True Calvinism Challenged

I am convinced of definite atonement for the salvation of the elect, but with Murray, Macleod, DMLJ, et al, I hold that Christ in His death did something for the non-elect.  So I would describe myself as a full 5-pointer and I can only do that by holding to the efficiency of Christ's death for the elect/sufficiency for the whole world paradigm; Owen et al are but 4.5 point theologians.  With Calvin and DMLJ et al, and to be truly reformed and biblical, we must hold to the biblical balance without any negative interference from the influences of medieval scholasticism such as that promoted by Aristotle, and embraced by Owen.  

I find it amazing that Owen could say he would give up all his great learning if only he could preach like Bunyan.  Perhaps that's why there are so many ineffective preachers in today's dead churches - many, nay, most prefer Owen to Bunyan, the scholastic theologian to the Gospel preacher!  It is sad that Banner chose Owen rather than Baxter as it epitomising personality.  And LTS chose the name of Owen for it theological research centre rather than a well-known evangelistic preacher such as Whitefield.  And that is not to disparage much of Owen's works.

The Westminster standards are but subordinate standards, and Geoff Thomas confirmed to me that the 1689 Baptist confession is but subordinate to Scripture, alluding to the real possibility of abuse by reformed ministers who make it the touchstone of orthodoxy.  I have no major problem with the WCF so far as it goes; my big concern is that it does not go as far as Scripture goes.  The clogging influence of Aristotelian logic as promoted by Owen is seen in this otherwise excellent historical theological document.  Prof. John Barclay used to describe it as the "queen of confessions," and the "most mature" of all the confessions written post-reformation; yet in his prayers and teaching, and, with Calvin, referred to Christ as the 'Saviour of the world.'  This used to enrage me - until I started to read Calvin for myself.  Second-hand religion has not served me well over the years.

Why are there so many chameleon-type ministers in the church today?  All the churches have them - I know from experience. I am reminded of Paul's face to face encounter with Peter (Gal.2:11) where so many ministers today are what they are depending upon the company they are in.  They are to be blamed for not being true to their convictions.  We used to ridicule ministers who, when going to preach on supply, used the announcements to determine which sermon they would preach - if there was a prayer meeting, they'd use the Gospel sermon; if not, then another, which is no Gospel.  Sadly, we have not shed that way of working.  

Let us be concerned that we do not follow that destructive pathway.  It is all too easy to fall into that Satanic trap, and he can trip us up so easily. 

I share annoyance at those who misrepresent the views of other good men who have made their mark on the Christian church throughout history.  Their cold and lifeless orthodoxy is not reformed, whatever else they may call it.  And if it is not truly reformed, it cannot be biblical.  Calvin's theology has been distorted to a serious degree, as has DMLJ's.  Such misrepresentation "in the house of his friends" is deplorable.  There is a predisposition to squeeze everything into a particular theological mould, a great danger of systematic theology, but a danger that can be diverted by a careful reading of the Scriptures, a sound biblical theology, and a steady reading of God's greatest Gospel preachers in history.  . As J C Ryle so wisely said, 'men can be more systematic in their theology than the Bible.'

For further information on DMLJ, please visit here.