The Future of the Evangelical Reformed Movement

Editor’s Note: This article was written at the invitation of Patheos for its Future of Evangelicalism series.

About five years ago, something strange happened in the Christian world: Reformed theology made a comeback. Once perceived as the bright but slightly eccentric and often ignored kid in the corner of the classroom, Calvinism became the new cool kid on the block. To be fair, a significant number of American evangelicals have always believed the doctrines of grace—that God graciously regenerates sinners who would not otherwise choose to follow him. But for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, those evangelicals tended to congregate in relatively small Presbyterian denominations.

In the 1990s, in a relatively quiet and unassuming way, various churches and ministries began to expand in influence throughout the United States—all influenced in one way or another by the Reformed vision of a great and glorious God. In addition to the Reformed seminaries, there was Sovereign Grace Ministries (Gaithersburg, Maryland), 9Marks (Washington, D.C.), Desiring God (Minneapolis), Ligonier Ministries (Orlando), Grace to You (Sun Valley, California), and Acts29 (Seattle). Added to this was the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary, where president Albert Mohler led a conservative resurgence to recover the founders’ Reformational principles. Each ministry—valuable in its own right—operated independently from one another. But through intentional relational networking—as seen, for example, in Together for the Gospel (first conference, 2006)—there was newfound camaraderie as it seemed that a fresh work of God was underway.

This fellowship among Presbyterians, Baptists, and a host of like-minded independent churches caught the watching public’s attention. Christianity Today, Time, The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and the Religion Newswriters Association all took notice. Any accurate analysis of evangelical trends today will take note of the energy behind this growing movement.

What Lies Ahead

We write this article not to relive the past, however, but to consider the future. We write not as formative leaders of the movement but first and foremost as grateful beneficiaries. As convinced Calvinists ourselves, we can’t help but be thankful for the work God seems to be doing in our generation to renew churches, re-energize preaching, recover the beauty of robust doctrinal engagement, and re-establish the glory of God and the wonder of the gospel in the heads and hearts of his people. Only God could have raised up such a diverse collection of churches and ministries at this time of both great opportunity and also peril.

The Opportunity Before Us

Where some Christians fret over the loss of Christian consensus in America and the growing ranks of the religiously unaffiliated, we see great opportunity. The demise of nominal Christianity opens new possibilities for genuine discipleship. If people nowadays are going to follow Christ, they want the strong stuff. They want robust theology, a big Christ, a deep gospel, and they aren’t afraid of serious demands. It is no coincidence that this movement of evangelical Calvinists thrives in pockets of America where church attendance has eroded. Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., and Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan have three very different personalities and styles, and they represent three age brackets. But each, in his own way, has inspired many young pastors to pour their lives into dying churches and start new ones in cities considered skeptical toward evangelicals.

The meaty theology of Calvinism has other aspects that bode well for its future. For one, the intellectual nature of the Reformed faith means that it tends to exert a disproportionate influence on Christian thinking and institutions through writing, scholarship, and formal theologizing. Second, the accent on God’s providential care over all encourages Christians to count the cost of discipleship in an increasingly hostile culture and trust God for the outcome. Throughout the centuries, missionaries such as William Carey and Adoniram Judson have found encouragement to persevere from the promise of God’s sovereignty. If the future holds further erosion of nominal Christianity, evangelical Calvinists are equipped to endure. Finally, a firm commitment to the full trustworthiness and authority of Scripture—along with a settled conviction in substitutionary atonement and justification by Christ’s righteousness through faith alone—are historic and essential rail guards to keep evangelicalism on a biblically faithful path.

The Peril Ahead

At the same time, we see peril. In the wider evangelical movement the richness of the biblical gospel is often marginalized, sometimes unwittingly. The gospel becomes a bullet-point summary with little power, simply a stepping stone to social activism, or the gateway to what really matters—effective parenting, marital bliss, and financial rewards.

In this perilous and divided situation, evangelical Calvinists are often perceived as one more partisan voice clamoring for attention and market share. Worse, we are caricaturized as mean-spirited doctrine police known more for what (and whom) we are against than what we celebrate. Still others think the new Calvinists are faddish disciples of dead Puritans or groupie-like Piperazzi. By God’s grace we will not live up (or is it down?) to these stereotypes. If God uses the movement for his glory in the days and decades ahead it will be because he has given us the grace to be clear-headed and warm-hearted, doctrinal and devotional, discerning in spirit and ecumenical in our affections. If God uses us it will be because he has kept us focused squarely on the gospel and its massive implications flowing from Christ the center. So long as the evangelical Reformed movement offers a means of supporting gospel-centered unity, doctrine, worship, and action, we suspect it will prosper and leaven the broader church.

