There is none of the five points of calvinism that are associated with more confusion than the one commonly called Limited Atonment or particular atonement. The problem comes because we do not tend to understand exactly what Calvinists have historically meant by this point, nor do we understand the alternatives on either side. Logic can be very treacherous when it comes to doctrinal understanding. So, in the following quote from Edwards we will find him steering a middle ground between two sets of rocks which are both in my view errors caused by overuse of what seems like reasonable logic.

The one error is really that of the hypercalvinist, who claims that this doctrine necessarily means that God predestines some men to hell in exactly the same way as he predestines others to heaven. It makes God the author of sin, and it means that the gospel is not a genuine offer of salvation.

The opposite error, is to say that Jesus died in the same sense “for” everyone. This alternative view to Limited Atonement is righly called “Universal Atonement” and of course is intimately linked with Universalism, which argues that all will eventually be saved. This quote from probably the greatest theologican of America, explains it well.

Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when [they] say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; ’tis past all contradiction. -Jonathan Edwards [1722], The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500) (WJE Online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout, page 1 74

On the 24th of August, I preached a sermon at Jubilee during our summer series on some famous psalms. I took Psalm 121, which served as a starting point for me to share some of the most important planks of my personal doctrinal framework—a framework that has sustained me through hard times.

As blogging around here at least begins to return to normal—if there is such a thing at adrianwarnock.com—I thought I’d share both the audio to download and a condensed version of the message below. You can also listen right here:

Christians should be characterized by hope, and as a result, should live in such a way that brings up questions in other’s minds. “In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect . . .” (1 Peter 3:15).

The question is, how do we obtain such a hope and how do we live in the good of it?

Hope requires a biblical outlook — You will not find real hope anywhere else, other than in the Bible, where we find help to live, help to rescue us, help to have hope.

Hope requires a lifted head — we must first be lowered, and God graciously sends trouble our way to teach us we cannot help ourselves.

Despair of self. Self-help is no help at all. Our solution is not found on earth. It’s found in heaven. Many people expect that their problem is based around what they’re experiencing. And they say something like this, “If only I could find a husband or a wife, then I’d be okay.” Or, “If only I had a different husband or wife, then I’d be okay.” Or, “If only God changed him, then I’d be okay.” Or, “Perhaps I need a new job, then I’d be okay.” “I need to be healed, then I’d be okay.” All of those things are secondary—our help comes from heaven. Our help comes from God. For you to have hope, you have to lift your head. You have to look up. And there’s something about the body language involved in doing that—looking up and praying with your head raised to God, saying, “Help me!”

Many people think Christianity is “Do this! Do that!” Rules. “If I just try harder, I can please God.” None of that counts for anything. There is nothing you can do to make God happy with you in your own strength—nothing! You really are helpless. You really are hopeless. You’re weak, I’m weak. We’re all the same. Don’t we say it sometimes? “I just couldn’t help myself.” Have you ever said that? “I’m so sorry for what I just did to you to hurt you, to upset you. I just couldn’t help myself,” you say. There’s never a truer word said than that. 

“The preacher’s work is to throw sinners down in utter helplessness that they may be compelled to look up to Him who alone can help them” (Spurgeon).

Hope requires a God who is in control — a God who really is in control and a God who can therefore help us. It’s very important that we understand that. Help comes from God, not from other people. Others can help you a bit, but the way in which they’ll help you is simply this: by pointing you to God and by strengthening you in God.

For example, in 1 Samuel 23:16 — “Jonathan strengthened David’s hand in God.”

Any leader will let you down because he is not God. He can’t be there all the time. You’ll try and ring him one day and his phone will be switched off or engaged. You’ll find that God’s phone is never switched off.

But it must be the right sort of God who we can believe in. Some people just say, “Well, I believe in God. Isn’t that enough?” No, we need to understand some things about God. It’s no good, for example, if God is as clueless as the rest of us, is it really? And some people believe in a God like that. But it’s not true. God is the God of all comfort. “He comforts us in all our troubles so that we can comfort others who are suffering afflictions with the comfort with which we ourselves have been comforted by God.” ( 1 Corinthians 1)

This is God’s description of himself in Isaiah 46: “I am God.” And YOU are not, by the way. He is, but you’re not. And neither am I. “I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning.” In other words, he knows the end of time from the very beginning of time. He knows everything that will ever happen. “And from ancient times, things not yet done, saying this, “My counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purposes. I have spoken and I will bring it to pass. I have purposed and I will do it.”

That’s the God we worship. There are some people who say that God is surprised by things. They say, well, you know, there are some things that are unknowable and that until something happens, even God doesn’t know what will happen. I’m sorry. That’s not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible knows the end from the beginning. He’s not surprised by anything. And it’s so important because when you’re counseling somebody, you have to bring them to that God, not to some kind of weak God who is surprised. I once heard of a situation—this is a true story apparently, and I think I read it in a book somewhere. (If anyone remembers the reference for this, I would appreciate knowing that.) A lovely young lady married a guy who was also a Christian (they were both Christians). Everything looked fine. And then after a while this guy basically did the dirty on her and went off with somebody else and the relationship broke up and they got divorced. And this woman’s pastor (shame on him) said this: “Well, when God guided you to that marriage, he had no more idea than you did what would happen. He was as surprised and as shocked and as hurt and as disappointed as you by what happened.” Now that might seem cute, but it doesn’t give me any hope. Does it give you hope? If God was like that, I think I’d rather not be a Christian. No, God is not like that. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will happen. He will accomplish all his purposes. There is no plan B with God.

God is NOT surprised by anything!

Hope requires a God who is loving — he’s the God who cares for you. If God was all-sovereign and all-powerful and all-knowing, but actually was a bit of an evil, capricious God who hated you, then well, the world would not be a very good place, would it?

But the Bible is very clear. It says that God is love (1 John 4:16).

Romans 5:8 says, “But God shows his love for us in this; that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” So if Jesus died for us, if he would come from heaven to earth, live as a man, the great invincible God becoming a little baby and then living as a man, and then dying a cruel death in our place that we might know God, do you not think that this demonstrates that he loves us?

Paul makes this argument in Romans 8:32 when he says, “He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” If we’re coming to God and say, “Oh, well, God, you know. I’m not sure if you really love me or not,” we’re making God into a liar and we’re just despising the cross. Jesus loved us enough to die for us. That should be enough to give us hope. Hope that this sovereign God is for you, and that this God is in control and knows the future; that he will make sure things map out for your good.

Romans 8 continues: “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good” (verse 28). So if you love God, God will work out everything for your good.

He keeps you. He will not let your foot be moved. It says “He keeps you” six times in this psalm. He’s your keeper. He’s your watchman. He watches over you. He doesn’t sleep.

Hope requires a God-centered gospel — some people say, “Well, you know, God is lucky to have me.” There is a sense in which God is knocking at the door. But people can say it sometimes as though Jesus is the needy one; as if he’s a bit lonely and he needs another worshipper or feels insecure or needs a relationship or needs his ego boosted a bit.  No, God isn’t like that. God is the eternal one who out of his self-sufficiency and his joy of being eternally one with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, eternally a community, lavishes love on us through grace. Through unmerited favor. Through his all-sufficiency.

There are five aspects of the gospel that I think give us a stable foundation. It says in this psalm that God keeps our foot from being moved. It also says in another psalm that God put our foot on a rock. People sometimes call these five points the five points of Calvinism. I would rather just say they’re the five points of a stable view of the gospel, which enables us to have hope. Sometimes people use these points under the acronym TULIP. So if you like acronyms, you can use TULIP to help you remember them.

But sometimes our Christianity is like another flower. I don’t know if, in other countries, people do this, but English children very often find a nice daisy in the lawn, pick it, and usually thinking about a boyfriend or girlfriend, they remove one petal at a time. “He loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not. Oh no! He loves me not!”

