is no friction between this imaginary ball and surface. Therefore, the ball will continue rolling unless something outside of the ball acts upon it. In the same way, we are ‘rolling’ in rebellion against God. By definition, all of 'who we are' is ‘rolling’ in rebellion against Him. Therefore, there is nothing inside of us that can cause us to stop rebelling or change direction. We refuse to accept the testimony of the gospel. We refuse to believe that we are unable to fix ourselves. We refuse to trust in Christ.

Another illustration:
Imagine a dead person. Can he will themselves to life? No. His will is dead. Can he desire to live? No. His desires are dead. Can he think like a living person? No. His mind is dead. In the same way, we are dead in our trespasses and sins. We cannot change ourselves and think rightly about God and Jesus Christ. We can neither love Him nor rest upon Christ alone for our acceptance before the Father. Something, or Some-One outside of us must act upon us to give us this life that we lack.

Local church membership?

Do I need to be a member of a local church? Can't I just trust in Jesus Christ and have a personal relationship with Him apart from all the 'religion'? The Church is simply a worldwide thing anyway, right?

Are you asking these questions?
Or, would you know how to answer them?

Scott Clark answers them with Churchless Evangelicals Part 2.

Click here for Part 1 of this very helpful series.


It would probably be helpful to add that I've posted a few times in the recent past about the definition of 'Reformed', a term that's thrown around quite a bit. Dr. Clark engages with that in his new book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions, a book that I've read excerpts from and heard him speak about on mp3. I cannot wait to read the whole thing.

The book

MP3 Audio - 5 brilliant talks regarding historic Reformed theology, piety, & practice. If you want to get away from the popular misconceptions, listen to them!
- to find these talks, go to the bottom of the page. They are numbered 1 to 5, but they're a bit out of order.

Telling people the truth in love

Would you call yourself Reformed? Or a Calvinist? Have you been trained in evangelism by people coming from an Arminian perspective?
If you answered 'yes' to any of the above, or you're an Arminian and would like to see how Calvinists might approach evangelism, then this is for you!
"Telling people the truth in love: a Reformed approach to evangelism" by Kim Riddlebarger

Autonomy among the Calvinists?

A small excerpt out of a great post by Scott Clark. I think he's hitting the nail on the head in his analysis of Evangelical Calvinists in America (I'm sure the Brits aren't free from scrutiny either).

The doctrine of predestination is inherently antimodernist but one can become a predestinarian evangelical without really confronting the issue because autonomy gets shifted from soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) to ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). Hunting down human autonomy is like trying grab hold of mercury. It keeps squirting away. So, the autonomy of the churchless evangelical, even after having surrendered to the sovereignty of God in salvation, squirts away to re-assert itself when it comes to the church.

Read the rest of On Churchless Evangelicals (pt. 1)




Check out Clark's new book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions!

The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

I hope you enjoy these historic words, which proclaim the Incarnation. Take time to think through each phrase. It will be worth your time.

Merry Christmas!

You can find this, and other historic confessions and catechisms here.

Martin Downes, on hell

Strange that, once again, Martin Downes and I are blogging about the same things. First, it was evangelicalism. Now, it's the doctrine of hell. Watch out, Rowan Williams!

Here's a longer essay Martin posted a while back on the topic of Hell and 'separation from God'

The gospel of personal relationship (part 3)

5. This concept makes us self-consumed
Rather than directing our eyes outward to Christ and leading us to serve our neighbor, this language causes us to descend into ourselves. Everything becomes subjective and defined by oneself. There are no rules that can be imposed upon the 'personal relationship'. Whatever is beneficial to it is acceptable. Who defines ‘beneficial’? You guessed it!

6. This can shake one's assurance
If 'having a personal relationship with God' is the purpose of life, what happens if I experience depression and don't feel like I'm in that kind of relationship? What exactly does this 'relationship' feel like? If my 'personal relationship' is my source of assurance, my focus is no longer on Christ, my Mediator. Christ Himself is perfect assurance. A 'personal relationship' provides assurance as long as I'm feeling good about things and living in holiness.

