"new" calvinism

[pesterjon]

This is how we end up with ridiculous statements such as John MacArthur's, that any self-respecting Calvinist is a premillenialist (meaning specifically his version including a pretribulational rapture).

Can we try to bring this conversation to a summary, in the sense of defining the key points of what it means to be Reformed?

o System of hermeneutics
o Philosophy of worship
o Confessional subscription
o Soteriological considerations (now THE litmus test for being "reformed" in some circles)
o Sacramental considerations

What am I missing? As someone who many of you might not consider to be truly Reformed, I would agree that I may truly not be but also see a distinct difference between myself and others who are Reformed only in soteriology. I subscribe to the 1689 LBC, hold a non-evangelical view of the sacraments, hold to Calvinistic soteriology, hold to a non-dispensational hermeneutic, and the RPW.

I am a historic premillenialist and a congregationalist, and am not beyond preaching in blue jeans. Does that make me un-Reformed? Could someone define more specifically in what ways someone can disagree with others and still be Reformed? It may seem arbitrary to outsiders who throw the term around so easily.

 

[DMcFadden]

Welcome, Jon!

Hey, how did you get into the Evangelical Free without being pretrib?

* System of hermeneutics
* Philosophy of worship
* Confessional subscription
* Soteriological considerations (now THE litmus test for being "reformed" in some circles)
* Sacramental considerations

Are you including a covenantal reading of Scripture in "hermeneutics"? Truly confessional subscribers (either Westminster Standards/3FU or the 1689 LBCF) are miles apart from those who have only read a little Packer, listened to a R.C. Sproul lecture, or have a few Piper books on their shelf. By the definitions and distinctions on this board, I doubt that ANY of us Baptists fit the description of being "Reformed." However, our commonalities with our WCF/3FU brethren are GREAT! Besides, in the final analysis, I'm more worried about whether or not I'm "biblical" than about most other identifications.

Trying to pin the theological tail on the right donkey can be tricky, however. Some of the Baptists on this board probably fit more of the definitional elements listed above than some of the Presbyterians out there in America with their heavy doses of "seeker sensitive" pragmatism.

 

[Kiffin]

Hey, how did you get into the Evangelical Free without being pretrib?

I don't think that a pretrib position is required. I know that you have to be premil though. It's kind of interesting though--why are faculty standards different than the rest of the denomination? or, is it that maybe these guys are just premil on paper but are really "closet" amil/postmil?

 

[kvanlaan]

Here is my definition of New Calvinism from Old Paths Paved. YMCA- Young Moderately Calvinistic Anabaptists.

Excellent. Thank you, Pastor Lewis. That bunch has always bothered me in some respects, and I could never properly articulate why.

Now I can!

 

[jogri17]

Edwards and Spurgeon did believe in covenant theology. Look at the Yale series and you will see Edwards putting his theology within a covenantal perspective.

 

[pesterjon]

Premillenialism is the standard for Evangelical Free; pretrib is not required. Kiffin, you might be surprised the correlations or similarities between amillenialism and historic premillenialism.

 

[Kiffin]

Premillenialism is the standard for Evangelical Free; pretrib is not required. Kiffin, you might be surprised the correlations or similarities between amillenialism and historic premillenialism.

I haven't been keeping up with the EFCA resolutions but maybe you know--is the motion to remove the "premillennial clause" out of the SOF still in the works? I don't mean to hijack the thread (Rev. Wymer just PM me)

 

[Theoretical]

I have some sympathy... I am a product of this movement, after all! I think for me it was a great feat simply to understand the 5 points. I mean, I had to push through all of the Campus Crusade material, read the entire bible (and new testament like 10 times) before I could see coherence. Even then it took an apologetics class with some guy talking about "the antithesis" and blowing my mind with scripture references. When I joined a reformed church, it was because I was convicted by ecclesiastical and worship doctrines.

