# TIME Magazine "The New Calvinism" changing the world!



## E Nomine (Mar 12, 2009)

10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now (Cover Story) 

#1 Why Your Job Is Your Most Valuable Asset
#2 Recycling the Suburbs 
#3 The New Calvinism 
#4 Reinstating The Interstate
#5 Amortality: Forever Young 
#6 Africa: Open for Business 
#7 Need Land? Rent a Country 
#8 Biobanks: Saving Your Parts
#9 Survival-Store Shopping
#10 Ecological Intelligence


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 12, 2009)

NeoCalvinist sounds like a cool title... I'll adopt it...


----------



## Zenas (Mar 12, 2009)

"Calvin's 500th birthday will be this July. It will be interesting to see whether Calvin's latest legacy will be classic Protestant backbiting or whether, during these hard times, more Christians searching for security will submit their wills to the austerely demanding God of their country's infancy."

I dig that portion.

I think the article isn't bad at all.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 12, 2009)

Pretty good summary! Except the "submit their wills" part


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 12, 2009)

"The moment someone begins to define God's [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist."

 I'll drink to that.

-----Added 3/12/2009 at 06:58:43 EST-----

Are we going to add Driscoll, Mohler and Piper avitars ?


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Mar 12, 2009)

Interesting. May the Lord continue to raise up men and women who embrace Reformation theology and piety.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 12, 2009)

I dislike how everything must be labelled "New" in this world. Its generally a good practice to be leary of anything "new". "New" implies different. I sure hope my Calvinism isnt different than our Reformed forefathers Calvinism.

I do agree that the article is a good summary, I just fail to see how there is anything "new" about Calvinism.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 12, 2009)

A new generation with itching ears needs to hear of the new-Calvinism amid their not so new quest for new ways to sin in this brave new world.


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 12, 2009)

Glad to hear about Calvinism. Not sure what this "new" stuff is, though. I also thought the article was snide andinsulting to God and the biblical viewpoint.


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 12, 2009)

Matthias said:


> I dislike how everything must be labelled "New" in this world. Its generally a good practice to be leary of anything "new". "New" implies different. I sure hope my Calvinism isnt different than our Reformed forefathers Calvinism.
> 
> I do agree that the article is a good summary, I just fail to see how there is anything "new" about Calvinism.



It is new to those who have never heard about it before. The different would be that it is biblically based and not experience or emotion based like most bogus religion that masquerades as Christianity.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 13, 2009)

> Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.



"a few crotchety Southern churches"??? So THAT explains the PB!


----------



## ww (Mar 13, 2009)

Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog. 

Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence

Four Ways 'New Calvinism' is So Powerful

Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.

Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities. 

Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. 

Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 13, 2009)

whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...



I guess im just old fashioned


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 13, 2009)

whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...


Sigh.


----------



## Athaleyah (Mar 13, 2009)

whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...



To quote a hymn we don't sing in my church:

Now give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
And it's good enough for me


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 13, 2009)

Matthias said:


> I dislike how everything must be labelled "New" in this world. Its generally a good practice to be leary of anything "new". "New" implies different. I sure hope my Calvinism isnt different than our Reformed forefathers Calvinism.
> 
> I do agree that the article is a good summary, I just fail to see how there is anything "new" about Calvinism.


I agree with your neo cynicism.

-----Added 3/13/2009 at 06:21:05 EST-----



whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...


So the gospel is the third biggest shaper of the world today? Right behind worshipping your career and living in a planned community, interesting.


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 13, 2009)

I wonder if this is like the curse of the SI cover?


----------



## Nate (Mar 13, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> I wonder if this is like the curse of the SI cover?


----------



## MMasztal (Mar 13, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> ...




"Sigh" is right!!


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 13, 2009)

Perhaps the terms New and Old are too simplistic. Scratch that, I know they are! There definitely are some new applications of Calvinism today, but to say that one is Old and the other New, is to exhibit Historical amnesia. Probably if you were to look at the history of Calvinism you would find all sorts of different eras. 