Still, we understand from history that movements come and go. Coalitions change when the scene shifts. So in that sense, we are not concerned for the future of this Reformed resurgence. God doesn’t promise that movements will stand the test of time. That privilege belongs only to the institution of the church (Matt. 16:18). As in the local church, movements suffer the inevitable tensions that stem from diverse personalities and persistent sin. Looking toward the future, we can only pray to God and exhort one another to resist the temptations to seek personal acclaim. Rather, recognizing God’s grace shown toward us, we should “love one another with brotherly affection” and “outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom. 12:10).

Meeting this standard will not be easy. As our movement grows, we will face new challenges. We will not always agree. Right now, we see several potential dangers.

(1) Some of us struggle to be bold without being obnoxious; others of us seek to be meek but often succumb to cowardice. We want to guard the truth, not strangle it. We want to be both wise and innocent, fearless and faithful, bold but brokenhearted. We want to keep our affections in proportion to the things that matter most.

(2) We are trying to find the right balance between the call to radical discipleship and the acceptance that faithfulness requires much that is mundane and ordinary. Along these lines, there is still much confusion about whether the church’s mission in the world has been too big or too small—too diffuse or too narrow.

(3) We anticipate there will be the inevitable tensions between generations as retiring leaders pass the baton to a younger generation. Younger leaders will need great wisdom to both show respect for their heroes in the faith as well as learn that some disagreements with them are okay. For their part, older leaders must plan ahead to train a new generation of leaders and empower a deep and broad network of capable, young ministers for faithful ministry for the years ahead. We are encouraged to see many good examples of these things in both generations.

Hope in God

We don’t pretend to know how or if these three tensions will resolve. Certainly we will be disappointed if they rise to the level of splitting the movement. But no movement of God can or should long endure if Christians cannot treat one another with grace. We have been given much; we agree on much; we ought to love much. Above all, we pray God will be pleased to raise up more churches around the world that delight in our great God, proclaim his great gospel, and lift high great David’s greater Son, our Lord Jesus Christ by whom all things in heaven and on earth hold together.

  • Pingback: The Future of Evangelical Reformed Movement « Ad Fontes()

  • Caleb Gallifant

    Would you all delineate between the future of Calvinism vs. New Calvinism (summed up by Driscoll as Reformed leaning, complimentarian, and charismatic)? I’m not trying to sort through the distinguishing features of these positions as I realize they’re used interchangeably in this post. However, I’m interested because I remember Driscoll recently saying that his biggest fear about NC is that it would lose its charismatic element. I don’t sense that would be the same projection for what’s being claimed here.

  • Joe

    I so much appreciate the cooperation in this movement, evidenced by three diverse men like Hansen, Taylor and DeYoung partnering in an article like this one. In my neck of the woods, currently Vancouver, BC, the greatest influence for the Evangelical Reformed movement comes from the most unlikely of all places, the Mennonite Brethren. Willingdon Church ( is led by John Neufeld, a Gospel Coalition Council member; the other six largest MB churches in BC are also Reformed. The Mennonite Brethren church planting department, Church Planting BC (, led by Gord Flemming and Mark Burch,is committed to planting Reformed, “Gospel Coalition” churches. I, a Baptist seeking to plant a Fellowship Baptist church, applaud and thrill at the leadership and vision for the glory of God and the spread of His Gospel flowing from the ministries of Mennonite Brethren leaders in the province of British Columbia.

    • Dave Smith

      Hey Joe, I’m so thankful for what’s going on in the Reformed-Minded MB churches in BC; the place to which I was called as a missionary 7 years ago and still serve in.

      I’m also aware of great things going on at Crossway Community Church in Langley, a Sovereign Grace Church; along with other churches throughout the city. I’m currently serving in an Alliance Church, Pacific Community Church, in Cloverdale, where Gospel-Centered life and preaching are deeply valued by congregation and pastors alike. There are also Reformed guys doing exciting things at Tsswassen Alliance, Coquitlam Alliance, and Penticton Alliance; to name a few.

      Just yesterday I met another young guy just dipping into Reformed Theology for the first time and he’s serving as an intern at a local Evanglical Free church. It’s exciting times in BC. Let’s just keep preaching the Gospel and fighting for Kingdom growth, rather than simply growth of our own little kingdoms.

