If you want to debate modesty, please start a new thread.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rich,
I am hardly extending charity toward "new Calvinism" that I am not extending to "old Calvinism." My point is meaningful to any so-called corner of Calvinism, and it is that I would rather discuss theology and beliefs than labels.
Where would you disagree with him in these videos?
He exhibits a level of separation to me. You might feel uncomfortable with a few words in the third video--but he's right, all of us practice some level of contextualization. Please direct me to some of Driscoll's writings that contradict what he says in these videos.
What I am saying is that in my exposure to Reformed writers Reformed faith and theology was always explained more directly through the Bible, rather than simply confessional subscription. This clear and compelling biblical definition of Reformed theology is what has drawn me to the Reformed faith, so I find it rather interesting and somewhat unhelpful when Reformed faith is framed in a very different way by simply saying one is judged to be Reformed or not on the basis of confessional subscription.
The reality is that confessionalism "manifests" what is often kept "hidden" in theological method, 2 Cor. 4:2.
I happen to think that all of these (except for the owning slaves bit) are overkill.
Rev Winzer, it might help if you defined what you consider to be "worldliness" with concrete examples so that we can better understand and analyze whether there is an actual practical conflict between your position and that of new Calvinism.
The term "worldliness" has meant many things since the reformation. To a Puritan, worldliness was going to watch a Shakespeare play or hanging curtains in the window. To an 18th century evangelical, it was drinking gin and espousing liberalism. To a 19th century revivalist, it was owning slaves and drinking any alcohol at all. To a 20th century fundamentalist it was dancing (even square dancing), drinking, and listening to jazz. To more recent fundamentalists, it is growing a beard and listening to rock. I happen to think that all of these (except for the owning slaves bit) are overkill. So what exactly are you meaning here?
Rev Winzer, it might help if you defined what you consider to be "worldliness" with concrete examples so that we can better understand and analyze whether there is an actual practical conflict between your position and that of new Calvinism.
Owning slaves was not condemned by scriptures (as seen in Col 3 and 4)
Ok..Is there anybody on here who wants to give examples of how New Calvinists sin by participating in culture (since Rev. Winzer won't)? Rev. Winzer says that Christians need to 'to abstain from the "appearance [form] of evil.'" I agree. But New Calvinists would agree with this as well. If you do not think so, please give me particulars on what practices they do that appear to be evil. Please.
You keep standing up in defence of "New Calvinism" but use language which is foreign to the vocabulary they have chosen to use in the debate. This time you speak of "participating in culture." They are not "participating in" it because they reject the Old Calvinist ideas of separation or participation, otherwise known as Christ against culture or Christ in culture (caricatured as fundamentalist or liberal). They claim to be redeeming culture. Again, you are asking for particulars. Specifics are not the issue. It is possible that a New Calvinist might be as godly as an Old Calvinist, just as an Antinomian or Libertine might have lived as strict a life as a Puritan. The issue is not in the particulars, but in the way a system encourages or undermines particulars. Now, as noted, the New Calvinist theory undermines the particulars by insisting on the redemption of culture. As with the antinomian controversy in the reformation, particulars emerge over time. The criticism is of the transcendent principle, and it is clear from their own statement that they are rejecting an Old Calvinist principle for a New one.
Now, as noted, the New Calvinist theory undermines the particulars by insisting on the redemption of culture.
Ok..Is there anybody on here who wants to give examples of how New Calvinists sin by participating in culture (since Rev. Winzer won't)? Rev. Winzer says that Christians need to 'to abstain from the "appearance [form] of evil.'" I agree. But New Calvinists would agree with this as well. If you do not think so, please give me particulars on what practices they do that appear to be evil. Please.
On a side: Maybe this is where Paul Chappell and the PCA are struggling?
Owning slaves was not condemned by scriptures (as seen in Col 3 and 4)
But kidnapping and transporting people to a foreign land is. Treating humans like aminals is. Abusing people is. Rape is. Denying people Sabbath is. And the list goes on and on....
You are asking for particulars on the lack of separation while at the same time refusing to show where they have practised separation and how you as one sympathizing with the New Calvinists view what separation from worldliness ought to be like. Not entirely consistent. If we really want the particulars, the Puritans laid their cards on the table with respect to how they practise biblical separation and you have rejected it as being too extreme. Likewise for the other threads where you have stood against the standards of holiness that myself and some other brothers have espoused.
You are asking for particulars on the lack of separation while at the same time refusing to show where they have practised separation and how you as one sympathizing with the New Calvinists view what separation from worldliness ought to be like. Not entirely consistent. If we really want the particulars, the Puritans laid their cards on the table with respect to how they practise biblical separation and you have rejected it as being too extreme. Likewise for the other threads where you have stood against the standards of holiness that myself and some other brothers have espoused.
Refer to post #133. I think people are confusing worldliness with culture. They are not synonymous. So to answer your question, New Calvinists separate from worldliness.
Which thread? The music one? I believe there is a "standard of holiness" but your interpretation is not universal to Christianity.
This thread is going no where. Moderators?!!!?!?!? A new thread on culture vs. worldliness needs to be started..
Thus, the point of the thread to begin with was to try to define whether there was a way to circumscribe the word Reformed or Calvinist.I have been hearing alot of harsh statements from the reformed/Calvinistic community about the “new” Calvinism over the last year. Seems like its pretty much 3 issues the “traditional” reformed, is complaining about this “new”Calvinism.
1)that they not “truly” reformed cause they don't follow the “traditional” a Presbyterian/reformed church government.
2)The new Calvinism is not truly “Reformed” cause they may not in some churches follow the “traditional” reformed confessions like the Westminister Standards or Three Forms of Unity or neither of London Baptist confessions.