Some of us approach God like that — if I’m doing well, God loves me. If I’ve just sinned, he doesn’t love me anymore. If I make a commitment to him and follow him, then he’ll love me. But if I backslide, then he won’t love me anymore and I won’t be a Christian anymore. I don’t believe that gives us a stable foundation for hope. So what are these five points? I’ll go through them quite quickly.

T — Total Depravity of Man
Now most people actually have very little problem believing this. I think there are very few Christians who don’t believe this. There are a few who say, “Oh no, people are basically good.” But I don’t think any of them are parents. I’ve got a 16 month old child. We don’t have to train him to hit his brother and sister; to steal from his brother and sister; to scream if we give his brother and sister something and don’t give it to him. And he has already learned how to bite. He’s 16 months! But people say that human beings are born good. They’re not born good. They’re born with a sinful nature. We are born with a bias towards sin, as the Puritans used to say. So basically, if you don’t believe in the total depravity of man, if you don’t believe that we have a sinful nature, then I would suggest that you borrow a two year old for an hour. That’s all you need.

But let’s look at the Scriptures. The Scripture is what we stand on. The Scripture is very clear about this in Ephesians 2: “And you were dead in trespasses and sins . . .” Dead people can’t help themselves. If we’re dead without Christ, we need him to make us alive.

U — Unconditional Election
In other words, God chooses us; we don’t choose him. Ephesians 1:4—he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him. John 15:16—You did not choose me (says Jesus) but I chose you. Terry Virgo likes to say he imagines somebody in the congregation saying, “Hang on. But haven’t I got a free will?” And Terry says this, “Yeah, but God’s is freer.” The truth is this: actually we do have a free will, but we all freely choose to reject God. It’s only as God intervenes and woos us and changes our hearts and sends out his grace on us that we actually can be saved.

L — Limited Atonement
This is one that causes a bit of controversy and a lot of disagreement, but it’s mostly about a misunderstanding. I think all Christians will agree with two things about this. The first is this—that everything that Jesus did on the cross, the good of it, the full goodness of it, the eternal value of it, only gets applied to those who are Christians. Obviously, in order to benefit from Jesus’s death, you need to be a Christian, so in that sense it is a limited atonement. It is especially for the believer. It is especially for us. Jesus said this, “He laid down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). There’s a sense in which the death of Jesus was specific to certain individuals.

The second thing that we all can agree on is this: that actually Jesus’ death does have some benefit to everybody, and that the offer of the gospel is available to everybody as well. And it’s an honest gospel that says that if you are willing to repent of your sins and follow God, then you will be saved. So I think we need to be very careful in what we say about this. 1 Timothy 4:10 to me, sums this up, “We have set our hope on the living God who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” So the very fact that the world is sustained at all and that Jesus didn’t just wipe it out the second that somebody first sinned is because of Jesus’s death. So everybody lives in the good of the cross all the time actually, and the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer to everybody, but the full benefits of the cross are only ever applied to those who are truly saved. I think sometimes this one is expressed in a way in which I would not agree.

I — Irresistible Grace
Jesus said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). When God sets his mind on you, when God sets his grace on you, your resistance is futile. You can run, but you can’t hide. And there may be some of you reading this who have been running. You’ve been fighting. And God is saying, “Stop fighting. I’m here. Now is the time to surrender.”

P — Perseverance of the Saints
I prefer to state it in this way: the persistence of God. “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:39-50).

Now, we all know people who appeared to be Christians and drifted away. The thing is this—it is appointed for man to die once and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27). I believe the balance of Scripture is very clear on this, that there are actually three possible verdicts on that day.

The first verdict is this—You’re not a Christian; you never were a Christian, and that means an eternity without God. It means hell. We do believe in hell. That’s one verdict. The second verdict is what I call a “well done” Christian. What I mean is this. When God looks at you and says, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You’ve followed me. You’ve served me. I’m pleased with what you’ve done.” And that’s what I pray for each of us. The third possible verdict is one that I call the “skin of the teeth” Christian. 1 Corinthians 3 talks about it like this: “As one saved through fire.” All your good works get burned up, but somehow, because of God’s grace, you somehow scrape in.

Now I would say that the difference between the slightly “scraping in” Christian and the person who is not a Christian at all is not one that we can sometimes easily discern. And that’s why we need to make sure really, brothers and sisters, that we are following after God. Because we don’t want to be those who miss it.

So, for those who have appeared to backslide, it may be that they were never Christians. It may be that actually they will be among that “skin of the teeth” brigade, or it may be actually—and this is what we should pray—that God will bring them back because God is in the business of restoring people. God is in the business of bringing people back, people we thought would never ever do it. And God says, “No. I will do it. I will do it. I will bring them back. I will complete the work I started.” And that’s the way to pray. Say, “God, you promised that you would complete the work that you started. I remember what you did in that person . . .”

Hebrews 3:14 actually says something interesting about this idea of perseverance. Because it really isn’t just the idea of “once saved, always saved” in a very simplistic way. You think if you go forward at a crusade that’s it. No! What it’s saying is that we’re expecting God to preserve our faith and keep us until the end. It says this in Hebrews 3:14—For we have come to share in Christ (and that’s the past tense—it has happened to us in the past) if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” So we should expect that God will sustain us to the end, and at the end of our lives, to be able to look back on a lifetime of trusting God.

I don’t want any of us to drift away. Please don’t play fast and loose with God because he’s not mocked. It is appointed once for man to die and afterwards to face judgment.

Hope requires eternal security, but it is not passive — we don’t just say, “Oh well. I’m okay now. Let me sit back and put my feet up and coast to heaven.” 2 Peter 1:3—His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him, who called us by his own glory and goodness. Therefore my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. But if you do these things, you will never fall. And you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Why not aim for a rich welcome?

Hope also requires a resurrection — Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 15:19 where he says, “If in this life only we have hoped in Christ we are of all people most to be pitied.” Because actually, eventually it will seem as if God has let us down because we’ll die and evil will, in fact, touch us. Well, the truth is this, eternally these words are always true— God will keep our lives. God will keep evil from ultimately harming us. There is a glorious day coming. Jesus promised, “In this world you will have trouble.” I don’t see very many people naming and claiming that promise! And Jesus does keep his promises. But he also said this: “Take heart. I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

So we need to know this—death is coming. We can’t stop it. We can fight it and we can try to delay it, but we must remember that the timing is ultimately in God’s hands. But it’s also okay to walk in faith and obedience, trying to follow God faithfully, because actually, even under the New Testament, God does sometimes terminate somebody’s life early. Look at Ananias and Sapphira. We can pray for healing, and rightly so when someone gets sick. We can eat in a healthy manner. We can try to keep that weight down. We can stop smoking. It’s like playing Russian roulette with your life. Three holes, one bullet—a “one in three” chance of dying early—not a good idea. We can exercise. We can see doctors. But the point is this. Our hope goes beyond the grave because death is coming, even if we do all those things.

One day we will see him face-to-face. And what does that say? It tells me that we will still have a face. It’s not that we’re going to be some sort of ethereal spirit floating in heaven. We will know each other. We will be able to recognize each other. We have a hope that goes beyond the grave, And we will meet our departed brothers and sisters again one day. We will see them. And together we will see God.

Notice this: it says that he will keep our life, and he will also keep our going out and coming in. To me, that’s a physical thing. You don’t go out and come in if you’re a spirit floating ethereally, not even knowing if you’re you. You will be you. Hope requires that there is a resurrection. Hope requires that there is eternal security, and that God will keep us, but it’s not passive in that knowledge. Hope requires that God sends his gospel. Hope requires a God who is loving. Hope requires a God who is in control. Hope requires a lifted head. Hope requires a biblical outlook.

Hope requires an alert God. It requires a God who is keeping us and a God who is not sleeping. God never sleeps so that you can sleep. He’s watching over you. When you’re in the desert and you’re worried about wild animals coming to eat you, one of you needs to stay awake. You don’t all need to stay awake. You just need one to stay awake. One that’s trustworthy. God would say this to you—”I am trustworthy. Cast your anxieties on me. Don’t you realize that I care for you, and that I don’t sleep so that you can sleep?”

