In their own words (disagreeing with the caricature of old Calvinism): "Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture."
"new" calvinism
- Thread starter presbyterianintexas
- Start date
- Status
In their own words (disagreeing with the caricature of old Calvinism): "Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture."
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
I know many individuals who are "new calvinists" (yes, the kind in quotation marks, not just those who are new to calvinism) who do not adhere to your definition. Defining terms seems to be a problem in this discussion. I dislike arguing semantics and I refuse to be drawn into a discussion when there's a fundamental disagreement on terms. It simply leads to talking past each other. (As evidenced by the discussion of "masculine" and "feminine.") So, suffice it to say, that I maintain what I said earlier and while it certainly applies to people who are new to Calvin, it also applies to many "new calvinists." (Although as I said previously, I wouldn't presume to declare that it applies across the board)
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Kathleen, I LOVE your spirit!* While Matthew is doubtless correct that "New Calvinist" teachers are often folks who have considered Reformed teaching and rejected it in favor of a view that is more "relevant" (or whatever), the same is not necessarily true of the average "new Calvinist" follower. My guess is that many of them are poorly taught evangelicals who have just discovered the intoxicating wine of Reformed truth and the sweetness of the Doctrines of Grace. Some of them are very much still in process. If they are given a fair exposure to confessional Christianity, I would be inclined to think that many of them would make the full journey.
* In light of the thread last week about "ugly old men" making young women feel creepy by refusing to be alone with them or eating in a restaurant with them (and thus sexualizing a previously non-sexual environment) . . .
You are so fresh and young (probably younger than most of my kids) that if we ever meet, I would have no trouble eating lunch with you instead of "creeping you out."
Christ's earthly humility was manly, just as Adam's humility required taking dominion. Christ was humble when He reprimanded His disciples and Christ was manly when He washed their feet. It was not a matter of one then another; both were conjoined in His mature spiritual character.
Have you lost the plot of the discussion? Denying self was stated as essential to Christian discipleship in opposition to self-expression. Self-denial is sanctification, not a means to it: "dying more and more unto sin."
If they have not rejected the Old Calvinism then they are not "New Calvinists." "New," by definition, replaces the "Old." I think you are trying to describe those who are simply following "New Calvinists" and couldn't tell you what they are.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
Kathleen, I LOVE your spirit!* While Matthew is doubtless correct that "New Calvinist" teachers are often folks who have considered Reformed teaching and rejected it in favor of a view that is more "relevant" (or whatever), the same is not necessarily true of the average "new Calvinist" follower. My guess is that many of them are poorly taught evangelicals who have just discovered the intoxicating wine of Reformed truth and the sweetness of the Doctrines of Grace. Some of them are very much still in process. If they are given a fair exposure to confessional Christianity, I would be inclined to think that many of them would make the full journey.
* In light of the thread last week about "ugly old men" making young women feel creepy by refusing to be alone with them or eating in a restaurant with them (and thus sexualizing a previously non-sexual environment) . . .
You are so fresh and young (probably younger than most of my kids) that if we ever meet, I would have no trouble eating lunch with you instead of "creeping you out."
Very good point! If it wasn't clear (and it might not have been) I was referring more to the followers rather than the leaders. I haven't read many "new calvinists" lately, since it was a period that I went through a while ago. I would certainly agree that the leaders almost certainly have been exposed to the confessions and other firmly reformed ideas and have rejected them. (And if they haven't been exposed, then they've neglected their education pretty horribly.)
You are the probably the least creepy person I can conjure up! And I would be very amenable to lunch if it didn't require a trip of a few thousand miles...
---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------
Again, semantics. I disagree that to be a "new calvinist," one must have been exposed to and rejected the old. If "New Calvinism" is a philosophy of Christianity, then surely people can follow it even if they haven't been introduced to other philosophies of Christianity.
And living more and more unto Christ. You forget the other half--it is not enough to be saved from sin. We have been saved unto a holy life of joyful righteousness before the face of God and man. We deny the old self and affirm our being as He has meant us to be, which is conformed to His image. I do not think that when self-denial and self-expression are mutually exclusive since "self" is not referring to the same thing in both (at least not as most mean the terms). To say that they are mutually exclusive contra new Calvinism is to equivocate.