  • Pingback: The Evangelical Reformed Movement: A Comeback | Ben Terry()

  • Christian Arnold

    Awesome post guys! I will be praying for this movement since I am apart of it. Thank you for your wise counsel.

  • Warren

    Thank you men for your leadership. I just finished re-reading “Revival and Revivalism” by Iain Murray and am moving through his 2 volumes on Lloyd-Jones. One thing that has impressed me in both is the wonderful cooperation across denominational lines for the sake of the gospel, especially in a time of revival.

    This is a delicate balance because it seems the one who go full tilt and declare denominational distinctives unimportant seem to eventually reject the Bible, either formally or practically. Nevertheless, I am thrilled today to see baptists and presbys, charismatics and cessationists, who hold their respective positions passionately as a matter of obedience to Christ but are able to join together to highlight the central message of Christ Jesus and his gospel. Let’s remember that a movement like this is the fruit of God working in a lot of hearts all at once and pray that he would continue and extend the work. Not to us, but to your name be glory, Lord Jesus!

  • Brian

    Evangelical Baptists have now completely co-opted the name ‘Calvinism’ and it’s variants. Not that I care, I’m just saying.

  • Pingback: Calvinistic resurgence « Coffeeshop Theology()

  • Pingback: The Future of the Evangelical Reformed Movement « Imputed by Adams()

  • RevK

    Did I miss the mention of the Whitehorse Inn?

  • Frederick Repollo

    This article is an encouragement. This “strange happening” is not only in America, but also here in the Philippines. There has never been a sort of convention among different denominations here to be united in Biblical theology, but it’s happening in as you wrote “relatively quiet and unassuming way”. We can only praise God for all these. And one more thing, God is using the internet to spread Biblical Christianity in a faster and accessible way. Thank you for ministries who offer resources for free.

    • NH Mock

      Hooray for the Anglicans!

  • will

    Don’t forget us conservative Anglicans!

    • Dan Wilson

      Praise God for N.T. Wright :)

  • Chris Zodrow

    Just one question: how many of you have baptized your babies? No one?

    OK, out of Geneva, Wittenburg and Strasbourg!

    Please, give Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and Bucer back their caps. Get confessional or go home!

    • wellsology

      I’m concerned that this kind of a reply demonstrates the first concern this article raises:

      “Some of us struggle to be bold without being obnoxious; others of us seek to be meek but often succumb to cowardice. We want to guard the truth, not strangle it. We want to be both wise and innocent, fearless and faithful, bold but brokenhearted.

      @Chris Zodrow: Was this an attempt at humor? It doesn’t clearly come across that way, but there is room to give the benefit of the doubt.

      • Chris Zodrow

        I find it kind of funny. But, your concern is in the wrong direction. I will be blunt: unless the movement embraces the whole reformation, not just what looks good at the salad-bar, it will be still-born. Baptists are not reformed. They may be historical in their adoption of some of the tenets of the reformation, but they would be kicked out of Geneva for their refusal to accept the covenant blessings for their children. That is exactly what happened.

        Soteriology is a great thing to get straight, but the reformation included so much more that is just being ignored, or men are just flippantly rejecting outright. I don’t think that is funny. The co-opting of the terminology without the substance is just shallow. Calvinism is the new black, but the actual substance is being ignored.

        If Calvin was alive today, he would not be very well liked. Those who rejected infant baptism were kicked out of Geneva. This is historical fact.

        Can anyone actually answer to this, or will I be labelled as one of the obnoxious? I am broken-hearted at the shallowness that is now being deemed the stopping-point (hand-wringing, psycho-babble) of this movement. Men ask and try and answer hard questions, they don’t use the “that was just mean” diversion. And, if we were face to face, I would say the same thing. I have and do.

        Peace and grace,

        • Aurlyn Wygle

          I don’t understand your point that in order to believe in Calvinism you must sprinkle your infants. Just because some reformers don’t sprinkle doesn’t mean that they have to throw out each and every single other truth of the movement. Maybe you can explain your thoughts on this.

