# "new" calvinism



## presbyterianintexas

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. Well lets see the particular baptists did not have “reformed” church government. They were just as bit as Calvinistic as the Presbyterians and congregationalists. Either do the congregationalists, but one would be hard pressed to say that Johnathon Edwards was not Calvinist.

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. This is totally not true. I have seen some “independent/bible” type churches confessions of faith over the years and their pretty calvinistic

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. That doesn't mean they are not true blue Calvinists. I mean if u follow the 5 points”Tulip” in your theology, you are considered Calvinist.*


----------



## au5t1n

You are confusing "Calvinism" with "Reformed." One is primarily a reference to the five points nowadays; the other is a theological movement that includes other distinctives, such as the Regulative Principle and Covenant Theology.


----------



## presbyterianintexas

well i know what ya saying but as i stated in post. when most folks think of calvinism its the tulip soteriology. meaning you can be calvinist with out being reformed like baptists and congregationalists were few hundred years ago


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

New Calvinism is a different bread. It is not Calvinism. The 5 points are a good place to start in understanding soteriology. But it is not what Calvin would necessarily endorse outside of the whole of the Bible like the New Calvinism does. I has to do with Worship and a New Creation which is not necessarily tied together in the New Calvinism. Calvinism has to do with seeing the whole Bible as a book that is one book and Covenantal.


----------



## presbyterianintexas

mmm well i guess some folks believe you have to believe in the presbyterian form of governement and/ or the covenants. to be a true blue calvinist. Sorry Mr. SPurgeon and Edwards your not calvinist by the defination that some are giving. lmbo


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> New Calvinism is a different bread.



I never had the old Calvinist bread. I wonder how the new Calvinist bread is toasted with butter.


----------



## Sam Owen

Anyone seen a store that sells Calvinist Crumpets?


----------



## Herald

Sam Owen said:


> Anyone seen a store that sells Calvinist Crumpets?



No, but I heard cranberry Calvinist scones are really good.


----------



## Sam Owen

Bwah ha haaa ... Ooooh that's just norty


----------



## Philip

I asked a reformed church historian once about what he thought of new Calvinism and he responded with admiration for the way that the new Calvinists are embracing and studying the Puritans, but expressed concern over their lack of unity and lack of a confession. I think they're headed in a good direction, as long as they keep going (and judging by their enthusiasm for sound doctrine, it looks like they will).


----------



## raekwon

Could someone define "new Calvinism" and/or give some real-world examples? I've seen it much bally-hooed (both in positive and negative lights) with no real definition.


----------



## Notthemama1984

New:
–adjective
1.of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: a new book. 
2.of a kind now existing or appearing for the first time; novel: a new concept of the universe. 
3.having but lately or but now come into knowledge: a new chemical element. 
4.unfamiliar or strange (often fol. by to): ideas new to us; to visit new lands. 
5.having but lately come to a place, position, status, etc.: a reception for our new minister. 
6.unaccustomed (usually fol. by to): people new to such work. 
7.coming or occurring afresh; further; additional: new gains. 
8.fresh or unused: to start a new sheet of paper. 
9.(of physical or moral qualities) different and better: The vacation made a new man of him. 
10.other than the former or the old: a new era; in the New World. 
11.being the later or latest of two or more things of the same kind: the new testament; a new edition of Shakespeare. 
12.(initial capital letter) (of a language) in its latest known period, esp. as a living language at the present time: New High German. 

Calvinist
–noun
1.the doctrines and teachings of John Calvin or his followers, emphasizing predestination, the sovereignty of god, the supreme authority of the Scriptures, and the irresistibility of grace.


----------



## DMcFadden

presbyterianintexas said:


> well i know what ya saying but as i stated in post. when most folks think of calvinism its the tulip soteriology. meaning you can be calvinist with out being reformed like baptists and congregationalists were few hundred years ago


 
Brian, welcome to the PB!

After you have been around here a bit longer, you will learn that a couple of professional historians here (and not a few members) do not believe that Baptists are Reformed, as a matter of fact. Most of the operational definitions for "Reformed" on the PB include a more full bodied feature-rich panoply of items that typically include a coupling of Calvinist soteriology with covenant theology and a traditional confession (e.g., WCF or the 3FU). This excludes as well as includes. Dr. John MacArthur, for instance, is a powerful preacher and author who upholds the sovereignty of God and TULIP. He is, however, dispensational, pre-tribulational, and . . . non Reformed.

Some of us who are non Presbyterian rankled at the apparent exclusivity in the beginning. However, this is not to say that God only works through Reformed bodies. TULIP soteriology is a thing to be appreciated, no matter who holds it. Many non-confessional and non-Reformed "new Calvinists" are doing a wonderful job of challenging the secularism of our culture, building churches, and presenting the Gospel. They are found in independent churches, Baptist churches, and the like. They are not, by most accepted definitions, fully Reformed. Mark Driscoll, for example, preaches from the "right" Bible (ESV), holds firmly to Calvinistic theology, etc. He would probably not, however, consider himself "Reformed" and few on the PB would argue with him.


----------



## Kiffin

raekwon said:


> Could someone define "new Calvinism" and/or give some real-world examples? I've seen it much bally-hooed (both in positive and negative lights) with no real definition.


 
This is not a "real" definition but my observation-

_New Calvinism_ is a movement of 18-30something year-olds who have embraced Reformed soteriology through the ministries of John MacArthur, John Piper, RC Sproul, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, etc., and who are not afraid to be dogmatic despite postmodernity's influence. The majority are dispensationalists who are reforming and a close second are confessionalists who find exceptions. 

Synonym- _Togetherforthegospelism_


----------



## Herald

Kiffin said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone define "new Calvinism" and/or give some real-world examples? I've seen it much bally-hooed (both in positive and negative lights) with no real definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a "real" definition but my observation-
> 
> _New Calvinism_ is a movement of 18-30something year-olds who have embraced Reformed soteriology through the ministries of John MacArthur, John Piper, RC Sproul, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, etc., and who are not afraid to be dogmatic despite postmodernity's influence. The majority are dispensationalists who are reforming and a close second are confessionalists who find exceptions.
> 
> Synonym- _Togetherforthegospelism_
Click to expand...


That's a pretty good definition. But without adopting Reformed theology, Neo-Calvinism will eventually become subservient to the egalitarianism and relativism of the day.


----------



## jwright82

James K. A. Smith is writing a new book entitlted Letter To Young Calvinist for this crowd. It is aimed at introducing them to the greater world of the reformed faith. Here is the link: Letters to a Young Calvinist | Publishing Commerce | Baker Books: A Division of Baker Publishing Group


----------



## presbyterianintexas

i agree Dennis. You basically said samething i was saying but in a different way. When i started the post Mark Driscoll was what i had in mind


----------



## JOwen

Here is my definition of New Calvinism from Old Paths Paved. YMCA- Young Moderately Calvinistic Anabaptists.


