Why We Cannot Endorse Rezolution 2013

20060228081450!Stop_hand

In the lastweek or so, it has come to my attention, that many Reformed brothers and sisters in South Africa are exited about the coming Rezolution Conference , being held in South Africa in April . I have some concerns about the speakers as they are all from the Young, Restless, Reformed movement also known as the New Calvinism movement.  Hearing names like Tim Keller , who is a leader in this new movement is concerning,  as Keller,  has in recent years embraced  mysticism  &  theistic evolution. Tim Keller’s books are also highly recommended by pastors and teachers across South Africa in  Reformed churches.

While Keller claims to be a Reformed Protestant, his writings reveal a profound empathy with the Roman Catholic Church. In The Reason for God (2008) he refers to the Catholic Church as “the largest church in the world”.[2]  He explains that he believes in a broad definition of Christianity that includes the Church of Rome. He says that “all Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians assent together to the great creeds.”[3] And this, in Keller’s mind, means that Roman Catholics are real Christians. He frequently quotes from Roman Catholic sources and authors. (Points 1-3 above taken from here http://www.newcalvinist.com/kellers-affinity-with-rome/kellers-mysticism/)

Another concern should be that Tim Keller and others have signed the  The Manhattan Declaration, a document crafted by Chuck Colson, Robert George and Timothy George and signed by a long list of Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox leaders. Also read here :Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for “Gospel-Driven Separation?”

Also read these extensive well written articles of  serious concerns,  by Dr Paul M Elliott Tim Keller’s False Gospel: A Point-By-Point AnalysisTimothy Keller promotes a “gospel” designed to be attractive to unregenerated man, but stripped of the Biblical essentials and robbed of Divine power and authority. Tim Keller’s False Gospel: Changing Both the Method and the MessageTimothy Keller’s “gospel” rests on a faulty foundation: the misconception that man changes, therefore the message must change. Tim Keller’s Gutless ‘Gospel’A segment from an interview with Tim Keller shows just how gutless his “gospel” is – a mass of evasions, equivocations, and misrepresentations of God’s truth.Tim Keller: Dangerously InfluentialDr. Timothy J. Keller is one of today’s most influential religious leaders, and one of the most dangerous.

There are only a few evangelical leaders who did not sign The Manhattan Declaration , like John MacArthur and this explanation as to why he did not sign. And James White writes: “There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says ‘the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us’? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he ‘re-presents’ the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an ‘alter Christus’? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man’s false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the ‘right’ side of a vitally important social issue.”

Tim Challies says : ” To varying degrees I agree with each of these critiques though on the whole my thoughts line up mostly closely with John MacArthur’s. In my view, this line says it all: “Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.” It is good to speak of the gospel, but what does the term mean if used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox? Each has their own understanding of the term—the term that stands at the very heart of the faith. I just cannot see past this issue.”

Who are they the New Calvinist  who are Young, Restless, Reformed ? 

C J Mahaney

 Read more here : FLAGSHIP CHURCHES PREPARE TO LEAVE AS LAWSUIT CHARGES SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES OF C.J. MAHANEY WITH COVERING UP CHILD SEX ABUSE

tim-keller_poster_img_thumb[1]

NEW CALVINIST TIM KELLER ON THEISTIC EVOLUTION AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

mark-driscoll_profile_img

MARK DRISCOLL

MARK DRISCOLL DEFENDS HIS CHRISTIAN BROTHER JOEL OSTEEN

john piper

John Piper

BETH MOORE AND JOHN PIPER SET FOR PASSION 2013 WITH LOUIE GIGLIO

mohler2

Albert Mohler

Signatory of the The Manhattan Declaration

Mark Dever

Mark Dever

harris

Joshua Harris

Rezolution

The internet advert for the South African conference in April.

The following exert from Wikipedia. The New Calvinism is a growing perspective within conservative Evangelicalism that embraces the fundamentals of 16th century Calvinism while also trying to be relevant in the present day world. In March 2009, TIME magazine ranked it as one of the “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.”[1] Some of the major figures in this area are John PiperMark DriscollAl Mohler,[1] Mark Dever,[2] C.J. MahaneyJoshua Harris[3] and Tim Keller.

Following the heritage of Reformed, or Calvinist, theology, New Calvinism strives to be deeply interested in the correct doctrine. In a Christianity Today article, Collin Hansen describes the speakers of a Christian conference:

Each of the seven speakers holds to the five points of [Calvinism]. Yet none of them spoke of Calvinism unless I asked about it. They did express worry about perceived evangelical accommodation to postmodernism and criticized churches for applying business models to ministry. They mostly joked about their many differences on such historically difficult issues as baptism, church government, eschatology, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They drew unity as Calvinist evangelicals from their concerns: with seeker churches, church-growth marketing, and manipulative revival techniques.[3]

The New Calvinists look to Puritans like Jonathan Edwards who taught that sanctification requires a vigorous and vigilant pursuit of holy living, not a passive attitude of mechanical progress.[4] (SeeLordship salvation.)