          Second, you seem to feel that the whole idea of infant baptism is extremely important. I was baptized as an infant and have done a lot of research into it and it’s actually not commanded once in the bible. There are three times in the bible where it says that a man along with his children were baptized, and two of the times it doesn’t say anything else about the children so we must not assume, but one of the times it says that his children believed the Gospel along with him. This means that they were old enough to believe. I think when you get into looking down on others for your beliefs you loose site of grace so we must all be careful of this. I understand that the main idea of the infant sprinkling is because presbyterians (and others) love to look at God for how he interacts with his covenant people which is a beautiful thing. They see the baptism as the new circumcision because of the similarities of the two covenants and since the bible doesn’t prohibit infant baptism there is nothing wrong with sprinkling infants. However, it is also argued that the difference was that circumcision was for infants brought into the covenant people of God (Israel) They were in Gods covenant people simply because they were born Jewish. We however are not Jewish so we (reformed baptists) still sprinkle infants, we just sprinkle infants in Christ, for it is at conversion that we are brought into the covenant people.

          Also, a lot of churches that don’t sprinkle their babies still do infant dedications where the recognize that God has brought this baby into a family of faith and they make a covenant to do their part to raise it up in the Gospel and pray that God pursues the child with grace. To say that if you don’t literally sprinkle your child you are rejecting their covenant blessing is an extremely harsh thing to say and I think we should all be careful about such blanketing statements. Some people like to keep the picture of baptism special for a new believer, the idea that we are buried with Christ and raised with Him. The bible has evidence for believers baptisms and if some people want to hold the baptism sacred for such an event as conversation I think it’s wrong to judge them for that. Just as it is wrong to judge people who choose to baptize infants. It doesn’t show grace.

          Lastly, I think that when someone refers to themselves as being a Calvinist they are saying that they stand by the five points…not so much that they would be kicked out of Geneva or not. So I don’t necessarily think it’s gracious for you to say that reformed baptists are not Calvinists since you can’t truly speak for the beliefs of every reformed baptist, and infant baptism isn’t in the core points of the belief. I’m not saying you need to agree with every branch of reformed movement, I mean, I don’t…but I’d just encourage you to show grace in your disagreements. It’s the only way people will listen to what you have to say.You separate love from truth and people wont listen, you separate truth from love and your love is empty. That’s why the bible commands to show truth in love.


          • Chris Zodrow

            The best answer I can give you is to read Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 16, Sections 1-32. He said it better than I ever could.

            Take care,

            • Todd Murphy

              I am an Acts 29 Planter and Pastor in the Reformed Church (CRC denomination). Historically speaking, Chris is correct. It is one thing to be a Calvinist, and totally another to be Reformed gentleman. The early Baptists who were Calvinists referred to themselves as “particular baptists” but never “Reformed baptists” because those two terms are antithetical and oxymoronic. I would refer you guys to Horton’s “Introducing Covenant Theology” page 11 where he dispels this myth saying that “Reformed Theology is Synonymous with “covenant Theology.” For those of us who really sit within the Reformed Church tradition, merely being a Calvinist does not make you “Reformed”. It is only a planet in our solar system, a big one for sure, but the doctrine of the covenant is the sun in our solar system and the lens through which we do theology. As a former baptist, when you understand covenant theology, the implications for the family and children is unavoidable. So I understand Chris’s frustration to see Baptist Brothers claiming the Reformers and Calvin on the one hand, and then haggling me about my views on baptism on another as if I am the odd man out even though over 90% of world Christians still baptize their babies. I have an article on the topic if anyone is interested on our church website in PDF (

              One thing to add: At the same time, the term “Reformed” has been perverted from describing a particular historical Protestant tradition to a sort of cheap badge of orthodoxy. I do not believe in walking around with my chest out because I am “Reformed” and yet I think a lot of the movement of of the new Calvinism is doing that, priding itself at being Calvinist and yet having a very shallow understanding of the actual reality. I see this a lot when we assess guys at A29. The heart of everything needs to always be the humble pursuit of Jesus, and this is why I am a part of A29, and though have some theological differences, I love these guys as my brothers and co-laborers in the gospel. Paul said, “I came not to baptize, but to preach Christ.” That is the only hill to die on gentleman.


  • sjcamp

    Very good article gentlemen. Some helpful observations.

    One thing to consider in the pathology of the reformed faith, it could also be true that there may not have been as much of a “comeback” as a “discovery” by a younger generation new to the doctrines of grace and the theology of Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc. Movements come and go; but the reformed faith has been here several hundred years.

    Truth endures.

    One thing’s for certain, a biblical recovery of the gospel in our day is preeminent and a biblical Christology is imperative. May old and younger generations guard a bold orthodoxy with humility, grace, truth and charity.

