"new" calvinism

[pesterjon]

It has not been written yet to my knowledge. I am questioning how Reformed peoples would react to a new confession if it was solid, i.e. a theoretical situation where a brand-new strong confession was developed.

I would like to throw another question onto this thread: what is the very bare minimum for someone to claim the label Reformed without being illegitimate? Obviously there are different answers out there, but it is laughable to me when dispensationalists refer to themselves as Reformed.

 

[Herald]

Here are the questions I pose to those Reformed Christians who are willing to consider a new confession.

1. What are the inaccuracies or deficiencies of the confession you currently subscribe to?

2. Why do you believe a new confession is needed?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Why was the 2nd Helvetic Confession not sufficient enough for the folk who wrote the Belgic Confession ?

 

[pesterjon]

In the face of a newly formulated confession which meets the requirements of orthodox Christianity, Reformed people would be left to duke it out over whether the Protestant Reformation is the be-all, end-all of what it means to be theologically correct.

I doubt we can truly claim the heritage of our forebears if we are entirely close-minded to the idea that there could ever theoretically be a new and valid confessional articulation of orthodox Christianity.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Jon,

I don't doubt that a Church can continue to confess what the Scriptures teach. It's not a matter of being close-minded to the idea of a Church confessing a standard exposition of the Word of God but I would have a problem with an individual or individuals, apart from the institution of Christ's commission (Eph 4:11-13), assuming that authority.

In a real sense, the continued receiving of the Confessions by Churches is a form of modern Confession. Every generation has to declare "This we believe" and the Confession of the WCF by Churches of this era is a form of modern confession.

 

[pesterjon]

Yes, and I am certainly not challenging that. I will be interested if any of the New Calvinist churches formulate a biblically faithful confession in the coming years, and to see whether they are welcomed or ripped to shreds by Reformed people.

 

[Herald]

In the face of a newly formulated confession which meets the requirements of orthodox Christianity, Reformed people would be left to duke it out over whether the Protestant Reformation is the be-all, end-all of what it means to be theologically correct.

I doubt we can truly claim the heritage of our forebears if we are entirely close-minded to the idea that there could ever theoretically be a new and valid confessional articulation of orthodox Christianity.

And hence my question as to what is wrong with the current confessions; the WCF for Presbyterians and the 1689 LBC for Baptists. I'm not saying that there is no valid reason for a modern confession. I'm asking what that reason is. Where do the mainstay confessions fall short?

 

[MW]

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?

Both in their assigned place; not a mixture of the two. Authority and order are the marks of manhood. The church requires masculine leadership, not pandering sensitivity to counter-cultural preferences.

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.

"Openness" is "recognising." You have simply described the phenomenon as a cause of itself. The question is, given the "Calvinist" name, why do they "recognise" this? And the reason has nothing to do with "Calvinism," but with their cultural commitment to self-expression. As far as Calvinism is concerned, they should recognise the ordinary means of grace and strive together for the faith of the gospel with their Calvinist brethren.

 

[MW]

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.

Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 12-14, following on from the clear distinction of the sexes in chapter 11, calls upon the Corinthians to start acting like men and speak the message of Christianity with clarity, to show true leadership by seeking after the gifts which which will benefit the body rather than themselves, to prepare for responsible service by exemplifying charity, to engage in masculine leadership that has put away childish toys and games, and to be regulated by "commandment" and "order." The apostle's teaching is contrary to the idea of charismatic freedom at every level.

 

[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.

Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 12-14, following on from the clear distinction of the sexes in chapter 11, calls upon the Corinthians to start acting like men and speak the message of Christianity with clarity, to show true leadership by seeking after the gifts which which will benefit the body rather than themselves, to prepare for responsible service by exemplifying charity, to engage in masculine leadership that has put away childish toys and games, and to be regulated by "commandment" and "order." The apostle's teaching is contrary to the idea of charismatic freedom at every level.

Contrary to "charismatic freedom," sure, but not contrary to desiring spiritual gifts in order to edify the Church. Thus it seems to me the real problem is exegetical and not one of motive--at least not for everyone involved.

 

[MW]

Contrary to "charismatic freedom," sure, but not contrary to desiring spiritual gifts in order to edify the Church. Thus it seems to me the real problem is exegetical and not one of motive--at least not for everyone involved.