Mark Driscoll identifies four main differences between Old and New Calvinism:

  1. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
  2. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
  3. Old Calvinism was generally cessationist (i.e., believing the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as tongues and prophecy had ceased). New Calvinism is generally continuationist with regard to spiritual gifts.
  4. New Calvinism is open to dialog with other Christian positions.[5]

This fourth distinctive is what Driscoll considers a vital component in being able to engage with the present day society.[6] (Source Wikipedia googled New Calvinism) 

I did some more research and below will be our deep concerns lined out as written by well known Tim Chalies, John Macarthur , Dr ES Williams and also  Ken Silva pastor-teacher . You will find their comments and concerns below in writing and video clips.

It is my sincere prayer and hope that the brothers and sisters who plan to attend the Rezolution conference in April here in South Africa , will do as the berean’s did to test all things and see if it is from God. We all know the verse that reads “a little leaven”.  Daniel 5:27  TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; (ESV)  JohnGill explains: Daniel 5:27

TEKEL,…. As for the meaning of this word, and what it points at, it is this:

thou art weighed in the balances: of justice and truth, in the holy righteous law of God; as gold, and jewels, and precious stones, are weighed in the scales by the goldsmith and jeweller with great exactness, to know the worth of them:

and art found wanting; found to be adulterated gold, reprobate silver, bad coin, a false stone; found to be a worthless man, a wicked prince, wanting the necessary qualifications of wisdom, goodness, mercy, truth, and justice. The Scriptures of truth, the word of God, contained in the books of the Old and New Testament, are the balances of the sanctuary, in which persons, principles, and practices, are to be weighed; and sad it is where they are found light and wanting: men, both of high and low degree, when put here, are lighter than vanity. The Pharisee, or self-righteous person, when weighed in the balance of God’s law, which is holy, just, and good, will be found wanting of that holiness and righteousness he pretends to, and appear to be an unholy and an unrighteous man; his righteousness, neither for the matter of it, nor manner of performing it, being agreeable to that law, and so no righteousness in the sense of it, Deu_6:25, it being imperfect, and so leaves him to the curse of it, Gal_3:10, and not being performed in a pure and spiritual manner that it requires, is rejected by it; and miserable will be the case of such a man at the day of judgment, when his works will be found wanting, and not answerable to the demands of a righteous law, and he without the wedding garment of Christ’s righteousness, and so naked and speechless. The hypocrite, and formal professor, when weighed in the balance of the Scripture, will be found wanting the true grace of God; his faith will appear to be feigned, and his hope groundless, and his love to be in word and in tongue only, and not at all to answer to the description of true grace given in the word of God; and bad will it be with such persons at last, when at the bridegroom’s coming they will be destitute of the oil of true and real grace; only have that which is counterfeit, and the mere lamp of an outward profession, which will then stand them in no stead, or be of any avail unto them: in the same balances are the doctrines and principles of men to be weighed; and, such as are according to them are solid and weighty, and are comparable to gold, silver, and precious stones; but such as are not are light, and like wood, hay, and stubble, which the fire of the word will reveal, try, and burn up, not being able to stand against it; and if these are weighed in the balances, they will be found wanting of real truth and goodness, and be but as chaff to wheat; and what is the one to the other? there is no comparison between them; and dreadful will be the case of false teachers, that make and teach an abomination and a lie; and of those that are given up to believe them, these will not be able to stand the trying hour of temptation, and much less the last and final judgment. Sad for preachers of the word to be found wanting in their ministry, and hearers to be wanting in their duty; not taking care neither what they hear, nor how they hear, or whether they put in practice the good they do hear.

_______________________________________________________________

Paul Washer on the YRR/New Calvinists

Paul Washer talks about the dangers facing the young reformed people, do they know God? is there a reality in their life? or just mere head knowledge.

________________________________________________________________

Tim Challies , wrote the following in 2011 :

 John MacArthur is in the midst of penning a series of articles that will address (and encourage and scold) the Young, Restless, Reformed movement—this thing they call the New Calvinism. I have one great concern about this. I will tell you what it is, but only after I give a brief overview of what MacArthur has said so far.

MacArthur’s series will extend to four parts (after which there will be a couple of follow-ups by other writers). In the first article, which serves as an introduction, MacArthur showed the direction he intends to take the series: He will tell this Young, Restless, Reformed movement (YRR) to “Grow Up. Settle Down. Keep Reforming.” After showing that the allure of postmodernism, best exemplified by the Emerging Church, has largely proven futile, Dr. MacArthur says:

But young, restless, Reformed students (YRRs) still seem to be multiplying and gaining influence. I’m very glad for most of what this movement represents. It seems to be a more biblically-oriented, gospel-centered, theologically-grounded approach to Christian discipleship than this generation’s parents typically favored—and that is most certainly to be applauded.

YRRs have by and large eschewed the selfishness and shallowness (though not all the pragmatism) of seeker-sensitive religion. They are generally aware of the dangers posed by postmodernity, political correctness, and moral relativism (even if they don’t always approach such dangers with sufficient caution). And while they sometimes seem to struggle to show discernment, they do seem to understand that truth is different from falsehood; sound doctrine is opposed to heresy; and true faith distinct from mere religious pretense.

But it isn’t all good. MacArthur has some concerns.

