Calvinistic But Not Reformed

[eqdj]

Wondering if you all have read Dr. Bradley's blog post today and if so, your thoughts -

Calvinistic But Not Reformed
There are lots of Anglican, Presbyterian and "Reformed" types (both mainline and conservative) who do not have a Reformed worldview--the kind you read about in Al Wolter's book Creation Regained, William Edgar's book Truth in All It's Glory, and Henry Van Til's book The Calvinist Concept of Culture.

There are many folks with Calvinist views of sin and salvation (T.U.L.I.P--God-sin-Christ-faith) but are void of a Reformed view of creation and culture (creation-fall-redemption-consumation)--Keller article. It was a huge "aha moment" that explains a lot. The confessional, doctrinalist, and highly pietist old southern denominational tradition with its emphasis on the church as an alternative community and an escape from culture (Dabney, Thornwell, Turretin) may explain why missionally minded Reformed folks do not find a reference point in those circles. So Edgar, Wolters, and Van Til don't even mention these guys. I wonder why that is? You're just not going to get creation-fall-redemption-restoration from Thornwell, Danbey, Edwards, and the other pietists some are beginning to argue. Does this sound right?​

 

[Dearly Bought]

He equates "Reformed" with a neo-Calvinist "transformationalist" worldview. It was rather irritating for me to read. Turretin was part of a "confessional, doctrinalist, and highly pietist old southern denominational tradition with its emphasis on the church as an alternative community and an escape from culture"?

For me, this demonstrates the down side of blogging. I would be really disappointed to find that one of my seminary professors had published such a rant.*





*When I finish my M.Div, Lord willing.

 

[Jon Lake]

Just at a glance, I can see making a case for someone reformed not being a Calvinist, HOWEVER, how you can call yourself Calvinist but NOT reformed boggles my mind. How would you make that "work"?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Just at a glance, I can see making a case for someone reformed not being a Calvinist, HOWEVER, how you can call yourself Calvinist but NOT reformed boggles my mind. How would you make that "work"?

My mother is a Calvanist dispensationalist much like MacArthur

 

[Herald]

Just at a glance, I can see making a case for someone reformed not being a Calvinist, HOWEVER, how you can call yourself Calvinist but NOT reformed boggles my mind. How would you make that "work"?

Easy. Here on the PB many TR's don't consider Calvinistic Baptists to be Reformed.

 

[Jon Lake]

Just at a glance, I can see making a case for someone reformed not being a Calvinist, HOWEVER, how you can call yourself Calvinist but NOT reformed boggles my mind. How would you make that "work"?

Easy. Here on the PB many TR's don't consider Calvinistic Baptists to be Reformed.

Understood, but I was speaking in a VERY general sense, (so forgive me if I was not clear), I mean, I "get" the idea of some Anglicans/Baptists/and others as being reformed and "tying" themselves more with a less "strict" understanding of the English Reformers as opposed to the more cut and dried definitions of Geneva/Calvin.

 

[eqdj]

FYI - Anthony Bradley was inspired to write his post after reading the linked article written by Tim Keller:

If I had to put this outline (the gospel) in a single statement, I might do it like this: Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.

One of these elements was at the heart of the older gospel messages, namely, salvation is by grace not works. It was the last element that was usually missing, namely that grace restores nature, as the Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck put it. When the third, "eschatological" element is left out, Christians get the impression that nothing much about this world matters. Theoretically, grasping the full outline should make Christians interested in both evangelistic conversions as well as service to our neighbor and working for peace and justice in the world.

Are you all saying you disagree with Kuyper, Bavinck, and Keller, or was it something about the way Bradley worded his post?

 

[TimV]

Theoretically, grasping the full outline should make Christians interested in both evangelistic conversions as well as service to our neighbor and working for peace and justice in the world.

One of the things that makes me nervous is what Keller's definition of justice is.

 

[Dearly Bought]

FYI - Anthony Bradley was inspired to write his post after reading the linked article written by Tim Keller:

If I had to put this outline (the gospel) in a single statement, I might do it like this: Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.

One of these elements was at the heart of the older gospel messages, namely, salvation is by grace not works. It was the last element that was usually missing, namely that grace restores nature, as the Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck put it. When the third, "eschatological" element is left out, Christians get the impression that nothing much about this world matters. Theoretically, grasping the full outline should make Christians interested in both evangelistic conversions as well as service to our neighbor and working for peace and justice in the world.

