"I'm a Calvinist" documentary

Status
Not open for further replies.
mgkortus said:
That said, I would still hesitate to characterize everyone in the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" camp as focusing on a handful of celebrity personalities. This may be true for many, but I doubt it is true for all.
Click to expand...

I was of course making a generalization of the movement ― not "all" or "everyone" in it.
 
I had a short exchange with Mr. Lanphere on Facebook.

I asked, "Les, are you redefining Calvinism to mean the doctrines of grace? Or are you sticking with a Calvinist as someone who actually holds to Calvin's Institutes? If the former, then that would be misleading. If the latter, then why interview Baptist teachers who don't hold to the Institutes or Calvin's view of the sacraments?"


Les said, "The former is the more commonly understood definition. The film will, however, encourage "5 pointers" to become confessionally reformed. Don't let your desire to keep a word pure lead to undermining reformation."


I said, "Not at all, the more people that come to understand the doctrines of grace, the better. Amen to that. BUT - Our problem today in the church is our lack of understanding biblical concepts and doctrine, and of a lack of precision, as well as a lack of historical theology. The Reformers and Puritans were Precisionists. Words and ideas mean certain things. The former is not the more commonly used definition. That is a reinvention today. A "Calvinist" was someone, is someone, who holds to Calvin's Institutes. It was especially used (initially) of Calvin's view of the sacraments. Don't be part of the problem - be part of the solution to be more theologically precise, instead of part of the temperance movement. So you "say" that you want to show people what Calvinism really is, and why so many people are Calvinists, why not make an actual documentary film that portrays that instead of being part of the redefinition and watering down of the concepts? I would imagine most, if not all of those people in the video could not explain Calvin's view of the Lord's supper - the initial point of being called a "Calvinist.""


His response, which saddened me, is a typical "temperance movement" response, "Well, to be frank, this film will be using the term in the way you don't like. And will be encouraging folks to keep reforming."

The thread is here. I responded again, but I don't see any revisions happening anytime soon.

As a clarification, Jochaim Westphal was the first theologian to use the term "Calvinist" in history. He was a Lutheran theologian that debated Calvin on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. A Calvinist, initially, was one who held to Calvin's view of the supper. That would exclude the Lutherans, and the Zwinglians (the general Baptist view). Not long after, Calvinist was used by the Lutherans to refer to Calvin's "bunch" at Geneva, and those who followed, specifically, his Institutes. There are a lot of theological ideas in the Institutes. A Calvinist was one who agreed with Calvin's Institutes, which would have included, among other things, sacraments, government, the Law of God, etc.

Isn't the point of a documentary to document the facts?
 
Matthew,

Is it your contention that if someone doesn't follow Calvin in every point of doctrine and practice, they should not be regarded as Calvinists?

What about exclusive psalmody or unaccompanied congregational singing? Do you forfeit any claim to being a Calvinist if you employ a piano in worship or sing uninspired hymns?

My question is sincere. I desire to understand how you believe the label should be applied.
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
Matthew,

Is it your contention that if someone doesn't follow Calvin in every point of doctrine and practice, they should not be regarded as Calvinists?

What about exclusive psalmody or unaccompanied congregational singing? Do you forfeit any claim to being a Calvinist if you employ a piano in worship or sing uninspired hymns?

My question is sincere. I desire to understand how you believe the label should be applied.
Click to expand...

Pastor,

The label is really born in history. Westphal was very particular in using the term when he wrote as a Lutheran against Calvin's view of the sacrament. After some time, those who held to the Institutes in Geneva, as a whole, were labeled by the Lutherans as Calvinists. After that, those who received Calvin's Institutes and its teaching both in the Swiss Cantons and in France were "Calvinists." The label stuck, but it was primarily, first, an issue on the sacramentology of Calvin.