It is overall a positive development and a trend to be encouraged—but the YRR movement as it is shaping up also needs to face up to some fairly serious problems and potential pitfalls. So I have some words of encouragement and counsel for YRRs, and I want to take a few days here at the blog to write to them about their movement, its influences, some hazards that lie ahead, some tendencies to avoid, and some qualities to cultivate. (A few men on our staff will also join the discussion with a few thoughts of their own.)

This introductory article sets the tone. Yesterday MacArthur posted the first of the 3 articles that will form the heart of the series. He titled it “Grow Up.” He gets straight to the point:

If I could impress on Young, Restless, Reformed students just one word of friendly counsel to address what I think is the most glaring deficiency in that movement, this is what it would be: “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Corinthians 14:20).

I’m very glad the ranks of YRRs are growing numerically. Many good things about that movement are full of promise and potential. In order to fulfill that potential, however, this generation of Reformers desperately needs to move past the young-and-restless stage. Immaturity and unrest are hindrances to spiritual fruitfulness, not virtues.

Now, with that context in place, let me share my great concern. It is this: That we will not give MacArthur a fair hearing. The irony is that this would just go to prove his point. The unwillingness to listen to the counsel of older men, the inability to be lovingly rebuked—this is a sure mark of immaturity (which Dr. MacArthur has already said is a mark of this YRR movement). And while we tend to pay lip service to those who are older and wiser, I am not convinced that we, the New Calvinists, listen very well. We are awfully excited about what the Lord has been doing in us and through us, but I am not so sure that we are seeking counsel and seeking wisdom from those who have accumulated it over many years. Are we seeking them and listening to them, even when it hurts and even when what they say seems old-fashioned?

I say this largely to the young contingent in this Young, Restless, Reformed movement—people who may be in their mid-thirties like I am, or those who are even younger. I think we can tend to discount this kind of critique when it comes from an older man. It is easy to assume that he is out of touch with culture (we all know he must have consulted with someone before writing of “HCo. clothes and hipster hair…”) or that he is trapped in the past. This is always a temptation. And it is a temptation I have already seen and heard in connection with MacArthur. In my travels and in many conversations with people like you, I have come to realize that many people discount MacArthur as a man whose time has come and gone. “He has finished the New Testament; he fought the theological battles of the 1980’s and 1990’s, but it’s time for him to stop. He doesn’t get it anymore. He’s stuck in the past.” It may not come in those exact words, but that’s the sentiment I’ve heard time and again. His much-publicized comments about men like Mark Driscoll and Darrin Patrick have just confirmed what people already believe.

A couple of weeks ago my mother penned a short article I titled 4 Remarkable Things about John MacArthur. One of the things she found remarkable about him, based on reading Iain Murray’s biography, is his level of insight. She said, “The first [remarkable] thing is the level of his insight. Love of the Bible and a love of church history—MacArthur has both—always make people insightful. They enable a bottom-line, ‘essence of the essence’ judgment of issues that seems prophetic. In reality, it is the weighing of alternatives on a very finely balanced biblical-historical set of scales.” If you know the ministry of John MacArthur, you know that this is the case. He has the ability to get to the essence of the essence, and this is one of the things we love about him. He is a staunch defender of the truth who has a great love for Christ’s church.

We know all of this, and yet I am concerned that we still will not give him a fair hearing. We love it when he scolds Joel Osteen or when he critiques church growth. But are we willing to let him speak to us? To stop our ears at this point would be utter folly. This would be the most foolish thing we could do—to believe that we do not need the wisdom of those who are older than we are and to believe that this man’s time has come and gone.

If anyone has earned the right to speak to us; if anyone has earned the right to speak about us; if anyone has earned the right to be heard, it is Dr. MacArthur. We do not necessarily need to agree with him—he could be wrong!—but it would be the very height of arrogance and folly to not listen at all. (HL - http://www.challies.com/articles/john-macarthur-wants-us-to-grow-up )

___________________________________________________

John MacArthur with Three Clear Concerns

Video 

____________________________________________________

Characteristics of New Calvinism by Dr ES Williams

New Calvinism is a broad church, with a wide range of beliefs, doctrines and practices. The Gospel Coalition (TGC), which started in 2007 with a conference headlined by Don Carson, Tim Keller and John Piper, was a significant event, for the Coalition has become a national network for the New Calvinist movement. Theologian Don Carson wrote the original draft of the confessional statement, while Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church,New York, wrote the theological call to ministry. The Gospel Coalition Council boasts familiar names like Tim Keller, John Piper, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Al Mohler and Joshua Harris. Coalition leaders explain that they are not a ‘boundary set’, for that would mean nailing down the outer limits of who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’, and that they do not want. As a consequence just about everyone is welcome to join the TGC Network, whatever their doctrinal beliefs.

While there are certain characteristics around which New Calvinists are united, it is a broad movement, and not all practice their faith in the same way. While most claim to be faithful to Scripture, and to follow the essential tenets of Calvin’s theology, many are marked by a love for the ways and things of the world, which manifests itself in unbecoming conduct that is far removed from the ways and beliefs of traditional Calvinists and Puritans. Here are some of the key characteristics of New Calvinism:

 1. Doctrinal errors

New Calvinism has a reputation for teaching the biblical doctrines of Calvin (TULIP). Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards are held up as heroes of the movement. But the reality is that while paying lip service to Calvin, Spurgeon and Edwards, New Calvinism, in fact, is weak in matters of doctrine.