    Grace to each of you,
    2 Cor. 4:5-7

  • Radiance

    Mark my words: if it continues to go unchallenged, complementarian extremism will be the downfall of the New Reformed movement.

    • Radiance

      Maybe a better way to put it, is: “the idolatry of complementarian doctrine” will be the downfall of the New Reformed movement, if it continues to go unchallenged WITHIN Reformed circles.

      • Aurlyn Wygle

        The definition of complementarianism is that men and women are absolutely equal in personhood and dignity, they are distinct in their roles. This is seen in the beautiful relationship within the Trinitatian Godhead. The Father and Son are absolutely equal yet we see a distinction or role. There is a good paper on it here if you’re interested:

        The complementarianism view has been abused at the hands of power hungry men where it has been taken to extremes, but it is also wrong to throw out the baby with the bath water. The Bible has the idea of complementarianism strung all throughout its pages. You shouldn’t care what I think, and I shouldn’t care what you think. We need to care about what the Bible thinks though and humbly submit to the authority of scriptures.

  • Brian

    Interesting words regarding James K. A. Smith’s forthcoming Brazos Press title Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition:

    “Noted Reformed philosopher James K. A. Smith contends that much of what traffics under the banner of New Calvinism reduces “Reformed” to a narrow concern with Calvinistic soteriology”.

    This seems true of the “new Calvinists”, many, if not the majority, are Baptist-evangelicals with a smattering of new “old school Presbyterians”. Many of the later, or so it seems to me, are indistinguishable from Baptists.

    • Christopher

      Spot on. The thing that is really disconcerting is that even soteriology is narrowed down to a very rationalistic category, as though it exists in the brain alone. The sacraments, the body of Christ, the existential reality of the whole life are narrowed down to the mind and an empty ecclesiology.

      Calvin was much broader in his view of salvation. Like Irenaeus and Athanasius, his is a recapitulation theology, that encompasses everything. People disparage Calvin for his theocratic views, but it is an inevitable working out of the life of the saved man. Baptists do not have the covenantal framework to really see salvation as a whole.


  • Mark Lunsford

    Chris and Brian,
    I guess if I’m understanding you, A reformed soteriology isn’t enough to be considered Theologically reformed? But isn’t that exactly what unites the reformers you mentioned? While its true that they all baptized infants, what about the Lords Supper? Why do you allow them difference in the one Sacrament and not the other?
    The problem it seems to me is this. While those cities and men mentioned are all important heroes of the faith–they are nevertheless men. While Calvin and Geneva are important, the Reformed faith didn’t start there and it most certainly wasn’t finalized there. If it did then we would no longer need the term semper reformada.
    I did baptize my daughters as infants, but it had no more to do with Calvin and Geneva than with the pope and rome. I did so because I find it implicit in the Scriptures. I can’t help but wonder just how consistently you want to follow the Geneva Theocratic model. I hope for the sake of any unitarians who might be in your neck of the woods, you don’t follow it completely.
    In conclusion; since the reformed faith is always reforming we can’t ever expect a perfect unity on this side. A reformed soteriology is by the grace of God alone–so I praise God, not only for Calvin and Knox–but I gladly include Spurgeon and Pink and joyfully anticipate the day when we will sit at our Lords feet together.

    • Chris Zodrow

      This is a great sentiment, but the reality is that the magisterial reformers had more in common with one another than those moderns who claim to be reformed have with them. There may have been differences as to the metaphysical understanding of the Lord’s supper, but they all viewed the sacrament as a defining mark of the church and would not allow those who did not baptize their children access to it. They all tied the two sacraments together in both an ecclesiastical and social sense.

      The problem with the “I am a Christian, just not a historical one” is rooted in the modern notion of personalistic salvation, and betrays the very thing I mentioned before: an absence of covenantal succession as part of a Biblical worldview. Besides, if you arrived at your conclusions as a free-thinker (which I highly doubt), then why carry the torch of semper reformanda? What you are suggesting is that you would be who you are without it anyway. That is just historical snobbery, not to mention ridiculous. We are who we are today because of our forefathers in the faith.

      What many men want to do today is jettison much reformed teaching and call THAT reformation. They are more like ecclesiastical iconoclasts, radicals, than reformers.

      The paradox of orthodoxy is that a confessional understanding actually engenders a catholicity. “Jesus is my creed” leads towards all kinds of chaos.