7. The corporate community
If I emphasize the ‘personal relationship’, I forget that I am rescued from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light – a corporate community! I’m not rescued to form ‘a church of one’. I’m part of the Body. It’s striking that biblical illustrations are corporate. The Scripture doesn’t recognize a ‘Christian’ that is not a member of a local congregation. Rather, we’re part of a Body, family, Temple, vine, holy gathering, etc.

The Christian life is far from being a personal, private affair (“just me and Jesus”). Instead, it’s radically corporate and stands upon glorious, objective truths rather than self-centered, subjective feelings.

The gospel of personal relationship (part 2)

3. Who has a personal relationship with God?
What we fail to realize is that everyone in the world is in a personal relationship with God. The question is whether one relates to Him as a law-breaker in Adam or as a law-keeper in Christ. Romans 1 tells us that everyone knows God. Non-Christians simply suppress that truth, convincing themselves that He doesn’t exist and/or they aren’t obligated to obey Him. Therefore, ‘having a personal relationship with God’ is far from good news for them. It is actually terrifying news for someone that is not united to Christ.

4. This concept leads to a misunderstanding of God’s wrath
If we think that a non-Christian does not have a personal relationship with God, then the offense of sin is minimized and wrath is distorted. If we think of ‘separation’ in a spatial sense, or if we liken it to the way in which two people may ignore one another, there’s no room for God’s active wrath. His ‘wrath’ simply becomes the absence of His positive blessing and kingdom-fellowship (frequently called ‘God’s presence’). In hell, natural man will not be separated from God. Man will be separated from His blessing and kingdom; however, he will be faced with God in all His wrath and fury. I wonder if this misunderstanding that has contributed to the penal-substitution problems lately...

“he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever…” (Rev. 4:10,11a)

The gospel of personal relationship (part 1)

Phrases (or something similar) I frequently hear and have also uttered myself:

• “Christianity isn’t a religion. It’s a relationship.”
• “Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?”

1. Language not found in Scripture
It’s interesting that ‘personal relationship’ isn’t taught in Scripture. None of the New Testament authors say that our biggest need is ‘to be in a personal relationship with Jesus’. Instead, they speak of forgiveness, reconciliation, justification, covenant, life, and adoption – language that we prefer to skip over and leave to egg-headed theologians. Rather than speaking the language of the Bible and accept God’s definition, we prefer to use our own language to suit our own interest. Yes, the Bible speaks of us, "knowing God", but that needs explanation, too. Oftentimes, it gets mutated into a subjective feeling that people call 'intimacy', when they know next to nothing about what He accomplished.

2. Language that is vague
I remember a friend of mine, who had just finished an evangelistic conversation, having used a well-known gospel tract, telling me that she was totally stuck when a non-Christian asked her what it means to have a personal relationship with God. To the non-Christian, it sounded like a dating relationship or as if my friend was claiming that God spoke directly to her, apart from the Word and Sacraments (i.e., unmediated). What does it actually mean? The fact that it's a 'personal relationship' will mean that one's definition will be, largely, personal...

Martin Downes on evangelicalism

Martin writes helpful words about evangelicalism and refers to an awesome article I referenced in my previous post. Check out Martin here
And the Horton article is here.

Evangelicalism - The Village Green

Whether I think about my work with Christian Unions or the relationships that local churches have with one-another, I frequently think about practical ways in which churches can remain doctrinally distinct while at the same time embracing their brothers and sisters that hold to different secondary convictions. I typically find two scenarios:
(1) Evangelical churches frequently want to abandon any doctrinal differences they hold that another evangelical Christian may hold. For example, the doctrinal statements of Anglicanism is that of infant baptism; however, it's rarely, if ever, openly taught for fear of offending someone. Therefore, nearly every form of evangelical belief is accepted, which means that there is little depth and little conviction within the congregation.
(2) Churches that hold strongly to their confessions and catechisms (normally Presbyterian & Reformed or Lutheran churches) seek to alienate themselves from their evangelical brothers and sisters. Unlike the former illustration, they can make issues like baptism prevent them from even speaking to an evangelical brother or sister.
I came across a helpful quote that I think hits the nail on the head.