When it happens that the specific gifts which are desired are those lesser gifts which "free" the individual to express his spirituality, it is clear that the apostle's instructions are not the motivating reason. Further, sanctification is integral to exegesis. People choose one exegetical paradigm over another because of the values that drive them. No person simply reads the Bible and understands its message; cultural influences play a major part in the process.

 

[pesterjon]

I am not certain that one's confession must be written during the Protestant Reformation for it to be a worthy biblical and orthodox confession. Obviously there are plenty who would disagree with me, but I do not think it will be their litmus test that will ultimately determine the depth or longevity of "New Calvinism." i will follow this movement with interest in the coming years. I can't help but wonder if the main reason for some of the negative reaction is simply that they are gaining a traction some of the old school Calvinists have not been able to muster.

 

[au5t1n]

I guess I can't argue with that. I will just say I know continuationists who hold that position because they came to the conclusion exegetically, in spite of the fact that they are not inclined toward those particular gifts and have an intense hatred for the fruit of the charismatic movement.

 

[MW]

I can't help but wonder if the main reason for some of the negative reaction is simply that they are gaining a traction some of the old school Calvinists have not been able to muster.

I am thankful whenever and wherever Christ is preached and souls are brought into the kingdom of Christ. But what is being mustered is a whirlwind. I do not envy the men who have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind. They are the ones who will be burdened with the responsibility of living with and sorting out the consequences of a juvenile spirituality.

The protestant reformed confessions are the mature fruits of centuries of biblical Christianity. I have no desire to see the pure wheat replaced by hybrids which cannot multiply beyond their generation.

 

[pesterjon]

Joshua,
The fruit of the "New Calvinist" movement will be seen in time, whether it becomes a confessional movement or not. I am not assuming motives on either side.

armorbearer,
Why forsake what is established? I appreciate your point. Could you elaborate more specifically on the "whirlwind" so I can understand what you are saying? My prayer is that the "mature fruits" of the confessions will not be the final word of Christian faith, that there will continue to be faithful confessional articulations in centuries to come as appropriate.

 

[MW]

Joshua,
The fruit of the "New Calvinist" movement will be seen in time, whether it becomes a confessional movement or not. I am not assuming motives on either side.

armorbearer,
Why forsake what is established? I appreciate your point. Could you elaborate more specifically on the "whirlwind" so I can understand what you are saying? My prayer is that the "mature fruits" of the confessions will not be the final word of Christian faith, that there will continue to be faithful confessional articulations in centuries to come as appropriate.

The fruits are already being displayed. Suspending judgment only allows them to increase unhindered.

The whirlwind is "me-Christianity." Under the name of Calvinism it becomes "my Sovereign God." The preaching is there for all to judge. Experiential Calvinism is one thing; pathological Calvinism is quite different -- a subjective crisis experience centred around a selfish view of life in which God validates the significance of the individual.

Faithful confessional articulations contain truth for all time, not truth for our time.

 

[Theoretical]

I can't help but wonder if the main reason for some of the negative reaction is simply that they are gaining a traction some of the old school Calvinists have not been able to muster.

I am thankful whenever and wherever Christ is preached and souls are brought into the kingdom of Christ. But what is being mustered is a whirlwind. I do not envy the men who have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind. They are the ones who will be burdened with the responsibility of living with and sorting out the consequences of a juvenile spirituality.

The protestant reformed confessions are the mature fruits of centuries of biblical Christianity. I have no desire to see the pure wheat replaced by hybrids which cannot multiply beyond their generation.

Being entirely self-taught theologically until 4 years ago, I vividly appreciate the Church and Confessions for laying a coherent foundation for my faith. Ideas have consequnces, and the Reformed Confessional ones penetrate wide and deep through one's life and thought. For the enthusiastic young Reformed types (of varying degrees), I try to show them the beauty and coherence of the Reformed faith, especially praising the Puritans' depth and doctrinal richness.

Especially in a post-Christian era where increasing numbers of believers have little-to-no training, the last thing we need is a minimalist creed. Given how adoctrinal and pragmatic so many churches are nowadays, the principled, maximalist faith the Reformed and Presbyterians confess is a position of strength to the weary, skeptical, and wounded-by-church individuals.

 

[Philip]

Both in their assigned place; not a mixture of the two. Authority and order are the marks of manhood. The church requires masculine leadership, not pandering sensitivity to counter-cultural preferences.

Is it any less masculine to be sensitive to certain views that aren't necessarily in conflict with Scripture?

Also, what exactly do you mean by "counter-cultural" here?

