Dr Paul Allen

In an age wherein the ground of theology has been saturated by the torrential downpour of existential thinking, it seems almost suicidal, like facing the open floodgates riding a raft made of balsa wood, to appeal to a seventeenth-century theologian to address a pressing theological issue. Nothing evokes more snorts from the snouts of anti-rational zealots than appeals to sages from the era of Protestant Scholasticism. “Scholasticism” is the pejorative term applied by so-called “ Neo-Orthodox ” (better spelled without the “e” in Neo), or “progressive” Reformed thinkers who embrace the “Spirit” of the Reformation while eschewing its “letter” to the seventeenth-century Reformed thinkers who codified the insights of their sixteenth-century magisterial forebears.  To the scoffers of this present age, Protestant Scholasticism is seen as a reification or calcification of the dynamic and liquid forms of earlier Reformed insight. It is viewed as a deformation from the lively, san

English: The differences of the Calvinism and Lutheranism Category:Calvinism Category:Lutheranism (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) 1. The New Calvinism, in its allegiance to the inerrancy of the Bible , embraces the biblical truths behind the five points of Calvinism ( TULIP ), while having an aversion to using the acronym (or any other systematic packaging) along with a sometimes-qualified embrace of Limited Atonement . The focus is on Calvinistic soteriology but not to the exclusion or the appreciation of the broader scope of Calvin’s vision. 2. The New Calvinism embraces the sovereignty of God in salvation and all the affairs of life and history, including evil and suffering. 3. The New Calvinism has a strong complementarian flavor (as opposed to egalitarian) with an emphasis on the flourishing of men and women in relationships where men embrace a call to robust, humble, Christ -like servant- leadership. 4. The New Calvinism leans toward being culture-affirming, as opposed t

One of Piper’s great strengths in representing and defending Calvinistic theology has been in not merely defending this doctrine, but in making it lead to wonder and to worship. “My experience is that clear knowledge of God from the Bible is the kindling that sustains the fires of affection for God. And probably the most crucial kind of knowledge is the knowledge of what God is like in salvation.” Of course this is what the five points of Calvinism are about—“not the power and sovereignty of God in general, but his power and sovereignty in the way he saves people,” which is exactly why these doctrines are commonly referred to as  the doctrines of grace . He insists that he does not begin here as a Calvinist who sets out to defend a system, but as a Christian who holds the Bible above any system of thought. As with many modern Calvinists, Piper does not love the TULIP acronym that has become synonymous with Calvinism. He steps away from the acronym and the standard order, saying “

English: Portrait of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) from the Dutch portrait collection of the Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Harvard Divinity School. From an engraving by J. C. Philips and J. G. Meet. From the Seventeenth Century.Category: (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It began within the theological faculty of a Dutch institution that was committed to Calvinistic teaching. Some of the professors there began to have second thoughts about issues relating to the doctrines of election and predestination. As this theological controversy spread across the country, it upset the church and theologians of the day. Finally, a synod was convened. Issues were squared away and the views of certain people were rejected, including those of a man by the name of Jacobus Arminius . The group that led the movement against orthodox Reformed theology was called the Remonstrants . They were called the Remonstrants because they were remonstrating or protesting against certain doctrines within their

Image via Wikipedia Image via Wikipedia Image via Wikipedia When you embrace the doctrines of grace, the one that was hardest to swallow was the L in the TULIP acronym: limited atonement—or perhaps better stated (though ruining the acronym): particular redemption, or definite atonement . Both the intent and extent of the atonement was divinely ordained to infallibly secure the salvation of all those whom the Father had chosen from before the foundation of the world (John 6:39; 10:11, 14–15; Ac 20:28; Eph 5:25). Jesus’ death didn’t simply make salvation possible, and then leave the appropriation of the cross’s benefits to the sovereign will of the sinner. No, it actually purchased the salvation of God’s elect (1Pet 2:24; Rev 5:9). Interestingly, one of my chief objections to the doctrine wasn’t so much on textual or exegetical grounds. It was that it contradicted the way we have always heard the Gospel preached in evangelism. You hear the Gospel preached as if it was merely: “Jesus d