----------



## Prufrock

Brian,

I would suggest that this conversation is based upon too high a view of the "5 Points" *as* "The 5 Points." We need to remember that these weren't something that a group of theologians sat down and thought of one day as a good representation of our theology. Rather, there was already a full, coherent system of theology, and this system was challenged by the Remonstrants on 4 points; in response, in order to protect the truths of this system of theology, the fathers met at Dort and affirmed the necessity of 5 key points within the Reformed system. What does this mean? It means that these 5 things were never designed to stand alone; nor, I would submit, *can* they stand alone.

Let me give an example. Let's pretend that I am a Rock and Roll musician. I stay with my sister for a week, and she loves to listen to Baroque-style music -- especially to Bach. Now, while my Rock sensibilities cannot stand her music, nevertheless I am very intrigued for some reason by the overall concept of a fugue. I don't like all the formal rules, the constraints, the styles, (the harpsichords), but I love the idea of the fugue. So later on, when I am writing new music, I attempt to incorporate the basic idea of the fugue into one of my songs. It's a wild song, full of screaming guitars, driven by drum loops, ever-changing in traditional rock fashion. BUT, it has some basic elements of a fugue. Now, under no circumstances would it be honest or a fair representation of Baroque music to claim that I am now a Baroque musician. The most that can be said is that I have incorporated a certain element of Baroque style into a fundamentally antagonistic form of music.

I would suggest to you that these "5 Points" are of a similar nature: they simply cannot be separated from their Reformed context and grafted into some other theological system/view and still retain any true, meaningful significance. This is not to discourage those contemporary churches and Christians who are beginning to discover the wonders of aspects of Reformed theology -- they should be greatly encouraged! And we need to be thankful that such truths are beginning to be rediscovered and embraced! Nevertheless, speaking abstractly, without the framework provided by the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort cannot represent any basis for theology. They need to exist within a framework. Without a proper understanding of God as he is a Trinity, and of the nature of his will, knowledge and decrees, the 5 Points cannot stand; without a proper understanding of the role of each of the Three persons in salvation, the 5 Points cannot stand; without a proper understanding of Justification by Faith, the 5 Points cannot stand; without an understanding of the Covenant of Grace, and the means by which salvation is applied (the Word and Sacrament), the 5 Points cannot stand; without a proper understanding of the mediatorial and economic work of Christ in his person, natures, three offices and two states, the 5 Points cannot stand; without an understanding of Reformed piety, and the means of walking in the grace purchased and applied; without an understanding of the law-gospel distinction and the third use of the law; of the role of the gospel and the sacraments in our sanctification -- the 5 Points cannot stand. All our doctrines are inter-related, and you cannot simply remove 5 certain parts from their context and hope that they will still function properly.

You might be interested in reading this short article by famed historian Richard Muller, entitled "How Many Points." It was originally published in Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 28 (1993): 425-33, but may be read with permission online here: Riddleblog - "How Many Points?"

Welcome to the Puritan Board; I do hope that your time and conversations here will be profitable for all!


----------



## DMcFadden

Well stated and elegtantly framed, Paul. 

I think that is what Bill was referencing when he suggested that much of the new Calvinism is intrinsically unstable and will eventually devolve into the Zeitgeist of today: egalitarianism and relativism. The confessional Baptists on the board might argue that they are able to hold it together without paedobaptism. But, ALL of us could probably agree that the Burger King ("have it your way") pastiche of a little Calvinist soteriology and a little emergent church ecclesiology with a large dollop of dispensationalism will never hold together over time.

I celebrate the dissemination of truth (the 5 pts.) whether by Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, or Mark Driscoll. However, unless it is wedded to a more appropriate ecclesiology and view of the covenant, it will not have much shelf life.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

While dogmatic, new Calvinists are giving into some of post-modernity's fluid use of language. While I'm encouraged that people are landing on Calvinistic-ish ideas, the eclectic theological choices they make are still, in many cases, rooted in a modernist way of thinking that our minds are the organ of truth by which we interpret the data from many voices and settle the issue for ourselves. Once they've collected their sources, they perform their own unique mashup of Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Pneumatology, etc, and call it Reformed or Calvinist. Remind them that Reformed or Calvinist had a historic meaning and you're a legalist because their deconstruction of the word is now normative.

Hermeneutics is a complicated science. I don't think I recognized how many ways exegesis and systematics interplay in the building up of doctrines from verses and then informing contexts from the systems. What worries me about many new Calvinists is a kind of pragmatism that's never done any of the "dirty work" to try to get a solid hermeneutic into place but then having the arrogance to claim that Historic Confessions are "legalistic" or stifling on the basis of a theology of the first glance.

Ironically, one of the first principles that many new Calvinists agree with is Total Depravity but I don't think many of them stop to consider the fact that indwelling Sin actually affects the interpretative process - including their own. One of the fundamental reasons that the Reformed have deliberated in Synods over the years is the collective "protection" that a group of men give to each other in their respective theological "blind spots". Again, however, I think that many new Calvinists are operating on a basic modernist assumption that they can trust their own "spider sense". It's an unstated assumption but I see it operating as a consistent undercurrent.


----------



## Theoretical

jwright82 said:


> James K. A. Smith is writing a new book entitlted Letter To Young Calvinist for this crowd. It is aimed at introducing them to the greater world of the reformed faith. Here is the link: Letters to a Young Calvinist | Publishing Commerce | Baker Books: A Division of Baker Publishing Group


 
Wow, this looks _highly_ interesting!


----------



## presbyterianintexas

i agree more with dennis than Paul that you can be calvinist in soteriology without being calvinist in church government etc. but if in order to be a true blue calvinist you have to have a presbyterian form of government etc. then like i said before, i guess the historians etc were wrong about johnathon edwards and charles spurgeon, among others being calvinist. Since they didnt follow a reformed government. And in order to be calvinist u have to follow a reformed government according to some folks. guess to me theres no logic in having to be reformed in government and theology in order to be a true blue calvinist. i dont have any more of a high view of the 5 points than any other calvinist. that the way most folks have known calvinism by for centuries


----------



## Prufrock

Brian, I'm not sure you fully read my response, since it, in fact, included nothing about Presbyterian government; it might be worth noting to you that a good deal of Reformed theologians attribute presbyterial government to _bene esse_, or well-being, of the Reformed church, not to the _esse_, or essence, of the Reformed church. While I am very opposed to the independency of theologians such as Goodwin or Owen, I'm not sure I am aware of any who would even contemplate declaring that these men were not, in fact, _Reformed_ theologians; and Edwards was certainly a Reformed theologian.

Since you made the claim, do you have evidence that "calvinism" has been defined "for centuries" by "believing the 5 points"? Sometimes it could be used in a specific, narrow context polemically to define the Calvinist understanding of 5 select points of soteriology against those of the Remonstrants, but that in no way indicates that people thought that "Calvinism" = "Five Points."

I press you on this, not because I want us Reformed folk to be elitist or exlusivist, but because I am troubled by the minimalist ecumenism in which our culture is immersed. Thus, my statements are not aimed polemically against those who would be called Reformed Baptist -- my quarrel does not concern this topic. There is troubling trend, however, to elevate these "5 Points" to be a sort of theological common ground, where, as long as we agree on these things, that's enough. [We have much more in common with Confessional baptists than with the "new Calvinism" movement]. I am not sure why people want so badly to label their theology with the name of a man (Calvin) to whom their theology and church would simply not be recognizable as common with his own. 