God doesn’t sleep when somebody dies. He doesn’t sleep when somebody gets news that they may die. And he doesn’t sleep when somebody gets news that someone they love may die. He’s never asleep. He is aware of all those things and he can meet you in all those settings. He is your keeper. He will protect you through all those things.

God wasn’t sleeping when your name came up in the tally in heaven as to who’s going to get married and who’s not, and how we’re going to sort that out. You weren’t one he missed. He’s controlling your life. He is guiding your steps. And he will guide you, either to the perfect mate or to actually feeling content in the midst of your situation.

We think we can hide our sin from God. We’re fools. We think the darkness will hide it. Maybe we think that if we come out at night we can do certain things that no one else will see, and therefore sometimes God won’t see. But he never sleeps. He doesn’t slumber. He sees everything you’ve ever done, everything you’ve ever said, and everything you’ve ever thought.

He didn’t see all these things with a view to condemning you, saying you’re useless, and telling you deserve hell (although that’s true). He did it so that you might be forgiven. And he wants to highlight that to you right now. Your sin is worse than you think it is. But this is also true—God is better than you think he is, and he’s more gracious than you think he is. He chose David, an adulterer and a murderer, and said, “This is a man after my own heart.”

God can take the shame that you feel, the hurt you may feel, the dirtiness you feel. Jesus carried our shame on the cross that you might be full of hope, that you might be able to stand firm before God, aware of him, and fully in love with Jesus, fully secure in hope.

Today I can finally reveal that No. 1 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on April 2, 2006, and was my interview with Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington.

Thanks to my friends at Crossway, a free copy of Mark Driscoll’s new book, Vintage Jesus, will be winging its way to Vince, who e-mailed the correct answer, Hugh, who blogged it, Terry B, who guessed wrong, and Craig who deserves a prize for persistence.

Back in April 2006, I had only recently heard of Mark Driscoll. When we conducted this interview, he was already prompting quite a significant response online, and as the months progressed, he would become probably the most talked-about preacher on the Internet. Other recent and popular posts on my blog about Mark Driscoll include:

• Mark Driscoll, Terry Virgo, and Shepherding God’s People

• Driscoll on the Defeat of Shame and the Scotland MP3s
• Mark Driscoll Preaches On the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland
• Mark Driscoll at Menmakers in Scotland
• Mark Driscoll Apologizes for Not Being Humble
• Mark Driscoll Firm, But Kind, About Joel Osteen on Prosperity Teaching
• Mark Driscoll in Christianity Today

I have also listed ways of obtaining Mark Driscoll’s sermons online at “Audio Sermons: Mark Driscoll—The Charismatic With a Seat Belt.”

It is an absolute pleasure to welcome to my blog, Mark Driscoll. Mark is known for having a prominent role in the early days of the Emergent movement, and for his rapidly growing Mars Hill Church. More recently, via his new venture, Resurgence, he has made an explosive entry into the Christian blog-world, which some have likened to none other than The Pyromaniac himself. More posts about Mark Driscoll are linked at the end of this article. You can also visit my interview with Wendy Alsup, a deacon at Mark Driscoll’s church.

Adrian
So, Mark, tell us a bit about yourself and your ministry . . .

Mark
I was born in 1970 to a hard-working blue-collar construction worker dad. I was raised Irish Catholic, but did not know Jesus until God saved me while reading Romans in college at the age of 19. Shortly thereafter, God spoke to me, telling me to plant a church, train men, preach the Bible, and marry my girlfriend, who was a Christian I dearly loved. I married Grace at the age of 21, graduated with a degree in Speech at 22, moved back to my hometown of Seattle, and launched Mars Hill Church at the age of 25. Today I am the father of five children and remain one of the elders at Mars Hill Church.

Adrian
In my first post about you I said, “Mars Hill is one of those unique churches that is probably too emerging for some evangelicals to cope with, much too traditional for the emerging folks, too charismatic for the reformed folks, and too reformed for the average charismatic. It’s a wonder anyone likes the church! Actually, the more I read of Mark the more he sounds like he is making his home in the same kind of center ground that my own church tries to occupy.” Do you recognize that description of yourself—do you sometimes feel like something of a theological misfit?

Mark
I am a theological misfit and have learned to be okay with that. We are missional, which offends fundamentalists. We hold to the fundamentals, which offends the liberals. We are theologically charismatic, but not shake and bake holy rollers, which puts us in the middle of a big debate to be shot by both sides. We are reformed, but not old school, and don’t baptize babies, don’t hold to the regulative principle, and won’t die on the hill of Limited Atonement, but hold a more unlimited/limited position, which upsets both sides of the debate. In the end, I hold to a high view of inerrant Scripture and am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics.

Adrian
What other groups or individuals can you look at and say, “Yeah, they seem to have got it—I can follow them”? Who would you say have been your main influences?

Mark
I learn a lot from John Piper, D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, and Tim Keller. The dead guys I like tend to be Puritans and early church fathers. I also am a huge Spurgeon fan, and read every biography I can get on him. I love biographies and learn from the lives of Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, Patrick, etc. . . .

Read more . . . Interview With Mark Driscoll

Before going on a summer break, I ended with a post which expresses clearly the driving passion behind my life—I DON’T WANT BALANCE, I WANT IT ALL!

Other than that, and the posts on the atonement I listed in yesterday’s review, July was totally dominated (and rightly so) by Together On a Mission. This conference is a phenomena that you really ought to experience at least once in your life. The fact that next year we will have Mark Driscoll here in the UK as the main speaker is just one reason to come. There are many, many more! Here are all my posts from this amazing conference and the events surrounding it:

• TOAM07 – Quotable Quotes
• TOAM07 – Pedro Reflects
• TOAM07 – Many More MP3s Now Available FREE
• TOAM07 – Session 1: Stephen Van Rhyn on Exodus 32
• Andrew Fountain Interviews Adrian Warnock
• TOAM07 – Conference Video
• TOAM07 – Final Thoughts Around the Blogosphere
• TOAM07 – FREE Audio Available and a Video Introduction
• TOAM07 – Interview with Rob Rufus
• TOAM07 – Session 9: Terry Virgo on the Sin of Achan
• TOAM07 – Seminar: Sam Poe and Guy Miller – Prophecy: The Battle for Team
• TOAM07 – Video of Prayer Giving and Worship
• TOAM07 – Prophecy From Smith Wigglesworth
• TOAM07 – Interview with John Lanferman
• TOAM07 – Session 8: Rob Rufus on the Glory of God
• TOAM07 – Session 7: David Stroud on the Identity Markers of Newfrontiers
• TOAM07 – Seminar: Guy Miller and Julian Adams On Prophesying in Power
• TOAM07 – Interview With Tom Shaw: Leader of Mobilise
• TOAM07 – Session 2: Rob Rufus
• TOAM07 – Session 6: Dave Devenish on World Mission
• TOAM07 – Session 5: Rob Rufus on Faith and Healing
• TOAM07 – Session 4: P-J Smyth
• TOAM07 – Updates From the Blogosphere
• TOAM07 – Live-Blogging From Andrew Fountain
• Partying For Jesus
• George Whitefield’s Final Resting Place and the Lewis Revival
• TOAM07- Introducing Pedro Anosike
• Newfrontiers – A Family Of Churches Together On A Mission
• Terry Virgo On Apostles Today

In August I also did a mini-series of quotes on the Calvinistic doctrines, otherwise known as TULIP—just in case people thought I was just some kind of wacky charismaniac. The posts were:

• Will I Make It Until the End? The Perseverance of the Saints
• The Unstoppable Saviour – Irresistible Grace
• Limited/Unlimited Atonement – Just Who Did Jesus Die For?
• Credit God, Blame Man, Or Why Double Predestination is Error – Charles Simeon
• How Total Depravity Helps Your Marriage

Another really interesting thing happened during the “silly season” of August. All the big guns got involved with a big debate with each other about baptism. It was a historic first and of great interest to the rest of us who did not dare to express an opinion! I provided excerpts of all the key posts as follows:

• Why Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Church Membership Differences Exist
• Massive Collection of MP3 Messages Made Free
• Lig Duncan On the Great Baptism, Church Membership, and Lord’s Supper Debate
• “Lig Duncan Baptized as a Believer,” Reveals Justin Taylor
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms, John Piper, and John Bunyan vs. Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever
• Baptist and PCA Agreements About Baptism
• Lig Duncan Speaks Up for Paedobaptists
• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever vs Piper Baptism Debate
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem vs Piper Baptism Debate
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper On Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees With Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism

May was not as controversial a month as I reported yesterday that April had been. I continued with the following posts on the atonement and the resurrection throughout May and also into June. In fact, there were a few posts on the atonement which spilled into July, and I have listed them here also. If that’s not enough for you on this vital subject, remember to look at my April review which lists a lot more!

