# YMCA- Young Moderately Calvinistic Anabaptists



## JOwen (Jul 15, 2009)

As a family we made the long migration into the Reformed faith in the mid 1990's. Our theological trip took us almost the complete breadth of the protestant landscape from charismatic, to mainstream evangelical, to baptist, to reformed baptist, to confessional/experiential Reformed. This migration allowed my family to soak in almost everything the Protestant Church had to offer before we were led to our current home. What a blessing it was to discover the deep and abiding waters of the old paths.

As a father, my desire is to see my children remain in, and love, the historic reformed faith as their mother and I do. Not for any parochial or traditional reason, but because it is the best expression of the Word of God, and the very place where they might find a Saviour from sin and live a life of consecration. But there is a problem. New Calvinism (NC) has been born, and it strangely reminds my wife and I of the very thing we came from as charismatics. Same story, different characters. The only difference between this strain of the Emergent movement and the Charismatic movement we came from is this; New Calvinism embraces reformed soteriology. Besides this, I find NC teaching the very same pragmatic principles I was taught as a young charismatic. 

*Old vs. New*

Mark Driscoll, the Teaching Pastor of the 9000 member Mars Hill Church in Seattle WA, is the leading proponent of New Calvinism. There is no central organization for this movement, so its most visible figure will need to suffice as an example. Here is what Driscoll has to say regarding the movement:

1.Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture [Syncretism is a blending or marrying of two incompatible systems into one new organic method.].

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

3.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.

4.Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them. [1]​
It would take a whole other article to point out the errors in the above list. Suffice to say, New Calvinism is advancing its agenda on the back of a straw-man caricature of Old Calvinism. As someone wisely said, "Is it wise to begin a religious movement by criticizing the giants of the Reformation upon whose shoulders you stand?" So much for being loving. 

*What is New Calvinism?*

*Minimalism*

New Calvinism is the kissing of postmodernism and one aspect of the Reformed Faith, the T.U.L.I.P. New Calvinism is not reformed in any other way. In fact it is minimalistic in doctrine. This means, that while it embraces the major tenants of Protestantism, it stops far short of confessional Christianity with a creed small enough to be placed on the back of a bulletin.[2]. Yes, NC likes the Puritans, but believes they went too far when it came to the particulars of the faith. NC roots are admittedly and unabashedly Emergent [3] The Emergent Church is a new movement in North American that has correctly identified the paradigm shift from a Christian culture, to a modern culture, to a postmodern culture. The Emergent Church did not create postmoderism, but attempts to make Christianity relevant the postmodern mind. In other words, “If you can't beat them, join them” is very much the prevailing attitude in New Calvinism. 

*Government and Law*

NC has no single form of Church government but are mostly independent congregationalists. So much so that Mars Hill requires the new member to take a covenant.[4] The movement is antinomian, believing that portions of the law of God are abrogated as part of the Old Testament, and liberty of conscience has take its place. Recently, while listening to a Driscoll sermon, I noticed that his teeshirt had an image of Jesus on it, wearing headphones, spinning albums on a turntable as a DJ[5]. This is a clear violation of the 2nd commandment. 

*Worship*

NC is Luther[an] in worship, believing that whatever the Lord has not forbidden in worship is permitted. Recently, Mars Hill Church launched a website called Re:Sound. Their first project is a sort of indie-rock [6] version of many Trinity Hymnal songs such as, “Softly and Tenderly”, “What Wondrous Love Is This”, “Doxology”, “Amazing Love”, “I’ll Fly Away”, etc. New Calvinism rejects the historic Reformed understanding of worship[7] holding to an eclectic style they call “free”.

*Baptism and the Gifts*

New Calvinism is Anabaptist and charismatic. Because they are not confessional, they cannot be regarded as Reformed Baptists. They practice adult baptism alone and do require it.[8] Most, if not all of New Calvinism believes in the continuation of special revelation by way of tongues, prophesy, laying on of hands, and all the other gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12. New Calvinism is pragmatic and syncratistic, that is to say, what works is right, because it works. In New Calvinism, the Emergent Church has met Calvinism, but not Calvin, Puritanism, but not the Puritans, moralism, but not holiness. 

*Why this Matters to Our Children*

New Calvinism is exciting, at least on the surface. It combines what appears to be the “best” of two worlds by marring contemporary culture with the basic tenants of Calvinism. Of the 9000 members of Mars Hill Church, virtually all of those in attendance are between the ages of 20-35. The music style is not much different than what you would expect the average worldly young person to be listening to on their iPod. The sermons are racy, humorous, and easily captivate the attention of the audience. 

*What's Good*

There are bright spots to this movement however. NC is seeking to bring to the attention of the average American, some of the forgotten truths of the historic faith. Most leaders of NC come from mainline evangelicalism, and it is good to see that they are beginning to realize that the “stuff and fluff” of their parent system has no solid anchor in the Word, especially when it comes to the sovereignty of God . New Calvinism is introducing this truth to tens of thousands who are, at least in some way, seeking. So then, we are thankful that NC is orthodox on the cross, the blood, on the need for personal repentance, and faith. NC has also demonstrated that what we need more than ever in our day is a return to passionate pulpit preaching. Mark Driscoll is a wonderful and engaging communicator. Perhaps in the Reformed Church, in an overreaction to the flamboyant methods of modernism and the Charismatic moment, we have left off the pursuit of passion, deep conviction, and believability in the old paths. Do we positively reinforce in our children, what we believe and why we believe it? Do we go beyond the basics, important as they are, and passionately communicate the other important truths of holiness, Psalm singing, sabbath keeping, etc. NC is teaching, loud and clear, that these doctrines are unimportant, and can be left to the personal tastes of the Christian. A generation of young Christians is listening to their message. 