For what it's worth, I think it probable (I can't claim this as a fact) that there are more cases from at least the first half of the 17th Century where the term Calvinist is used to distinguish the Reformed from the Lutherans, not from the Arminians. Thus, the term "Calvinist" had more to do with such teachings as the sacraments, the law, etc., than with the synod of Dort.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brian,

1. Please provide the courtesy to your readers to take the time to use proper punctuation and capitalization. You are very difficult to read.

2. It seems like you're "shadow boxing" here. I'm not sure what your point about Edwards and Spurgeon are with respect to Church Government. Nobody has made the claim that one has to be Presbyterian in their form of government to be "true blue Calvinist". Independents were invited to the Westminster Assembly. Edwards considered himself to adhere to the substance of the Westminster Standards as this quote from Edwards demonstrates:


> You are pleased, dear Sir, very kindly to ask me, whether I could sign the Westminster Confession of Faith, and submit to the Presbyterian form of church government, and to offer to use your influence to procure a call for me, to some congregation in Scotland. I should be very ungrateful, if I were not thankful for such kindness and friendship. As for my subscribing to the substance of the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty; and as to the Presbyterian government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government in this land. And the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreable to the Word of God, and the reason and nature of things, though I cannot say that I think that the Presbyterian government of the Church of Scotland is so perfect that it cannot, in some respects, be mended.



3. I don't know what you think Dennis was agreeing with but it wasn't what you just stated. The only thing he was pointing out was that, historically, Baptists were not called "Reformed". They, themselves, didn't call themselves Reformed but Particular Baptists. They were careful to distinguish where there was agreement on certain Reformed principles but also understood where they differed on key aspects of Covenant Theology and recognized that "Reformed" had become attached to a particular type of Covenant Theology.

The overarching question has to do with what is Calvinist or what is Reformed. Are they fluid terms historically or only today? I suppose, in your mind, they must be the latter as you have to qualify something as being "true blue" Reformed to distinguish it from another type of Reformed. Perhaps you could define your terms: Calvinist and Reformed.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

"I think that is what Bill was referencing when he suggested that much of the new Calvinism is intrinsically unstable and will eventually devolve into the Zeitgeist of today: egalitarianism and relativism."

Either that, or, they will gradually be drawn by their love of the Scriptures and growing appreciation of church history towards full Reformed confessionalism. Stranger things have happened!

By the way, I thought Ligon Duncan was a confessional WStds guy. No?


----------



## DMcFadden

Willem van Oranje said:


> "I think that is what Bill was referencing when he suggested that much of the new Calvinism is intrinsically unstable and will eventually devolve into the Zeitgeist of today: egalitarianism and relativism."
> 
> Either that, or, they will gradually be drawn by their love of the Scriptures and growing appreciation of church history towards full Reformed confessionalism. Stranger things have happened!
> 
> By the way, I thought Ligon Duncan was a confessional WStds guy. No?


 
I was trying to describe a range from a full-on Presbyterian (Duncan), to perhaps the most famous of the dispensational "Calvinists" (MacArthur), to a widely respected Baptist with strong Calvinistic leanings. My point was that I rejoice in the 5 pts. being proclaimed, whether by a confessional Presbyterian or a "leaky" dispensationalist. However, unless it goes beyond the 5 pts into a more integrated Biblical-systematic theology, it will not remain (in my opinion).


----------



## jayce475

presbyterianintexas said:


> 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
> [/B]


 
Attacks on cessationism never cease, not even on the PB.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> ...a theology of the first glance.


 
That is an excellent description, and does nail a lot of theology today. In our culture of instant gratification and easy access to an enormous array of information, it is easy to fall into the tendency of looking something up and assuming expertise, when in reality we don't have the background intellectual context to really even appreciate what a source is saying. You could skip a lot of books if someone would just take the time to stamp on the inside cover, "Theology of the first glance".


----------



## DeborahtheJudge

I have some sympathy... I am a product of this movement, after all! I think for me it was a great feat simply to understand the 5 points. I mean, I had to push through all of the Campus Crusade material, read the entire bible (and new testament like 10 times) before I could see coherence. Even then it took an apologetics class with some guy talking about "the antithesis" and blowing my mind with scripture references. When I joined a reformed church, it was because I was convicted by ecclesiastical and worship doctrines. 

"Choosing a church" based on what is true to scripture (well, past "The Gospel" which is evangelicalism-speak for Christian fundamentals) was not emphasized. Becoming a member of a church was not emphasized. But what is emphasized is every new book and musical fad and conference that comes about. And reading yourself into every passage of scripture.


----------



## pesterjon

This is how we end up with ridiculous statements such as John MacArthur's, that any self-respecting Calvinist is a premillenialist (meaning specifically his version including a pretribulational rapture).

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?

o System of hermeneutics
o Philosophy of worship
o Confessional subscription
o Soteriological considerations (now THE litmus test for being "reformed" in some circles)
o Sacramental considerations

What am I missing? As someone who many of you might not consider to be truly Reformed, I would agree that I may truly not be but also see a distinct difference between myself and others who are Reformed only in soteriology. I subscribe to the 1689 LBC, hold a non-evangelical view of the sacraments, hold to Calvinistic soteriology, hold to a non-dispensational hermeneutic, and the RPW.

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.


----------



## DMcFadden

Welcome, Jon!

Hey, how did you get into the Evangelical Free without being pretrib?



> * System of hermeneutics
> * Philosophy of worship
> * Confessional subscription
> * Soteriological considerations (now THE litmus test for being "reformed" in some circles)
> * Sacramental considerations



Are you including a covenantal reading of Scripture in "hermeneutics"? Truly confessional subscribers (either Westminster Standards/3FU or the 1689 LBCF) are miles apart from those who have only read a little Packer, listened to a R.C. Sproul lecture, or have a few Piper books on their shelf. By the definitions and distinctions on this board, I doubt that ANY of us Baptists fit the description of being "Reformed." However, our commonalities with our WCF/3FU brethren are GREAT! Besides, in the final analysis, I'm more worried about whether or not I'm "biblical" than about most other identifications.

Trying to pin the theological tail on the right donkey can be tricky, however. Some of the Baptists on this board probably fit more of the definitional elements listed above than some of the Presbyterians out there in America with their heavy doses of "seeker sensitive" pragmatism.


----------



## Kiffin

DMcFadden said:


> Hey, how did you get into the Evangelical Free without being pretrib?



I don't think that a pretrib position is required. I know that you have to be premil though. It's kind of interesting though--why are faculty standards different than the rest of the denomination? or, is it that maybe these guys are just premil on paper but are really "closet" amil/postmil?


----------



## kvanlaan

> Here is my definition of New Calvinism from Old Paths Paved. YMCA- Young Moderately Calvinistic Anabaptists.