New Calvinists seek to contextualise the gospel of truth to make it relevant to the postmodern world. Tim Keller is a major protagonist of this view. He teaches that for an inner city church to be successful it must contextualise the gospel to make it relevant to the needs of a multi-ethnic population. The message must be crafted to make it sensitive to the cultural trends of the day. So shaky is Tim Keller’s theology that in an interview with Martin Bashir, he says that he is unsure whether God has provided a trap door for unbelieving Muslims and Hindus. (Listen to the interview with Martin Bashir).

John Piper’s concept of the Christian hedonist is doctrinally flawed, as will show on this website. While Mark Driscoll claims to be a Calvinist, he separates doctrine from conduct. He hates rules and much of his ministry is antinomian in approach.

 2. Antinomianism

The New Calvinism movement is characterised by a careless attitude towards God’s moral law. A common assertion is that Christians are no longer under God’s law, but under God’s grace. It follows that the Christian life is not to be governed by a set of rules, or a set of commands, or a list of do’s and don’ts, for Christ’s grace has set us free. Obedience is not a popular concept. The subject index of Piper’s blueprint for Christian Hedonism, Desiring God (1987), contains over twenty references to happiness, but only one to obedience.

New Calvinism wants us to believe that God’s grace means that New Testament Christians are free from bondage to God’s moral law. Mark Driscoll uses this interpretation of Scripture to justify what he refers to as New Covenant tattoos. He declares in a sermon: ‘You are free in Christ to be weird… How about this one, tattoos? How many of you grew up in that fundamentalist church where they told you about the one verse on tattoos?  Where is it? What book? Leviticus… It’s right here in Leviticus, don’t get a tattoo. Okay. But the thing is if you read the whole context it actually doesn’t apply—its old covenant, not new covenant, so Jesus has fulfilled the law.’

http://youtu.be/xMBUugdIX0I

The idea that believers should strive to live in obedience to God’s moral law is dismissed as legalism. No, says the New Calvinist, we are free in Christ. Driscoll says that he hates religious people who have rules to obey, and lists of do’s and don’ts. He teaches that grace and works are antithetical. ‘Works is me boasting, grace is me boasting about Jesus. Works is me looking at what I’ve done; grace is looking at what Jesus has done.’ And while Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace alone, it goes on to say that the person who is saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus is saved ‘unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them’ (Ephesians 2.10).

In his book, Paths to Power (1911), AW Tozer defined antinomianism this way.  “The creed of the Antinomian is easily stated: We are saved by faith alone; works have no place in salvation; conduct is works, and is therefore of no importance. What we do cannot matter, as long as we believe rightly.  The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God. Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian… It takes the teaching of justification by faith and twists it into deformity.”[i]

The Reformed faith teaches that the moral law of God has three uses. The first is to convict of sin and drive the repentant sinner to the Lord Jesus Christ. The second use of the law is to restrain lawlessness in society. The third use is to function as the rule of life for the believer. One of the most famous statements of this truth comes from the Puritan Samuel Bolton in The True Bounds of Christian Freedom: ‘The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.’[ii] The Puritan way of thinking and conduct is diametrically opposed to the ways of New Calvinism.

 3. Worldliness

The fruit of New Calvinism’s antinomian tendency is a mindset that finds pleasure in the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes and the pride of life (1 John 2.15). Worldliness is a state of mind that conforms to the pattern and pleasures of the world; it does not seek to separate from the things of the world, or the entertainments of the world. This pattern of thinking allows great leeway in Christian conduct and is common among New Calvinists. Many New Calvinists teach that Christians are free in Christ to do anything that is not specifically forbidden in the Bible. So smoking and tattoos, reading worldly magazines, watching adult rated movies and salacious TV programmes, immodest dress, crude language, coarse joking are regarded by some as acceptable behaviour, for in the eyes of New Calvinists these forms of conduct are not specifically forbidden in the Bible. All forms of contemporary music, even punk rock, and hip-hop are accepted as permissible for Christians to enjoy. Those who say that these forms of conduct are not right for Christians are labelled as legalists, just like the Pharisees.

 4. Contemporary Worship

What flows from the New Calvinist’s worldly mindset is a love for the music scene of the world. And so it is entirely predictable that contemporary worship is the most universal characteristic of New Calvinism. Mars Hill Church, Seattle, leads the way by claiming that God loves punk rock. Holy hip-hop is embraced by many New Calvinists and rap artists are regarded as the missionaries of the 21st Century, according to Mark Driscoll. Contemporary worldly music is an essential ingredient of the Passion Conference (Louie Gigilio and John Piper),The Resolved Conference (John MacArthur) and the Legacy Conference. The Gospel Coalition National Conference 2011 ended with a concert to celebrate the contemporary music scene.  Delegates were invited to join Lecrae and the rest of the Reach Records rap artists as they ‘exalted Christ’ through the medium of hip-hop. The effect was to profane the Name of Christ, the Name which is above every name, and the Name to which every knee shall bow, on the altar of holy hip-hop. See Christian rap – Music of the New Calvinists

Passion Conference, worshipping the Lord through rap music,

http://youtu.be/EDwsI-thgeM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39036017@N07/5655062172/in/set-72157626459666169/

The Gospel Coalition concert, http://youtu.be/flqkGFJjvHs

 5. Emerging church

New Calvinists tend to be ambivalent about the emerging church movement. Mark Driscoll was involved with the emerging church, and claims to be on the Reformed end of the emerging spectrum. His book Confessions of a Reformission Rev (2006) is described as ‘hard lessons from an Emerging Missional Church’. Many are sympathetic to the emerging church movement and contemplative prayer is encouraged by some, such as Keller’s Redeemers Presbyterian Church in New York, which promotes the Monk’s prayer. 