"Choosing a church" based on what is true to scripture (well, past "The Gospel" which is evangelicalism-speak for Christian fundamentals) was not emphasized. Becoming a member of a church was not emphasized. But what is emphasized is every new book and musical fad and conference that comes about. And reading yourself into every passage of scripture.

The biggest weakness of the TULIP-only New Calvinism is its serious lack of intellectual coherence. I suspect that much of the "cage stage" many of us are so intimately familiar with is less a product of being a jerk than it is frustration at trying to put the pieces of our theology together. Having the coherent whole of the Reformed faith finally explained to me in a church setting and gaining an understanding of how the pieces fit together really helped me out in explaining my beliefs to others without being absolutely obnoxious to those who'd not heard it before or disagreed with it. And I'd also agree that urging young believers to embrace churchliness in a sound Reformed church is not one of the strengths of the movement.

Also I try to identify YRRs and bring them fully over to the dark side ;-) by explaining the majesty of Reformed theology as a coherent whole. I strongly identify with new converts and kids who grew up Christian and were taught nothing. The problem of the YRR types is not that they're in the wrong pond, it's that the pond they're in is much bigger than they realize. The sovereignty of God, since it's a foundation point for most of this group, is an excellent way to dovetail into Scriptural authority and authenticity, the Regulative principle, and the Decalogue. Since becoming Reformed as opposed to simply being a TULIP, I talk about theology far more to others, but far more excitedly and with application. There's a real beauty in the Reformed faith that can really catch thoughtful folks' attention. It's sometimes tricky trying to explain a maximalist worldview and theology to these guys, but simply being passionate about it without baiting or harping on them seems to open a lot of doors.

I have definite critiques of some of the YRR focus on the big mighty churches, but the fact that I'll be getting elder visitation and am actively shepherded by both my pastor and elder has really intrigued a lot of young evangelicals I know as just an example.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Thanks to Darryl Hart for pointing us to this challenging essay by Dale Coulter, who self identifies as a “Classical Pentecostal” in the holiness tradition. He writes on the official blog of the Regent University School of Divinity. He favors the Edwardsean piety and is highly critical of B. B. Warfield’s critique of cessationism—which he takes as an attack on the piety (or pietism) of the New Side revivalists and particularly Edwards. According to Coulter, the problem only intensified in old Westminster Seminary, which perpetuated the errors of old Princeton. Read more>

Horton Sorts Out Piper, Warren, and the YRR Movement (updated)

Defining Reformed — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress

The Addiction to Religious Euphoria

 

[Cato]

New Calvinism" like anything else is simply the old Calvinism repackaged in a way to attract the young & those that didn't get it the 1st time around.

I prefer to focus my attention on "The Apocatastasis" IE the universal Restoration (see Acts3:21). So I kinda ignore nuances & I refuse to take them seriously.

Remember this, Jesus was not proclaiming the reform of the world; He was proclaiming the end of the world. When you read all of the apocalyptic announcements of Christ, how everything is going to fall apart, we are reading that the world as we know it must & will end, as it eventually always does.

Sadly the ends do not come for many of us until we get sick, confront death or live through the death of loved ones. Then you discover that nothing lasts! Its all passing away.... age old truths that do not occur to the young. It's a morbid recognition, but it is nonetheless an acceptance that everything except God is relative and is passing away.

So as we discuss the Newness of anything, I am reminded of two biblical proclamations & the 1st being Ecclesiastes ....is anything truly new under the sun? And In Matthew 9:17 "Nor do people put new wine into old wineskin's; otherwise, the skins burst, the wine runs out & the skins are lost. NO; they put new wine into fresh skins and both are preserved.

 

[MW]

New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I agree with Rev. Winzer. There is nothing new under the son.

 

[Michael Doyle]

I am trying to talk to some friends in the New Calvinism movement who only wish to discuss what they term reformed doctrines which by and large means nothing more than the doctrines of grace. When trying to explain the greater depth of a reformed church, I can only hope to remain winsome as they are considering changing churches. As a layman and close confidant, how might I irenically explain these things without trouncing them with truth? I have learned to definitely stay out of the Mark Driscoll debates as I am not much good at them.