Excellent. Thank you, Pastor Lewis. That bunch has always bothered me in some respects, and I could never properly articulate why.

Now I can!


----------



## jogri17

Edwards and Spurgeon did believe in covenant theology. Look at the Yale series and you will see Edwards putting his theology within a covenantal perspective.


----------



## pesterjon

Premillenialism is the standard for Evangelical Free; pretrib is not required. Kiffin, you might be surprised the correlations or similarities between amillenialism and historic premillenialism.


----------



## Kiffin

pesterjon said:


> Premillenialism is the standard for Evangelical Free; pretrib is not required. Kiffin, you might be surprised the correlations or similarities between amillenialism and historic premillenialism.



I haven't been keeping up with the EFCA resolutions but maybe you know--is the motion to remove the "premillennial clause" out of the SOF still in the works? I don't mean to hijack the thread (Rev. Wymer just PM me)


----------



## Theoretical

DeborahtheJudge said:


> I have some sympathy... I am a product of this movement, after all! I think for me it was a great feat simply to understand the 5 points. I mean, I had to push through all of the Campus Crusade material, read the entire bible (and new testament like 10 times) before I could see coherence. Even then it took an apologetics class with some guy talking about "the antithesis" and blowing my mind with scripture references. When I joined a reformed church, it was because I was convicted by ecclesiastical and worship doctrines.
> 
> "Choosing a church" based on what is true to scripture (well, past "The Gospel" which is evangelicalism-speak for Christian fundamentals) was not emphasized. Becoming a member of a church was not emphasized. But what is emphasized is every new book and musical fad and conference that comes about. And reading yourself into every passage of scripture.


 
 

The biggest weakness of the TULIP-only New Calvinism is its serious lack of intellectual coherence. I suspect that much of the "cage stage" many of us are so intimately familiar with is less a product of being a jerk than it is frustration at trying to put the pieces of our theology together. Having the coherent whole of the Reformed faith finally explained to me in a church setting and gaining an understanding of how the pieces fit together really helped me out in explaining my beliefs to others without being absolutely obnoxious to those who'd not heard it before or disagreed with it. And I'd also agree that urging young believers to embrace churchliness in a sound _Reformed _church is not one of the strengths of the movement.

Also I try to identify YRRs and bring them fully over to the dark side ;-) by explaining the majesty of Reformed theology as a coherent whole. I strongly identify with new converts and kids who grew up Christian and were taught nothing. The problem of the YRR types is not that they're in the wrong pond, it's that the pond they're in is much bigger than they realize. The sovereignty of God, since it's a foundation point for most of this group, is an excellent way to dovetail into Scriptural authority and authenticity, the Regulative principle, and the Decalogue. Since becoming Reformed as opposed to simply being a TULIP, I talk about theology far more to others, but far more excitedly and with application. There's a real beauty in the Reformed faith that can really catch thoughtful folks' attention. It's sometimes tricky trying to explain a maximalist worldview and theology to these guys, but simply being passionate about it without baiting or harping on them seems to open a lot of doors.

I have definite critiques of some of the YRR focus on the big mighty churches, but the fact that I'll be getting elder visitation and am actively shepherded by both my pastor and elder has really intrigued a lot of young evangelicals I know as just an example.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Thanks to Darryl Hart for pointing us to this challenging essay by Dale Coulter, who self identifies as a “Classical Pentecostal” in the holiness tradition. He writes on the official blog of the Regent University School of Divinity. He favors the Edwardsean piety and is highly critical of B. B. Warfield’s critique of cessationism—which he takes as an attack on the piety (or pietism) of the New Side revivalists and particularly Edwards. According to Coulter, the problem only intensified in old Westminster Seminary, which perpetuated the errors of old Princeton. Read more>

Horton Sorts Out Piper, Warren, and the YRR Movement (updated) 

Defining Reformed — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress

The Addiction to Religious Euphoria


----------



## Cato

New Calvinism" like anything else is simply the old Calvinism repackaged in a way to attract the young & those that didn't get it the 1st time around.

I prefer to focus my attention on "The Apocatastasis" IE the universal Restoration (see Acts3:21). So I kinda ignore nuances & I refuse to take them seriously.

Remember this, Jesus was not proclaiming the reform of the world; He was proclaiming the end of the world. When you read all of the apocalyptic announcements of Christ, how everything is going to fall apart, we are reading that the world as we know it must & will end, as it eventually always does.

Sadly the ends do not come for many of us until we get sick, confront death or live through the death of loved ones. Then you discover that nothing lasts! Its all passing away.... age old truths that do not occur to the young. It's a morbid recognition, but it is nonetheless an acceptance that everything except God is relative and is passing away.

So as we discuss the Newness of anything, I am reminded of two biblical proclamations & the 1st being Ecclesiastes ....is anything truly new under the sun? And In Matthew 9:17 "Nor do people put new wine into old wineskin's; otherwise, the skins burst, the wine runs out & the skins are lost. NO; they put new wine into fresh skins and both are preserved.


----------



## MW

New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Rev. Winzer. There is nothing new under the son.


----------



## Michael Doyle

I am trying to talk to some friends in the New Calvinism movement who only wish to discuss what they term reformed doctrines which by and large means nothing more than the doctrines of grace. When trying to explain the greater depth of a reformed church, I can only hope to remain winsome as they are considering changing churches. As a layman and close confidant, how might I irenically explain these things without trouncing them with truth? I have learned to definitely stay out of the Mark Driscoll debates as I am not much good at them.


----------



## pesterjon

armourbearer said:


> New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.


 
I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?


----------



## MW

pesterjon said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?
Click to expand...

 
The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.
Click to expand...

 
Are we even talking about the same movement? Turning this into a complementarianism/patriarchy/egalitarianism debate makes an already odd statement even odder, given my interactions with "new Calvinists."


----------



## pesterjon

I would have to say in my interactions with new Calvinists, that they may look to outsiders as if they are driven by "cultural preferences" but much of what they are doing is driven by the doctrines of grace and covenant theology. Perhaps those who I have known are not typical of the movement, but few movements are as homogenous as they appear to outsiders. In the ones I have known, their biggest disparity with "old" Calvinists would be their Grudem-esque openness to charismatic gifts.

I am not trying to reprimand anyone on this thread, just do not recognize the new Calvinists I know in the things I am reading on here.


----------



## Theoretical

P. F. Pugh said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we even talking about the same movement? Turning this into a complementarianism/patriarchy/egalitarianism debate makes an already odd statement even odder, given my interactions with "new Calvinists."
Click to expand...

 
Rev. Winzer's not talking about masculine/feminine as the gender roles responsibility issues (I think). It seems he's talking about a philosophical concept of gender that's significantly more than that, but that specific aspect is over my head.


----------



## MW

pesterjon said:


> In the ones I have known, their biggest disparity with "old" Calvinists would be their Grudem-esque openness to charismatic gifts.


 
Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression. As noted, Calvinism stands for order, which means seeing the work of the Holy Spirit as functioning through the ordinances of the Holy Spirit's appointment, otherwise known as the ordinary means of grace.