• John Stott on the Atonement—The Conclusion
• Terry Virgo On the Results of the Cross
• C. J. Mahaney on the Cross
• Tom Schreiner on the Atonement
• Spurgeon on the Atonement
• Wayne Grudem on the Atonement
• A Limited Atonement? Did Jesus Die For All?
• J. I. Packer on the Atonement
• The Atonement—A Quiz
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement—Precious Gospel or Divine Child Abuse?
• Brian McLaren Supports Steve Chalke About the Cross
• The Atonement and the Resurrection—It’s All About Jesus
• The Atonement—Jesus’ Death Is Not Repeated at Communion
• The Atonement—Don’t Forget the Blood of Christ
• Are You Still A Sinner?
• Is the Cross a Legal Fiction? No, Because the Resurrection Changes Us
• The Atonement—Is Penal Substitution the Only Thing That Happened at the Cross?
• Christianity Magazine Reviews Pierced For Our Transgressions
• The Atonement—Is Jesus the Good Cop?
• The Atonement—What Does Imputation Mean?
• Jonathan Edwards on the Resurrection
• The Atonement—What Did Jesus Die From?
• The Atonement—2 Corinthians 5
• Atonement—Jesus Thought He Was Fulfilling Isaiah 53
• The Atonement—Isaiah 53
• Resurrection Sunday—The Commission of the Risen Christ
• Sam Storms Reviews Pierced For Our Transgressions
• Atonement—Who is Preaching Another Gospel?
• The Atonement—What Happened to Jesus on the Cross?
• Resurrection Empowered Life—The Deposit Guaranteeing Our Inheritance
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement Summarized in Romans 15
• The Atonement in Romans 12-14
• Resurrection Empowered Life—Dying to Live
• John Piper Friday—Christ’s Obedient Life and Death Entwined
• The Atonement in Romans 9-11
• The Atonement in Romans 8
• Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Separating Over the Atonement
• Resurrection Empowered Life—Raised With Christ
• John Piper Friday—Romans and the Reason for the Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 6-7 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 4-5 on Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 1-3 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Atonement—The Angry God of the Bible
• N. T. Wright on Paul and the Resurrection Empowered Life

May and June were also the months I began to introduce my readers to the leader of the family of churches of which I am a part. I did a multi-part inteview with Terry Virgo, shared two of his sermons, and introduced his blog in these posts:

• Terry Virgo Preaches on Ephesians 4
• Terry Virgo Preaches on Jesus’ First Miracle
• Terry Virgo Starts a Blog
• Terry Virgo On Healings, Driscoll, and Theology
• Amazing Grace on a Wedding Day

I highlighted a post on a subject that would later in the year lead to the first full-scale blog debate between some of my heroes of the faith. It was slightly cheeky, and I suppose the possibility of a challenge by others was implicit in Mark Dever and Ancient Baptistries. I was also very provoked by a post I quoted from Gandalf’s blog, Why Do We All Like Jesus?

I very much enjoyed talking with Liam Goligher, in a wide-ranging multi-part interview, as well as The Authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions.

I also put out a plea which remains out there for anyone with old messages from Downs Bible Week, C. J. Mahaney, and Others to contact me. In particular, I am interested in messages by my old mentor, Henry Tyler.

Also in May I was fascinated to come across a sound bite that has lived with me since—”We need to show the people we understand what it’s like to be unbelievers.”

As regular readers will know, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called “TULIP.” Today we reach the Limited Atonement item which is, in my opinion, the most misunderstood, and the item with possibly the most nuances needed in our understanding of it. As such, it will get the largest number of quotes so far.

I found a couple of interesting quotes in a post and comment section that asked, What does Mark Driscoll mean by limited/unlimited atonement?. The first came from D. A. Carson in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000, pp. 73-79).

“I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love . . . Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect . . . “

—D. A. Carson

The second can be found in a pdf about Limited Atonement by Bruce Ware in which he outlines an alternative to what is usually seen as classical Calvinism and classical Arminianism on this point:

“God’s intentions in the death of Christ are complex, not simple; multiple, not single:

1. Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect.

2. Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people, making it possible for all who believe to be saved.
3. Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere.
4. Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them.
5. Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father.”

I thought I would finish this post by linking to a page on Mars Hill Church’s website where Mark Driscoll and others can be heard explaining their take on limited/unlimited atonement, which is either what all true Calvinists basically believed all along or an Arminian heresy, dependent on your perspective!

Some say only Christians, some say the whole world. The “L” of the TULIP acronym is definitely one of the most controversial and most misunderstood. I refer you to my previous series for more detail on the “limited” nature of the atonement, but today I want to stress some points that we can surely all agree upon.

Firstly, we can surely agree that Jesus’ death was enough for the whole world, but will not be permanently applied to the whole world—so while unrepentant sinners do benefit temporarily from the death of Jesus, they will not benefit forever. It is only those who are united with Jesus that will ultimately benefit. Thus, to me the Scripture teaches that there is a sense in which Jesus died for the whole world, but another sense in which He died especially for those of us who are Christians.

“. . . we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10)

I like the way that Lloyd-Jones explains the benefits that come to the whole world from Jesus’ death:

“ . . . the only thing that made it possible for God to continue to have any dealings or any relationship with this world at all was the work that our Lord was going to do. So it was the cross, as it were, that spared the world and allowed it to continue. And in the same way, it is the cross and the cross alone that spares the life of anybody who ever sins at any time. It is only because of the work of the cross that God can even tolerate sin in any shape or in any sense.”

— Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (362), Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois.

Ultimately, of course, Jesus died for THOSE OF US who are being saved.

• Isaiah 53:14 — “ . . . he bore the sin of many . . .”

• John 15:13 — “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.”
• 1 John 3:16 — “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us.”
• 1 Corinthians 5:8-9 — “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.”

Believe it or not, I am now very close to the end of this series. All that remains is for me to share a few of my favorite quotes on the atonement from other authors. As I close my own thoughts, I want to thank God that we have, indeed, been “saved by Him from the wrath of God.” (Romans 5:8)

UPDATE
In this article I speak of a perception I am beginning to get that those with more traditional understandings are not entirely welcome within the UK evangelical movement. I had hoped that this was just a false impression. Since writing this article, I came across a piece from Carl Trueman that alleges that some UK ministers feel they are being leaned on quite strongly regarding the issue of the atonement. It’s important for me to stress that this article is not meant as a criticism of the entire UK evangelical scene, but is rather my own personal reflections on a sense I am getting that UK evangelicalism is heading in a direction with which I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable.

_____________________________

This month’s UK Christianity magazine (not to be confused with Christianity Today from the USA) has a review of PFOT. I have to confess it left me rather bemused.

On the one hand, the author seems eager to perpetrate the idea that it wasn’t PSA itself that Chalke rejected. In this he is in good company as N. T. Wright has said the same thing. This would be all fine except for the fact that Chalke himself has said in an article that it was PSA itself that he had rejected.

The author of the review on the other hand states that he felt Chalke’s words in his controversial book were inadvisable. One is left a little confused about the reviewer’s own opinion on the issue.