Maybe a better question to ask is what part, book, chapter, etc. of the Institutes could be jettisoned and still keep the label? Could we throw out the Regulative Principle? I don't think so. Calvin was pretty adamant about a number of doctrines that he further expounded on (and wrote subsequent volumes on). Worship - that was huge for him because it was part of what defined the true church - which would also include church discipline. The Law of God, another big one. Knowledge of the Creator. Sacraments. Definitely the doctrines of grace - all of them. He expounded in book 1 on a number of issues surrounding God, man, depravity, knowledge, etc. Christ the Redeemer. Faith. The holy Spirit.Obviously the list is pretty big. I think on all those major points, we need to stick to them if we want the title.

We could say we "believe in the doctrines of grace" but that doesn't mean we agree with the Institutes. It might even mean we don't agree with Calvin's Calvinism as he argued with Pighius. Or, maybe we are learning about "reformed theology," but that again doesn't mean we believe in Calvin's use of the Regulative Principle, psalmody, organs or anything else he did or didn't do in that way. We could be reforming, but not necessarily Reformed. Why do people have to be dishonest? Why can't we just be honest and say what they are? (I think it is the plight of the church to continue in fueling the temperance movement.) But I think keeping the label as a specific label for a specific purpose, if used in a fair light, will press people to think about doctrine, Christ, and His word. If someone is honest and says "I believe the doctrine of grace, but I'm not a Calvinist," or, "I believe in biblical worship, but I have a praise band and special music, so I'm not Reformed" what should that do to the conscience to think through WHY they don't line up historically that way? Why aren't they Calvinists? Why don't they hold to those theological convictions? I was literally thrown out onto the street from my first tenure as a pastor for being a Calvinist, and teaching on sin. Really, really, I think we need more Christians who say with Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other." The film isn't going to promote that. It's going to be part of the tempered change that is making the importance of historical theology less important. Water it down, water it down, water it down, and when you are left to look at what you have, you have water. Everything else dissolves.

But if we say "Calvinist" means anyone who believes in grace, then the stroke is so long and so wide that the term becomes meaningless. What's the point of the label then? The point of the label means, really, nothing.

Everyone wants Calvin on their side. That is why historical theology is so important, and often neglected.

I would also say that you are on the right track in asking the questions you asked. Think it through, most people would't even consider those questions in relation to Calvinism because they think Calvinism is just about grace, as if Calvin invented that.

Even if the film goes so far to say that Calvinism is confessional, what are they going to place that against? What creed? What confession? What form of church government? What side of the Regulative Principle?
 
God lead me out of the megachurch through hipster, upstart five-pointers in my megachurch. I think God can use a documentary with promise to do the same for others. If I'm wrong, whatever. At least it isn't more new age Hollywood p0rn.
 
C. Matthew McMahon said:
But if we say "Calvinist" means anyone who believes in grace, then the stroke is so long and so wide that the term becomes meaningless. What's the point of the label then? The point of the label means, really, nothing.
Click to expand...

Dr. McMahon,

No doubt you are correct in your assessment of what the term "Calvinist" originally meant. Regardless, the unavoidable truth is that the meaning and definition of words changes and evolves over time, and no amount of appeal to the original meaning will change this. For example, there is a particular word that is common today that originally meant a bundle of sticks. Despite this original meaning, if I were to go a campfire and cry out "Hey everyone, look at the flaming _______", I don't think an appeal to originality would be enough to acquit me of the hate crime that I would surely be charged with. My point is simply that the definition of words changes over time, and the word "Calvinist" no longer means what it originally did, and if we insist on clinging to an outdated meaning, then we become the ones who are using the word improperly, despite our appeals to historical etymology.
 
Bill The Baptist said:
C. Matthew McMahon said:
But if we say "Calvinist" means anyone who believes in grace, then the stroke is so long and so wide that the term becomes meaningless. What's the point of the label then? The point of the label means, really, nothing.
Click to expand...

Dr. McMahon,

No doubt you are correct in your assessment of what the term "Calvinist" originally meant. Regardless, the unavoidable truth is that the meaning and definition of words changes and evolves over time, and no amount of appeal to the original meaning will change this. For example, there is a particular word that is common today that originally meant a bundle of sticks. Despite this original meaning, if I were to go a campfire and cry out "Hey everyone, look at the flaming _______", I don't think an appeal to originality would be enough to acquit me of the hate crime that I would surely be charged with. My point is simply that the definition of words changes over time, and the word "Calvinist" no longer means what it originally did, and if we insist on clinging to an outdated meaning, then we become the ones who are using the word improperly, despite our appeals to historical etymology.
Click to expand...