_______________________________________________________

JOHN MACARTHUR COMMENTS ON NEW CALVINISM by Ken Silva on Feb 13, 2011

Apprising Ministries has been blessed of Jesus to be used as one of His online apologetics and discernment works becoming known for its coverage of corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), a ne0-Gnosticism now pandemic within mainstream evangelicalism through its foolish embrace of the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church with its quasi-universalism in a new version of Progressive Christian theology under their spiritual circus “big tent” Emergence Christianity.

In posts like Acts 29 Network And Reformed Counter Reformation Spirituality?Tim Keller Recommending Roman Catholic Mysticism, and What’s Going On With Dr. John Piper? I’ve been cautioning that with key perpetrators of spurious CSM, like Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mysticRichard Foster and his spiritual twin Southern Baptist minister Dallas Willard, now openly being recommended within so-called New Calvinism there is much reason for serious concern.

What seems to be happening is the formation of a postmodern form of Calvinism where one embraces select portions of Reformation theology, while at the same time practicing the anti-sola Scriptura spirituality of Counter Reformation theology. With this in mind, I point you to 10 Questions with John MacArthur posted at The Christian Worldview blog of David Wheaton.

In response to the question, “Since you wrote Charismatic Chaos we have seen the unexpected confluence of Reformed theology with charismatic beliefs (such as in the Sovereign Grace family of churches). If you were to write the book today, how would you affirm both love and critique for today’s Reformed Charismatics?,” Dr. MacArthur replies:

I would affirm my love and appreciation for C. J. Mahaney, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and other conservatives in the continuationist camp. I consider these men to be friends and allies for the sake of the gospel. Charismatic Chaos was primarily written against the excesses of the broader Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. And those excesses are not what these men are best known for.

But, I would still challenge these men to reconsider their position on the charismatic gifts. I am convinced that the charismatic movement opened the door to more theological error than perhaps any other factor in the twentieth century (including liberalism, psychology, and ecumenism). That’s a bold statement, I know. But once you allow experientialism to gain a foothold, the results are disastrous.

Moreover, I am thoroughly convinced that the biblical description of the charismatic gifts is incompatible with the charismatic gifts practiced in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches today. For example, Acts 2 is explicit in describing the gift of tongues as the ability to speak previously unlearned foreign languages. The rest of the New Testament affirms this same understanding (as does the testimony of the church fathers). But that is the very opposite of the nonsensical gibberish that characterizes modern glossolalia.

So I would challenge them to explain why they hold on to a modern practice that, in reality, has no biblical precedent—especially when that modern practice is the gateway to all sorts of theological error. (Online source)

You can read this piece in its entirety right here.

HT: Discern The Time

See also:

TIM KELLER ENDORSING COUNTER-REFORMATION CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY?

IS THIS DOCTRINAL AND SOUND DR. JOHN PIPER?

MARK DRISCOLL, ACTS 29 NETWORK, & THE EMERGING CHURCH

_________________________________________

Sources :

[i] http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Salvation_Issues/antinomians_are_coming.htm

[ii] http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?747

Other Related resources from Grace To You :