Are you all saying you disagree with Kuyper, Bavinck, and Keller, or was it something about the way Bradley worded his post?

I'm still reading and working out how this whole Christ and culture thing works, but I don't find transformationalism particularly appealing. Maybe I read too much Hauerwas in college (and too much D.G. Hart/Michael Horton recently), but I think the church is the place where culture is transformed. Keller provides an interesting outline but fails to mention two key elements: how and when is creation restored?

As I mentioned above, I also have a strong distaste for Bradley's analysis. For instance, William Edgar does mention Turretin (pg. 75) and refers to both Dabney and Thornwell for further reading (pgs. 275-276)!

 

[TsonMariytho]

Just at a glance, I can see making a case for someone reformed not being a Calvinist, HOWEVER, how you can call yourself Calvinist but NOT reformed boggles my mind. How would you make that "work"?

My mother is a Calvanist dispensationalist much like MacArthur

A good friend of mine, an older man whom I much respect, is non-Calvinistic, a theonomist and strongly anti-dispensational. I think he's a very rare breed.

 

[Archlute]

Among the Reformed congregations with which I am familiar that have embraced a transformationalist view, too many of them have been transformed by the culture, rather than having transformed it.

 

[turmeric]

It sounds like a zippy new formulation of post-millennialism. I read Wolters and liked it, but until the parousia, I really believe, as do most Amillennialists, that transformation of culture will be very limited at best, and will most likely occur through proclamation of the Gospel. I think Amillennialists are Reformed.

 

[Pilgrim]

Among the Reformed congregations with which I am familiar that have embraced a transformationalist view, too many of them have been transformed by the culture, rather than having transformed it.

All too often this is what happens. No clearer example can be found than the evangelicals that founded Christianity Today, Fuller Seminary, etc., many of whom were strongly influenced (at least early on) by Reformed theology. Godfrey's Myth Of Influence is a good article on this phenomenon.

-----Added 12/12/2008 at 12:38:33 EST-----

FYI - Anthony Bradley was inspired to write his post after reading the linked article written by Tim Keller:

If I had to put this outline (the gospel) in a single statement, I might do it like this: Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.

One of these elements was at the heart of the older gospel messages, namely, salvation is by grace not works. It was the last element that was usually missing, namely that grace restores nature, as the Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck put it. When the third, "eschatological" element is left out, Christians get the impression that nothing much about this world matters. Theoretically, grasping the full outline should make Christians interested in both evangelistic conversions as well as service to our neighbor and working for peace and justice in the world.

Are you all saying you disagree with Kuyper, Bavinck, and Keller, or was it something about the way Bradley worded his post?

There are a lot of Presbyterian and Reformed (not to mention various Baptists) who will strongly disagree with Kuyper, etc. And many would not consider Keller to be an exemplar of what it means to be Reformed. At one time this thread would have been the cause for vigorous debate, to put it mildly. Maybe some of us are maturing or simply got up on the right side of the bed today! (Since I'm not a Presbyterian anyore I don't have nearly as much invested in this topic as I once had.)

It would be helpful to study the difference between Old School and New School Presbyterians. This was a division that arose in the mid 1800's and split the Presbyterian church for a time but in a lot of ways these perspectives are still with us today. It explains to some extent why the OPC and PCA never managed to merge and explains the differences (and in some cases the reason for being founded in the first place) between seminaries like Greenville, WTS (Philly), RTS-Orlando, Covenant, WSCAL, etc. The White Horse Inn and the Modern Reformation magazine represent a view that is skeptical of Kuyperianism to say the least.

[Insert post by Dr. R. Scott Clark criticizing "transformationalism" here.] Followed by a post by "Ivanhoe," Bret McAtee (if he is a member of the board) or Chris Rhoades on radical 2 kingdom "gnosticism."

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Keller (in dealing with religious people and "post-moderns") uses the law to convict of sin (he attacks the idolatry of the post-moderns) so I don't think he's too far off. I do believe he is a little too worried about what works better with this group or that group. The fact is (whether they say it or not) post-modern kids know that lying, fornication, stealing etc is sin just as much as anyone else. They may ignore their conscience but they are not ignorant and are therefore responsible. 40 to 50 something year olds need to give up on the idea that 20s and 30 somethings need something different from preaching than previous generations. God's word will NOT return void no matter what their age, sex, or education.