NC is very transparent. This is attractive to many who are disillusioned with a perceived formalism of Old Calvinism, a kind of standoffish presence in the pulpit. New Calvinism leaders, open themselves up and let the people into their lives. NC is beneficial to many who would otherwise spend their days in mainline evangelicalism, are now reading their Bibles, Spurgeon, Owen, and other great authors because believable men are encouraging them to look deeper. It is our hope that these young people will go further into Calvinism, and see the full-orbed historic faith in confessional, experiential, Reformed orthodoxy. Then the tributary of NC has done us a service. 

Lastly, NC is evangelistic. They take the Great Commission very seriously by attempting to bring the gospel to their own city or town. They see the need to confront society with the gospel in their schools, places of work, and neighborhoods. So did Old Calvinism at one time. Perhaps we need to recapture this often neglected portion of our own tradition. The Lord has seen fit to bring the heathen to our doors. Mission work is no longer “over there”, but is right in front of us. New Calvinism is reminding Old Calvinists to do what our Lord commanded, and not hide out light under a bushel. For this we are thankful.

*What's Bad*

When my wife and I began our reformed trek, we needed to take baby steps. Those whom the Lord used in the reformed way did not give us the works of John Owen and tell us to get back to them. We began with the popular authors such as, Sproul, Macarthur, Jerry Bridges, and John Piper. These authors helped to explain to us where we were, and where we needed to go. Thankfully it did not stop there. As our ability to assimilate material grew, we began to read people like A.W. Pink, Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, Neil Pronk, and Joel Beeke. From there we began to read people like Octavius Winslow and William Jay, and before long, we were reading the Puritans and the Reformers themselves. My point is, the first authors were, to my wife and I, a bridge into the Reformed Faith. However this bridge has the potential of going two directions.

It could become a problem for some in Old Calvinism, recognizing our present deficiency in being salt and light as a Church, to turn to those that, for the most part, posses what we have lost. NC is interacting with culture, arguing for Christ, and seeing many brought to faith from every walk of life in their own communities. It is all over the Internet. Many Christian young people will find it almost impossible not to notice, and desire the same things. So should we all. The potential problem, as we see it is this...those in NC are bridges into the Reformed faith for many, but are also a bridges out. Far to many are becoming enamored with the personality, style, and apparent freedom inherent in NC, and are starting to question the importance of doctrinal precision. Minimalism is slowly creeping into our minds, and because we are the product (yes product) of a postmodern society, we are willing to entertain winds of change because they appear to work better than our current way.

For many, the way we process reformed information has changed, due, in part to the sound-bite age in which we live, and the vanishing art of thinking deeply. Many have taken the old fathers, and replaced them with the much easier to read and understand, modern authors and Internet bloggers. Men who may or may not hold to all the important truths of the Confessions. Over time the pallet for truth slowly changes, expectations lower for the sake of results, and before you know it, the “bridge into” Old Calvinism becomes the “bridge out.”into New Calvinism. Part of the attractiveness of NC is that you can have your cake and eat it too. That is you can claim to be reformed, hold to the five points of Calvinism, hear a funny yet challenging sermon on being a better father, wife, friend etc, and live the rest of the week in relative freedom. Go to the movies, listen to Pop music, imbibe in many worldly activities, and still feel you are connected to the reformation because the Church says these things are OK. In NC there is no emphasis on being strangers and pilgrims in the earth, and little promotion holy living.[9] A new standard is fast approaching the next generation of Old Calvinists if we are not willing to do 2 things:
Defend what we believe to be true in its entirety, with sincerity, holiness, and love. 
Advance the gospel light without compromise, inside and outside the Church walls. 

*Conclusion*

My wife and I have “been there, done that”. We've been on the March for Jesus with 35,000 believers rallying on the streets of Vancouver in so called unity. I’ve been to the King Dome in Seattle Washington with 55,000 wired Promise Keepers raising the roof. I’ve experienced first hand the mega church in all her supposed glory, majesty, and splendor. I have been a part of the syncretism between the Church and the world. Let me tell you as one who has been there- it is empty. New Calvinism has strange echoes in my heart. It's _deja vous._

New Calvinism is a zealous movement, which makes it believable to many. I was reminded of Thomas Watson's definition of zeal when he said, “Zeal is a mixed affection, a compound of love and anger...Zeal is the flame of the affections; a godly man has a double baptism—of water and fire. He is baptized with a spirit of zeal; he is zealous for God's honor, truth, worship: "My zeal has consumed me" (Psalm 119:139) [10]. We need to get reacquainted with zeal that is according to knowledge.

If New Calvinism has taught me anything, it has reminded me of the many things I am not doing well, or at all. I am compelled to look at myself in a critical light and ask, “am I ministering to my own generation effectively?” We own a rich heritage in Old Calvinism. It once changed the world during the Golden Age of Puritanism, it can change the world again. It is changing the world in places like South Korea and Brazil. We need to bring the message of the gospel, not only across the sea, but across the street. Something which is far hard to do than we think. 
Food for thought.