19 thoughts on “Why We Cannot Endorse Rezolution 2013

  1. New Calvinism
    I do thank Elmarie for an excellent article to expose another, another gospel from America. It does not seem that we can even initiate false Gospels but need to import it from America where, sad to say, many diabolical teachings originate.
    I do agree with the article as a whole. It says what need to be said
    We need to be very careful these days who we follow, even be they of good standing in reformed circles. We must not follow man, or woman for that matter. When we see grey headed men shake their heads in solidarity with so called “anointed” charismatic pulpit criminals, then it is a gloomy sight. Deceivers are not even ashamed; they do not even blush anymore.
    Jer 6:15 (NAS) “Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done? They were not even ashamed at all; They did not even know how to blush.”
    Theistic evolution.
    We should go back to an empty grave with no bones, the cradle of mankind lies there, the gospel does not evolve, the message does not change, mutate, get better, but rather regress like we see is happening. To go back is go forward, to the future. We are not here to socialize with Roman Catholics, with Charismatics, with Arminianists, with Pre- and Postmillennialists. We are here to bring the gospel once delivered to the Saints. We do not compromise, we do not adapt the gospel to cultures, we do not reform to the contemporary thought, we do believe in one human family of one human ancestor of one blood and we do not give and take. We do not go to bed with the politics of the day to be honoured and to be praised with a social gospel, no; we stand for the truth with a pure heart loving the wonderful commandments of God and harshly speak against evil. Evil is not wrong things we do, evil is sin that needs to be punished. Augustine said: “God command what You want and give what You command.” Pelagius and Arminianists hate those words.
    The influence of evolution has seized the church.
    The Gospel evolution
    Not only has the philosophy of evolution seized the Church in its presentation of a different, evolutionary gospel, but it also has its influence in the new age Christianity.
    The religion of Evolution has its influence on the spiritual evolution of the new creation of man. God created ex nihilo physical man and then he makes a new creation spiritual man. This Sola work of God the Devil wants to distort by adding subtle influence in the Christian by creating a diabolical spiritual evolution to the mind of man. Instead of the renewing of the mind according to Scripture, we have Darwinian spiritual influence. It has its way in the Roman Catholic dogma, it has its way in Arminian theology of Pentecostalism and Charismania. Is it possible I ask; that the wiles of the devil use the false evolutionary principle to create a dogma of spiritual evolution in man; a Gospel of works? This theory of evolution on a horizontal plain influence your dogma to make a human effort to climb the Arminian ladder to get closer to God, your own evolutionary steps to make choices and changes to determine you future with new resolutions, for you improvement given enough time and circumstances for spiritual perfection. There are similarities. The one influence the other.
    Herman Bavinck (contemporary to Darwin) said that this view; unwittingly prompts them to accept the theory of evolution, according to which the essence of man is situated not in what he was or is but in what he, in and endless process of development and by his own exertions, may become. Paradise lies ahead, not behind us. An evolved ape deserves preference over fallen human. Originally bearing the image of an orang-utan and Chimpanzee man gradually pulled himself up; from a state of raw brutishness to that of a noble humanity. H Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics.
    Even though the Holy Scripture is diametrically opposed to evolution people keep on wanting change in the gospel not to be embarrassed by the Old Rugged Cross, to be scientific to contemporary thought and to be in the limelight of the politics of the day. You get new reformers with their mythology, new Calvinists with their postmodern Christianity but all things new is not all things true. Modern Reformation is the exception. The thing is; we will always have the poor with us, collectivism is the new order, individualism is out, the new order will sort out the Worlds problem, the world is all after power to rule, whether you are a communist or a democrat they have the same agenda and that is to rule with collectivism. The church also wants to bring something new and it all plays in the hands of another antichrist.
    The question I ask myself is: Is Palagianism a man orchestrated spiritual evolution and it’s bedfellow Arminianism; also a spiritual evolution?
    We do not conform to the era, politics, culture, or reform continually as time and history demands.
    The motto of Reformational dogma is continual reformation, which is good, but not conforming to the current philosophies of the day, rather to go back to the roots that brought successful change, the recipe that worked, the gospel once delivered to the Saints. We need to reform to past history principles, that is: biblical principles. Rather read dead theologians than young reformational upstarts that want to bring something new only and not something old.
    Reformers are not cessationists in my understanding.
    The gifts and ministries are at work today, tongues have not ceased, miracles have not ceased, we still drink poison, we still pick up snakes and we still heal the sick. (The devil does not harm us and the gospel heal the sin sickness) We even prophecy. Let me explain and then read the links below.
    Tongues are not gibberish, tongues are plain and simple other languages, but there is also the fact that the revelation of the gospel, is the heavenly language that the unregenerate cannot understand and is gibberish to him. But we speak a new language that of spiritual enlightenment, to understand the Faith. We need interpreters to prophecy (explain) what is the meaning of Scripture. Expository preaching is what we need and not moral and social gospel or narcissistic preaching for selfish self-image improvement to reach your full potential. http://www.reformedtruth.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40:have-the-gifts-of-healing-ceased-by-dick-and-yvonne-harris&catid=10:signs-wonders-and-miracles&Itemid=9
    http://www.reformedtruth.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38:understanding-the-signs-that-follow-believers-by-tony-warren-&catid=10:signs-wonders-and-miracles&Itemid=9
    Worship
    http://www.reformedtruth.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16:skriftuurlike-aanbidding-&catid=5:afrikaans&Itemid=8
    The article above is Afrikaans. We do not conform to the lyrics and the instruments of the day; we do not conform to Romish aesthetics and Charismatic ecstatically so called worship. Past missionaries threw out the drums and ancestral worship, we bring it back.
    Worship is not:
    1. That has its origin from the world, flesh and the devil.
    2. It is not supposed to bring fleshly pleasure, stimulation and excites you for you pleasure, that titillates the flesh and you think you brought God down.
    3. When it is informal and physical with no holy respect and dignity.
    4. When it is aesthetically worship, artistic, something beautiful that depends on my talent and my practical ability, is not worship. God is Spirit.
    5. Whenever worship is ecstatic; alternative state of consciousness as well as bodily movements it then becomes a mystical religion.
    6. When worship is one dimensional and with minimal meaningful scripture content because when it does have content it prohibits my feelings. Hedonistic worship, empty you mind, meditate.
    In Revelation we hear the words: “saying, saying”. What should inspire my emotions internally is God’s character, what he has done for us, the Words, the living Word not external ungodly beats and repetitive mantras and musical instruments with contemporary music of the origin of drugs, sex, violence and money.
    This is the worship the New Calvinism movement is propagating.
    We do not follow man.
    We follow Scripture enlightened by the Holy Spirit. No man is the greatest Bible interpreter. Man is also wrong in many concepts even if man stand up in defence of the Faith against Charismania and other gospels. We need to see what the Bible says. That always brings true reformation.
    Are we bold enough to write an expose and place it on under the wipers of those that attend the conference?
    Nico Engelbrecht