Kiffin
Puritan Board Freshman
Unless you can mention exactly what method or practice you disagree with, I don't know how being "culturally relevant" is wrong. I believe relevance can be pursued without sinning.
pesterjon
Puritan Board Freshman
This thread has been an eye-opener for me. It sent me to the all powerful source of truth, the internet, to find different definitions of "Reformed." (that is sarcasm, for those of you ready to reprimand my epistimology) I find that some of the Reformed stalwarts who I personally have followed and admired for years do not define this term quite as narrowly as some of those on this thread care to (case in point, James M. Boice).
Here's a list of articles that show common ground and disagreement:
Monergism :: An Overview of Reformed Theology
And here's an article from Frame that highlights some things to think about in this regard:
Review of Clark's "Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice"
Clearly we live in a relativistic culture that needs the gospel of grace as delivered through a biblically and historically faithful context. But this thread has helped me realize I need to spend my energy on the focus which led to the Reformation, rather than labels that have derived from said Reformation.
Here's a list of articles that show common ground and disagreement:
Monergism :: An Overview of Reformed Theology
And here's an article from Frame that highlights some things to think about in this regard:
Review of Clark's "Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice"
Clearly we live in a relativistic culture that needs the gospel of grace as delivered through a biblically and historically faithful context. But this thread has helped me realize I need to spend my energy on the focus which led to the Reformation, rather than labels that have derived from said Reformation.
Then your mind is made up. The old Calvinist beliefs which called for separation or co-operation are irrelevant to this mindset. There is no point descending to particulars if culture requires no discrimination.
Kiffin
Puritan Board Freshman
Interesting. Like pesterjon, this thread has been an eye-opener. Actually, I do need particulars and your definition of "culture" to understand where you are coming from. Where do New Calvinists fail to separate?
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Kathleen, I LOVE your spirit!* While Matthew is doubtless correct that "New Calvinist" teachers are often folks who have considered Reformed teaching and rejected it in favor of a view that is more "relevant" (or whatever), the same is not necessarily true of the average "new Calvinist" follower. My guess is that many of them are poorly taught evangelicals who have just discovered the intoxicating wine of Reformed truth and the sweetness of the Doctrines of Grace. Some of them are very much still in process. If they are given a fair exposure to confessional Christianity, I would be inclined to think that many of them would make the full journey.
* In light of the thread last week about "ugly old men" making young women feel creepy by refusing to be alone with them or eating in a restaurant with them (and thus sexualizing a previously non-sexual environment) . . .
You are so fresh and young (probably younger than most of my kids) that if we ever meet, I would have no trouble eating lunch with you instead of "creeping you out."
Very good point! If it wasn't clear (and it might not have been) I was referring more to the followers rather than the leaders. I haven't read many "new calvinists" lately, since it was a period that I went through a while ago. I would certainly agree that the leaders almost certainly have been exposed to the confessions and other firmly reformed ideas and have rejected them. (And if they haven't been exposed, then they've neglected their education pretty horribly.)
You are the probably the least creepy person I can conjure up! And I would be very amenable to lunch if it didn't require a trip of a few thousand miles...
---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------
Again, semantics. I disagree that to be a "new calvinist," one must have been exposed to and rejected the old. If "New Calvinism" is a philosophy of Christianity, then surely people can follow it even if they haven't been introduced to other philosophies of Christianity.
Kathleen, I think it might be apt to call believers only exposed to the Doctrines of Grace and largely ignorant of the rest of the Reformed cloth "baby Reformed" or even newly/recently Reformed/Calvinist something to that effect. Many of us certainly were this way and stumbled around for a time on a variety of issues. Some we still stumble on and even have been reluctant to embrace. This is not the group that is at issue. Many "baby Reformed" are in the category below but are simply eager for any knowledge of Christianity, simply because this is the most substantive faith they've encountered and they're hungry for more.
