1

Colson is perhaps the most influential proponent of Neocalvinism Lite in the world today, for which I respect and admire him. Some of my hardcore neocalvinist co-conspirators consider him TOO lite, and too easily conservative (in the commonly used sense of "conservative" in contemporary North America), but as I have said elsewhere, I would rather see people actually move from A to B, than merely talk about people moving from A to Z. If a significant number of North American evangelicals catch neocalvinism lite from Colson, that is better than a small cabal of ideologically pure and sophisticated neocalvinists influencing no-one.

2

This guy's story is a great example of God causing all things to work together for good to those who love Him.

3

Wow two posts in a row from people with nice things to say. I'll continue the trend by saying how much respect and admiration I have for Mr. Colson.

4

Gideon Strauss and Joe,

Strauss,
"... neocalvinism lite"

What do you mean by this?

Joe,
Are you claiming Roman Catholics are Orthodox Christians? On an earlier post, I remember you claiming to be "reformed" in your theology. Maybe we're dumping different meanings into "reformed." When I say Reformed theology I mean in the likes of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, etc.

What do you mean by it, if not this?

5

As someone with a long family history of working in a prison chaplaincy program, I appreciate Charles Colson's work in that regard. As someone who knew several important figures involved in Watergate, they all said to me that the transformation in Colson's character was remarkable.

Someday, unfortunately, history will see that Charles Colson's biggest crime had nothing to do with Watergate, but with "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." While I appreciate greater harmony in Christendom, without getting into doctrinal disputes, such a document, and the mentality it has inspired (or reflects) papers over the fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Evangelical Protestantism and Romanism.

Joe, how can both Romanism and Evangelical Protestantism BOTH be Orthodox? I just cant get my head around that one.

6

Exactly, Carrie.

7

ECT is a pretty good document, and The Gift of Salvation is even better.

I find that those people who find their group identity in the Wars of Religion tend to think they know more than the Catholic Magisterium, what Catholic beliefs -really- are. That is pathetic and very sad.

8

cdm: Are you claiming Roman Catholics are Orthodox Christians?

Yes, according to the standard definition of “orthodox” as “adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.” For example, both evangelicals and Catholics adhere to the Nicene Creed. In that respect, we evangelicals are closer to Catholics than we are to some “mainline Protestants” who deny some of the key doctrines of the faith (i.e., the deity of Christ).

On an earlier post, I remember you claiming to be "reformed" in your theology. Maybe we're dumping different meanings into "reformed." When I say Reformed theology I mean in the likes of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, etc.

That’s what I mean by the term “reformed” as well.

Carrie: While I appreciate greater harmony in Christendom, without getting into doctrinal disputes, such a document, and the mentality it has inspired (or reflects) papers over the fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Evangelical Protestantism and Romanism.

I couldn’t disagree more. As the ECT clearly states:

Together we search for a fuller and clearer understanding of God's revelation in Christ and his will for his disciples. Because of the limitations of human reason and language, which limitations are compounded by sin, we cannot understand completely the transcendent reality of God and his ways. Only in the End Time will we see face to face and know as we are known. (1 Corinthians 13) …We do not presume to suggest that we can resolve the deep and long- standing differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. Indeed these differences may never be resolved short of the Kingdom Come. Nonetheless, we are not permitted simply to resign ourselves to differences that divide us from one another. Not all differences are authentic disagreements, nor need all disagreements divide. Differences and disagreements must be tested in disciplined and sustained conversation. In this connection we warmly commend and encourage the formal theological dialogues of recent years between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals.

As a Reformed evangelical I have profound and irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine and theology. Nevertheless, they are fellow Christians and deserve to be treated with respect and in a spirit of true fellowship.

Joe, how can both Romanism and Evangelical Protestantism BOTH be Orthodox? I just cant get my head around that one.

Because “orthodox” isn’t synonymous with either “reformed” or “Catholic.” Both groups subscribe to the key doctrines as set out in the Nicene creed which is the foundation of orthodoxy.