He seems to have similarly mixed feelings about PFOT. He acknowledges some of the book’s arguments as almost irrefutable, but also criticizes it strongly, focusing in on the issue of so-called “limited atonement” which was only a very minor part of the whole book — taking up just a couple of pages at most.

I am left bemused and confused. Although the writer seems to be concerned about a trend to harden lines within Christianity, he seems to do exactly that by focusing on an issue which is not seen by anyone I know as one of first importance. For hundreds of years people have differed about the precise extent of the atonement and how it is applied, whilst agreeing on the penal substitutionary aspects of it, and defining themselves as evangelical as a result.

However much anyone tries to turn the current debate away from PSA to another issue, the key issue of books like PFOT remains the same. This is because — to many of us, both Arminians and Reformed, both charismatic and Cessationist — the concept of Jesus’ wrath-absorbing death on the cross is central to a full understanding of the Gospel.

After reading this review, I am now left wondering whether there is any room left for someone like me in the broad evangelical tent represented by Premier, Spring Harvest, and Christianity magazine. The inter-relationships of all of these organizations are made clear at the end of the online page for the review we are addressing.

It is ironic that the more inclusive the evangelical movement in the UK aims to be by including people who attack or minimize PSA, the more they seem to exclude those who hold a more traditional evangelical position.

I am wondering just where the walls of the evangelical tent now lie. Is it really possible for the tent to include both those who agree with Steve Chalke and those who agree with the writers of PFOT? Surely the tent must exclude one group or the other? Is it really possible to simply agree to disagree on the issue of the atonement and work together? Martyn Lloyd-Jones didn’t seem to think so.

It’s been awhile, so I thought it would be a nice idea to do a blogspotting post today. Blogspotting was initiated by Phil Johnson and ruthlessly copied by me and others. It is simply a way for me to thank all of you for linking to this blog. Links are the lifeblood of the Internet, and the more of them we send each other’s way, the healthier the Internet is as a whole. They also help Google out a lot. Think of links as bonds of friendship that also form the signpost system for the Internet highway. It’s the nearest thing the Internet has to a good old fashioned library card index system. It is because links are so central to the workings of the Google search engine that it has taken them so long to figure out a way of diffusing Google bombs. So here goes with some reciprocal linky love.

First up is my friend, Andrew Fountain. He has linked twice recently. He liked my sermon on Revival and shared about his meeting with John Lanferman.

Speaking of new friends, in a post entitled Adrian Warnock on Mars Hill Church, Mark Moore is incredibly kind.

John Schroeder links to me in a post Rules of Interpretation and Lessons for the Church.

Another friend, Phil Johnson, is almost as excited as I am about the revival of Charles Simeon’s works.

In a move that might spark surprise in both the Warnock and Phillips camps, the Christian Reconciliation Carnival #1 holds us both up as examples of how to debate with brotherly love.

Jollyblogger tells the world I have joined LinkedIn, and is trying to encourage everybody to do that. Requests to join my network and complimentary testimonials gratefully received!

Steve Bishop has discovered my interview with Wayne Grudem. A visitor to our church, who at the time was clearly at the brink of conversion, now publicly identifies himself as a Christian and claims I wink a lot!

Wayne Leman predictably linked my quote from Lewis on translating into the vernacular to Bible translation. Kevin also links to my writings about the ESV Bible.

Morning Highlights and Mark Olson both describe Lloyd-Jones as “early modern,” which seems like a strange phrase to me and makes me wonder which of them didn’t “hat tip” the other.

Joe Carter’s Outtakes of 02.06.07 linked to my still unsolved Spurgeon challenge.

In a post entitled “Revival and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit” the wonderfully-named A Debtor to Mercy blog linked to my post on Piper’s view of the Doctor.

I received to my knowledge my first link in a foreign language blog “Confissões de Um Reformado Carismático“—a machine translation of the post reads reasonably well. Also, in a post entitled “Lütuf Doktrini (Seçilmişlik Öğretisi) ile ilgili ingilizce websiteler” by Les Huguenots, I noticed a link to a very old post of mine on Limited Atonement.

Speaking of new links to old posts, there was one to my definiton of the term “Reformed Charismatic“.

My interview with a deacon at Mars Hill generated a few links, with one blogger saying Remember Wendy? Another asked Ever Heard of Wendy Alsup? And yet another replied I’ve heard of Wendy Alsup! One blogger surely gets the last word with “When Wendy Speaks, Everybody Listens.”

One blogger is glad they followed the link for one of my adverts and says “LOGOS: Truly an Amazing Resource.” Another agrees with my book review of What is Reformed Theology? Another linked to a post I wrote On Theological Argument for Argument’s Sake. Jeff Wright provides one of the few links I could find to anything I have written on revival. Priorities likes an observation I made about blogging.

Russell very kindly nominated me for one of the 2007 Weblog Awards. I didn’t win!

The Pulpit Magazine is in the middle of a series Revisiting the Charismatic Question and links to me. I am not sure whether to go over there and see if they have any new arguments to interact with. Do you want to see more on this blog about that issue? I haven’t forgotten, by the way, my intention to publish a summary post listing arguments in favor of a charismatic position or reviews of a couple more useful books on the subject.

There is no doubt that of all the doctrines of Calvinism, the so-called limited atonement is the most misunderstood and controversial. Sadly, many interpret this as indicating that salvation itself is “limited” and that few will be saved. Spurgeon clearly didn’t think so as this extract from one of his sermons will show. Incidentally, this is preaching as it ought to be! My Spurgeon Challenge remains open, but at least this shows Spurgeon speaking about something similar to the sentiments I half-remember.

“And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west,
and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the
kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast
out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth” Matthew 8:11, 12.

“. . . my text hath a yet greater depth of sweetness, for it says that “many shall come and shall sit down.” Some narrow-minded bigots think that heaven will be a very small place, where there will be a very few people, who went to their chapel or their church. I confess, I have no wish for a very small heaven, and love to read in the Scriptures that there are many mansions in my Father’s house. How often do I hear people say, “Ah! strait is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it. There will be very few in heaven; there will be most lost.”

My friend I differ from you. Do you think that Christ will let the devil beat him? that he will let the devil have more in hell than there will be in heaven? No: it is impossible. For then Satan would laugh at Christ. There will be more in heaven than there are among the lost. God says, that “there will be a number that no man can number who will be saved;” but he never says that there will be a number that no man can number that will be lost. There will be a host beyond all count who will get into heaven.

What glad tidings for you and for me! For if there are so many to be saved why should not I be saved? Why should not you? Why should not yon man, over there in the crowd, say, “Cannot I be one among the multitude?” And may not that poor woman there take heart, and say, “Well, if there were but half-a-dozen saved, I might fear that I should not be one; but since many are to come, why should not I also be saved?” Cheer up, disconsolate! Cheer up, son of mourning, child of sorrow, there is hope for thee still! I can never know that any man is past God’s grace.

There be a few that have sinned that sin that is unto death and God gives them up, but the vast host of mankind are yet within the reach of sovereign mercy—”And many of them shall come from the east, and from the west, and shall sit down in the kingdom of heaven.”

Look at my text again, and you will see where these people come from. They are to “come from the east and west.” The Jews said that they would all come from Palestine, every one of them, every man, woman, and child; that there would not be one in heaven that was not a Jew. And the Pharisees thought that if they were not all Pharisees they could not be saved. But Jesus Christ said there will be many that will come from the east and from the west. There will be a multitude from that far off land of China, for God is doing a great work there, and we hope that the gospel will yet be victorious in that land. There will be a multitude from this western land of England; from the western country beyond the sea, in America; and from the south, in Australia; and from the north, in Canada, Siberia, and Russia. From the uttermost parts of the earth there shall come many to sit down in the kingdom of God . . .