True to this, though I would add it is our responsibility who hold to the history of true Calvinism "advertise" that there is such thing as subcalvinism when one encounters such.
 
The project is now fully funded, so we will have to wait and see how things turn out. Maybe those that contributed will have a chance to provide feedback on the material as it is submitted to them for review.
 
C. Matthew McMahon said:
Really, really, I think we need more Christians who say with Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other." The film isn't going to promote that. It's going to be part of the tempered change that is making the importance of historical theology less important. Water it down, water it down, water it down, and when you are left to look at what you have, you have water. Everything else dissolves.

But if we say "Calvinist" means anyone who believes in grace, then the stroke is so long and so wide that the term becomes meaningless. What's the point of the label then? The point of the label means, really, nothing.

Everyone wants Calvin on their side. That is why historical theology is so important, and often neglected.
Click to expand...
The simple truth is that the word "Calvinist" has taken on a new meaning. I would agree that historically there's more to it than the 5 points, but that's what most people think of when they hear "Calvinism." We can argue about what it means to be truly, historically "Reformed." Are Sacramentology, the Regulative principle, etc. important? Absolutely. I think, however that the real linchpin on Calvinism remains the doctrines of Grace.
Perhaps we shouldn't knock the film until it's actually made.
:2cents:
 
StephenG said:
The simple truth is that the word "Calvinist" has taken on a new meaning.
Click to expand...

Here's my contention, its twofold: 1) once the church allows the door to swing open to change terms and ideas and concepts that have biblical, historical and theological meaning, then you'll be a hypocrite to get mad at other ideas and terms and concepts "taking on new meaning." Like, let's redefine what it means to be "justified." That's what the Federal Vision guys do, and the New Perspective on Paul. Or what about redefining what Witsius meant in the "repetition of the covenant of works" and deal with all the "republication" nonsense being touted. Or how far do we take the temperance movement on the supper? Let's add in grape juice. Why not? What if we don't have grape juice, can we use apple juice and cupcake? Why not? When you open the door, the door is open.

2) Words mean something. Just because many people in the church today have the meaning wrong, doesn't mean we just fold up shop and say, well, let them believe whatever they want to believe about it. Let's survey Reformed Calvinists of the 16th-18th centuries. What would they say "Calvinist" means? Then you have to wonder why it changed. Then you have to wonder why a) someone wants to make a video about Calvinism that doesn't "really" care to know about historic Calvinism, and 2) when they are corrected on it they don't want to change their mind about what they want it to mean. Then you have deal with sub-calvinism, neo-calvinism, new-calvinism,...where do we draw a line? If we adopt the temperance movement's ideas, we don't draw any lines. There are no lines to draw. The word, concept, term or religious observance just continues to take on new meaning depending upon who wants to use it or abuse it. Really, the Arminian believes in grace, but its just not the grace you or I might believe in. Why can't he use the word Calvinist since Calvinism means "the doctrines of grace?" you might say, well, that's taking it a bit too far because the phrase "the doctrines of grace" means something. What? To who? You're going to define what that means? The moment you do, you've just entered into the realm of my point!

And, so, In my humble opinion, that's the point.

Instead of caving into the masses, its the job of the church to keep things defined. Reformed Theology in total doesn't need to be redefined. It just needs to be biblically understood. How about a documentary on THAT?

I don't think we need to wait for the film. Les said "Its not going to mean" what it should mean.

Maybe I can do a video documentary on the video film "I am a Calvinist." I'll call it, "I'm really a Calvinist." But, no one would fund that because its not the popular position today. :think:
 
Last edited:
C. Matthew McMahon said:
Instead of caving into the masses, its the job of the church to keep things defined. Reformed Theology in total doesn't need to be redefined. It just needs to be biblically understood. How about a documentary on THAT?
Click to expand...