Piper is different from Schaeffer, who is different from Machen, who is different from Warfield, who is different from Dabney, who is different from Edwards, who is different from the Puritans, who is different from the Covenenters, who is different from Calvin! Things change! God works in his Kirk and continues to bring about Semper Reformanda! Perhaps this isn't a different Calvinism at all. Perhaps this is just a different chapter of the same book. The second movement of the grand symphony of God's redemptive-historical-Covenant work in the lives of His people.


----------



## Craig (Mar 13, 2009)

Interesting...the author seemed to steer people away from looking at Calvinism in the typical "it's so hateful!" sort of way.

His familiarity with Southern Seminary, and things like "Reformed and Restless" lead me to think he is a Reformed sympathizer...add to that he has a "Van" in his name, you know he's got some good ole Dutch Calvinist blood flowing through his veins


----------



## cbryant (Mar 13, 2009)

The Time article fails to mention Tim Keller who I would pick as more representative of the "new" Calvinist rather than Mark Driscoll. It also gives nod to neocalvist without mentioning the father of neocalvinism, Abraham Kuyper.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 13, 2009)

Kuyper probably isn't on the guy's radar screen. He probably talked to Piper, Driscoll and Christianity Today, or maybe just read their stuff and wrote. It's basically a squib, but a significant one.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 13, 2009)

I wonder why there was no mention of any NAPARC churches. It seems to me to be a pretty major oversight, or perhaps omission on the part of the author.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 13, 2009)

I think by "new calvinism" it means "predestinarianism."


----------



## Zenas (Mar 13, 2009)

I was speaking with a friend and he literally thought Calvinism only = Predestination. When I explained the rest to him, he told me I was mistaken, because that's what his history professor taught him. He actually told me to go look up Calvinism. 

I then apprised him of my theological beliefs and what Calvinism actually is. He still didn't believe me.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 13, 2009)

Zenas said:


> I was speaking with a friend and he literally thought Calvinism only = Predestination. When I explained the rest to him, he told me I was mistaken, because that's what his history professor taught him. He actually told me to go look up Calvinism.
> 
> I then apprised him of my theological beliefs and what Calvinism actually is. He still didn't believe me.




Ask him to read Calvin's _Institutes_ and some Reformed confessions. He will find out that Calvinism is much more than a belief that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass.


----------



## ADKing (Mar 13, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> Perhaps the terms New and Old are too simplistic. Scratch that, I know they are! There definitely are some new applications of Calvinism today, but to say that one is Old and the other New, is to exhibit Historical amnesia. Probably if you were to look at the history of Calvinism you would find all sorts of different eras.
> 
> Piper is different from Schaeffer, who is different from Machen, who is different from Warfield, who is different from Dabney, who is different from Edwards, who is different from the Puritans, who is different from the Covenenters, who is different from Calvin! Things change! God works in his Kirk and continues to bring about Semper Reformanda! Perhaps this isn't a different Calvinism at all. Perhaps this is just a different chapter of the same book. The second movement of the grand symphony of God's redemptive-historical-Covenant work in the lives of His people.



Sometimes the "differences" are quite substantive and theological. I do not think it would be accurate to say that the Puritans/Covenanters were on the same page as Driscoll, Keller et.al and simply applying the same truths to different cultural contexts. The fact is, that they often represent very different ways of thinking.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 13, 2009)

R. Scott Clark has posted an interesting comparison in response to this article.


----------



## ww (Mar 13, 2009)

cbryant said:


> The Time article fails to mention Tim Keller who I would pick as more representative of the "new" Calvinist rather than Mark Driscoll. It also gives nod to neocalvist without mentioning the father of neocalvinism, Abraham Kuyper.