There is one more word I must notice before I have done with this sweet portion—that is the word “shall.” Oh! I love God’s “shalls” and “wills.” There is nothing comparable to them. Let a man say “shall,” what is it good for? “I will,” says man, and he never performs; “I shall,” says he and he breaks his promise. But it is never so with God’s “shalls.” If he says, “shall,” it shall be, when he says, “will,” it will be.

Now he has said here, “many shall come.” The devil says, “they shall not come “but “they shall come.” Their sins say, “you can’t come;” God says, you “shall come.” You, yourselves, say, “we won’t come;” God says, “you shall come.” Yes! there are some here who are laughing at salvation, who can scoff at Christ, and mock at the gospel; but I tell you some of you shall come yet. “What!” you say, “can God make me become a Christian?” I tell you yes, for here in rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent, but it gets it. It does not say will you have it, but it makes you willing in the day of God’s power. Not against your will, but it makes you willing. It shows you its value—and then you fall in love with it, and straightway you run after it and have it.

Many people have said. “we will not have anything to do with religion,” yet they have been converted. I have heard of a man who once went to chapel to hear the singing, and as soon as the minister began to preach, he put his fingers in his ears and would not listen. But by-and-bye some tiny insect settled on his face, so that he was obliged to take one finger out of his ear to brush it away. Just then the minister said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

The man listened; and God met with him at that moment to his soul’s conversion. He went out a new man, a changed character. He who came in to laugh retired to pray; he who came in to mock went out to bend his knee in penitence: he who entered to spend an idle hour went home to spend an hour in devotion with his God. The sinner became a saint; the profligate became a penitent. Who knows that there may not be some like that here? The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say “I do not want to be saved;” Christ says you shall be. He makes your will turn round, and then you cry, “Lord, save, or I perish.”

Ah, might heaven exclaim, “I knew I would make you say that;” and then he rejoices over you because he has changed your will and made you willing in the day of his power. If Jesus Christ were to stand on this platform to-night, what would many people do with him? “O!” say some, “we would make him a King.” I do not believe it. They would crucify him again if they had the opportunity. If he were to come and say, “Here I am, I love you, will you be saved by me?” Not one of you would consent if you were left to your will. If he should look upon you with those eyes, before whose power the lion would have crouched, if he spoke with that voice which poured forth a cataract of eloquence like a stream of nectar rolling down from the cliffs above, not a single person would come to be his disciple; no, it wants the power of the Spirit to make men come to Jesus Christ.

He himself said, “No man can come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw him.” Ah! we want that; and here we have it. They shall come! They shall come! ye may laugh, ye may despise us; but Jesus Christ shall not die for nothing. If some of you reject him there are some that will not. If there are some that are not saved, others shall be. Christ shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. Some think that Christ died and yet that some for whom he died will be lost. I never could understand that doctrine. If Jesus my surety bore my griefs and carried my borrows, I believe myself to be as secure as the angels in heaven. God cannot ask payment twice. If Christ paid my debt shall I have to pay it again? No.

“Free from sin I walk at large,
The Savior’s blood’s my full discharge;
At his dear feet content I lay,
A sinner saved, and homage pay.”

They shall come! They shall come! And nought in heaven, nor on earth, nor in hell, can stop them from coming.

And now, thou chief of sinners, list one moment while I call thee to Jesus. There is one person here to-night who thinks himself the worst soul that ever lived. There is one who says to himself, “I do not deserve to be called to Christ I am sure!” Soul! I call thee! thou lost, most wretched outcast, this night, by authority given me of God, I call thee to come to my Savior.

Some time ago, when I went into the County Court to see what they were doing, I heard a man’s name called out, and immediately the man said, “Make way! make way! they call me!” And up he came. Now, I call the chief of sinners to-night, and let him say, “Make way! make way doubts! make way fearer make way sins! Christ calls me! And if Christ calls me,
that is enough!”

“I’ll to his gracious feet approach,
Whose scepter mercy gives;
Perhaps he may command my touch!”
And then the suppliant lives.
“I can but perish if I go;
I am resolved to try
For if I stay away, I know
I must for ever die.
But, should I die with mercy sought,
When I the King have tried,
That were to die, (delightful thought!)
As sinner never died.”

Go and try my Savior! Go and try my Savior! If he casts you away after you have sought him, tell it in the pit that Christ would not hear you. But that you shall never be allowed to do. It would dishonor the mercy of the covenant, for God to cast away one penitent sinner; and it never shall be while it is written ‘many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.’”

Spurgeon’s Sermon Number 39

It is a pleasure to welcome to my blog today, Wendy Alsup, who is a member of Mars Hill Church Seattle—led by Mark Driscoll. Wendy is a mother of two, and Deacon in charge of Women’s Theology and Training. There has been a lot of controversy about Mark Driscoll in the blogosphere, so I thought it would be great to get an insider’s look at what it is like to be a member of the church he leads. For more information, see Mark Driscoll’s blog or the new look Mars Hill Church website – their video section is especially cool. In part 1 we focused on finding out a bit more about Wendy and the church she attends. In part 2, we looked at what Mars Hill does to maintain a sense of community. Today, I ask Wendy more about the focus of their church on theology.

Adrian

Going back to your own role in the church, tell me what exactly does a “Deacon in Charge of Women’s Theology and Training” do?

Wendy

Originally, I was asked to take over our Practical Theology for Women course. It started more as a women’s forum, but has evolved to an eight-week study of the character and attributes of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and how knowing Him equips us for the practical issues of life. The first lesson is “What is Theology and Why Should I Care?” which is an important question for women to ask themselves. I have been stunned over the years by the number of Christian (or at least churched) women who think theology is irrelevant to them. Many think theology is just a bunch of dead men debating Latin phrases. My goal in the Practical Theology for Women class was not to dumb down the deep things of the Word, but to present them in a way that they are accessible to someone who is not schooled in theological phraseology. We’ve podcast a condensed version of the class, and it’s available on our main church website (pardon the shameless plug).

My responsibilities at church have grown, and now I help organize most of the teaching events for women. I try to keep my ear to the ground to understand the “felt needs” of women at church. But then I try (with other godly women in the church) to figure out what the needs reflect about our view of the Gospel and the character of God. We then organize each teaching event with the foundation of knowing the God of the Bible and stripping away the God of our imagination, showing how knowing the truth of God’s character rightly addresses the felt problem.

Adrian

How did you come to join the Mars Hill staff? Were you appointed straight from a theological seminary, or did you have other experience before you got this role?

Wendy

I have a minor in Bible from a Christian college. But, honestly, the vast majority of my theological knowledge has been taught me through the church—not necessarily just Sunday sermons, but through contact with the Body, sitting over coffee debating limited atone-ment, dispensationalism, or what have you. I’ve learned so much just by talking to the right people who direct me to read the right people. It’s not that I don’t value seminary training. But it’s not accessible to the average church member, so surely that’s not the most effective way to raise up leaders in the church. My husband has no seminary training whatsoever, but he is a constant source of wisdom to me as I prepare each lesson I teach.

There is a difference in studying theology and getting theological degrees. The first is absolutely necessary and the second is sometimes helpful. There are a number of staff and members at Mars Hill with degrees and/or pursuing degrees. But there are many, many more intent on learning their theology. In fact, I consider that the norm at Mars Hill.

Mars Hill takes seriously their responsibility to train up leaders from within the church. When I first got to Mars Hill, I was really rebuked by the number of relatively new Christians (maybe two to three years in the faith) who could run circles around me in their knowledge of the Word. I recently had dinner with a lady who was saved as a corporate career woman living with an abusive boyfriend. She had been saved maybe two years at the time, her life beautifully transformed, and in the middle of dinner she asked me my views on covenant versus dispensational theology. I thought, “What in the world?!” I had probably been saved twenty years before I ever cracked a book on that one.

Adrian

That’s pretty impressive—especially in a church that is growing so fast. Why do you think the people of your church are so interested in theology?

Wendy

It seems a natural consequence of transformed lives. We have a lot of new converts saved out of very warped lives. They understand that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” They hate their sin and thirst for a deep walk with Christ through His Word. So naturally they turn to theology, which at the root level is simply the study of God.