As the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia explains:

The term orthodox differs in its use among the various Christian communions. The Greek Church styles itself the ``Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church,'' regarding all other bodies of Christians as more or less heterodox. The Roman Catholic Church regards the Protestant churches as heterodox in many points. In the United States the term orthodox is frequently used with reference to divergent views on the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus it has been common to speak of the Trinitarian Congregational churches in distinction from the Unitarian, as Orthodox. The name is also applied to the conservative, in distinction from the ``liberal'', or Hicksite, body in the Society of Friends.

9

Puzzled,

I find that those people who find their group identity in the Wars of Religion tend to think they know more than the Catholic Magisterium, what Catholic beliefs -really- are. That is pathetic and very sad.

I'm ashamed to admit that I thought you would be on the other side of this issue. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that we agree on the need for Christian unity even when we have deep disagreements with our brethern.

I think this is the first time we've agreed on something (other than how great Dr. Schaeffer is) in a long time. ; )

10

The Council of Nicaea is not the standard of truth, Joe. It is not God's revealed word. The standard of Orthodoxy is the Bible, not the state imposed doctrines of a group of people who were not fulfilling the Great Commission and healing the sick and raising the dead, unlike their Apostolic and Ante-Nicene predecessors.

Now, I appreciate the Council of Nicaea, the Westminster Confession, and many other vital documents in church history. But, they are not the standard of truth. They do not constitute divine revelation. They are the opinions of men, not the revelation of Truth.

The tendency among modern evangelicals to look to church councils as the standard of orthodoxy, seems to me to be an unconscious adoption of the Roman belief that the Holy Ghost moves in church history and church councils to impart to them the standard of orthodoxy, as opposed to the Protestant tradition which says that the Holy Ghost gives each individual believer the ability to understand God's revealed word, which is the standard of orthodoxy.

I am not impuning anyone's Christianity. I am just putting forth my thoughts, I guess. The thoughts of one who wholeheartedly adopts the mottos of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura and Grace Alone.

11

I appreciate you featuring Colson. I met Chuck Colson this year and have had the privilege of learning from him in the Centurions program. He is very hands on in the program, and jumps into our blog posts and comment threads with his own insights. (Centurions blog on a private domain)

After seeing him up close and personal a lot this year, I am even more impressed with the man. He has a passion for Christ and for truth that is infectious. He also is intentional about developing leaders. He uses several mentoring techniques extremely well ... sponsoring, for example. He is constantly looking for ways to connect rising Christian leaders with needed resources ... for example, he has made an offer to all Centurions to use the resources of Breakpoint (radio and web site) to plug our ministry efforts to teach Christian worldview thinking. When I get around to finishing my book, I have no doubt that he will be willing to write a forward for me and plug it with all he has got.

I have tremendous respect for Christian leaders who finish the race of life well. Colson is finishing well. He is intentionally investing himself into the lives of others to further the Kingdom of God.

12

Joe,

I don't know how to nominate someone for your series ... so I'll just post it here and hope you read it.

I nominate Howard Hendricks.

Dr. Hendricks has had a major impact on evangelicalism ... but is largely through his amazing heart for mentoring and teaching. Though a prominent speaker and writer in his own right, he has had a huge impact as a mentor of leaders. Just look at some of his mentorees: McArther, Swindoll, Lorritts, Wilkinson and the list goes on...

My father introduced me to "Howie" Hendricks several years ago. They were both featured speakers at a leadership conference in Colorado. Meeting Hendricks is one of the highlights of my life ... if I have 1/1000th the impact on lives he has had when I am through, I will have lived a full life.

13

Joe,
You cite the Nicene Creed and that's fine. However, have you considered the Westminster Confession? (You know the REFORMED position on Christian matters).
From the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Chapter 25 (On Church). There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

MAT 23:8 - But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the
earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
2TH 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.
REV 13:6 - And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards ALL considered Rome to be outright Anti-God. To put it VERY mildly.