“_Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled_” (Luke 14:23). 
___________________________ 
Endnotes 
1.Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence . 
2.http://www.marshillchurch.org/about/what-we-believe 
3. [video=youtube;58fgkfS6E-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fgkfS6E-0[/video]
4.Much like the Cambridge Platform of the New England settlements of early America. 
5.YouTube - Mark Driscoll on the Emerging Church. 
6.Indie rock is a genre of alternative rock that primarily exists in the independent underground music scene.
7.See Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 35, Article 64, Church Order.
8.http://www.marshillchurch.org/about/membership-faq
9.I would highly recommend Dr. Peter Masters article, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness. Metropolitan Tabernacle. Metropolitan Tabernacle - The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness
10.The Godly Man's Picture. Banner of Truth, 1999.


----------



## Tripel (Jul 15, 2009)

JOwen said:


> New Calvinism is advancing its agenda on the back of a straw man caricature of Old Calvinism.
> 
> ....
> 
> In other words, “If you can't beat them, join them” is very much the prevailing attitude in New Calvinism.



I haven't yet read through your whole post, but I wanted to comment on this. You accused New Calvinism of using a straw man, but then seem to have turned around and done the same. Do you think Driscoll would agree with your "If you can't beat them, join them" caricature?


----------



## Skyler (Jul 15, 2009)

It seems to me these folks are about as Anabaptist as they are Reformed Baptist. 

By and large, their doctrine doesn't "click" with what the Anabaptists taught and practiced, at least if the impression I've gotten is correct. The "baptist" is about the only part that fits.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 15, 2009)

Tripel said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > New Calvinism is advancing its agenda on the back of a straw man caricature of Old Calvinism.
> ...



I don't follow. Which straw man do I use? Perhaps read the whole thing and then we can talk.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jul 15, 2009)

I would say New Calvinism is just that New. It embraces reformed theology in a soteriological sense but doesn't carry it's other tenants and it's attractive to younger folk because of it's contemporary style of worship. I know I had a hard time with the transfer from the mega church feely touchy style to a more godly style of worship.

Anabaptist? I don't think so. As I saw above our Baptist brethren would object to such argumentation. I would say New Calvinism is a sect of Baptist that our Reformed Baptist brethren would surely reject. I actually think its funny so many reformed people have tendency to call anything that disagrees with our view Anabaptist. I've seen reformed (presbyterian) call reformed Baptist and MacArthur Anabaptist...I think its a little exaggerated.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 15, 2009)

Hmmm...for some reason it has become just as hip to bash Piper and the "New Calvinists" as it has to become a Calvinist. Every internet theologian, and even some old hands, are clammering to give "the" definitive critique of the movement.

At least you didn't go as overboard as Peter Masters.

I very much like your "What's Good" section. It is good to give credit where credit is due. I think it could be longer, however, and would outweigh the what's bad.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Jul 15, 2009)

JOwen said:


> Mark Driscoll, the Teaching Pastor of the 9000 member Mars Hill Church in Seattle WA, is the leading proponent of New Calvinism. There is no central organization for this movement, so its most visible figure will need to suffice as an example. Here is what Driscoll has to say regarding the movement::
> 1.Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
> 
> 2.Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
> ...



It's not such a wise thing to begin your religious movement by criticizing the giants of the Reformation upon whose shoulders you are standing on...


----------



## Tripel (Jul 15, 2009)

JOwen said:


> I don't follow. Which straw man do I use?



It seems to me that you have formed a caricature of NC/Mars Hill/Driscoll/etc that is not accurate. 



> “If you can't beat them, join them” is very much the prevailing attitude in New Calvinism.



Is that truly accurate? If you can't beat them, join them? I don't think that is that is the attitude of Driscoll at all.



> The reason for this is NC teaches you can have your cake and eat it too. That is you can claim to be reformed, hold to the five points of Calvinism, hear a funny yet challenging sermon on being a better father, wife friend etc, and live the rest of the week as you wish.



Again, that is not true. Live the rest of the week as you wish??? That is not being honest.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 15, 2009)

When I said that NC was Anabaptist I was refering to re-baptism (hence, ana baptism). Do Anabaptists like Driscoll and identify with him in several ways? I think so. http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/ Young Anabaptist Radicals. Kind of like Young, Restless and Reformed in their style.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jul 15, 2009)

JOwen said:


> When I said that NC was Anabaptist I was refering to re-baptism (hence, ana baptism). Do Anabaptists like Driscoll and identify with him in several ways? I think so. http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/ Young Anabaptist Radicals. Kind of like Young, Restless and Reformed in their style.



You mind quoting exactly where they identify with Mars Hill? All I see is this:



> For those familiar with Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church (different from Rob Bell’s Mars Hill Church… though it is darn confusing…), they recently launched a website called Re:Sound. Their first project is a sort of indie-rock version of a lot of classic hymns such as “Softly and Tenderly”, “What Wonderous Love Is This”, “Doxology”, “Amazing Love”, “I’ll Fly Away”, etc.
> 
> If you’ve attended a Mennonite church for any period of time, you probably have sung these hymns a lot. These re-creations are really good and I highly suggest them. Through Noise Trade for a limited time, you can pay what you want for the 12 tracks, or refer 5 friends via e-mail and get it for free. It’s pretty simple. Check it out.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 15, 2009)

Are you saying that credo baptism equals anabaptism?


----------



## JOwen (Jul 15, 2009)

Bunyan was not a Anabaptist because he did not require rebaptiam. Anyone who says you must be baptised again if baptised as an infant is, by definition an Anabaptist. 