----------



## MW

Theoretical said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> New calvinism is cultural relativism in strange apparel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find that exactly helpful. Can you elaborate at all, put any skin on those bones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the individual to express his individual cultural preferences is the driving force of the movement. This nurturing idea is distinctly feminine, while Calvinism is built on the masculine concepts of justice, law, order, and responsibility. The strange (masculine) apparel of Calvinism just happens to be the garb with which this nurturing feminism clothes and present itself to its audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we even talking about the same movement? Turning this into a complementarianism/patriarchy/egalitarianism debate makes an already odd statement even odder, given my interactions with "new Calvinists."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer's not talking about masculine/feminine as the gender roles responsibility issues (I think). It seems he's talking about a philosophical concept of gender that's significantly more than that, but that specific aspect is over my head.
Click to expand...

 
That is correct. I am working with the bibical concepts of created gender, not the developmental theory of unisex.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> That is correct. I am working with the bibical concepts of created gender, not the developmental theory of unisex.



Given that both are created by God, wouldn't it be fair to say that both are needed in the Church?



> Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression.



Not necessarily--some have an openness to charismatic gifts because they recognize that the Spirit may work outside certain preconceived notions and church-cultural norms. Let's not be hasty about judging the ground motives here.


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression. As noted, Calvinism stands for order, which means seeing the work of the Holy Spirit as functioning through the ordinances of the Holy Spirit's appointment, otherwise known as the ordinary means of grace.


 
Would this have been any less true in the apostolic church when spiritual gifts were given and encouraged (1 Cor. 14:1)? It seems that by the same criteria we would have to believe Paul guilty of "feminine nurture" for encouraging the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts. It would seem that the fault could only be placed on their exegesis regarding the continuity of the gifts, and not on there being any fault in desiring the gifts IF they were available.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pesterjon said:


> I would have to say in my interactions with new Calvinists, that they may look to outsiders as if they are driven by "cultural preferences" but much of what they are doing is driven by the doctrines of grace and covenant theology. Perhaps those who I have known are not typical of the movement, but few movements are as homogenous as they appear to outsiders. In the ones I have known, their biggest disparity with "old" Calvinists would be their Grudem-esque openness to charismatic gifts.
> 
> I am not trying to reprimand anyone on this thread, just do not recognize the new Calvinists I know in the things I am reading on here.


 
Jonathan,

It's interesting that, on another topic, there is a consistent misunderstanding between critiquing the broad contours or dangers of a movement and assuming that every individual involved in a movement is being specifically critiqued or condemned.

We're all, to more or less extent, products of the way we have been brought up to think. Ravi Zacarias speaks well about this and its one of the reasons he likes to make friends of many cultures to see where his thinking is making assumptions that are not shared by all. He speaks of the difficulty he has of even relating to Gospel to rickshaw drivers in India whose thinking is so completely different than those in the West.

I was in an International Church in Okinawa for three years and I remember being perplexed during a pastoral search process. We were down to two candidates and one candidate's credentials and theological knowledge paled in comparison to the other. His interview was likewise weak in comparison. Yet he was 50 and the other was 35. At the time of the vote, the two men from the Phillipines voted for the weaker of the two candidates (at least it was clear in my mind that he was). Why? He was 50. They even said as much.

Now, why do I say all of this?

Because, when you run into a young American who appears diven by the doctrines of grace and covenant theology, it's not like he's going to consciously articulate that he's operating with some modernist assumptions underneath the hood. I like many of these young men. They're passionate and dedicated. There's much to commend. I'm not trying to put them in "black hats" and pretend that all the "white hats" are those that are punctilious in their Reformed orthodoxy. We're all broken vessels.

My larger concern is what modernist thinking does with Scripture. I don't think I yet fully appreciate how foreign the way I think is to the past. I don't think the way I look at the world around me even remotely resembles the way a first century man did.

You can see the fingerprints of what I'm talking about even throughout this thread. It's a general sense that history of a thing is not important but what's important is how we interpret the broad outlines today and apply the kernels of what we find relevant and throw off the husks of what we find irrelevant. The more I study the developments in Western thought, the more I see the fingers of post-modern thinking as the past is irrelevant to how we think in the light of where we are today.

Again, it's not as if people sit down and map this all out and think "I'm deliberately thinking this way" but they just think that's the way that everybody in the past thought. Thus, using my reason, I'll take a bit of CT here, a bit of Pneumatology from there, and a bit of Ecclesiology from there because we all think the same way.


----------



## pesterjon

Semper Fi (from an active duty Army soldier, no less)-
I appreciate what you are saying. Totally agree with the lack of appreciation or commitment to history, let alone confessions, in our contemporary setting. What I find hard to believe is the notion that reformation is ever over. Perhaps someone could comment on this aspect of Reformed theology, that we are not simply satisfied with the complete New Testament and yet we arbitrarily land (in my case) at 1689.

Do you think there is ever a warrant at any level to contextualize the Reformed faith in a given cultural setting? We always got missionary prayer cards at Reformed Baptist church and they would wear dress shirt and tie in Majority World settings, as opposed to other missionaries who dress like the natives. Is contextualization automatically confessional compromise? That is very difficult for me to understand, but I am open to your comments.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jon,

I think we need to distinguish between understanding the Truth once for all delivered to the Saints and reforming our minds to think in Biblical terms as opposed to ever reforming the Truth once for all delivered to the Saints.

In other words, when people tend to think about Semper Reformanda, they tend to think of the term as meaning that we need to constantly have an open ended theology that keeps changing/evolving. I've seen a pretty steady stream of people who have new ideas, they're challenged that this is not what the Church has confessed that the Scriptures teach and the response is "...whatever happened to Semper Reformanda?" In other words, the implicit assumption is "that was then, this is now." Again, modernist presuppositions drive even how we understand the past.

I obviously don't want to repristinate the past as if everything that the Church confesses as a standard exposition of the Scriptures doesn't ever need to be challenged. The issue is whether or not it was even possible for men in the past to have apprehend what the faith once for all delivered to the Saints is, and whether it is the Church's or the individual's responsibility alone to Confess the Scriptures. The same people that will criticize a Confession (which is simply a who Church historically saying: "This is what _we_ believe the Scriptures teach") have no problem telling you "in _my mind_, this is what it's all about...."

The question for every culture is this: How do we bring that faith once for all delivered to the Saints into that culture? How do we transform the culture and transform assumptions that are shaped by it? I'm not talking about "How do I make liberals love the Republican party or American foreign policy" but: How am _I_ going to continue to be reformed by the Scriptures and brought back to the bedrock of Truth? How is the Church going to remain grounded in that bedrock? After all, when we've been there 10,000 years bright shining as the sun, do you think we'll be continuing to evolve doctrines or will we, rather, finally see clearly that which we had not fully Reformed while we saw through a glass darkly?

I can't find the quote but it is rumored that Mike Horton once noted why we keep going back to the time of the Reformation to get our bearings. If you've ever lost your keys, where is the first place you go to look? Where you last left them. The men at the time of the Reformation were not perfect but it was a time, by the grace of God, when the Church had recaptured the keys. We can't transport ourselves back into that time and forget where we live today but it is clear that the Church has lost her keys to a large extent and it's useful to go look at the place where we last left them so we can get our bearings in the place we find ourselves today.