      Grace and peace,

  • Joe

    Well said, Mark Lunsford.

    The doctrines of Grace are just that. They are not the “doctrines of Calvinistic Covenantal Theology”. Calvin himself emphasized Sola Scriptura; not Sola Calvin. Was Simeon deluded, in Lk 2:30, when he exulted, “…my eyes have seen your salvation”? It’s highly doubtful he fully appreciated the orthodoxy of the Three Forms of Unity. He did not say, “My eyes have seen the fulness of a Covenantal framework for soteriology.”

    It seems to me that a properly Reformed theology emphasizes the work of God alone in one’s salvation; not the astuteness of the recipient of grace. Some of the comments in this thread, while within the pale of orthodoxy, are nevertheless synergistic in practice. But properly Reformed soteriology must remain monergistic in order to preserve Soli Deo Gloria and the other doctrines of Grace. I think therefore that we should not waiver in seeing salvation as an act of God upon a sinner, and sanctification, including the renewing of the mind and growth in sound doctrine, as subsequent, gracious acts of the Spirit upon the regenerate. For this reason I conclude that infant-baptizers are just as likely to be born again by the grace of God in response to the preaching of the Gospel as are believer-baptizers.

    • Chris Zodrow

      Here is the rub: the preservation of total reformed theology, protects the mentally-handicapped, the autistic and the crippled child. A child who does not understand the doctrines of grace is still viewed as a child of the covenant, as one who is included as a full-member of the family of God.

      The irony of your statements is that children such as these would be excluded until they come to a full understanding of the faith. Which they never will. Truly reformed theology includes the afflictions of the afflicted in its purvey, and does not make the mixed up distinctions that you are here. Call it synergism if you like (which it is not), but I call it abundant grace. God bless the child.

      • TimA


        Where from scripture do you gather that handicapped children, children too young to understand the gospel, etc. are included because of a covenant? Doesn’t scripture teach that we are all dead in sin apart from a supernatural rebirth? Aren’t children just as depraved as adults? Isn’t the cross the only means of salvation? It might make us feel better to believe in “children of the covenant” but it seems contradictory to believe that the 5 points don’t apply to children and handicapped people. I just don’t see that in scripture.

  • Brian

    I understand your point, Joe and Mark, though would disagree. Sacramental theology aside, the Reformers were anything but united, even on their understandings on soteriology, the ordo salutis, or whatever you want to call it. Witness the differences in classical Lutheran theology and that held by the continental Reformed.

    I am simply coming from a historical-theological understanding of the term “Calvinism” and it’s variants. I should probably stop commenting on this, as I am not even a Calvinist, or an evangelical, or even a Protestant. I just stumbled across this post and the application of the term ‘Calvinism’, ‘Calvinism’, et al., in the above context struck me as odd.

  • Pingback: Latest Links | blog of dan()

  • Pingback: The Future of the Evangelical Reformed Movement « Pleasing Pain()

  • Steve Cornell

    What has been refreshing (among other things) has been adherence to Biblical authority among those mentioned without much of the baggage of older versions of fundamentalism. This has stretched the boundaries in a good way. Perhaps we have better understood and practiced the principled approach to “μη εις διακρισεις διαλογισμων” (Romans 14:1). The way ahead will depend on this wisdom. see: Relating in Unity when Christians Disagree:

    Too often isolation or accommodation has branded our identity. We need a continuous renewed commitment to Jesus’ salt and light metaphors.


  • Pingback: iPródigo | O futuro do movimento evangélico reformado()

  • john

    in “lectures to my students”, spurgeon says something to the effect of “if God would raise up pastors who preached with the zeal of the methodists the doctrines of the puritans, we would be in for a bright future indeed”

  • Pingback: disciplines of grace — pt. 1 « everything in transit()

  • Pingback: Treading Grain » Post Topic » Around The Horn – 8.19.19()

  • D Warren

    Those of us who label ourselves as ‘reformed’ must be careful not to mke our doctrine our ‘god.’ We hold strongly to what we consider to be truth but value and honour and bless those who may not hold to ‘our truth.’ Watch for the growth of what are called ‘reformed charismatics’ who have a strong Biblical heart with a vibrant and balanced confidence in the practical use of the gifts of the Spirit etc….such movements as New Frontiers are having a greater influence and impact around the globe.

  • Pingback: » » The Future of the Evangelical Reformed Movement()

  • Pingback: reflexos de sofia()