 

[pesterjon]

New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.

I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?

 

[MW]

New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.

I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?

The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.

 

[Philip]

New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.

I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?

The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.

Are we even talking about the same movement? Turning this into a complementarianism/patriarchy/egalitarianism debate makes an already odd statement even odder, given my interactions with "new Calvinists."

 

[pesterjon]

I would have to say in my interactions with new Calvinists, that they may look to outsiders as if they are driven by "cultural preferences" but much of what they are doing is driven by the doctrines of grace and covenant theology. Perhaps those who I have known are not typical of the movement, but few movements are as homogenous as they appear to outsiders. In the ones I have known, their biggest disparity with "old" Calvinists would be their Grudem-esque openness to charismatic gifts.

I am not trying to reprimand anyone on this thread, just do not recognize the new Calvinists I know in the things I am reading on here.

 

[Theoretical]

New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.

I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?

The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.

Are we even talking about the same movement? Turning this into a complementarianism/patriarchy/egalitarianism debate makes an already odd statement even odder, given my interactions with "new Calvinists."

Rev. Winzer's not talking about masculine/feminine as the gender roles responsibility issues (I think). It seems he's talking about a philosophical concept of gender that's significantly more than that, but that specific aspect is over my head.

 

[MW]

In the ones I have known, their biggest disparity with "old" Calvinists would be their Grudem-esque openness to charismatic gifts.

Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression. As noted, Calvinism stands for order, which means seeing the work of the Holy Spirit as functioning through the ordinances of the Holy Spirit's appointment, otherwise known as the ordinary means of grace.

 

[MW]

New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.

I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?

The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.

Are we even talking about the same movement? Turning this into a complementarianism/patriarchy/egalitarianism debate makes an already odd statement even odder, given my interactions with "new Calvinists."

Rev. Winzer's not talking about masculine/feminine as the gender roles responsibility issues (I think). It seems he's talking about a philosophical concept of gender that's significantly more than that, but that specific aspect is over my head.

That is correct. I am working with the bibical concepts of created gender, not the developmental theory of unisex.

 

[Philip]

That is correct. I am working with the bibical concepts of created gender, not the developmental theory of unisex.

Given that both are created by God, wouldn't it be fair to say that both are needed in the Church?

Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression.

Not necessarily--some have an openness to charismatic gifts because they recognize that the Spirit may work outside certain preconceived notions and church-cultural norms. Let's not be hasty about judging the ground motives here.

 

[au5t1n]

Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression. As noted, Calvinism stands for order, which means seeing the work of the Holy Spirit as functioning through the ordinances of the Holy Spirit's appointment, otherwise known as the ordinary means of grace.

Would this have been any less true in the apostolic church when spiritual gifts were given and encouraged (1 Cor. 14:1)? It seems that by the same criteria we would have to believe Paul guilty of "feminine nurture" for encouraging the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts. It would seem that the fault could only be placed on their exegesis regarding the continuity of the gifts, and not on there being any fault in desiring the gifts IF they were available.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would have to say in my interactions with new Calvinists, that they may look to outsiders as if they are driven by "cultural preferences" but much of what they are doing is driven by the doctrines of grace and covenant theology. Perhaps those who I have known are not typical of the movement, but few movements are as homogenous as they appear to outsiders. In the ones I have known, their biggest disparity with "old" Calvinists would be their Grudem-esque openness to charismatic gifts.

I am not trying to reprimand anyone on this thread, just do not recognize the new Calvinists I know in the things I am reading on here.

Jonathan,

It's interesting that, on another topic, there is a consistent misunderstanding between critiquing the broad contours or dangers of a movement and assuming that every individual involved in a movement is being specifically critiqued or condemned.