Judging by your position on Rome, you may want to rethink identifying with the reformers. You may or may not know this, but there are endless sermons, writings, books, etc. on Popery by the Fathers of the Reformation (and present day reformed believers) that would probably make the modern day (American) believer shout "That's not Christ-like to talk that way!"

Put simply, they did not see a greater evil on Earth than Rome and her whoredom of Christ. To join with Rome was to be an Apostate that deserved to be shun.

14

The Council of Nicaea is not the standard of truth, Joe. It is not God's revealed word. The standard of Orthodoxy is the Bible, not the state imposed doctrines of a group of people who were not fulfilling the Great Commission and healing the sick and raising the dead, unlike their Apostolic and Ante-Nicene predecessors.

No, but Orthodoxy is a distinct concept, having to do with doctinal things-as much as the word has fallen out of disuse due to media stereotyping, 'fundamentalist' is probably a better word for measuring how attached churches are to scripture.

Anyway, remember, the old-style Catholic church cleaned up its act a lot in recent years-the counter-reformation cleaned house a great deal, and they've been trying to stay ahead of the curve, not that the pedophilia crisis and their response helped much with that, sigh.

So, I would also call them 'Orthodox' though I definetely disagree with some of their doctrines..

15

Joe: I like that you've avoided making this a list of "my favorite people" and have tried to be broadly representative of evangelicalism. A few people I'd suggest, some my favorites, others not:

* Mark Noll
* Thomas Oden
* Doug Bandow
* Cal Thomas (with attention to his book _Blinded by Might_)
* Elizabeth Eliot (with reference to her first husband Jim)
* Paul Marshall (see http://www.claremont.org/about/staff/marshall.html)
* J. I. Packer
* Philip Johnson
* Bishop N. T. Wright
* Ralph Winter (see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003515/)
* Michael Farris
* Marvin Olasky
* Rick Warren (I threw him in to really prove this isn't just a list of my favorites)

16

Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards ALL considered Rome to be outright Anti-God. To put it VERY mildly.

Judging by your position on Rome, you may want to rethink identifying with the reformers. You may or may not know this, but there are endless sermons, writings, books, etc. on Popery by the Fathers of the Reformation (and present day reformed believers) that would probably make the modern day (American) believer shout "That's not Christ-like to talk that way!"

Put simply, they did not see a greater evil on Earth than Rome and her whoredom of Christ. To join with Rome was to be an Apostate that deserved to be shun.

Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Edwards would also have a lot of us condemned and even put to death for affirming adult baptism (just ask the Anabaptists). They were great theological thinkers, but let us be judicious when using the fallen reasoning of men, shall we?

The Council of Nicaea is not the standard of truth, Joe. It is not God's revealed word. The standard of Orthodoxy is the Bible, not the state imposed doctrines of a group of people who were not fulfilling the Great Commission and healing the sick and raising the dead, unlike their Apostolic and Ante-Nicene predecessors.

You're engaging in a little sub-concious special pleading, as neither the Nicaean Creed, nor the works of the Reformers, are God's word, but those treatises and confessions of faith have been continuously held because they have been found to be consistent and reinforced with God's word.

The Nicean Creed was an attempt to create the simplest definition of what defines our faith. Since it has been re-affirmed time and time again by plain reading of the Scriptures in all branches of the Church (not counting LTS, JW, 7th Day, etc., which use "additional revelation" to circumvent the Bible), it is just plain common sense to not dismiss it so readily. That, and one can so easily look up the supporting Scripture, that it makes little sense to try and refute it, unless your in to secret/lost gospels and conspiracy theories (doesn't hold up against primary source documents in the early Church).

And let's get something straight, the Council of Nicea was pre-Roman Catholic domination. Rome's influence didn't extend outside the city at that time. And it was an intra-Church initiated conference, not "state imposed."