-----Added 3/13/2009 at 02:53:46 EST-----



Zenas said:


> I was speaking with a friend and he literally thought Calvinism only = Predestination. When I explained the rest to him, he told me I was mistaken, because that's what his history professor taught him. He actually told me to go look up Calvinism.
> 
> I then apprised him of my theological beliefs and what Calvinism actually is. He still didn't believe me.



Reminds me of the time back in Junior High when I was instructing someone on the rules of Tennis before we began playing and he disagreed with me and stated another way. I then advised him that I had been playing Tennis all of my life and learned on Grass Courts, been in several Tennis Competitions and rarely lost a match. He then decided that maybe I knew what I was talking about. 

-----Added 3/13/2009 at 03:03:42 EST-----

To CALVIN, the original Calvinist, non-cessationists were known as Anabaptists and he regarded them as “fanatics.” Dr R. Scott Clark 

More (YRR) Calvinism in TIME Heidelblog


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 13, 2009)

Oh my; my beliefs are _fashionable_?


----------



## ww (Mar 13, 2009)

jwithnell said:


> Oh my; my beliefs are _fashionable_?



whodathunk it?


----------



## charliejunfan (Mar 13, 2009)

I'll stay Old Calvinist on points 3 and 4


----------



## ww (Mar 13, 2009)

Does anyone think that the "NEW" strain of Calvinism ala Driscoll is just a fad that will be gone 10 or 20 years from now or do you welcome this type of "NEW" Calvinism as long as it is reaching people with the Gospel and some of the Truths of Reformed Theology?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 13, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> I wonder if this is like the curse of the SI cover?


I can just imagine "Calvinism: Swimsuit Edition"


----------



## he beholds (Mar 13, 2009)

Matthias said:


> I dislike how everything must be labelled "New" in this world. Its generally a good practice to be leary of anything "new". "New" implies different. I sure hope my Calvinism isnt different than our Reformed forefathers Calvinism.
> 
> I do agree that the article is a good summary, I just fail to see how there is anything "new" about Calvinism.





whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...




I'd rather be kickin it old school, anyway. We're in better company.


----------



## historyb (Mar 13, 2009)

whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...



I like the New Calvinism


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 13, 2009)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if this is like the curse of the SI cover?
> ...



I don't think anyone wants to see R.C. or Sinclair Ferguson in a swimsuit!


----------



## ww (Mar 13, 2009)

he beholds said:


> Matthias said:
> 
> 
> > I dislike how everything must be labelled "New" in this world. Its generally a good practice to be leary of anything "new". "New" implies different. I sure hope my Calvinism isnt different than our Reformed forefathers Calvinism.
> ...



Yeah I'm finding more benefit and education in the Old School after spending some time reading and studying the New School.


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 14, 2009)

One problem I see is people tying Calvinism to a personality. I think we can actually do doctrines of grace harm if we morph them into Spurgeonism, Piperism, Edwardsism and the like. May the doctrines of grace shine through whoever is teaching them, even if they emphasize one point slightly more than the other.


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 14, 2009)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if this is like the curse of the SI cover?
> ...


----------



## Ivan (Mar 14, 2009)

Perhaps _Time_ magazine could start the _*Calvinist Person of the Year*_ award....


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 14, 2009)

How about a competition show..... Reformed Idol (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Mar 14, 2009)

whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...



I find Driscoll's remarks very troubling. He reminds me of certain contemporary theologians in certain "new" and "relevant" movements who play fast and loose with words as if everyone knows what they are talking about, making self-glorifying blanket statements and (false) dichotomies which require (but lack) mounds of research to support. I'm afraid the TIME's article says more about the flourishing of the theology of glory among self-dubbed "Calvinists" and "Reformed," than about confessional, biblical, theology of the cross.

BTW, I think someone already posted a link, but Clark's comments are interesting, here.
I share his frustration, don't you?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Mar 14, 2009)

The reason "neo calvinist" works so well among moderns is because it appeals to our society's penchant for believing everything is a quick study. A neo calvinist is one, generally, who hasn't studied but a few bits of Calvin and agreed with an overly simplistic caricature of Calvinism. In this way one can be a "Calvinist" without having actually to *read* Calvin!