We're all, to more or less extent, products of the way we have been brought up to think. Ravi Zacarias speaks well about this and its one of the reasons he likes to make friends of many cultures to see where his thinking is making assumptions that are not shared by all. He speaks of the difficulty he has of even relating to Gospel to rickshaw drivers in India whose thinking is so completely different than those in the West.

I was in an International Church in Okinawa for three years and I remember being perplexed during a pastoral search process. We were down to two candidates and one candidate's credentials and theological knowledge paled in comparison to the other. His interview was likewise weak in comparison. Yet he was 50 and the other was 35. At the time of the vote, the two men from the Phillipines voted for the weaker of the two candidates (at least it was clear in my mind that he was). Why? He was 50. They even said as much.

Now, why do I say all of this?

Because, when you run into a young American who appears diven by the doctrines of grace and covenant theology, it's not like he's going to consciously articulate that he's operating with some modernist assumptions underneath the hood. I like many of these young men. They're passionate and dedicated. There's much to commend. I'm not trying to put them in "black hats" and pretend that all the "white hats" are those that are punctilious in their Reformed orthodoxy. We're all broken vessels.

My larger concern is what modernist thinking does with Scripture. I don't think I yet fully appreciate how foreign the way I think is to the past. I don't think the way I look at the world around me even remotely resembles the way a first century man did.

You can see the fingerprints of what I'm talking about even throughout this thread. It's a general sense that history of a thing is not important but what's important is how we interpret the broad outlines today and apply the kernels of what we find relevant and throw off the husks of what we find irrelevant. The more I study the developments in Western thought, the more I see the fingers of post-modern thinking as the past is irrelevant to how we think in the light of where we are today.

Again, it's not as if people sit down and map this all out and think "I'm deliberately thinking this way" but they just think that's the way that everybody in the past thought. Thus, using my reason, I'll take a bit of CT here, a bit of Pneumatology from there, and a bit of Ecclesiology from there because we all think the same way.

 

[pesterjon]

Semper Fi (from an active duty Army soldier, no less)-
I appreciate what you are saying. Totally agree with the lack of appreciation or commitment to history, let alone confessions, in our contemporary setting. What I find hard to believe is the notion that reformation is ever over. Perhaps someone could comment on this aspect of Reformed theology, that we are not simply satisfied with the complete New Testament and yet we arbitrarily land (in my case) at 1689.

Do you think there is ever a warrant at any level to contextualize the Reformed faith in a given cultural setting? We always got missionary prayer cards at Reformed Baptist church and they would wear dress shirt and tie in Majority World settings, as opposed to other missionaries who dress like the natives. Is contextualization automatically confessional compromise? That is very difficult for me to understand, but I am open to your comments.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Jon,

I think we need to distinguish between understanding the Truth once for all delivered to the Saints and reforming our minds to think in Biblical terms as opposed to ever reforming the Truth once for all delivered to the Saints.

In other words, when people tend to think about Semper Reformanda, they tend to think of the term as meaning that we need to constantly have an open ended theology that keeps changing/evolving. I've seen a pretty steady stream of people who have new ideas, they're challenged that this is not what the Church has confessed that the Scriptures teach and the response is "...whatever happened to Semper Reformanda?" In other words, the implicit assumption is "that was then, this is now." Again, modernist presuppositions drive even how we understand the past.

I obviously don't want to repristinate the past as if everything that the Church confesses as a standard exposition of the Scriptures doesn't ever need to be challenged. The issue is whether or not it was even possible for men in the past to have apprehend what the faith once for all delivered to the Saints is, and whether it is the Church's or the individual's responsibility alone to Confess the Scriptures. The same people that will criticize a Confession (which is simply a who Church historically saying: "This is what we believe the Scriptures teach") have no problem telling you "in my mind, this is what it's all about...."