So instead of condemning Catholics outright, I suggest you look take some advice from Scripture and look at the fruit. I may not agree with Catholic Christians (as opposed to "good Catholics") on a lot of issues of theology, but they profess a sincere faith in the infinite-personal Triune God who came, sent his son, to die as a man and then was bodily raised from the grave, in order to pay the price for the sins of humanity, as outlined in the prophecies and declarations of God in the Torah.

And with the profession of faith, you see the transformation of their lives and spiritual fruits of Christ-like love, which is how Jesus said the world would know us, and how we could discern believers from make-believers. I call them my brothers in Christ.

17

Dang it. I hate when I mess up the italics...

18

cdm:

Calvinism I don't have to explain to you, do I. Okay. So neocalvinism is a movement in (or rooted in) calvinism, with its historical origins in the work of 19th century Dutch cultural leaders like Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper. While neocalvinists (usually) agree with all Christian orthodoxy about the basics of the faith, and with all calvinists about the sovereign rule of God in Christ and by the Holy Spirit (including both the historical Reformed doctrines of grace and the Reformed understanding of the cosmic lordship if Christ, as per for example Colossians 1), it has developed a stronger emphasis than most on the importance of Christian transformative cultural engagement as a result of the lordship of Christ over all spheres of life. And it has developed a distinctive social vision and political theory around the ideas of creation norms for human society and of "sphere sovereignty." Sphere sovereignty is the idea that God has created human society to be formed basically not of either disengaged individuals or overarching collectives (state, race, ethnicity), but rather in terms of distinct spheres (family, church, school, state, business) each of which are sovereign in relation to the others, but subject directly to God under the divine laws particular to each sphere, and each of which has distinctive kinds of authority, limited to a particular sphere. Thus, for example, the authority of government is limited to the exercise of public justice, not by human decision or historical evolution, but by divine ordinance. (I could go on and on ...)

Colson and other proponents of neocalvinism lite make much of the lordship of Christ, the importance of the laws of God, and the necessity of Christian cultural engagement, but they do not go into very much detail with regard to sphere sovereignty, etc., and they are eager to make common cause with other orthodox Christians and with social conservatives on many issues, sometimes smudging over what more strict neocalvinists would consider crucial differences, such as that between the neocalvinist understanding of common grace and the Roman Catholic understanding of natural law.

19

“Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Edwards would also have a lot of us condemned and even put to death for affirming adult baptism (just ask the Anabaptists). They were great theological thinkers, but let us be judicious when using the fallen reasoning of men, shall we?”

What are you talking about?! I have to be misunderstanding you here. Everyone affirms adult baptism - are you joking? When did Luther or the others “put to death” anyone that disagreed with them? Are you referring to modern day Anabaptists (Baptists, Mennonites, etc.) or the extreme heretical Anabaptists during the first reformation? You know the ones that denied the Trinity? And denied the doctrine of Justification by faith alone in Christ alone? Just to name a few off the top of my mind.

Yes, let’s be judicious. However, mine, yours and the top 10 theologians living now cannot hold a candle to any of the above-mentioned expository skills with Holy Scripture

20

Everyone affirms adult baptism - are you joking?

In the case of John Calvin, no I am not (I confess I should have narrowed my statement to Calvin, as I am not sure of Luther and the others). He believed in paedobaptism, and here is A Summary of John Calvin's Defense of Paedobaptism and John Calvin's Argument for Infant Baptism.

And yes, John Calvin would have had advocates of adult baptism put to death. I didn't say he did, but he would have.

In the modern context, not everyone in my denomination believes in adult baptism, though it is the accepted method of baptism in our denomination, we leave the opinion opne to individual believers in our church laws, as we don't view it as something to divide over.

Yes, let’s be judicious. However, mine, yours and the top 10 theologians living now cannot hold a candle to any of the above-mentioned expository skills with Holy Scripture.

That isn't being judicious. I'll admit their profound contribution to the faith and even their brilliance, but you place undue faith in the works and intepretations of men.