  2. I agree wiht you on this the New Calvinist crowd does have some rather suspect way of teaching things. But I have also diverted from following John MacArthur, his Lordship Salvation stance is most disturbing and also misleading

    • Simon

      The Lordship salvation teaching is a problem to us also. We cannot find ourselves to support this. There is not one teacher on earth with whom we will agree 100% , man is fallible. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.

      • I have a tremendous love and respect for John’s teaching. That much would become quite clear to all who would care to read through my references to his work and would be evident through much of that which I have written. The essence of John’s thesis on Lordship is simple and defective, his portrayal of progressive sanctification is at fault. Perfection is unattainable outside of the perfection which is only of the Lord Jesus Christ, imparted to the believer. We who have been crucified with Him have been set free from judgement brought about by all sin. We cannot become more perfect of ourselves. We cannot do more to improve the sanctification achieved and bought for us by Christ. The standard of perfection which we portray of ourselves is always defective, and the sanctified picture we can present and which the world perceives of us, is not in any way relevant to our sanctification. Sanctification is of the Lord and God sees only that in the life of the saved believer, only that perfection. No sin will be held to the account of those whom Jesus has sanctified – past tense, it has been done. Not present tense or future tense. If we can add value to our already bought sanctification in Christ, it will devalue the ultimate price which our Lord Jesus paid.

  3. While I certainly share your concern about the YRR, you are painting with a broad stroke here as groups like the Gospel Coalition are a fairly broad-based group with folks spread out on a fairly wide continuum. You pose concerns about the upcoming Rezolution Conference and then proceed to rightly deal with Tim Keller, who is not a speaker at REZ. You cite Mark Driscoll, but he isn’t speaking either. Nor is Driscoll representative of men like Dever, Mohler, or Ligon Duncan–all three of whom have spoken on more than one occasion at John MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference. I was there on two occasions when these men spoke at The Shepherd’s Conference. As far as your concerns about CJ Mahaney, I suggest you contact the organizers of REZ and have them send you the information they sent me, with backing from former elder of Grace Community Church. If you are relying on the secular presses’ article, which was published a few weeks ago, than you are making an assessment based on truncated knowledge. While CJ Mahaney has never been my cup tea, South Africans would be extremely blessed to hear the likes of Mark Dever and Ligon Duncan in person. BTW the organizer of REZ is from Grace Community Church and is endorsed by their missionary agency, so what he is doing is with their full knowledge.

    So while I share you basic concerns about YRR, I do think you are unnecessarily tarnishing some good men who would not share either Keller’s or Driscoll’s views on the matters you mention.

    • Very briefly:

      You agree that YRR presents the church with concerns, thank you. YRR is certainly a broad term, but which does not excuse those who have different theological approaches, who remain within the boundaries representative of the YRR, from concern or the scrutiny of concerned believers. The YRR simply describes the New Calvinists of which all of Keller, Driscoll, Dever, Mohler, Duncan and Mahoney are adherents. The mere fact that some of them, or all of them, have spoken at the Shepherd’s Conference surely can by no means be grounds for accepting any of their error.

      Similarly, neither the opinion of Grace Community Church nor any of its former elders can excuse the error and departure from the faith of any of the persons mentioned in the accompanying article. Grace Community church carries no authority whatsoever in this regard, if their opinion is not in agreement with Scriptural instruction. I’m not saying that in this instance it is necessarily the case, and that would be a subject for a different discussion, however, the defensive argument you wish to present using the opinion of Grace Community Church as authority rather than Scripture itself, makes it utterly irrelevant. The opinion of Grace Community or any other church is of no greater importance than that of the secular press, if it is not in explicit and absolute agreement with Scripture.

      The fact that the organizer of “Rez” is from Grace Community Church and is endorsed by their missionary agency, does not lend credence to a conference of this dubious nature, nor does it in any way dispel the concerns regarding the shipping of these New Calvinists to preach an affected message into South Africa, a church community which is being ravaged by its fair share of charismatic mysticism. On the contrary, it poses alarming questions as to the compromising position being adopted by Grace Community Church!

      It is not unforeseen that Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll will be addressing this conference in the near future, as they share huge similarities in approach with the other names mentioned. There is certainly sufficient evidence to support this.

  4. Dr. Elliott’s work on Tim Keller is excellent. There’s also another site run by a guy who went to Keller’s church for 20 years that has some excellent additional information on Keller and his church. It’s http://CityofDeception.com. Just type Tim Keller into the search box and it will bring up all the articles. He has a pretty good insider’s view.

  5. “Contemporary worldly music is an essential ingredient of The Resolved Conference”

    Wow! I’m assuming you have never been to a Resolved Conference. Are you kidding me? Every song that Enfield leads in worship is a Hymn. Now you can take issue with the extra lights, etc., but please do not list Resolved with the other ones that actually do use worldly music. I’m calling you out on this one statement and trust you will take that incorrect statement out of your article and repent.