----------



## pesterjon

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?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No, Jon, you're not. Possession of the oracles of God should not be a source of pride but it's not an indictment of the Word of God that men are sinners.

I've noted in other threads that many could do better than to obsess too much about where others' ministries are going astray. Blogging about the evils of others' ministries and following their every move seems to me to be a waste of time. I'm concerned about general trends and so my labors take me in directions where I'm busy in folks' lives. I will probably never have a big impact on the world but I'm gratified to have seen the fruit in a few lives that I've affected over the years.

Now, that said, I think we could all do well (myself included) to be able to discuss trends and movements in broad terms and what might be driving certain concerns without making the mistake of associating every potential ill with an individual we see that might be involved in a particular movement.

I've been involved in Worldview studies for the past year and it suddenly dawned on me why some Reformed can become pretty consistently obnoxious about how they characterize the actions of political opponents. When you study philosophy and start to get underneath some of the assumptions that undergird modern thinking, it can really make you start to be horrified about what the basic underlying assumption is to some political and economic activities that are pretty commonplace today (both in conservative and liberal thinking). The problem is that one really needs to step back and realize that most people haven't thought it through that much and so to make every person that acts in a certain way culpable in willful and wanton sin is to ignore the fact that most people are completely oblivious to the contradictory ideas they hold together in a stasis.

In other words, if we keep in perspective that we all once walked in the futility of our thinking and that we are to be transformed daily by the renewing of our minds then we might be a little more patient with others who are reforming along with us. I'm preaching to myself here.


----------



## Philip

Semper Fidelis said:


> You can see the fingerprints of what I'm talking about even throughout this thread. It's a general sense that history of a thing is not important but what's important is how we interpret the broad outlines today and apply the kernels of what we find relevant and throw off the husks of what we find irrelevant. The more I study the developments in Western thought, the more I see the fingers of post-modern thinking as the past is irrelevant to how we think in the light of where we are today.



I can see your concern here, but I think that New Calvinism is, if anything, the start of a movement in the right direction. The more I see of the movement, the more I see people moving in a more (not less) consistently reformed direction: going back to actually read and study the Puritans. The resurgence of Puritan scholarship that we are seeing today is largely driven by the energy of New Calvinists who are suddenly interested in John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.

I think there are things to critique in this movement, but it's largely positive and if they would formulate a confession, it might actually stick. Only time (and the Spirit) will tell.


----------



## pesterjon

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.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

pesterjon said:


> 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.



I would desire to know what confession happens to be several hundred years younger that is on the same par as the Confessional Standard ones put together in the 16th and 17th centuries? I am familiar with a few Baptist Confessions but they also have roots in the LBCF or deviate from it in small ways. 

Just questioning so I can understand your point better.


----------



## pesterjon

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

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


----------



## Herald

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

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

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


----------



## BlackCalvinist

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


----------



## pesterjon

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

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jon,

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

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


----------



## pesterjon

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


----------



## Herald

pesterjon said:


> In the face of a newly formulated confession which meets the requirements of orthodox Christianity, Reformed people would be left to duke it out over whether the Protestant Reformation is the be-all, end-all of what it means to be theologically correct.
> 
> I doubt we can truly claim the heritage of our forebears if we are entirely close-minded to the idea that there could ever theoretically be a new and valid confessional articulation of orthodox Christianity.



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


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I am working with the bibical concepts of created gender, not the developmental theory of unisex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that both are created by God, wouldn't it be fair to say that both are needed in the Church?
Click to expand...


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



P. F. Pugh said:


> Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily--some have an openness to charismatic gifts because they recognize that the Spirit may work outside certain preconceived notions and church-cultural norms.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## MW

austinww said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression. As noted, Calvinism stands for order, which means seeing the work of the Holy Spirit as functioning through the ordinances of the Holy Spirit's appointment, otherwise known as the ordinary means of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would this have been any less true in the apostolic church when spiritual gifts were given and encouraged (1 Cor. 14:1)? It seems that by the same criteria we would have to believe Paul guilty of "feminine nurture" for encouraging the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts. It would seem that the fault could only be placed on their exegesis regarding the continuity of the gifts, and not on there being any fault in desiring the gifts IF they were available.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## au5t1n

armourbearer said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression. As noted, Calvinism stands for order, which means seeing the work of the Holy Spirit as functioning through the ordinances of the Holy Spirit's appointment, otherwise known as the ordinary means of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would this have been any less true in the apostolic church when spiritual gifts were given and encouraged (1 Cor. 14:1)? It seems that by the same criteria we would have to believe Paul guilty of "feminine nurture" for encouraging the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts. It would seem that the fault could only be placed on their exegesis regarding the continuity of the gifts, and not on there being any fault in desiring the gifts IF they were available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 12-14, following on from the clear distinction of the sexes in chapter 11, calls upon the Corinthians to start acting like men and speak the message of Christianity with clarity, to show true leadership by seeking after the gifts which which will benefit the body rather than themselves, to prepare for responsible service by exemplifying charity, to engage in masculine leadership that has put away childish toys and games, and to be regulated by "commandment" and "order." The apostle's teaching is contrary to the idea of charismatic freedom at every level.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## MW

austinww said:


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


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


----------



## pesterjon

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


----------



## au5t1n

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


----------



## MW

pesterjon said:


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


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

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


----------



## pesterjon

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

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


----------



## MW

pesterjon said:


> Joshua,
> The fruit of the "New Calvinist" movement will be seen in time, whether it becomes a confessional movement or not. I am not assuming motives on either side.
> 
> armorbearer,
> Why forsake what is established? I appreciate your point. Could you elaborate more specifically on the "whirlwind" so I can understand what you are saying? My prayer is that the "mature fruits" of the confessions will not be the final word of Christian faith, that there will continue to be faithful confessional articulations in centuries to come as appropriate.


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

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

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


----------



## Theoretical

armourbearer said:


> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder if the main reason for some of the negative reaction is simply that they are gaining a traction some of the old school Calvinists have not been able to muster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am thankful whenever and wherever Christ is preached and souls are brought into the kingdom of Christ. But what is being mustered is a whirlwind. I do not envy the men who have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind. They are the ones who will be burdened with the responsibility of living with and sorting out the consequences of a juvenile spirituality.
> 
> The protestant reformed confessions are the mature fruits of centuries of biblical Christianity. I have no desire to see the pure wheat replaced by hybrids which cannot multiply beyond their generation.
Click to expand...

 


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

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


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


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



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

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



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



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

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


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> Is it any less masculine to be sensitive to certain views that aren't necessarily in conflict with Scripture?
> 
> Also, what exactly do you mean by "counter-cultural" here?



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

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



P. F. Pugh said:


> Not necessarily.