As one theologian put it, Calvin was a "giant among pygmies". The Institutes is still a great read today, and not rightly dated or classified by terms such as "neo" or "paleo". Calvin thought it was an integrated whole, as do many of us today. (That is not to say that Calvin had it all--in many senses we have continued the Reformation beyond Calvin in the Westminster Assembly, although I believe we may find Westminster in Calvin if we look hard enough.) Neo-Calvinism is not really Calvinism at all--it's taking a great name of the past and placing it upon a movement that has little in common with that name, which has been plastered on that movement more as a slogan or banner, than as something relevant.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 14, 2009)

whitway said:


> Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> 
> Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence
> 
> ...



Though I think Todd Ruddell wrote a great response, I believe there is some truth to the spirit behind these statements. In the circles I grew up in if YOU were not Reformed we did not talk or engage you but we did ignore you. And it wasn't even necessarily conscious, just ingrained through the generations. 

Now there are more and more Reformed people who are open about sharing their faith and faith distinctives with others which, in no small part, has led to a wider audience and acceptance of the doctrines of sovereign grace.

At the same time this Calvinism 'so-called' cannot be boiled down to 4 or 5 points. As soon as one reads the Canons of Dordrecht, which was THE ecumenical statement of Reformed theology, past and present, you see that there is so much more to our heritage than sovereign grace. In fact the 5 points of Calvinism, though a helpful summary of central truths, do not really exist outside of the covenantal theological framework of the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and the work of the early Reformers. 

Ultimately one will jettison their inconsistencies and, as Dr. Clark says, continue the journey to Geneva or give up on the project altogether. My fear is that the enthusiasm for 'neo Calvinism' will wane without the necessary historic, systematic framework needed to sustain the truth that is being proclaimed by the movement because of the baggage of evangelicalism it continues to carry which is largely incompatible and destructive of Reformation soteriology.


----------



## ww (Mar 14, 2009)

Poimen said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > Driscoll explains the Distinction between Old and New Calvinism on his Blog.
> ...


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Mar 14, 2009)

Dear Rev. Kok, 

Thank you for rounding out my comments. I did not come from a Church tradition that was as exclusivist as you have described, and I too applaud the engagement Calvinism is having and ought to have with Church society, as well as society at large. However, in keeping with my former post, I believe that an "exclusivist" or "world flight" "Calvinism" is not truly Calvinism, neo or paleo. I preach (as I believe Calvin did) for engagement in culture through the concept of calling, in every area of our lives, as I am sure you do as well. 

Thanks again, dear brother, for this exchange.


----------



## ww (Mar 18, 2009)

New Calvinism Thoughts
Submitted by Dave Bruskas on March 16, 2009 - 10:13am. 
I have been an eyewitness to the influence of the "New Calvinism" both at City on a Hill and through my participation in the Acts 29 Network. As Time Magazine now identifies "New Calvinism" as the third most powerful idea shaping the world today ( http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_18847...) I have two reasons to celebrate and two reasons to be concerned.

First, my cause for celebration. Whether you are a Calvinist an Arminian or like most people somewhere in between, discussing and debating biblical doctrine is an edifying experience. We must begin where we agree as members of the the same team and end in our partnership to spread the glory of God by proclaiming the gospel to all nations. But between those two points, there is much room for growth for all of us as we speak the truth in love to one another.

Second, this movement is much bigger than the advancement of Calvinism as I see it. It is generational and global. Many young people are being converted to Christ, not Calvinism, all over the world. We see that happening at City on a Hill where you don't have to be a Calvinist to be a part of what is happening. Many of our people aren't Calvinists. Secular media tends to simplify things that are complex. Although many of the movement leaders and churches are Calvinistic, many are not. I would probably refer to this movement as "New Evangelicalism". The entire church should celebrate the fact that a younger generation is coming to faith in Jesus with a robust hunger for understanding deep biblical doctrine.