21

"And yes, John Calvin would have had advocates of adult baptism put to death. I didn't say he did, but he would have."

(I really don't like not knowing who I am talking to ... who wrote the bit I quote above?)

Without going to re-read Calvin on the issues, I am willing to argue that Calvin would not have had advocates of adult baptism put to death. First of all, because Calvin to the best of my knowledge never possessed the power to put anyone to death. Furthermore, as best as I can remember without doing any research of the details, in the one case (let me repeat that, the ONE case) in which Calvin is associated with the judicial execution (by the city government of Geneva) of a heretic, that of Servetus, Calvin made at least one attempt to change the mind of Servetus to that of an orthodox trinitarianism (Servetus most objectionable heresy in the eyes of his persecutors was unitarianism), and at least one attempt to dissuade Servetus from putting himself in a position where he could be captured by Genevan officials. Calvin's testimony in Servetus' trial had to do with the heretical character of Servetus' beliefs, and included a plea with the city government for the execution to take as painless a form as possible (decapitation by sword instead of burning at the stake).

Please let me know what I should read if it turns out that I am mistaken on any of this.

22

Sorry, I usually check the option to remember my personal info, and it is exceedingly annoying when it doesn't...

My expertise is not in Reformational history, but my pastor's expertise is. And, according to him, that is what Calvin's reaction would be. But, then again, that wasn't the jest of my statement. I was merely pointing out the fact that the works of Calvin, Luther, and others are not God's word, adn should not be treated as such.

23

Point taken, and granted: the great teachers do not have the same kind of authority as the Scriptures themselves.

Do ask your pastor - nicely - to check up on the facts, though ...

24

Well, there is one thing I know, and he is quite thorough in his research and has a passion for the subject. I know that he holds multiple degrees (I only know that because the subject was brought up...he never mentions it up front) and teaches the history of the Reformation at his son's public high school.

25

I intend no disrespect for your pastor, Mr. Marcoe. I would be very surprised, though, if Calvin advocated the execution of people who advocated adult baptism for not reason other than that they advocated adult baptism (or what is referred to as "believer's baptism).

26

He believed in paedobaptism, and here is A Summary of John Calvin's Defense of Paedobaptism and John Calvin's Argument for Infant Baptism.

I am very familiar with these documents and John Calvin. If an unbeliever, say 40 years old, repents, and turns to Christ in faith - that person is baptized (adult baptism). 'Paedo' meaning baptizing the infants/children of believers as a sign of the new covenant as is demonstrated in . Calvin was against re-baptizing (anabaptists). The anabaptists denied all sorts of orthodoxy by the way - including the Trinity.

And yes, John Calvin would have had advocates of adult baptism put to death. I didn't say he did, but he would have.

What an inflammatory statement to make. Completely unfounded. I respectfully ask for some type of evidence that supports your opinion on what John Calvin WOULD have done.

27

Cdm, "inflammatory statement" is rather melodramatic. And you're still stuck on the Anabaptists? Look, my point still stands: John Calvin asserted infant baptism, in contrast to your assertion "that everyone affirms adult baptism," but many Reformed and Calvinist denominations do not, which is in contrast to Calvin's opinion, and I believe, in contrast to Scripture; not infant baptism is ever emntioned in the New Testament. And the baptism of a new adult believer as a rebuttal doesn't count; of course you're going to baptize new believers. The point of discussion was whether or not a believing family should baptize their infant or wait until the child can understand and let them choose. And I proved my point. There are variances of opinion and the famous Reformers were not always right. God's word is the final standard

And if you're going to ask me to cite every statement made here, then I am going to ask you to provide me with evidence that Anabpatists denied all sorts of orthodox beliefs, which you haven't shown me yet. Personally, I am not going to spend time doing that. This thread is burried so far down that I am only going to post this last comment. If you want to continue the discussion, e-mail me.

28

Sorry, dang it...messed up the bold.... Joe, something seems wonky with the html...