Adrian

From your experience, what can other churches do to stimulate such interest?

Wendy

This may sound harsh, but stop focusing on the lukewarm. So many churches center around ministries to people who should have long since learned better. Lukewarm people suck the life blood out of ministries. You may have someone come to Christ, but if the lukewarm are setting the agenda, new believers will likely become disillusioned and look for discipleship somewhere else. Go for the cold. And expect that those who have been saved awhile and understand the Great Commission will get on board with the mission. I talked with a 20-something girl recently who first came to Mars Hill to prove the pastor wrong. Having come to Christ at Mars Hill, her boyfriend had just told her they couldn’t sleep together anymore, and she and her stone cold heart were out to prove that Mars Hill was some kind of Branch Davidian cult. After a few weeks, she was saved, came to the Practical Theology for Women class faithfully, and has continued to grow like a weed. In my experience, authentic conversion leads to authentic transformation. The “cold” are the mission, the “hot” get on mission, and the “lukewarm” shouldn’t get to set the agenda.

Adrian

All-in-all, from what I have read, Mars Hill theology sounds like an interesting mixture of emergent and reformed—how does that work out in practice in the church, and does that mean that you have a lot of confused people?

Wendy

No—our people understand the mission and have bought into our philosophy, which we believe simply reflects the early church of Acts and the Epistles. Once someone has attended the eight-week Gospel Class, they’ve been exposed to a straightforward presentation of what we believe about the Word, God, sin, the Gospel, and our responsibility to communicate truth to our culture. What we do may be confusing to those raised in traditional styled churches (which is my background), but to someone who was saved out of a non-churched background (as are most of our members), it makes fairly good sense when compared to Scripture.

Read conclusion here . . .

links for 2006-04-07

• Just Curious . . . Could Judas Iscariot Possibly Spend Eternity in Heaven?
  Interesting discussion going on over at Pyromaniacs regarding limited atonement, et al.
  (tags: atonement calvinism hell pyromaniacs reformed)
• From Traitor to Hero? Responding to The Gospel of Judas
  Headlines worldwide announce publication of a “long lost” and “suppressed” ancient document. Highly interesting, it offers an ancient and authoritative source into the thinking of heretical groups offering alternative understandings of Christianity.
  (tags: gospel news)
• A Conversation with John Piper
  Read an interview with John Piper in the April issue of “Decision” magazine.
  (tags: interview Piper)
• Worshipping Worship?
  Are we expressing the desire, but never engaging in the act? Instead of telling God “I will worship You” and “I will bow down,” why don’t we just do it! Do we express heartfelt worship and not just the intention to engage in worship?
  (tags: challies church music worship)
• CJ’s Answer to “What is the Gospel?”
  He who posed the question now provides an answer. “The Gospel is the good news of God’s saving activity through the person and work of Christ.” It is specific, objective, and sufficient. And the cross is the pinnacle of that work.
  (tags: gospel mahaney T4GB)
• Over The Broom Tree’s favorite Christian Biographies
  Which do you like?

UPDATES

In July 2008 I was able to record a video interview with Mark Driscoll. There are also a lot of other posts about him on my blog.

In January 2008, the following post was identified as the number one all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 2nd most-read post was “Blogging, Discernment, and a Book by Tim Challies.”

Back in April 2006, I had only recently heard of Mark Driscoll. When we conducted this interview, he was already prompting quite a significant response online, and as the months progressed, he would become probably the most talked-about preacher on the Internet. Other recent and popular posts on my blog about Mark Driscoll include:

• Mark Driscoll, Terry Virgo, and Shepherding God’s People
• Driscoll on the Defeat of Shame and the Scotland MP3s
• Mark Driscoll Preaches On the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland
• Mark Driscoll at Menmakers in Scotland
• Mark Driscoll Apologizes for Not Being Humble
• Mark Driscoll Firm, But Kind, About Joel Osteen on Prosperity Teaching
• Mark Driscoll in Christianity Today

I have also listed ways of obtaining Mark Driscoll’s sermons online at “Audio Sermons: Mark Driscoll—The Charismatic With a Seat Belt“.

***************

It is an absolute pleasure to welcome to my blog, Mark Driscoll. Mark is known for having a prominent role in the early days of the Emergent movement, and for his rapidly growing Mars Hill Church. More recently, via his new venture, Resurgence, he has made an explosive entry into the Christian blog-world, which some have likened to none other than The Pyromaniac himself. More posts about Mark Driscoll are linked at the end of this article. You can also visit my interview with Wendy Alsup, a deacon at Mark Driscoll’s church.

Adrian
So, Mark, tell us a bit about yourself and your ministry . . . .

Mark
I was born in 1970 to a hard-working blue construction worker dad. I was raised Irish Catholic, but did not know Jesus until God saved me while reading Romans in college at the age of 19. Shortly thereafter, God spoke to me, telling me to plant a church, train men, preach the Bible, and marry my girlfriend, who was a Christian I dearly loved. I married Grace at the age of 21, graduated with a degree in Speech at 22, moved back to my hometown of Seattle, and launched Mars Hill Church at the age of 25. Today I am the father of five children and remain one of the elders at Mars Hill Church.

Relevants—theologically conservative, culturally innovative church forms.
Reformed Relevants—theologically conservative and reformed, culturally innovative church forms.
Reconstructionists—theologically conservative, reinventing church forms.
Revisionists—theologically liberal, reinventing church forms.

I have no problem with the evangelical Relevants (e.g. Dan Kimball, Chris Seay, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus). I have respect for, but some concerns with, the house church Reconstructionists. I consider myself a Reformed Relevant. And, the Emergent crowd is Revisionist, which I have strong concerns about regarding such things as gender roles, original sin, substitionary atonement, homosexuality, authority of Scripture, hell, etc.

Scripture commands us to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Therefore, the truths of Christianity are constant, unchanging, and meant for all people, times, and places. But the methods by which truth is articulated and practiced must be culturally appropriated, and therefore constantly translated (1 Corinthians 9:22-23). If both doctrine and practice are constant, the result is dead orthodoxy, to which the Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists are each reacting in varying degrees. If both doctrine and practice are constantly changing, the result is living heresy, which is where I fear the Revisionist Emergent tribe of the Emerging church is heading. But if doctrine is constant and practice is constantly changing, the result is living orthodoxy, which I propose is the faithful third way of the Relevants and pray remains the predominant way of the Reconstructionists.

Mark
I posted this on our church planters website to a young pastor who asked for my input. I took the metaphor from Spurgeon’s Sword and Trowel magazine.

Adrian
Sadly, that’s all the time we have. Many thanks, Mark, for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us.

Mark
I appreciate the opportunity.

Other Posts on My Blog About Mark Driscoll:

• Discovering Mark Driscoll
• DG06 – Session 4 – Mark Driscoll
• DG06 – More From Session 4 with Mark Driscoll
• Mark Driscoll Theological Misfit and No Longer Emergent
• Mark Driscoll Publicly Apologizes to Brian Maclaren
• Mark Driscoll Defines Reformission
• Mark Driscoll on the Resurrection
• Mark Driscoll on the Atonement Controversy
• Driscoll-gate – Scandal or Witch Hunt?
• You Can Read a Man By His Friends.
• DG06 National Conference mp3s Now Available
• Just Adding Water to the “Proverbial Fire”
• Driscoll: Radical Reformission Gospel and Culture
• Driscoll on Being All Things to All Men
• The Charismatics and Disagreeing in Grace

My friend Dave Routlege shows his calvinistic training in his commentary about the history of his blog (which I helped him set up) arose. Astute readers will notice the correspondence to the five points of calvinism which cannot have been accidental (for more on the five points of calvinism follow the links at my post on Calvinism and worship. Anyway here is what Dave said:

1.I was totally incapable of setting it up myself. (Total depravity)

2.I did nothing to deserve it. (Unconditional Election)

3. No one else in the house has got one. (Limited atonement or in this case limited assistance!)

4. Once you suggested the idea, I was powerless to resist. (Irresistable grace)

5. Now that I have it; it will be there forever. (Perseverence of the blogs I mean saints – sadly like many apparent professions of Christian faith, blogs often die young. I predict Dave will make it past the crucial three-post hurdle at least!)