Now here are my concerns.

First, movements tend to become too narrow and then lose some of their influence. Here are two examples from the "Jesus Movement" of the 1970s. This movement birthed two powerful groups of churches that I respect deeply. The Vineyard Church initially exploded on the scene as a global church planting catalyst. In time, it became focused narrowly on charismatic church renewal rather than church expansion and evangelism. Calvary Chapel churches continue to introduce many people to Jesus globally. However, I see a growing focus on dispensational eschatalogy (end times prophecy) defining the teaching and emphasis of these churches. At the most recent Acts 29 Bootcamp in Seattle, I met several young potential church planters who were raised at Calvary, trained by Calvary, who love Calvary but will be planting churches that won't carry the name Calvary Chapel because of what they perceive to be an overemphasis on biblical prophecy. Here is my point. We don't want to look back in time 20 years from now reflecting on our "15 minutes of fame" and pride ourselves in advancing a New Calvinism. We do, however, want to dream of a day 20 years distant when we celebrate together with all people who love and worship Jesus that His glory was spread through unworthy sinners like us working together despite secondary differences.

Second, movements always generate internal criticism that is often hateful and divisive. The most likely critics of the "New Evangelicalism" will be "Old Evangelicalism". Sadly, the points of contention will be over style rather than substance. Here is another helpful article in understanding one leader's perspective on the difference between Old and New Calvinism Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence. Things will be offered up like, "your music is too loud", "your clothes are too casual" and "your language from the pulpit is too slang". Actually, these things have already been said. I hear them regularly. I respectfully listen, take to heart anything that might be valid with other pastors giving honest feedback, but usually move on quickly because these concerns are distracting more than they are helpful. They are also sad. They are a microcosm of why a previous movement is dying.

So my final counsel: let's advance the gospel of Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. Let's link arms together as gospel loving evangelical Christians regardless of labels such as Calvinist, Arminian and Charismatic. Together let's trust God to do great things for His glory. Let's humbly learn from previous movements knowing in time we will be replaced by a fresh movement of God that we will be prone to criticize rather than celebrate. 

*What are your thoughts?*


----------



## Matthias (Mar 18, 2009)

whitway said:


> New Calvinism Thoughts
> Submitted by Dave Bruskas on March 16, 2009 - 10:13am.
> I have been an eyewitness to the influence of the "New Calvinism" both at City on a Hill and through my participation in the Acts 29 Network. As Time Magazine now identifies "New Calvinism" as the third most powerful idea shaping the world today ( http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_18847...) I have two reasons to celebrate and two reasons to be concerned.
> 
> ...



How can I as a Calvinist link arms with an Arminian or Charismatic and consider them Gospel loving Christians when they have embraced a human centered gospel, which is really no "good news" at all?


----------



## nicnap (Mar 18, 2009)




----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Mar 18, 2009)

whitway said:


> So my final counsel: let's advance the gospel of Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. Let's link arms together as gospel loving evangelical Christians regardless of labels such as Calvinist, Arminian and Charismatic. Together let's trust God to do great things for His glory. Let's humbly learn from previous movements knowing in time we will be replaced by a fresh movement of God that we will be prone to criticize rather than celebrate.
> 
> *What are your thoughts?*



The very idea of a "fresh movement of God" as colloquially understood in evangelical and charismatic churches is contrary and hostile to the (confessional-, need I say?) Reformed understanding of the means of grace and redemptive history. We have an ordinary means of grace and we are in a post-canonical period in redemptive history. Insofar as "fresh movements of God" implies that we cannot scripturally criticize one another, or that the ordinary means become, even for a time, insufficient or unnecessary, or that the distinctions between significantly different theologies becomes trivial or blurred, then I should think biblical Christians will have no part in it.


----------