The tagline on the Kickstarter page states: "A film seeking to explain Calvinism, celebrate its recent resurgence, and to answer the question, 'What's next?'"
Perhaps it's not as in-depth as we'd like it to be, but it will at least seek to explain Calvinism on a surface level. Perhaps to get people interested. I think Les understands that Calvinism is not just the TULIP.
I'm still excited :cheers: .
 
Taylor Sexton said:
Bill The Baptist said:
You mean like this http://polemicsreport.com/2016/06/29...or-debauchery/
Click to expand...

For all those interested, James White has responded to this article (also the original article on Christian News by "Editor," a.k.a., J.D. Hall). I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here or elsewhere; I am only interested in making sure everyone is represented fairly.

View the response here.
Click to expand...

After considering both sides, I do think that JD Hall was being unfair and not accurately representing the facts. That being said, I'm still not crazy about what they're doing at Apologia Church.
 
Bill The Baptist said:
After considering both sides, I do think that JD Hall was being unfair and not accurately representing the facts. That being said, I'm still not crazy about what they're doing at Apologia Church.
Click to expand...

For sure. Like I said, I am not agreeing/disagreeing with anyone. I just felt that the response given by Dr. White needed to be posted, especially since Hall and White are friends (I think).
 
New trailer for the project now available:


"The trailer is currently set to "unlisted" which means people can't find it through normal searching. So, I'm leaving it to you guys to share it with the world. Post it on your facebook pages and groups, tweet it, email it to grandma. Let's see how many people you can get it in front of!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axjzInqdzBI&feature=youtu.be
Thanks again for your support!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Les"​
 
This movie is going to be really really good. He has worked super hard on it, has Incorporated excellent graphics and visuals, and has presented all the information in a really smooth flow. You will all enjoy I'm sure.
 
For those that signed up and contributed accordingly the new movie is now available for preview before release to the public for sale at: http://leslanphere.com/

Contributors should be getting an email about the matter in the coming days if not by now.
 
I've heard that there's a rebuttal documentary coming out called Nuh-uh.









*tongue-in-cheek*
 
I am a wee bit disappointed by the general approach of the video. It is clearly directed at the YRR crowd. That said, it is a decent introduction to Calvinism that may play well to newcomers to Calvinism.
 
Calvinism as defined has been put through a myriad of life. I know the term was defined later but the situation actually is focused on something that happened at the Synod of Dort. Five Doctrines, teachings, were debated. Theology and doctrine have precise and broad applications. When the Gospel of Christ is preached in an elementary way it is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as defined in 1 Corinthians 15. In its broader sense it includes the life of the believer also, Christ in you the hope of glory. It also includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification in more precise terms and how it is worked out in the believer.

I have no problem with Calvinism being defined by the Five Points debated at the Synod of Dort. It is a narrow definition of Calvinism by historical reference. In the Broader Sense it involves so much more. Even John Piper acknowledges that. And I am no John Piper fan. I really haven't ever been a fan of his. Even when I was a Reformed Baptist. I do appreciate things he has done.
 
Pergamum said:
Who will the profits of the movie go to since the movie was funded by donations?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure; I thought it was a indie publishing project. Les is very active on Facebook and the group Reformed Pub which has heavily promoted this. You might join up and ask or friend him and ask privately.
 
Among Christians in Germany, if you say you are a Calvinist, it is presumed that you are distinguishing your sacramental view from that of Luther on the right and Zwingli on the left.
In the English speaking world, if you say that you are a Calvinist, it is presumed that you are saying you share the same understanding of the doctrines of grace as those set forth in the Canons of Synod of Dordrecht.
It is better to say that you are confessionally reformed to avoid confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

riceman
  • Locked
Playground documentary
Replies
10
Views
2K
riceman
riceman
fivepointcalvinist
  • Locked
Being a Calvinist...
Replies
14
Views
2K
fivepointcalvinist
fivepointcalvinist
Gwallard
"Interesting Documentary".... Deleted?
Replies
20
Views
864
ZackF
ZackF
TylerRay
  • Locked
I'm a Blogger
Replies
2
Views
925
Kurt Steele
K
C. Matthew McMahon
  • Locked
I'm a Stud
Replies
25
Views
4K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
Back
Top