"ANABAPTISTS, a name given to those Christians who maintain that baptism ought always to be performed by immersion; that it ought not to be administered to children before the age of discretion; and that at this age it ought to be readministered to those who have been baptized in their infancy." Biblical Theological Dictionary, Richard Watson, 1856.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 15, 2009)

To the extent that Calvinism is a mere fashion, we must expect that it will be distorted and eventually decline. 



> In the second place we must remember that a widespread and lively interest in a subject is precisely what we call a Fashion. And it is the nature of Fashions not to last. The present Christian movement may, or may not, have a long run ahead of it. But sooner or later it must lose the public ear.... Whatever in our present success mere Fashion has given us, mere Fashion will presently withdraw. The real conversions will remain: but nothing else will.


(C.S. Lewis, "The Decline of Religion" from _God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics_)

These facts explain such things as notice by prominent news sources, and the migration of young people professing strict Calvinism to the FV, to Rome, to Eastern Orthodoxy: mere fashions change. Of course it is also Lewis who reminds us that Calvinism has been fashionable before, and while that does bring its own set of temptations, the Church has survived. The reason I don't get too excited about "New Calvinism" is that a lot of it seems to be predicated precisely on _being_ fashionable; but since fashions change, since what is cool today is merely slick tomorrow, "New Calvinism" either has to evolve, or surrender its coolness. (This, of course, applies equally well to the coolness apparent at times among Calvinists more in the old style.)


----------



## JOwen (Jul 15, 2009)

py3ak said:


> To the extent that Calvinism is a mere fashion, we must expect that it will be distorted and eventually decline.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, I think this is a passing fad. My concern, as a pastor, is the bleed-off of souls every time we have a movement come along. My post was intended to flesh out why it is better to stay put. I think that 500 years from now, Old Calvinism will still be here, and New Calvinism, a footnote (Like the many passing fads in religion). At times, we need to contend however.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 16, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Hmmm...for some reason it has become just as hip to bash Piper and the "New Calvinists" as it has to become a Calvinist. Every internet theologian, and even some old hands, are clammering to give "the" definitive critique of the movement.
> 
> At least you didn't go as overboard as Peter Masters.
> 
> I very much like your "What's Good" section. It is good to give credit where credit is due. I think it could be longer, however, and would outweigh the what's bad.



I don't think men are clamouring to bash anyone brother. It has everything to do with being watchman on the wall. When my dearly held beliefs are caracatured the way they are by Driscoll, do you expect me to be silent? I could just as easily say it has become just as hip to bash those who bash Piper and New Calvinism as it is to become a Calvinist.  You'd probably think that is a bit unfair. I agree.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 16, 2009)

JOwen said:


> I don't think men are clamouring to bash anyone brother. It has everything to do with being watchman on the wall. When my dearly held beliefs are caracatured the way they are by Driscoll, do you expect me to be silent? I could just as easily say it has become just as hip to bash those who bash Piper and New Calvinism as it is to become a Calvinist.  You'd probably think that is a bit unfair. I agree.



If you want to be a watchman on the wall, you desire a noble task. But you need to do a better job sounding the alarm.
Calling a modern soteriologically Calvinist Baptist an Anabaptist is, while technically accurate, a misnomer. If you don't know that for the past 200 years or more in North America, it has been the term Baptist that has been used to denominate credo-baptists not the term Ana-baptist, you will do well to learn it.

There are good reasons for the change. There is a profound difference between the original Anabaptists and the Calvinistic non-confessionals. With the exception of baptism, he practices that made the originals notorious, the modern Calvinistic Baptists utterly reject. 

And if you did know that Baptist is the correct term, why deliberately apply the incorrect one if you were not deliberately constructing a straw man? Your beliefs may be caricatured by Driscoll, but his error does not give you the right to err in the opposite direction. Please remember: two wrongs make a blight!


----------



## JOwen (Jul 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think men are clamouring to bash anyone brother. It has everything to do with being watchman on the wall. When my dearly held beliefs are caracatured the way they are by Driscoll, do you expect me to be silent? I could just as easily say it has become just as hip to bash those who bash Piper and New Calvinism as it is to become a Calvinist.  You'd probably think that is a bit unfair. I agree.
> ...



I called them anabaptists BECAUSE it is technically accurate. That was the point. It's not pejorative, simply the truth. Anyone who requires re-baptism is by definition an anabaptist in its most fundamental meaning. My article clearly states the degree to which NC is such, that they require re-baptism. 

"ANABAPTISTS, a name given to those Christians who maintain that baptism ought always to be performed by immersion; that it ought not to be administered to children before the age of discretion; and that at this age it ought to be readministered to those who have been baptized in their infancy." Biblical Theological Dictionary, Richard Watson, 1856.

Anabaptists- "Any of a group of sects of the early Reformation period of the 16th century that believed in rebaptism of people as adults. Infant baptism was not recognized as valid and the Catholic Mass was rejected. Anabaptist means 'one who baptizes again.' They believed in non-violence and opposed state run churches." (A.D. - Bride of Christ | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 16, 2009)

JOwen said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > JOwen said:
> ...



With all due respect to a brother who made an eerily similar journey to mine and to a pastor to boot: Wake up! If you really don't know that the Anabaptist theolgical position was more than a denial of paedobaptism, you have no business using the name until you find out the totality of what they stood for: as until you do, you simply don't know what you are talking about. If you do know the history you must know that you have absolutely no business using the label on the YMC's as the older Anabaptists took positions that the YMC's abhor. 

