Mary Baker Eddy's Newspaper Discovers Mark Dever

The results are interesting.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. Dr. Clark,
    Is it just me or does this whole thing smack of historical revisionism? It is frustrating when the terminology has become so elastic that “reformed” or “Calvinism” can mean just about anything. Regardless of one’s real commitments, the co-opting of terms seems dishonest at best, especially when there is an intelligent and informed denial of much of what Calvin actually taught. Why not just stop calling oneself “Calvinist” and look for some other new word?

    I would like to have a more catholic fellowship with Baptists, but I find that this whole issue is causing more divisions, as the adoption of a historical category, and the flagrant denial of certain defining aspects of that historical-theological perspective, is hard to tolerate.

    Now John Frame and Carl Trueman are doing book blurbs for Mark Driscoll. The confusion deepens.


  2. I’m pretty sure Calvin would oppose denying baptism to my infant son. I’m pretty sure he’d oppose the baptist view of the Lord’s Supper and God’s covenant with man (defined in the LBC).

    In fact, if the Belgic Confession were to be applied as intended, Baptist churches would probably be regarded as “sects,” forget about the “nine marks” (or whatever).

    Dispense with the “New” Calvinism: give me the old. If only Calvinism truly was on the march in our churches…

    • Walt

      While I understand what you are saying, you should know that the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as represented in the 2nd London Confession of Faith is virtually identical to the Westminster Confession, though the former does not use the word sacrament, substituting ordinance and some other additions and changes, such as the rejection of Lutheran co-substantiation in paragraph 7. The idea of the LS and Baptism as sacraments however is not anathema to some Baptists (it shouldn’t be to any confessional Baptist) and certainly not to the early Particular and confessional Baptists.

      Both confessions teach the Calvinian representation of the “real spiritual presence”.

      Now whether confessional Baptists actually follow their confession at this point or a more modern Baptist Zwinglianism IS up for debate, indeed I would argue that sadly most do not follow their confession! I have no idea where Dever is on that debate specifically.

  3. Regardless of whether they are defining Calvinism right, I’m more and more inclined to think that the YRR movement is more of a fad (or “fashion,” as CS Lewis put it). If that is the case, and it’s simply on the rise because it’s cool, then what’s the point? I came to the doctrines of grace by another route, and I’m finding confessionalism appealing, because it has more enduring qualities then simply “we love predestination.” The danger of the current interest in Reformed-esque theology seems to be that it is just as transitory as any other form of evangelicalism.

    All that to say, while the article was interesting, I’m not optimistic for the movement.

Comments are closed.