3)that these new Calvinists are too “spirit-filled”,”fruits of the spirit”. Well im sure the first Great Awakening was that way and it was very Calvinistic
I guess my point is just cause a church or a movement is not your “type” of Calvinism.
Did you not want definitions? I haven't been drawing battle lines but trying to provide definitions.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?
Again, you want to know if you're Reformed. I wasn't trying to give battle to this at any point but only try to describe the historical situation.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.
But then you kept returning to the above idea that people are being "discarded". There's this idea of separation as if people are finding out that another doesn't hold to a Reformed confession and they are "thrown away". It was your theme and never mine. It was your "battle line". I've tried to explain that a definition of a Word historically doesn't mean that a person is not a Christian but, as a term, it may not describe that other person. Again, I love other Baptists who confess the Baptist Faith and Message. I haven't "discarded" them because they do not hold to a Reformed Confession.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?
Can "old" Calvinists "deal" with people. Again, your battle line.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.
Battle line - Reformed people say that the Protestant Reformation is the be-al, end-all.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.
Ripped to shreds. Battle line.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.
You wonder if this is all motivated out of jealousy for people who are "old school calvinists."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.
The definition of Reformed has been defined "narrowly".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).
Now, you shift to the idea that people are being labeled. I would ask if this looks familiar yet in your own interaction. Again, you are claiming that others have drawn battle lines. By the way, I grew up Roman Catholic.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.
People who are now answering the original question in the thread are being accused of using "labels". It didn't seem possible, after this point, to discuss the question in the OP with you without the accusation that people were being "labeled".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.
Now, we're back to the definition but you find it "unhelpful" when one is "judged" to be Reformed. Again, you have insisted throughout that people are being "judged" over what defined Reformed Churches. Your battle line, not mine. I've given extensive responses that nobody is being "judged" when a word is defined as in the OP.Jason, absolutely.
And I am not saying it is unbiblical to say "Reformed = holding to a Reformed confession." What I am saying is that in my exposure to Reformed writers Reformed faith and theology was always explained more directly through the Bible, rather than simply confessional subscription. This clear and compelling biblical definition of Reformed theology is what has drawn me to the Reformed faith, so I find it rather interesting and somewhat unhelpful when Reformed faith is framed in a very different way by simply saying one is judged to be Reformed or not on the basis of confessional subscription.
Battle line. Reformed peoples sound like the Fundamentalist peoples.Clearly I have much to learn. Am just finding I relate a lot better to discussions of content rather than arguments over labels. On the surface, Reformed peoples start to sound like the Fundamentalist peoples I thought were in my past.
Again, labels. I have seen much labeling in this thread, Jon, but it has been by you.Rich,
I am hardly extending charity toward "new Calvinism" that I am not extending to "old Calvinism." My point is meaningful to any so-called corner of Calvinism, and it is that I would rather discuss theology and beliefs than labels.
As I said, I was attracted to a Reformed Church only 14 years ago and am hardly an "insider" to any lingo. The whole point of this give and take over a few days has been to try to provide clarity on a term. You draw and re-draw battle-lines. You push back on answers to definitions. You label the responses as "fundamentalist".Rich,
I'm just going to bow out of this thread. Have looked back through what I have written here, and it is very difficult for me to understand why I keep getting pigeon-holed as if I represent "new Calvinism" and resent "old Calvinism."
I have been drawn to the Scriptural truth of Reformed theology since I was a young child poking through some of the books in my pastor-dad's library. Coming to the table without a Reformed pedigree, not belonging to a Reformed church, it quite sincerely boggles my mind that I have been taken in this thread the way I have.
I have been suspicious of "new Calvinism" although I see some very good aspects of the ones I have known, including a desire to share covenant theology and rich Reformed faith with sinners. Obviously there are battle lines drawn that make it very difficult for someone who doesn't know the right lingo of the right branch to join the conversation. I am going to bow out of this PB experiment and return to reading theology on my own.
You are asking for particulars on the lack of separation while at the same time refusing to show where they have practised separation and how you as one sympathizing with the New Calvinists view what separation from worldliness ought to be like. Not entirely consistent. If we really want the particulars, the Puritans laid their cards on the table with respect to how they practise biblical separation and you have rejected it as being too extreme. Likewise for the other threads where you have stood against the standards of holiness that myself and some other brothers have espoused.
Refer to post #133. I think people are confusing worldliness with culture. They are not synonymous. So to answer your question, New Calvinists separate from worldliness.
Which thread? The music one? I believe there is a "standard of holiness" but your interpretation is not universal to Christianity.
This thread is going no where. Moderators?!!!?!?!? A new thread on culture vs. worldliness needs to be started..
Can you tell me what the "Old Calvinist" way of separation and participation is?
And what exactly do you mean by "redeeming culture"? There's nothing inherently unreformed about this, given the idea's long history in the Dutch Reformed tradition (Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, etc.) unless you think there is something else meant than what these thinkers meant.
The result is an abstention from culture.
And what exactly do you mean by "redeeming culture"? There's nothing inherently unreformed about this, given the idea's long history in the Dutch Reformed tradition (Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, etc.) unless you think there is something else meant than what these thinkers meant.
First, the Dutch Reformed tradition has a longer history ante-Kuyper than post-Kuyper. Secondly, the Kuyperian movement is called neo-Calvinism for a reason. Thirdly, traditional reformed writers have criticised the concept of redeeming culture, so appealing to the reformed tradition to substantiate the concept is futile.
First, the Dutch Reformed tradition has a longer history ante-Kuyper than post-Kuyper. Secondly, the Kuyperian movement is called neo-Calvinism for a reason. Thirdly, traditional reformed writers have criticised the concept of redeeming culture, so appealing to the reformed tradition to substantiate the concept is futile.
NB3K
Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement.
Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement.[Institutes 1.5.3 p]