  6. Larry

    1) Who exactly, is the authority which determines what constitutes “worldly” music and what constitutes a hymn?
    2) What are the precise distinguishing factors between “worldly” music and music which is acceptable for worship purposes? If all instrumental and vocal music is produced by men and women, it stands to reason that all music which we hear in this earthly life, is of a “worldly” origin, including old hymns.
    3) Music, which is played or sung by men and women, is by the very nature of its producers, worldly. What is its opposite and how would we know the exact difference?
    4) Are there specific styles of music which can be regarded as “worldly” and others which are not?
    5) Can purely instrumental music be regarded as acceptable for church use? If so, what exactly is the line between acceptable and unacceptable? Is it the type of instrument/s used, or a specific style which pre-dates a certain year, or is it left to the discretion of each different congregation?
    6) Which Scriptures provide the precise answers?
    7) If Wesley, Bonar or Montgomery composed music which gave pre-eminence to the Lord in the contemporary style of the day, what disqualifies a hymn writer of doing the same, in the style of music of our day?

    There should be some obvious exclusions from the answers to the above questions. Those include as examples, music based on the Psalms at the one end, and then music of unbelievers which glorifies debauchery or sin, at the other end.

    Therefore, before one can even consider disputing or removing a statement such as the one under discussion above, one would have to determine what exactly the terms “contemporary” and “worldly” music describe. Failing that, the discussion is absolutely irrelevant.

  7. Pingback: More on the New Calvinist /YRR Mystic Tim Keller and Rezolution Conference 2013 | For the Love of His Truth

  8. Hey guys,

    Whilst you may not endorse the conference, would you be prepared to come to the conference along with me? We could test these things together and see if it is from God.

    Whilst I can’t promise you that we will draw the same conclusions I can promise you that many of the participants (including myself) love God’s Word and will be sitting in the pews with our Bibles open and our minds switched on.

    In the interests of truth (John 17:17) and towards the goal of unity in truth (2 John 1:1),

    Mark

    • Brother Mark

      I know that you make this suggestion with the best of intentions, that you are always supportive and that you have great concern for the church in South Africa. For all of these things I thank you.

      I am therefore, greatly appreciative of your invitation to attend the conference along with you. I would be most pleased to spend time with you, but in other surrounds. I also know that you and many others who love God’s Word, will be attending in unfortunate numbers. It is my sincerest prayer for all those who attend, that by the Grace of God the subtle error will be restrained from affecting our beloved local teachers. With the possible exclusion of the Far East, no other region in the world is under more severe attack by false teachings, than right here where we live today.

      If it was a conference to be hosted by more well-known charismatics, emergents and Arminians, for argument’s sake let’s make up a hypothetical toxic mix of, say, Rob Bell, Dave Hunt, Rodney Howard-Brown and Roger Olsen, I’m convinced that you would not have extended the same invitation. It would most likely be so, because their heresies have been more widely publicized and have reached glaringly obvious proportions.

      Even though none of us may have attended one of their presentations, I doubt that you would have suggested we go there to test their message to see if it is from God. Although the key-note speakers at this conference are not yet as widely regarded as heretics as those whom I mention above, there is more than enough compelling evidence, freely available, to suggest that it is not somewhere I need to be, or to learn from. Not even with an open Bible, or a switched on mind.

      I am very aware of the fact that you have the interest of the local church in SA at heart, and that one of your foremost concerns is regarding the support and promotion of our local pastors, local congregations and other local Christians and communities actively involved in the church. You have often made mention of that fact, which leads to the question of why you would be so enthusiastic in promoting and garnering support for this conference which has, at best, dubious foreigners at the forefront of events. Are they really in a position to bring a greater understanding of the Gospel to our incapable, truth-starved and poorly-equipped shores?

      The fact is that, in SA we do actually have wonderfully equipped preachers who would be equally, and probably even more able, to explain the simplicity and power of the Truth held within the Gospel, than the questionable Reformed New Calvinist Charismatics who are to host yet another expensive conference here. This conference will be no different from a myriad of similar events and which will once again be attended by (mostly) affluent and fortunate people who have access to God’s Word in so many forms. There simply cannot be any biblical mandate or instruction for a conference of this nature, where an intellectual audience will be ready to congratulate one another for attending and for agreeing, and poised to praise the eloquence of the speakers, while those in actual need of hearing the Gospel out in the world, are not given a second thought.

      It would be hypocritical of me to attend this conference, when I am firmly against it in principle and when I need to enter the room with full armour, shield and sword at the ready, expecting an attack on the Truth. As with all followers of the blessed Lord Jesus, I will always be in need of more instruction in the Truth, but I would far rather go to Mark Penrith :-) when I am in need of guidance.

  9. Pingback: New Calvinists , Reformed Charismatic’s Names Features on Rick Warrens list of Recommended Pastors | For the Love of His Truth

  10. Pingback: THE GOSPEL COALITION: THE “NEW CALVINISM’S” ATTACK ON THE BIBLE AND ITS EPISTEMOLOGY | For the Love of His Truth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s