You could have and should have make your point that the YMC's are credo's by calling them Baptists, which, as the broader term, (all Anabaptists are Baptist i.e., credo's but not all Baptists are Anabaptist) has been the proper name of the position for the last 200 years. Had you done so, you would have been correct without the possibility of being gainsaid or causing needless offense and you will gain more of a hearing for yourself. If one is serious about being a help to those inside movements one believes to be heterodox, mispreprestations like this should be avoided like the plague as they will lead to massive damage to your credibility and ability to help those caught in the snare.

But calling YMC's Anabaptist does more than indentify their bpatismal position. It puts on the YMC's the onus of doctrines they do not hold, cannot justly be condemned for holding and which your cited source has ommitted to consider. I think that never in a million years would you claim that the follwing syllogism is sound: 
a) The late? RPNA(GM) holds to the WCF
b) the non-RPNA Presbyterians hold to the WCF; 
therefore 
c) all non-RPNA Presbyterians may be called RPNA(GM)ites.

You would rather, I think, join me in remarking that anyone who did hold the above conclusion sound would be showing himself to be at least uninformed, or if proved to be informed as to the facts, possibly malicious. Why? Because we both know the significant difference between the RPNA(GM) and other Presbyterians: the RPNA (GM) held certain other documents to be of confessional weight, while other Presbyterian bodies did not so regard those particular documents. 

Yet in calling YMC's, who do not hold all the Anabaptist distinctives, Anabaptists you have made precisely the same error of logic. By the label you have applied to the subject of your critique, you have attributed doctrinal positions to them that they demonstrably do not hold.
And such attribution is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation, both of which are much better avoided wherever possible.


----------



## MW (Jul 16, 2009)

Well observed, Jerrold. I appreciate your soberbess and diligence in keeping watch.


----------



## Philip (Jul 16, 2009)

Jerrold,

Several reactions come to mind here. I find myself both in agreement and disagreement with you. You listed areas that I would consider strengths as weaknesses. For example, the recordings of old hymns with new instrumentation may not be your style, but then again, if you object to electric guitars and drums under the RP, then you need to go the whole way and criticize things such as church buildings, steeples, lecterns, bulletins, pews, hymnals, and a host of other items common in our worship that were not directly commanded in the Bible. I may like a quieter style better, but it's an aesthetic preference rather than a moral one.



> 1.Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture [Syncretism is a blending or marrying of two incompatible systems into one new organic method.].
> 
> 2.Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
> 
> ...



Sadly, this has been the perception of reformed theology since around 1800. However, if you go further back, you will find Edwards and Whitefield answering the same kinds of objections that you are listing for Driscoll. Edwards' "Religious Affections" was written to answer such objections about gifts of the spirit, etc. Driscoll is indeed drawing from reformed roots here.

Frankly, Calvinism has not historically been perceived as particularly warm. There's good reason why Presbyterians are nicknamed the "frozen chosen." This is what Driscoll is attacking--a cold fundamentalist strain of Calvinism that largely ignored the outside world for nearly a century, instead constantly splitting and fracturing over the tiniest issues (read up on Schaeffer's journey and you'll see what I mean). 

On the upside, the new interest in Puritan thought and practice can only lead to good things, especially if the current trend for putting Puritan poetry into worship music keeps going.

In terms of the gifts, I've seen too much to say that I'm a strict cessationist any more.

I think the movement was summed up nicely by one of my professors (a scholar in Puritan thought) who said that the interest in Puritanism and reformed theology in these kind of circles is a good sign, but in order to continue, there needs to be some sort of confession.


----------



## apaleífo̱ (Jul 16, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Frankly, Calvinism has not historically been perceived as particularly warm. There's good reason why Presbyterians are nicknamed the "frozen chosen." This is what Driscoll is attacking--a cold fundamentalist strain of Calvinism that largely ignored the outside world for nearly a century, instead constantly splitting and fracturing over the tiniest issues (read up on Schaeffer's journey and you'll see what I mean).



It would be nice if someone would educate the public regarding the difference between the fiery, living religion of the Puritan Calvinists and the admittedly sometimes stale, knee-jerk Calvinism of the nineteenth-century.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 16, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...




I'll rather stick to the definition I was addressing, and by doing so, am well within good parameters to call them anabaptists. I expect you to resist it as someone who holds to re-baptism but is offended by the tag. I wrote this from the perspective of a Reformed minister, and insofar as a Church withholds covenant baptism from its children, I'll stick to my Confession.

Article 33

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists
who are not content with a single baptism
once received
and also condemn the baptism
of the children of believers.
We believe our children ought to be baptized
and sealed with the sign of the covenant,
as little children were circumcised in Israel
on the basis of the same promises
made to our children.

Sorry if it upsets you dear brother.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 16, 2009)

JOwen said:


> I'll rather stick to the definition I was addressing, and by doing so, am well within good parameters to call them anabaptists. I expect you to resist it as someone who holds to re-baptism but is offended by the tag. I wrote this from the perspective of a Reformed minister, and insofar as a Church withholds covenant baptism from its children, I'll stick to my Confession.
> 
> Article 33
> 
> ...



In the interests of interdenominational relations, I should point out that you would also probably dislike it if a Roman Catholic were to refer to you as a Reformed Baptist.

