Christ Gets All Glory may be true in some instances (certain pastors/churches), I doubt it's true of the whole "movement". When the precious truths of the Doctrines of Grace came out of the seminaries and onto the street corners, there were bound to be a few hiccups. But I don't see how guys like Matt Chandler or David Platt could be seen as putting cultural engagement over scripture. In fact I see the opposite, where the movement is (mostly) engaging culture WITH scripture, sometimes aggressively. And I don't see how that can be anything but a good thing for the church. It's the plow-boy and his Bible all over again, in the 21st century.
I was born in Latvia which was Russia back then. I came here when I was 9 years old, it saddens me to see people respond to the message of John, with "I did not understand his language". He didn't speak archaic English. Strictly from a person who loves English, how is he not making since? As for new Calvinism being more culturally relevant, isn't old Calvinism culturally relevant? If it isn't, shouldn't it be? I think Calvin was relevant in his time and culture. What is wrong this message?
I am so glad that I believe in GOD through the, mind eyes of a child...And not through the eyes of someone who is so, "supposedly," theologically educated, that they think they know it all... GOD Bless...
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
The old Calvinism was perfectly fine. New Calvinism is too pragmatic, too concerned with being cultural and relevant, and too worldly.
Pragmatism isn't necessarily bad, it's when pragmatism compromises the scripture that a wrong turn was made.
That's what has happened.
Christ Gets All Glory may be true in some instances (certain pastors/churches), I doubt it's true of the whole "movement". When the precious truths of the Doctrines of Grace came out of the seminaries and onto the street corners, there were bound to be a few hiccups. But I don't see how guys like Matt Chandler or David Platt could be seen as putting cultural engagement over scripture. In fact I see the opposite, where the movement is (mostly) engaging culture WITH scripture, sometimes aggressively. And I don't see how that can be anything but a good thing for the church. It's the plow-boy and his Bible all over again, in the 21st century.
I hope you're right. I like Platt. Haven't listened to Chandler much.
I was born in Latvia which was Russia back then. I came here when I was 9 years old, it saddens me to see people respond to the message of John, with "I did not understand his language". He didn't speak archaic English. Strictly from a person who loves English, how is he not making since?
As for new Calvinism being more culturally relevant, isn't old Calvinism culturally relevant? If it isn't, shouldn't it be? I think Calvin was relevant in his time and culture. What is wrong this message?
I am so glad that I believe in GOD through the, mind eyes of a child...And not through the eyes of someone who is so, "supposedly," theologically educated, that they think they know it all... GOD Bless...
key word that John ignores: Foreknowledge. Gods foreknowledge. God chose you BECAUSE He FOREKNEW you.