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


----------



## pesterjon

armourbearer said:


> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua,
> The fruit of the "New Calvinist" movement will be seen in time, whether it becomes a confessional movement or not. I am not assuming motives on either side.
> 
> armorbearer,
> Why forsake what is established? I appreciate your point. Could you elaborate more specifically on the "whirlwind" so I can understand what you are saying? My prayer is that the "mature fruits" of the confessions will not be the final word of Christian faith, that there will continue to be faithful confessional articulations in centuries to come as appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fruits are already being displayed. Suspending judgment only allows them to increase unhindered.
> 
> The whirlwind is "me-Christianity." Under the name of Calvinism it becomes "_my_ Sovereign God." The preaching is there for all to judge. Experiential Calvinism is one thing; pathological Calvinism is quite different -- a subjective crisis experience centred around a selfish view of life in which God validates the significance of the individual.
> 
> Faithful confessional articulations contain truth for all time, not truth for our time.
Click to expand...

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

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




Joshua said:


> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not assuming motives on either side.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, respectfully, the negative thoughts about "old school Calvinists" you [can't help but wonder], ought not to be expressed publicly, because it sure seems like an assumption of motive, in that it casts doubt on the purity of their motive(s).
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Philip

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



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

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



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



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

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


----------



## BlackCalvinist

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


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


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



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



P. F. Pugh said:


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



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



P. F. Pugh said:


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


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


----------



## Philip

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



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



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



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


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> Godly leadership requires being faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. The service performed to men's souls is in leading them to be reconciled to God and followers of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would simply qualify this by saying that leadership involves being stewards of the mysteries of God _as He is_ rather than as we see him.
Click to expand...


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



P. F. Pugh said:


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


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


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Well, to respond to OP:

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


----------



## Montanablue

Andrew P.C. said:


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


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

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


----------



## MW

Montanablue said:


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


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


----------



## Kiffin

armourbearer said:


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



examples?


----------



## Philip

> Masculine leadership requires taking charge.



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



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



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

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



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



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


----------



## MW

Kiffin said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [are mapping out new paths which they consider to be more culturally relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> examples?
Click to expand...

 
In their own words (disagreeing with the caricature of old Calvinism): "Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture."


----------



## Montanablue

armourbearer said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it, "new calvinists" are generally people who hold to the doctrines of grace but do not adhere to a confession. (This is my experience with people I know, and may not be true across the board). I was a "new calvinist" at one time, and it eventually led me to explore reformed thought, and now I am reformed. So, I think its important to be charitable to these individuals. They generally don't seem to be adverse to the confessions, they just haven't been exposed to them or haven't had the time to figure out exactly what a confession is. Being reformed is, I think, counter to so much of what evangelicals have been taught that I think an adjustment period of period of exploration is natural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right. This would apply to new Calvinists, that is, people who are new to Calvinism and are exploring the Calvinist heritage. "New Calvinists," however, are not new to Calvinism, but people who have come into contact with the Calvinist heritage and rejected it, theologically and practically. They are teachers or adherents who are self-consciously rejecting old paths and are mapping out new paths which they consider to be more culturally relevant. As such, they should not be afforded the charity of a seeker but the warning relevant to a divisive person.
Click to expand...

 
I know many individuals who are "new calvinists" (yes, the kind in quotation marks, not just those who are new to calvinism) who do not adhere to your definition. Defining terms seems to be a problem in this discussion. I dislike arguing semantics and I refuse to be drawn into a discussion when there's a fundamental disagreement on terms. It simply leads to talking past each other. (As evidenced by the discussion of "masculine" and "feminine.") So, suffice it to say, that I maintain what I said earlier and while it certainly applies to people who are new to Calvin, it also applies to many "new calvinists." (Although as I said previously, I wouldn't presume to declare that it applies across the board)


----------



## DMcFadden

Montanablue said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to respond to OP:
> 
> They can call themselves Calvinists all they want, but they are not reformed. Being reformed means you actually hold to confession of the reformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair to them (I know quite a few "new Calvinists," I don't think many would claim to be reformed - although many are interested in it.
> 
> As I see it, "new calvinists" are generally people who hold to the doctrines of grace but do not adhere to a confession. (This is my experience with people I know, and may not be true across the board). I was a "new calvinist" at one time, and it eventually led me to explore reformed thought, and now I am reformed. So, I think its important to be charitable to these individuals. They generally don't seem to be adverse to the confessions, they just haven't been exposed to them or haven't had the time to figure out exactly what a confession is. Being reformed is, I think, counter to so much of what evangelicals have been taught that I think an adjustment period of period of exploration is natural.
Click to expand...

 
Kathleen, I LOVE your spirit!* While Matthew is doubtless correct that "New Calvinist" teachers are often folks who have considered Reformed teaching and rejected it in favor of a view that is more "relevant" (or whatever), the same is not necessarily true of the average "new Calvinist" follower. My guess is that many of them are poorly taught evangelicals who have just discovered the intoxicating wine of Reformed truth and the sweetness of the Doctrines of Grace. Some of them are very much still in process. If they are given a fair exposure to confessional Christianity, I would be inclined to think that many of them would make the full journey.


* In light of the thread last week about "ugly old men" making young women feel creepy by refusing to be alone with them or eating in a restaurant with them (and thus sexualizing a previously non-sexual environment) . . .

You are so fresh and young (probably younger than most of my kids) that if we ever meet, I would have no trouble eating lunch with you instead of "creeping you out."


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


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


Christ's earthly humility was manly, just as Adam's humility required taking dominion. Christ was humble when He reprimanded His disciples and Christ was manly when He washed their feet. It was not a matter of one then another; both were conjoined in His mature spiritual character.



P. F. Pugh said:


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



Have you lost the plot of the discussion? Denying self was stated as essential to Christian discipleship in opposition to self-expression. Self-denial is sanctification, not a means to it: "dying more and more unto sin."


----------



## MW

Montanablue said:


> I know many individuals who are "new calvinists" (yes, the kind in quotation marks, not just those who are new to calvinism) who do not adhere to your definition.


 
If they have not rejected the Old Calvinism then they are not "New Calvinists." "New," by definition, replaces the "Old." I think you are trying to describe those who are simply following "New Calvinists" and couldn't tell you what they are.


----------



## Montanablue

DMcFadden said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to respond to OP:
> 
> They can call themselves Calvinists all they want, but they are not reformed. Being reformed means you actually hold to confession of the reformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair to them (I know quite a few "new Calvinists," I don't think many would claim to be reformed - although many are interested in it.
> 
> As I see it, "new calvinists" are generally people who hold to the doctrines of grace but do not adhere to a confession. (This is my experience with people I know, and may not be true across the board). I was a "new calvinist" at one time, and it eventually led me to explore reformed thought, and now I am reformed. So, I think its important to be charitable to these individuals. They generally don't seem to be adverse to the confessions, they just haven't been exposed to them or haven't had the time to figure out exactly what a confession is. Being reformed is, I think, counter to so much of what evangelicals have been taught that I think an adjustment period of period of exploration is natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kathleen, I LOVE your spirit!* While Matthew is doubtless correct that "New Calvinist" teachers are often folks who have considered Reformed teaching and rejected it in favor of a view that is more "relevant" (or whatever), the same is not necessarily true of the average "new Calvinist" follower. My guess is that many of them are poorly taught evangelicals who have just discovered the intoxicating wine of Reformed truth and the sweetness of the Doctrines of Grace. Some of them are very much still in process. If they are given a fair exposure to confessional Christianity, I would be inclined to think that many of them would make the full journey.
> 
> 
> * In light of the thread last week about "ugly old men" making young women feel creepy by refusing to be alone with them or eating in a restaurant with them (and thus sexualizing a previously non-sexual environment) . . .
> 
> You are so fresh and young (probably younger than most of my kids) that if we ever meet, I would have no trouble eating lunch with you instead of "creeping you out."
Click to expand...