The Anabaptists, I think, defined themselves in the Schleitheim confession of faith; to use an alternate arbitrary definition could be an insult not only to them but to whoever you attached the label to. I would encourage you to rethink your decision.

And no, I'm not insulted.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 16, 2009)

Skyler said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > I'll rather stick to the definition I was addressing, and by doing so, am well within good parameters to call them anabaptists. I expect you to resist it as someone who holds to re-baptism but is offended by the tag. I wrote this from the perspective of a Reformed minister, and insofar as a Church withholds covenant baptism from its children, I'll stick to my Confession.
> ...




How about changing it to
Young Moderately Calvinistc Anabaptistics?


----------



## Skyler (Jul 16, 2009)

JOwen said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > JOwen said:
> ...



You just don't want to find a new acronym.


----------



## buggy (Jul 16, 2009)

Despite their belief in charismatic doctrine, I appreciate the resurgence of Reformed theology among the young people. I seriously pray that God will use them to save more people and get them out of the rampant materialism of those "health-and-wealth" prosperity-gospel churches. In fact, some of the New Calvinists like Joshua Harris I appreciate their work...

I say this because lots of people my age in my country are attracted by the megachurches. Zeal, yes, but not according to knowledge. Many desert the faith and become little more than nominal believers in college. 

As of now I have not seen any New Calvinist ministry who has taken charismatic doctrine to the extreme and become like those 'fellas who holler, scream and roll on the ground though.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2009)

JOwen said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...for some reason it has become just as hip to bash Piper and the "New Calvinists" as it has to become a Calvinist. Every internet theologian, and even some old hands, are clammering to give "the" definitive critique of the movement.
> ...



Oh yeah...I guess now it is becoming hip to bash those who bash those who bash Piper!  

FYI: There was much in the article that I liked, but I wish your commendations of New Calvinism were more and your warnings less; this is not merely a passing fad. 

Calvinism and a greater devotion to truth is on the resurgence and as it spreads out like a slow fire, it will take many forms and some forms will look more like wildfire than the fire of the Holy Spirit. 

I think there is a movement in general towards greater truth and newer missionaries coming out in the last 5 years are much more calvinisitic than the missionaries in their 50's.... I am happy for this resurgence and I don't need to agree with every branch of this work of God totally to see that there is a movement of God afoot that, hopefully, continues. The Southern Baptists, for example, fell into a cesspool in the middle part of this century and now a great resurence in truth is afoot and they are leading the way in missions in much of the Muslim world. At Southern I think a recent survey indicated that a large percentage of the new preachers graduating were calvinistic (even though they are baptisitic and tend to like Piper and Nohler. GASP, new calvinists...moan....moan). 


I have heard that some of the "Reformed" in the colonies were also upset when George Whitefield came over and preached and some called his methods improper. But, as the fame of Whitefield and his Gospel continues, those curmudgeons are swept under the rug as the Losers of History. As Piper and others are embraced as champions of the truth that ae reviving interest in the sovereingty of God, let's make sure we are on the right side and make sure any disagreements are mild in-house skirmishes only, and that many prayers are given for these brothers so that they may represent God well.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 16, 2009)

JOwen said:


> *Old vs. New*
> 
> Mark Driscoll, the Teaching Pastor of the 9000 member Mars Hill Church in Seattle WA, is the leading proponent of New Calvinism. There is no central organization for this movement, so its most visible figure will need to suffice as an example. Here is what Driscoll has to say regarding the movement:
> 
> ...



If these statements are true I would venture to say that there is a lot of Straw concerning the old in Driscoll's comments.

While we Baptists are anabaptists by the technicality of the term I believe it is poor to equate Confessional Baptists to anabaptists historically. There is just too much baggage tied to the name historically that doesn't apply to the Confessional Baptists. 

(1) Every Presbyterian Church I have had contact with has been very active in their communities and sought to evangelize and refocus the social environment back to what it should be under the headship of Christ. I have been a member of a few congregations that were very involved in politics and evangelism. One was RPCNA and the other was PCA. 

(2) The PCA and the RPCNA have both been very involved with the downtown missions and outreaches that minister to those in the city. Both denominations are very accessible to those of our City. 

(3) Concerning the noncessationists charges it seems like the new Calvinists are gravely mistaken in that we cessationists do joy in the presence of the Holy Spirit and his wonderous works. We still believe in the supernatural and that God does work on behalf of his people and church. We do joy in the Holy Spirit and so did our Forefathers. One just need to read Calvin in the Institutes and John Owen. They were great theologians of the Holy Spirit. We also do acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has set guidelines up according to his word as to how the Godhead should be worshipped. Anything that adds to that worship is vain as Aaron's sons both found out in offering strange fire that the Lord neither forbid nor commanded. They were burnt with fire for adding something that the Lord didn't command nor did he say it was specifically wrong. They were commanded on what fire to use but they brought in a fire that was not commanded and they displeased the Lord and suffered for it. We are cautious to try to do as the Lord commands so that we do not worship in our own creativity but in the revealed will of the Lord. We want to be submissive and worship him in Spirit and Truth. Not in assumption and creativity. That is what displeased the Lord in Aaron's sons. 

(4) We do burn bridges that are harmful. We pay attention to our doctrine and the words of our mouths realizing that we are to speak God's word in truth. We see what Isaiah saw in his experience that we are a people of unclean lips and we dwell amongst a people of unclean lips. The tongs were used to take a coal and purge Isaiah's mouth so that he could speak of God aright. Pastor Driscoll could take Isaiah for an example in his Pulpit. He could also take some lessons away from the word concerning wholesome words, doctrine, and salvation. 