[E]vangelicalism is like a village green, where people, leaving their homes and stores, come to mix and mingle. Or, as C. S. Lewis suggested, it is "mere Christianity"-the hallway where people meet and where non-Christians can hear Christ's central claims. We were not meant to live on the village green or in the hallway, however, but in the homes and rooms. Evangelicalism is most useful as a meeting place, but disastrous for anyone who tries to make it a home. For a home, we need a church. [Michael Horton]

Denominational tradition and doctrine is absolutely essential to one's maturity in the Christian faith. If we abandon it, we walk into great danger. However, we mustn't 'anathematize' a brother or sister that holds a different conviction on secondary issues. They may be wrong, but that doesn't mean that they're not regenerate and righteous in God's eyes.

A high-speed history of American Evangelicalism (Part IV)

• In the mid to late 1800s, the philosophy of pragmatism was in the air (sound familiar?). Philosophers like J.S. Mill, William James, and John Dewey were main proponents. Something was only useful if it was practical. Therefore, in the lineage of Finney, if a preacher could excite ‘conversions’ in his preaching, his preaching was deemed to be quality. DL Moody famously decided to “sell the gospel”. The Church was mad about consumerism. Whatever it could do to “sell its product” was legitimate. Man and his felt needs were at the center of gospel proclamation. If you wanted a boost in self-esteem and to find a God that was eager to meet your every wish, just go to church! Famous preacher Billy Sunday even guaranteed ‘sales of the gospel’. American Evangelicalism was on a different planet from its God-centered roots.
• Not only was pragmatism wreaking havoc on the American Church, Transcendentalism was making its mark as well. It went so far to claim that man was divine, that we ought to simply discover our “one-ness with the Divine”. Man, therefore, was encouraged to look within to find his worth.
• Finally, Existentialism came along. This philosophical thought reacted against Romanticism and Transcendentalism by encouraging ‘authenticity’. Existentialists recognized external truth, but encouraged people to be authentic followers of objective truth. Sure, it’s true, but is it ‘true for you’? (Sound familiar?) Although it moved back toward historic Christianity, Existentialism still emphasized the autonomy of man and his individualistic pursuit of truth. It also ratified the pragmatists’ love for personal decision-making.

A high-speed history of American Evangelicalism (Part III)

• By 1790, 90% of Americans were unchurched. Furthermore, historians note the rise of ‘intuitive individualism’, where people generally disregarded philosophy because they were choosing to find truth within themselves, not from outside sources.

• A number of Christians applied the notion that truth was in the experience from about 1790 to 1840. They were the founders of the Second Great Awakening and sought to use “new means” to evoke conversion experiences. In fact, Charles Finney was the first to introduce the altar call, a staple in American Evangelical churches. He actually wrote that "A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means--as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means." The self was autonomous and the center of ‘gospel preaching’. The doctrine of a sovereign God had faded into the sunset. Now, the presence of emotional experiences was all that was needed for someone to be converted. If they ‘made a decision’ or ‘said the prayer’, you could be confident that they were saved. (Sound familiar?)

A high-speed history of American Evangelicalism (Part II)

• Early 1700s – Harvard began to officially accept Arminianism. Man-centered moralism was officially accompanied with man-centered theology. Furthermore, the Enlightenment was injecting the values of individualism and the power of man’s reason into the equation. American Christianity had moved a long way from its understanding of Total Depravity and God’s sovereign grace.
• The Great Awakening gave a brief injection of God-centered theology to American Christianity, but it was short-lived.
• By the 1750s, the most respected ministers were Arminian. Not only that, but the rationalism and man-centeredness of Enlightenment thought gave rise to Unitarianism (denied the Trinity and other essential Christian doctrines), which took over New England.
• By 1776, Puritanism was all but extinguished as foundational doctrines were abandoned and anti-intellectualism was taking over. Romanticism was in the air, which reacted to the Enlightenment and emphasized man’s experience as the basis for truth. Objective truth was denied and the Church joined the party.

A high-speed history of American Evangelicalism (Part I)

What follows is a summary of what I've been reading about lately. Much of it comes from Michael Horton's book, "Made in America". It speaks specifically to American Evangelicalism; however, regardless of the country you’re from, it’s a great book to read in order to better understand and identify many of things in Western Evangelicalism that are actually a product of our culture rather than of our reflection on Scripture.