I tremble to contradict the pyromaniac, but I am afraid that I feel that his handling of 1 John 2:2 is almost certainly an example of trying to squeeze the bible into a doctrinal mould. In fact such exegetical gymnastics are only required for a view of the so-called “limited atonement” that I find totally alien even though I would describe myself as a five-point calvinist.

It seems to me that it is not what you say you believe that matters most, but rather your whole approach to the bible. I struggle to accept any interpretation of a verse that doesnt seem to take it at face value.

I think that there is a danger in what I call “over-systematising” the bible. I love systematic theology, but we have to accept that God did not give us a ready-made systematic theology. Thus, our efforts are always going to be less than perfect and therefore slightly raw and unfinished. We have to interact with the bible on its own terms, and personally I would rather allow the scripture to speak even if it means I become slightly less confident of my so-called “system”.

So how do I see 1 John 2:2 which says, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”?

Well, I believe there is a simple explanation of this scripture when seen together with a selection of texts I rarely see placed together. These are as follows-

1 Tim 4:10 which says “We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”. The second is Romans 1:23 which says that Jesus death was necessary for God to be just because “in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins”. The final verse, 2 Peter 3:9, says that the reason for the delay of the end of the world is that God “is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

It strikes me that if a judge should delay punishment then we would rightly feel that justice had not been done. Thus, the overall message of these verses seems to me to be that what thelogians call “common grace” was in fact purchased by Jesus’ blood. In other words the only reason God can lavish goodness on the righteous and unrighteous alike on earth is that Jesus death is in some way applied to EVERYONE in the world. God is described as patiently delaying the end eager for all to turn in repentance to him. Believers and unbelievers alike whilst on earth thus benefit from this grace because it was purchased for them by Jesus.

My brand of Calvinism allows me to say with all honesty that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, whilst still believing that he died specifically for his elect.

I honestly believe that there is a genuine gospel offer made to EVERYONE to believe. In fact, everyone everywhere are COMMANDED to believe. (Acts 17:30) No one will ever be able to say I trusted in Jesus to save me and he let me down.

It is sadly true that although we are all freely offered an opportunity to respond to this gospel message, left to our own devices we all feely choose to reject it. The wonder of wonders is that despite this opposition to him, God makes the dead unbeliver alive in Christ (Eph 2:1-9)

Thus, as the old saying says “God should get all the credit for salvation, man should get all the blame for condemnation”

In John 6:37, Jesus makes two statements which our systematic theology must allow to both be true “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out”

Spurgeon was a preacher I respect greatly- he refused to fall into the trap of bending the bible to suit his theology- take this example which I quoted in a post where I argued against the idea of double-predestination.

“There are two things, then, this morning I shall have to talk about. The first is, that the work of salvation rests upon the will of God, and not upon the will of man; and secondly, the equally sure doctrine, that the will of man has its proper position in the work of salvation, and is not to be ignored…….

Are there not some of you here present, who are being fitted for destruction? God is not fitting you, you are fitting yourselves, by daily developing and indulging the depravity of your heart. You are seeking out every new pleasure, and every new sin,and though often warned to turn from your course of evil are there not some of you who are rushing headlong to destruction? Are not many of you by a course of sin and folly, ripening yourselves for the great harvest of the Lord? Are you not making yourselves ready to be as stubble fully dried, cast into the oven of his wrath? This is not to be laid to the charge of God, but at your own door the guilt must he. If you perish any one of you, on your own head shall be your blood. The eternal God is not guilty of the murder of men’s souls, they that die and sink in hell are suicides; they have rejected mercy, they have despised the Savior, they have chosen sin and hated holiness. As was their choice, such is their portion; as was their rebellious will on earth, such must be their tormented destiny for ever…….”

In a letter from the heart Joel Edwards says of Steve Chalke-

Firstly, I am not convinced that Steve really has answered the plethora of key biblical texts dealing with the relationship between wrath, judgement and punishment. (Isaiah 53:1-11 and Romans 5:8-11 and the book of Hebrews for starters.) Apart from the concept of punishment, what can it possibly mean to say “the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,”? (Isa 53:5) These passages simply cannot be waved away by an emphasis on love.

Secondly, it’s one thing to question the place of penal substitution as an appropriate model of atonement but it’s quite another to dismiss it and anathematise those who do. Steve’s exclusion clause disqualifies the majority of Christians like me around the world who hold to a doctrine of Penal Substitution. I haven’t yet worked out if Steve recognises the implications of his position.

By insisting that Penal Substitution is pagan and therefore unorthodox, he makes himself a theological policeman and as much an excluder as anyone else I know. Ironic. Evangelical unity is threatened here, not by open theological debate but by theological intolerance.

But I also wonder what this means for the emerging generation of Christians who may be happy with the sentiments without grasping the theological implications, and for whom the experience of church is limited to their immediate circle of friends. Will someone take time to ensure that they embrace the Scriptures as well as they have happily welcome these ideas? We are in this for the long run and in the long run, happy Christians don’t necessarily make the most effective disciples.

Joel also expresses a concern that those on “the other side” be gracious loving and seek “the truth in love”

This isnt going to go away.

Well, this Christmas the carnival of the reformation has asked us to post about the centrality of Christ the “sola christus”. This is a request I am only too happy to comply with and helps bring a number of threads together that I have been posting on lately.

The last thing I posted was a link to our series on the book of acts Any good bible student knows of course that this book should really be called the acts of Jesus as Luke introduces it in such a way as to make clear he believes that Jesus was still around at the time “doing stuff”

I do believe that he is still around today doing stuff also. In fact, it is Christ that is central to the other issue I have been discussing lately- assurance of our faith.

I asked “How can I know if I am saved?” and my answer which I will unpack in the next little while in later posts I am sure is simply this- You can know you are saved because of Christ, what he has done and your current relationship with him.

There is much that can be said about that but really too many people fail to realise that the essense of calvinism is quite simply a high view of Christ, and a high view of just what his death and resurrection accomplished. All too often alternative views of sovereignty such as Arminians and alternative views of the cross such as that postulated by Steve Chalke have one thing in common- they minimise the centrality of the role of Christ.

I recently blogged through the TULIP acronym, and a year ago preached a sermon in church which highlighted these so called five points of calvinism. It is vital for us to realise that actually these concepts are supposed to lead us to the doctrine of the centrality of Christ.

This is knowhere more clearly seen than in the doctrine of Total Depravity. We needed Christ to do something for us because we could do nothing for ourselves. I know that left to myself I would have rejected Christ by my own choice. I delight in knowing that Christ chose me before the foundation of the world and that choice was totally unconditional. It really was because of all that Jesus did for me that I can be confident that I am saved.

I believe that the so-called “limited atonement” is applied to be in a very special way that guarentees it will work- in a real sense Christ died PERSONALLY for me. I am sure that grace must be irrisistable because that demonstrates that Christ and not I are in the driving seat in our relationship, because of that I can be confident that I will persevere in my faith not because of my own will power and determination but instead because I have trusted myself into the hands of Christ and he will never let me go.

These truths comfort us because we suddenly realise salvation is not about us, not about what we offer and contribute (except our sin!). We realise that not even our faith comes from us and could be seen as somehow making us more deserving. We come again to Christ and say “thank you for what you did for me”. Thank you for choosing me, thank you for dying for me, thank you for taking my punishment, thank you for helping me to see the truth, thank you for granting me faith and wooing me to you, thank you for giving me new life, and thank you that I will spend eternity with you.

So it really is “all about you jesus”

It’s all about you, Jesus

And all this is for you

For your glory and your fame

It’s not about me,

As if you should do things my way

You alone are God

And I surrender, to your ways