The question is, given the "Calvinist" name, why do they "recognise" this? And the reason has nothing to do with "Calvinism," but with their cultural commitment to self-expression.

Not necessarily. I think the movement as a whole is much more nuanced than you are maintaining. I think that there's room for debate over the gifts within Calvinism, especially post-Edwards. You're forgetting that even historically Calvinism has had certain more mystical adherents (John Donne, George Herbert).

Self-expression is well and good in the proper context, and I agree that worship needs to be decent orderly (in a culturally appropriate manner). I am not prepared, though, to say that all self-expression within the body needs to be repressed. Historically, that just hasn't been the case.

 

[MW]

Is it any less masculine to be sensitive to certain views that aren't necessarily in conflict with Scripture?

Also, what exactly do you mean by "counter-cultural" here?

It is less than masculine to fail to take charge and to responsibly lead others. Things tolerated which are not necessarily in conflict with Scripture usually end up conflicting with Scripture because they were never brought into obedience to Christ.

Counter-culture is the culture of disrespect to social institutions which the modern evangelical church has been heavily influenced by and never repented of.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. Anyone who has been taught the reformed system as it is contained in a reformation catechism knows very well that Word and Spirit are wed together in theology and experience to such an extent that it allows for no third party in the union. Claims to the contrary expose basic ignorance of the reformed system.

 

[pesterjon]

Joshua,
The fruit of the "New Calvinist" movement will be seen in time, whether it becomes a confessional movement or not. I am not assuming motives on either side.

armorbearer,
Why forsake what is established? I appreciate your point. Could you elaborate more specifically on the "whirlwind" so I can understand what you are saying? My prayer is that the "mature fruits" of the confessions will not be the final word of Christian faith, that there will continue to be faithful confessional articulations in centuries to come as appropriate.

The fruits are already being displayed. Suspending judgment only allows them to increase unhindered.

The whirlwind is "me-Christianity." Under the name of Calvinism it becomes "my Sovereign God." The preaching is there for all to judge. Experiential Calvinism is one thing; pathological Calvinism is quite different -- a subjective crisis experience centred around a selfish view of life in which God validates the significance of the individual.

Faithful confessional articulations contain truth for all time, not truth for our time.

OK, clearly I just need to listen so I know who you are talking about. Can you give some sermon examples or teacher names, or send me a PM and I will take some time to listen?

---------- Post added at 06:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 AM ----------

I am not assuming motives on either side.

Then, respectfully, the negative thoughts about "old school Calvinists" you [can't help but wonder], ought not to be expressed publicly, because it sure seems like an assumption of motive, in that it casts doubt on the purity of their motive(s).

I stand corrected. It is not right to cast doubt on motives. This courtesy should also be extended to "new" Calvinists.

 

[Philip]

It is less than masculine to fail to take charge and to responsibly lead others. Things tolerated which are not necessarily in conflict with Scripture usually end up conflicting with Scripture because they were never brought into obedience to Christ.

True Godly leadership is about serving those led, not about controlling or reshaping to fit your vision.

I suppose I need to ask what exactly you mean by "self-expression" just so we're clear.

Yes, necessarily. Anyone who has been taught the reformed system as it is contained in a reformation catechism knows very well that Word and Spirit are wed together in theology and experience to such an extent that it allows for no third party in the union. Claims to the contrary expose basic ignorance of the reformed system.

My point (meandering as it was) is that "new" Calvinism's emphasis on gifts and experience is not new in Calvinistic thinking. We may not agree with said emphasis, we may debate it, but we may not claim that it is outside the bounds of the reformed tradition because historically that just isn't the case.

I don't doubt the motives of those brothers in the new Calvinist movement and their commitment to being biblically faithful any more than I doubt that of those on this board.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

There's a lot in this thread that points in that very direction, Josh. Jon does have a point there.....

 

[MW]

True Godly leadership is about serving those led, not about controlling or reshaping to fit your vision.

Godly leadership requires being faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. The service performed to men's souls is in leading them to be reconciled to God and followers of God.

I suppose I need to ask what exactly you mean by "self-expression" just so we're clear.

Self-expression teaches that the test of any genuine experience is to be found in whether the true self is being expressed. It traces back to the selfish theory of motive which became a driving philosophical force in the 19th century. Jesus taught the denial and the losing of self.

but we may not claim that it is outside the bounds of the reformed tradition because historically that just isn't the case.