• Puritan/Calvinist roots – I the 1620s, the Puritans arrived in North America to establish a settlement that would further the Protestant Reformation and establish a Christian society. They had a robust view of the sovereignty of God and, therefore, an outward-looking faith, to God rather than their sinful selves. Historians speak of the “Calvinistic work ethic” that once characterized New England. People believed that it was good to work hard because it both brought glory to God and served their neighbor.
• 1630s – The Puritans began to introduce rigorous tests to discern whether conversion had taken place in a person’s life. Rather than leaving the secret things to God, they took it upon themselves to make those decisions. The outwardly-focused Christianity began to turn inward. Moralism began to creep in. During this time, Harvard was founded to train up Puritan clergy.
• 1662 – The “Half-Way Covenant” was enacted. This allowed all ‘moral persons’ in society to take the Lord’s Supper. “America was a ‘Christian nation,’ after all.” The moralism that had begun in the 30’s was clearly in an advanced state. One’s morality, rather than one’s response to the external Word, became the measure of ‘Christianity’.

A helpful Amillennial chart

Dispensationalists (i.e., those who believe in the rapture) love their charts. Now, we have a helpful chart to show the strength of the amillennial position (i.e., Christ's kingdom is a spiritual one that spans the church age; in this kingdom, He rules over His people through the Word and Sacraments). This chart demonstrates that all of these events occur at the second coming of Christ. People of different millennial positions need to separate the events in order to accommodate for an earthly Golden Age. As you can see from the chart above, if you try to separate one event from the rest, the entire structure begins to fall and you need to significantly reinterpret a whole host of passages. (HT: Heidelblog)

DOUBLE CLICK THE CHART TO SEE IT BLOWN UP!!!

The Doctrine of God - and knowledge

Last weekend, we were blessed to have Nick Tucker, a research fellow at Oak Hill Theological College, visit us and teach us. In two sessions, he spoke about the doctrine of God. He covered various topics such as God's attributes (i.e., His essence), Trinity, Creation and providence, Creator and Consummator.
It was both fun and stretching. Next year, he's going to return to lecture on the incarnation. I've had questions mounting for some time on this topic, and it'll be good to pick his brain. Only one year away...

At the beginning of his lecture, he made one distinction I have found very helpful in recent months...
1. We don't know anything in the same way as God. God's knowledge about any topic is more vast than we can ever hope to comprehend.
2. We can still possess true knowledge, though. God has revealed things clearly to us, and we are responsible for receiving it and confessing it.

By nature, we want to jump to an extreme. Either we want to claim absolute certainty in every area of our lives and doctrine (e.g., lifestyle - what career should I choose, what exactly is God doing in my life right now; or doctrine - 24/7 creation, etc.) or we want to pretend that we "just can't know" and we tolerate outright heresy in the Church. That said, the difficulty enters when trying to determine where the lines are drawn... What is clear enough to divide over? What various viewpoints should be tolerated, and in what circumstances should they be tolerated?

This is one of the reasons I love the Reformed & Presbyterian tradition. The fact that they have described such clear 'boundary markers' for being Reformed prevents people from making specific doctrinal positions the boundaries of orthodoxy. Although I'm a passionate amillennialist, I cannot decide that an historic premillennialist is not Reformed. On the flip-side, the confessions also define very clearly what Reformed theology is. One cannot say...
A - I am Reformed.
+ B - I believe X (something in contradiction to the tradition).
= C - Therefore, X is Reformed.

The Shack, by W. Young

I haven't gotten the chance to read this book yet, but some excerpts and reviews I've read have been very disturbing. If anyone has a copy that they'd lend me, please let me know.

Briefly, the book presents a gnostic view of the way in which God reveals Himself to us and trivializes the role of Scripture. It is vague about salvation through Christ alone and states that God is never angry about sin. Penal-substitution is dismissed by its implying that the Father and Spirit were on the cross with Jesus and that there was no sense of 'separation' between Christ and the Father. Finally, it describes the Trinity in ways that are, quite simply, heretical.

It is astonishing that Eugene Peterson could call this a modern day Pilgrim's Progress. Bunyan knew and loved the Scriptures. To put him in a category with an author who is deconstructing the Christian faith, which he endured great suffering to promote, is a real shame.

Review by Tim Challies (pdf)
Review by Al Mohler (mp3)
Review by Mark Driscoll (You Tube)