"New Calvinism" as being discussed here seems to focus first and formost on Mark Driscoll and the related movements that have defined their vision for the church as distinct from the Historical as New Calvinism as opposed to old. This illustrates the friction point: Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence. From what I've read in this thread, absolutely all of Rev. Winzer's concerns and criticism appear wholly directed at the latter group.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
Right, and my point was that many people come into calvinism through people like Mark Driscoll, Donald Miller, and the others described in that article. Further exploration often leads them away from "new calvinism" and into being reformed. This seems to happen especially at colleges - in my experience. But these people would certainly identify as "new calvinists," so I think its appropriate to refer to them that way.
I would take it one step further, Scott, and say the concern is not directed at the men themselves, but the movement/philosophy of this group of men. The concern is over the genesis/direction of the movement, not the individuals who are identified with that movement.
This is poignant. Definitions of words like 'Reformed' and 'Calvinist' vary widely depending on who your audience is. I remember Morecraft saying once that he doesn't bother with labels when he is preaching to churches other than his own. He is confident that if he simply sticks to Scripture he will be teaching Calvinism even though many won't even know it is Calvinism. That's the point. We need to focus our energy on the Gospel regardless of what Time Magazine calls it.
Montanablue
Puritan Board Doctor
Am I the only one who finds Driscoll's blog post on this infuriating? I've never read anything by him so uncharitable. Old Calvinists fled the cities and were fearful of joy and the presence of the Holy Spirit? What?! Somebody send him some Puritan writings, stat!
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
The interesting thing I find is that people are defining new Calvinism in two ways. But there is only one "Calvinism" and one "New" Calvinism. Calvinism is historical. New Calvinism is antithetical to historical Calvinism. The only reason we have different definitions of the words "reformed" and "Calvinism" is because of these "new" Calvinists. I'm young(very young to most on this board) but when someone my age sees a move away from being confessional while calling yourself "reformed"(especially coming from a non-reformed background), there is definitely something wrong with the "new". I'll take the old over the new any day thank you....
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
The only thing wrong with this though is that we are human. We use language to determine what is being said. Words have meaning. In this case, a historical context as well. We live in a society that "claims" to be relativistic, but they contradict themselves when they use language to describe or define something. Therefore, relativism is just an underlining mindset. Therefore, these definitions and words are to be used in their historical(and a meaningful) context. Think about it this way, are you part of the emergent movement? Since you're not(i say this because you are a member of the PB) would you like to be associated with them? Members of this heretical movement have claimed being "reformed". Do you still think its not important to define so called "labels"?
Something else to think about: Reformed Theology isn't just the "5" points, nor is holding to some of the confession's doctrines reformed either. Being reformed encompasses everything: Your Theology, Piety, and Practice. When coming to New Calvinism, Don't mistake ignorance for irreverence.
pesterjon
Puritan Board Freshman
You nicely characterized how I must agree with you and there is a slight tinge of condescension if I am not mistaken (which I have often been), rather than actually answering anything substantial. A critical piece of this conversation which you are ignoring is that your definition of "Reformed" is by no means unanimous among people who are clearly Reformed. My point is not that "labels" or "words" are bad, but that substance is more important.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
I did not mean to be condescending. I am just firm in my convictions.
My definition of Reformed? Here is my definition of being Reformed: Reformed- Holding to a Reformed confession. I would say that everyone on this board(besides you and I suppose a few exceptions) would agree with that definition. I would also say(with much confidence) that is the historical understanding of being "reformed"; hence my argument about words.
Out of what?
When people ask me what I am I respond that I'm a Christian with a Reformed Confession.
Again, I keep going back to this postmodern thinking where history or ideas have no fixed meaning but only those that we assign to them. We're all offended by any notion that we might not be called Reformed because, at the end of the day, who is one person to tell another whether they're Reformed? Your question implies that it might be some sort of insult to J.I. Packer that he's an adopted Son of God but that's nothing compared to the insult that he might not be considered Confessionally reformed in the strict sense.
It's the problem I have with John Frame's response to Scott Clark's book. He sort of ends up saying: "Really what Reformed is all about is really, really being committed to the Word of God."