(1Ti 4:16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. 

I surely admire many men from other denominations and even encourage some semi-pelagians. I know many staunch Presbyterians who do also. I do not endorse Charismatics even though I might accept some as brothers. I do not endorse Weslyans even though I might accept some of those as brothers. If burning bridges is declaring that I think their teachings are unbiblical so be it. I see many dangers in their teachings and am not afraid to announce that so others might steer clear and not end up on the opposite of God's will. If that is what Pastor Driscoll is referring to when he says we burn bridges than he needs be very careful in his assessment and criticism. He should burn some bridges also. 

But we should always be ready to receive any who would repent. 

I understand JOwen's pilgrimage and appreciate it. There are things to be learned here. He and R. Scott Clark have similar experiences in that they came from a non confessional background and see the richness, wisdom, and true experiential experimental Christianity as expressed in the Old Paths. They are sound and tested. I say that as a Reformed Baptist. I have my disagreements with these guys but they haven't burnt any bridges with me. Our distinctives define us and we should acknowledge them without any animosity. In fact I think we do for the most part.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2009)

Yes, Driscoll seems to gather antagonism and rightly so in many cases, and then Piper and Macarthur get grouped in with him. Then, rather than focusing on Driscoll's statements, these statements by one person then attract critiques of not only him but anyone who associates with him as proof of the dangers of New Calvinism. I am not sure the movement is as monolithic as some would think.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 16, 2009)

JOwen said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > JOwen said:
> ...



It doesn't upset me that you don't like credo-baptism. But I suggest you need to consider whether you have remaining issues with Baptist doctrine that may be affecting your good judgment. It's one thing to be solid on a point when you have to be: I see no real gain and a great deal of loss if you continue holding one point where you clearly err.

I'm no Neo-Calvinist a la Driscoll and although I don't think we can provide Scriptural or GNC proof of the propostion that the "charismatic gifts" have ceased, I am adamantly certain that the gifts must not be promoted by unbiblical means as many "new Calvinist" types have been reported as doing. Consequently, my concern is entirely with measuring the potential effectiveness of your polemic to keep people from New Calvinist extremes. 

And it is because I want people to be helped to turn from NC extremes that I want your paper to be as strong as it can be. It is from that perspective that I say calling YMC's Anabaptists, when the term doesn't properly apply, is simply offering your opponents an unnecessary opportunity to lay out a truthful counter that discredits your views. Dr. Lloyd-Jones once said "Always choose the place where the battle is fought: why give those on the other side an error that they can capitalize on by using truth to counter your point? The existance of this one mistake will mitigate against the effectiveness of the rest of your argument. Why persist in shooting yourself in the foot? 

I notice that you make no mention of my syllogism above, so let me ask it as a question: How seriously would you take someone who calls all Presbyterians RPNA[gm's]? Not very, I know. But to anyone who knows anything about Anapatists will treat your arguments with exactly that degree of seriousness so long as you continue your mislabeling of YMC's as Anabaptists when the two groups share no doctrinal commonalities other than credo-baptism.

PS "deja vous" is actually "deja vu".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 16, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, Driscoll seems to gather antagonism and rightly so in many cases, and then Piper and Macarthur get grouped in with him. Then, rather than focusing on Driscoll's statements, these statements by one person then attract critiques of not only him but anyone who associates with him as proof of the dangers of New Calvinism. I am not sure the movement is as monolithic as some would think.



And that is part of the problem. And that is some of the critique Gerrald has of that strain of congregationalism. 

While it may not be monolithic it sure has some of the same tendencies and dangers. Especially when it comes to the law of God and how they view it. When it comes to the charismatic emergent part the dangers even become more apparent.

I do agree that using the anabaptist term as it is noted historically is not done properly in my opinion. It has too much baggage with it to be associated with the Confessional Baptists. That is why the 1644 LBCF was authored so that there would be no confusing of the Particular Baptists with the Anabaptists of the Reformation.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2009)

What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jul 16, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?




Sorry, but I am having trouble determining your "type", as you put it.

What indeed do you mean by "our type?"

Are you NCT? And what is your purpose on PB?


Am I wrong?

How wrong?

Why wrong?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 16, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?



I personally think we should refer to ourselves as Reformed Baptists. It is a modern term that developed in the mid 1900's. It is even defined. I do not think we should refer to ourselves as Reformed in the sense of the Reformed church. I explain this in a recent blog entry that I made in response to many Calvinistic Baptists who were offended that they were not to be acknowledged as Reformed Theologians by Dr. R. Scott Clark. You can read it here. 
Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2009)

Reformed Rush said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several \"Particular Baptists\" too that believe in this new-fangled \"New Covenant Theology\" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?
> ...



NCT is New Covenant Theology. 

Many calvinistic baptists believe this. Reisenger promotes this and many others by saying that Jesus in Matthew 5 gave a new law than Moses. NCTers are anti-sabbatarian as well. Some of those calling themselves "Particular Baptists" also believe in this as well.