The question for every culture is this: How do we bring that faith once for all delivered to the Saints into that culture? How do we transform the culture and transform assumptions that are shaped by it? I'm not talking about "How do I make liberals love the Republican party or American foreign policy" but: How am I going to continue to be reformed by the Scriptures and brought back to the bedrock of Truth? How is the Church going to remain grounded in that bedrock? After all, when we've been there 10,000 years bright shining as the sun, do you think we'll be continuing to evolve doctrines or will we, rather, finally see clearly that which we had not fully Reformed while we saw through a glass darkly?

I can't find the quote but it is rumored that Mike Horton once noted why we keep going back to the time of the Reformation to get our bearings. If you've ever lost your keys, where is the first place you go to look? Where you last left them. The men at the time of the Reformation were not perfect but it was a time, by the grace of God, when the Church had recaptured the keys. We can't transport ourselves back into that time and forget where we live today but it is clear that the Church has lost her keys to a large extent and it's useful to go look at the place where we last left them so we can get our bearings in the place we find ourselves today.

 

[pesterjon]

Yes, that is a helpful articulation and in line with my thinking. What I do not understand is when some Reformed people seem to discard other Reformed people, on other than confessional grounds. Am I the only one that feels like I have seen or experienced this?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No, Jon, you're not. Possession of the oracles of God should not be a source of pride but it's not an indictment of the Word of God that men are sinners.

I've noted in other threads that many could do better than to obsess too much about where others' ministries are going astray. Blogging about the evils of others' ministries and following their every move seems to me to be a waste of time. I'm concerned about general trends and so my labors take me in directions where I'm busy in folks' lives. I will probably never have a big impact on the world but I'm gratified to have seen the fruit in a few lives that I've affected over the years.

Now, that said, I think we could all do well (myself included) to be able to discuss trends and movements in broad terms and what might be driving certain concerns without making the mistake of associating every potential ill with an individual we see that might be involved in a particular movement.

I've been involved in Worldview studies for the past year and it suddenly dawned on me why some Reformed can become pretty consistently obnoxious about how they characterize the actions of political opponents. When you study philosophy and start to get underneath some of the assumptions that undergird modern thinking, it can really make you start to be horrified about what the basic underlying assumption is to some political and economic activities that are pretty commonplace today (both in conservative and liberal thinking). The problem is that one really needs to step back and realize that most people haven't thought it through that much and so to make every person that acts in a certain way culpable in willful and wanton sin is to ignore the fact that most people are completely oblivious to the contradictory ideas they hold together in a stasis.

In other words, if we keep in perspective that we all once walked in the futility of our thinking and that we are to be transformed daily by the renewing of our minds then we might be a little more patient with others who are reforming along with us. I'm preaching to myself here.

 

[Philip]

You can see the fingerprints of what I'm talking about even throughout this thread. It's a general sense that history of a thing is not important but what's important is how we interpret the broad outlines today and apply the kernels of what we find relevant and throw off the husks of what we find irrelevant. The more I study the developments in Western thought, the more I see the fingers of post-modern thinking as the past is irrelevant to how we think in the light of where we are today.

I can see your concern here, but I think that New Calvinism is, if anything, the start of a movement in the right direction. The more I see of the movement, the more I see people moving in a more (not less) consistently reformed direction: going back to actually read and study the Puritans. The resurgence of Puritan scholarship that we are seeing today is largely driven by the energy of New Calvinists who are suddenly interested in John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.

I think there are things to critique in this movement, but it's largely positive and if they would formulate a confession, it might actually stick. Only time (and the Spirit) will tell.

 

[pesterjon]

I agree they will need to become a confessional people to last. My question would be whether "old" Calvinists can deal with a confessional people whose confession happens to be several hundred years younger.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I agree they will need to become a confessional people to last. My question would be whether "old" Calvinists can deal with a confessional people whose confession happens to be several hundred years younger.

I would desire to know what confession happens to be several hundred years younger that is on the same par as the Confessional Standard ones put together in the 16th and 17th centuries? I am familiar with a few Baptist Confessions but they also have roots in the LBCF or deviate from it in small ways.

Just questioning so I can understand your point better.