One guy says: "Hey, that's me!"
"But you're Mormon."
"Who are you to tell me I'm out?"
This all seems to our modern sensibilities as one man making a power play over another because we all believe that words are ours to use as we desire. Consequently, there's this underlying angst by some "Oh, you can't tell a person they're not Reformed because you don't have that power..." as if words depend upon reader response or the community of people that use those words. It's the world we live in. People are offended because they've bought into fluid language. They've bought into post-modern hermeneutics.
If we can stop treating words like this is all about a power play then we stop worrying about who's feelings might get hurt that we're just using language as if there is some sort of normative definition that does not depend upon the individual reader but requires the reader to actually try to understand how the word was used in its original context.
People reading might find what I said absolutely of no value but I promise you all that this is exactly what is going on with the Scriptures themselves these days because words no longer have fixed meanings in their historical context and the response of the reader is all controlling.
But then isn't calling it a "reformed confession" rather redundant? Does this mean that there were no reformed people before the drafting of reformation confessions? Does this mean that people like Jonathan Edwards and Martin Bucer weren't reformed, given that they never subscribed to a "reformed" confession? How do we determine which confessions are "reformed" and which ones aren't?
pesterjon
Puritan Board Freshman
I am hardly against confessions which play such a key role in the gathered church.
But I have seen some of what I would call "old Calvinist" churches in the sense I believe Driscoll was referring to, and by that I do mean an ethnic social club that subscribes to a wonderful confession with no vigor or spiritual life whatsoever. And I have been reading Reformed writers for many years now, and had not until this board seen "Reformed = subscribing to a Reformed confession." Most descriptions of the Reformed faith I have seen in the past are much more centered on biblical truth.
But I have seen some of what I would call "old Calvinist" churches in the sense I believe Driscoll was referring to, and by that I do mean an ethnic social club that subscribes to a wonderful confession with no vigor or spiritual life whatsoever. And I have been reading Reformed writers for many years now, and had not until this board seen "Reformed = subscribing to a Reformed confession." Most descriptions of the Reformed faith I have seen in the past are much more centered on biblical truth.
jayce475
Puritan Board Freshman
Could you provide some examples of these descriptions that are "much more centered on biblical truth"?
Like how we can at times be about sweeping statements about the "New Calvinists", Mark Driscoll's piece was way too sweeping. The churches whom he has described certainly exist, but he painted them as what it is like with the majority of Reformed churches which are not part of the New Calvinist movement. Not terribly charitable.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. I identify first as a Christian and stand in solidarity with men like J.I. Packer as those who have a common Lord and Savior. The confession of my visible communion is Reformed. It's the same reason I don't call people who are Christians by the title Arminian.
Isn't that simply because when you're describing the Reformed faith you naturally set out its content materially? In other words, for instance, B.B. Warfield's "Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith" reiterates confessional teaching, but doesn't simply say "read all the confessions." That doesn't mean that the Confessions don't set the limits.
Some things don't need to be clarified or underlined until they are confused or challenged. Remember that the Reformed Churches never claimed to be the only Churches and even historically recognized Roman Catholic Baptism as valid. When they identified themselves a Reformed Churches it was not to distinguish themselves from being Christian in the catholic sense and it has always been distinguished by what they Confessed as a theology distinct.
In fact, clear Confession of what the Scriptures principally teach was one of the blessings of the Reformation (even though today it is sadly viewed as some sort of blight). The Church who fails to tell you what they believe the Scriptures teach either opens the door for continuous innovation or slides the Confession under the door where you can't read it. In the former case, the Roman Catholic Church claims an infallible Magesterium but has only dogmatically defined less than 10 verses in the entire Scripture. In the latter case are all the people I hear who tell me that their Pastor "just teaches from the Bible" and they hang on every word he teaches without a clue as to the hermeneutical principle he has in play.
In my estimation, the eschewing of a Confession and the open-ended nature that many new Calvinists are willing to accept is a step backward away from a clear declaration of "This we believe" to "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
- Status
