I came across this beauty at Justin Taylor's blog and am providing the link to the original source.  This is John Piper creating an imaginary conversation concerning the sometimes difficult question of God's sovereignty and prayer.  If God predestines all things, then why pray?  Take a look.

Click Here To Read.

"I have often seen parents hand the baton of spiritual formation off to me over the years, but it's not mine to take. Traditional student ministry has come to value freedom from parents and neglect the importance of partnership with them. The problem with this value system is twofold. 1) It isn't biblical. 2) It doesn't work."

Steve Wright
Rethink

During my time at Southern Seminary I was re-introduced to the writings of John Calvin (along with many other servants of old, such as Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther, Andrew Fuller, and on and on).  One of the aspects of Southern's teaching I am most thankful for is the professors' insistence on reading primary sources.  Secondary sources are always tainted with a particular viewpoint no matter how objective the commentator might try to be.  Therefore, I have discovered the blessing of reading the actual works of our theological giants before we move on to what others have to say about them. 

I have read the entirety of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and found it to read more like a devotional than a boring theological treatise, which I suspect is how most think of it.  I also discovered the commentaries of Calvin, which have helped me in so many different ways, not the least of which is my preaching.  During a recent sermon preparation in John 1, I was reading over Calvin's comments on the chapter.  My focal verse was John 1:29, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."  Calvin's thought is usually distorted pretty heavily by a misunderstanding or fear of the dreaded word - predestination.  No doubt that Calvin believed God elected before the foundation of the world those who would be saved.  But the notion of "hyper-Calvinism" is anything but Calvinistic.  Take a look at Calvin's words concerning John 1:29 and be surprised:

"John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith."

Calvin clearly understands the work of Christ to be sufficient for all who will believe and places the duty of repentance on all sinners.  Calvin would understand a difference between duty and ability, but this makes clear the need and command for us to preach the good news to the world, making available the Gospel for which Andrew Fuller writes is "worthy of all acceptation."  I think for most who have only a surface understanding of Calvin, this is surprising.  For all of us, it is a reminder that we are dealing with issues of eternity.  And how will they believe unless they are told?
          

Tom Watson would not agree with what I am about to say.  His position of standing alone atop the leader board at the 2009 British Open at the age of 59 (he turns 60 in September) and after having hip replacement surgery last October is one of the greatest sporting achievements in history, regardless of his position at the end of the day on Sunday.  Watson would only agree if he is holding the champions trophy tomorrow. 

I am completely blown away.  This rivals and almost surpasses Nicklaus' victory at the 1986 Masters.  The guy is 60 years old and is beating the best in the world at a major.  If you don't understand golf, then you just can't understand what this means.  His first round was amazing and the fact that he remained on top at the end of the second day was beyond belief.  But that he stands alone as the leader at the end of the third day is just impossible.  But there he is.

So here is to Tom Watson, who regardless of his play tomorrow, has pulled off one of the greatest sporting achievements of all time.

Dr. Haykin of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently had an online discussion through the medium of Twitter.  The topic was the strengths and weaknesses of the Reformed and Anabaptist historical traditions.  The dialogue is helpful in two ways.  First, the content of their discussion is fascinating and demonstrates how we should always be open minded to the weaknesses of whatever tradition we find ourselves supporting.  Second, Haykin and Yarnell demonstrate how to have healthy, non-confrontational discussions without things getting out of control.  Take a look:

Dr. Haykin:

@myarnell: last few days have been thinking much about Calvin’s legacy: so much theol brilliance…but:

@myarnell: those who embrace his soteriological legacy must ask forgiveness from Anabaptist brothers. And why?

@myarnell. Because of his advocacy of the sword as a curb on heresy, esp Anabaptism in both its heretical and orthodox forms.

@myarnell: reading Eamon Duffy’s recent revisionist history of Bloody Mary’s reign has convinced me that some Protestant forebears erred.

@myarnell:
they erred by being willing to use the sword to repress error. Like our
18th c forbears who were slave owners, they are flawed.

@myarnell:
flawed models. But in so far as they followed Christ soteriologically
they are safe guides. But their views of church&state:

@myarnell: the bottom line is still this: I am sorry that some of my Calv. forbears ever used the sword against Anab. brothers.

Dr. Yarnell:

@MAGHaykin Some brilliant thoughts here. Thank you for sharing them.

@MAGHaykin Shall we conclude that some of our Calvinist brothers have acceptable (though not necessarily always correct) soteriology?

@MAGHaykin
And that our Anabaptist brothers perceived the doctrines of the church
& the ordinances more clearly than our Calvinist brothers?

@MAGHaykin
And, finally, that Calvin and the Calvinists were absolutely wrong when
it came to the doctrine of religious persecution/liberty?

Dr. Haykin:

@myarnell: I think so: I am a Calvinist soteriologically but the ortho. Anab. saw more accurately NT church life.

@myarnell: And they were spot on re persecution. Calvin failed to reform the horrific legacy of relig persec from the Middle Ages.

Dr. Yarnell:

@MAGHaykin Don’t tell anybody but I actually find much in Calvin that is brilliant too!