To familarize yourself with New Covenant Theology, see these books:


Amazon.com: Tablets of Stone and the History of Redemption: John G. Reisinger: Books



Amazon.com: New Covenant Theology: Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel: Books


Richard Barcellos gives a fine defense of the Biblical view here:


Amazon.com: In Defense of the Decalogue : A Critique of New Covenant Theology: Richard Barcellos: Books


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 16, 2009)

Reformed Rush said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What should we call ourselves then Randy? I know several "Particular Baptists" too that believe in this new-fangled "New Covenant Theology" that does not give due credit to the law, and I am told we aren't really reformed either, so what is the proper monicker for our type?
> ...



Pergy is not NCT. He is a confessional Baptist holding to the 1689. Our "type" has to do with how we are to be defined and recognized.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 16, 2009)

Calvinism Old and “New” Heidelblog

Molly Worthen on Mark Driscoll (and Calvin) Heidelblog


----------



## Reformed Rush (Jul 16, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Rush said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I am thoroughly familiar with NCT, and thank you for verifying your theological position.


----------



## buggy (Jul 16, 2009)

As a young guy who learnt a lot from New Calvinists, I have to say that even among them there are some differences. For example you have Joshua Harris, Piper and Driscoll who are not cessationist (and even among them they are different). MacArthur is cessationist and a little bit leaning on fundamentalism in some aspects. 

I don't know what will happen to the New Calvinists, but IF they manage to write a Confession of faith and unify, I am very sure that they will last much longer.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2009)

Don't shoot me yet brother. I may have poor communication skills at times and engage in discussions with a passion, but I love the brethren here and don't believe Moses and Jesus were enemies or had any disagreements in Matthew 5.

-----Added 7/16/2009 at 11:18:54 EST-----

Give it time, my charm will rub off on you!


----------



## Iconoclast (Jul 17, 2009)

I was just downloading some sermonaudio sermons and came across this recent series that might weigh in here on this topic. 
I have not listened yet, but here is a description of the sermon series.


> If ever there were a jewel of gold in a pig’s snout, charismatic Calvinism is it. What should be a humorous and ridiculous oxymoron, “charismatic Calvinist,” is now a nauseating and repugnant reality. Charismatic Calvinists open the door for false teaching in the Calvinist church; they blemish the reputation of orthodox Calvinists; they expect legitimacy, thinking that their claim to be Calvinists insulates them from the charge of heterodoxy; they denigrate the primary work of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification, ultimately denying the scripture that affirms “of His fulness have we all received”; they inherently and unavoidably align themselves with the most despicable charletains of contemporary fundamentalism; they create a false expectation of sensational spiritual experience for young and naive believers; they are apparently unsatisfied and unsatiated with the primary work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification; they have pirated and defamed the phrase “sovereign grace”; and they are an embarrassment and an annoyance.



in light of this thread i am looking forward to listening to this; the sermons are by Hal Brunson;
SermonAudio.com - Charismatic Calvinists, Part 1
Charismatic Calvinists, Part 1 

Charismatic Calvinists · 1 of 3 

6/28/2009 (SUN) 

ID 628091333239 Category: Sunday - AM 

Upload Media 

3 Charismatic Calvinists, Part 1
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • Charismatic Calvinists 
First Baptist Church of Parker 
100+ Play! | 

SUN 06/28/2009
Sunday - AM






Available FREE Media © All media is copyright. Blog-This | Help 

... stream. download. podcast. all free. all the time ... 


Play Audio! (Streaming) 32kbps| 67 min. [3]


Download MP3 (16.1MB) Batch downloads • How?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2009)

Would you classify Piper as charismatic?


----------



## Iconoclast (Jul 17, 2009)

I am confident that God's will is being acomplished despite any and all of the error's of believer's, myself included.. I am not as interested in trying to place each of these men in a label as much as I believe this error, is counter-productive to the gospel. 
Personally I do not care for several of these ministries cited, but many express that God has used them for good. Looking at Piper briefly, I think what people relate to with Him is his passion,and apparent zeal.
About 20 years ago when I would speak in opposition to the teaching of many of the charismatic leaders- Swaggert, Jim Baker, etc, people would say who are you to speak against these men?
Where there is false teaching mixed in with true, false living is soon to follow.
Sadly this has been well documented by the failures of some of these men.
It was not their zeal, or sincerity that lead to the failure ,but sin and error.
If Piper has pure heart motives,yet leaves open a door of error in a time of testing I believe it will lead to much harm in the church.

With the OP I think many areas were covered very well. [ the anabaptist discussion aside, I agreed in the main with the OP]
Have you not had conversations with young professors who speculate because of these ideas suggested by some of these men. Sometimes I wonder whether or not as these ministries grow large that pragmatism enters in a bit, so as to seen more open, loving and welcome, but truth gets over-run with the error.
I have never seen where these ideas have led to more of a desire to pursue holiness, or holy service. It is more like a parasite the sucks the life out of persons infected by it. They turn away from the word,rather than toward it to a point of calling scripture -a dead letter! perverting and wresting Pauls words in 2 Cor.
I have no axe to grind on this, but I do not feel the need to just go along with every idea these men suggest. I am not commanded to.
To sum up, it is more like God has worked through all manner of teachers and teaching- from cults to RC, to get His sheep into the word. Praise Him for that. Nevertheless I would not endorse the errors of these false teachings as a means to draw people in


----------



## ReformedChapin (Jul 17, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Would you classify Piper as charismatic?



I would just reading _Let the Nations be Glad _we see the idealistic stories and the miraculous events that Piper endorses about how missionaries "got a word from God." He seems to embrace some sort of direct revelation from God.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2009)

The Scottish Covenanters then, too, sound Charismatic.


----------