There is no precedent in the reformed tradition for the openness position. You mention the name of Jonathan Edwards, but Edwards was one of the first to refer the cessation of 1 Cor. 13:8 to the post-apostolic period. I think you would do well to study the reformed tradition before making comments concerning it.

 

[Philip]

Godly leadership requires being faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. The service performed to men's souls is in leading them to be reconciled to God and followers of God.

I would simply qualify this by saying that leadership involves being stewards of the mysteries of God as He is rather than as we see him.

Self-expression teaches that the test of any genuine experience is to be found in whether the true self is being expressed.

What exactly do you mean by the "true self"? The old man or the new (to use Paul's term)?

 

[MW]

Godly leadership requires being faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. The service performed to men's souls is in leading them to be reconciled to God and followers of God.

I would simply qualify this by saying that leadership involves being stewards of the mysteries of God as He is rather than as we see him.

This qualification does not sound like it comes from leadership experience. A person can only lead with what he has, not what he does not have. Besides, theologically, no reformed leader would claim to know God as He is. But this is all beside the point. Masculine leadership requires taking charge. The point is not contradicted even when the statement is qualified.

What exactly do you mean by the "true self"? The old man or the new (to use Paul's term)?

This is a ridiculous question. Of course the self to be denied and lost is the "old man."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Well, to respond to OP:

They can call themselves Calvinists all they want, but they are not reformed. Being reformed means you actually hold to confession of the reformation.

 

[Montanablue]

Well, to respond to OP:

They can call themselves Calvinists all they want, but they are not reformed. Being reformed means you actually hold to confession of the reformation.

To be fair to them (I know quite a few "new Calvinists," I don't think many would claim to be reformed - although many are interested in it.

As I see it, "new calvinists" are generally people who hold to the doctrines of grace but do not adhere to a confession. (This is my experience with people I know, and may not be true across the board). I was a "new calvinist" at one time, and it eventually led me to explore reformed thought, and now I am reformed. So, I think its important to be charitable to these individuals. They generally don't seem to be adverse to the confessions, they just haven't been exposed to them or haven't had the time to figure out exactly what a confession is. Being reformed is, I think, counter to so much of what evangelicals have been taught that I think an adjustment period of period of exploration is natural.

 

[MW]

As I see it, "new calvinists" are generally people who hold to the doctrines of grace but do not adhere to a confession. (This is my experience with people I know, and may not be true across the board). I was a "new calvinist" at one time, and it eventually led me to explore reformed thought, and now I am reformed. So, I think its important to be charitable to these individuals. They generally don't seem to be adverse to the confessions, they just haven't been exposed to them or haven't had the time to figure out exactly what a confession is. Being reformed is, I think, counter to so much of what evangelicals have been taught that I think an adjustment period of period of exploration is natural.

Quite right. This would apply to new Calvinists, that is, people who are new to Calvinism and are exploring the Calvinist heritage. "New Calvinists," however, are not new to Calvinism, but people who have come into contact with the Calvinist heritage and rejected it, theologically and practically. They are teachers or adherents who are self-consciously rejecting old paths and are mapping out new paths which they consider to be more culturally relevant. As such, they should not be afforded the charity of a seeker but the warning relevant to a divisive person.

 

[Kiffin]

[are mapping out new paths which they consider to be more culturally relevant.

examples?

 

[Philip]

Masculine leadership requires taking charge.

But first and foremost it requires a humble Christlike attitude. Condemning the world, but not being blunt or overly harsh with the brothers. The new Calvinists have, for the most part, been sincerely seeking God's truth, not being the feminist pansies you want to make them out to be.

This is a ridiculous question. Of course the self to be denied and lost is the "old man."

In this case, then, is the new man not yourself? Self-denial is a means to sanctification, the conforming of the self to the image of Christ. Whenever it does not serve that purpose (monastic orders come to mind) it is a form of self-worship.

Our attitude is to be "Seek first the kingdom and all these things will be added to you" not the Buddhist "Seek the kingdom and you will need none of these things."

Quite right. This would apply to new Calvinists, that is, people who are new to Calvinism and are exploring the Calvinist heritage. "New Calvinists," however, are not new to Calvinism, but people who have come into contact with the Calvinist heritage and rejected it, theologically and practically. They are teachers or adherents who are self-consciously rejecting old paths and are mapping out new paths which they consider to be more culturally relevant. As such, they should not be afforded the charity of a seeker but the warning relevant to a divisive person.

Who exactly are you referring to? You seem to have particular individuals in mind, so why not name them?