 
Very good point! If it wasn't clear (and it might not have been) I was referring more to the followers rather than the leaders. I haven't read many "new calvinists" lately, since it was a period that I went through a while ago. I would certainly agree that the leaders almost certainly have been exposed to the confessions and other firmly reformed ideas and have rejected them. (And if they haven't been exposed, then they've neglected their education pretty horribly.)

You are the probably the least creepy person I can conjure up! And I would be very amenable to lunch if it didn't require a trip of a few thousand miles...

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know many individuals who are "new calvinists" (yes, the kind in quotation marks, not just those who are new to calvinism) who do not adhere to your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they have not rejected the Old Calvinism then they are not "New Calvinists." "New," by definition, replaces the "Old." I think you are trying to describe those who are simply following "New Calvinists" and couldn't tell you what they are.
Click to expand...

 
Again, semantics. I disagree that to be a "new calvinist," one must have been exposed to and rejected the old. If "New Calvinism" is a philosophy of Christianity, then surely people can follow it even if they haven't been introduced to other philosophies of Christianity.


----------



## Philip

> Self-denial is sanctification, not a means to it: "dying more and more unto sin."



And living more and more unto Christ. You forget the other half--it is not enough to be saved from sin. We have been saved unto a holy life of joyful righteousness before the face of God and man. We deny the old self and affirm our being as He has meant us to be, which is conformed to His image. I do not think that when self-denial and self-expression are mutually exclusive since "self" is not referring to the same thing in both (at least not as most mean the terms). To say that they are mutually exclusive _contra_ new Calvinism is to equivocate.


----------



## Kiffin

armourbearer said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [are mapping out new paths which they consider to be more culturally relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In their own words (disagreeing with the caricature of old Calvinism): "Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture."
Click to expand...


Unless you can mention exactly what method or practice you disagree with, I don't know how being "culturally relevant" is wrong. I believe relevance can be pursued without sinning.


----------



## pesterjon

This thread has been an eye-opener for me. It sent me to the all powerful source of truth, the internet, to find different definitions of "Reformed." (that is sarcasm, for those of you ready to reprimand my epistimology) I find that some of the Reformed stalwarts who I personally have followed and admired for years do not define this term quite as narrowly as some of those on this thread care to (case in point, James M. Boice).

Here's a list of articles that show common ground and disagreement:
Monergism :: An Overview of Reformed Theology

And here's an article from Frame that highlights some things to think about in this regard:
Review of Clark's "Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice"

Clearly we live in a relativistic culture that needs the gospel of grace as delivered through a biblically and historically faithful context. But this thread has helped me realize I need to spend my energy on the focus which led to the Reformation, rather than labels that have derived from said Reformation.


----------



## MW

Kiffin said:


> I believe relevance can be pursued without sinning.


 
Then your mind is made up. The old Calvinist beliefs which called for separation or co-operation are irrelevant to this mindset. There is no point descending to particulars if culture requires no discrimination.


----------



## Kiffin

armourbearer said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe relevance can be pursued without sinning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your mind is made up. The old Calvinist beliefs which called for separation or co-operation are irrelevant to this mindset. There is no point descending to particulars if culture requires no discrimination.
Click to expand...


Interesting. Like pesterjon, this thread has been an eye-opener. Actually, I do need particulars and your definition of "culture" to understand where you are coming from. Where do New Calvinists fail to separate?


----------



## Theoretical

Montanablue said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to respond to OP:
> 
> They can call themselves Calvinists all they want, but they are not reformed. Being reformed means you actually hold to confession of the reformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair to them (I know quite a few "new Calvinists," I don't think many would claim to be reformed - although many are interested in it.
> 
> As I see it, "new calvinists" are generally people who hold to the doctrines of grace but do not adhere to a confession. (This is my experience with people I know, and may not be true across the board). I was a "new calvinist" at one time, and it eventually led me to explore reformed thought, and now I am reformed. So, I think its important to be charitable to these individuals. They generally don't seem to be adverse to the confessions, they just haven't been exposed to them or haven't had the time to figure out exactly what a confession is. Being reformed is, I think, counter to so much of what evangelicals have been taught that I think an adjustment period of period of exploration is natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kathleen, I LOVE your spirit!* While Matthew is doubtless correct that "New Calvinist" teachers are often folks who have considered Reformed teaching and rejected it in favor of a view that is more "relevant" (or whatever), the same is not necessarily true of the average "new Calvinist" follower. My guess is that many of them are poorly taught evangelicals who have just discovered the intoxicating wine of Reformed truth and the sweetness of the Doctrines of Grace. Some of them are very much still in process. If they are given a fair exposure to confessional Christianity, I would be inclined to think that many of them would make the full journey.
> 
> 
> * In light of the thread last week about "ugly old men" making young women feel creepy by refusing to be alone with them or eating in a restaurant with them (and thus sexualizing a previously non-sexual environment) . . .
> 
> You are so fresh and young (probably younger than most of my kids) that if we ever meet, I would have no trouble eating lunch with you instead of "creeping you out."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good point! If it wasn't clear (and it might not have been) I was referring more to the followers rather than the leaders. I haven't read many "new calvinists" lately, since it was a period that I went through a while ago. I would certainly agree that the leaders almost certainly have been exposed to the confessions and other firmly reformed ideas and have rejected them. (And if they haven't been exposed, then they've neglected their education pretty horribly.)
> 
> You are the probably the least creepy person I can conjure up! And I would be very amenable to lunch if it didn't require a trip of a few thousand miles...
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know many individuals who are "new calvinists" (yes, the kind in quotation marks, not just those who are new to calvinism) who do not adhere to your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have not rejected the Old Calvinism then they are not "New Calvinists." "New," by definition, replaces the "Old." I think you are trying to describe those who are simply following "New Calvinists" and couldn't tell you what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, semantics. I disagree that to be a "new calvinist," one must have been exposed to and rejected the old. If "New Calvinism" is a philosophy of Christianity, then surely people can follow it even if they haven't been introduced to other philosophies of Christianity.
Click to expand...


Kathleen, I think it might be apt to call believers only exposed to the Doctrines of Grace and largely ignorant of the rest of the Reformed cloth "baby Reformed" or even _newly_/_recently_ Reformed/Calvinist something to that effect. Many of us certainly were this way and stumbled around for a time on a variety of issues. Some we still stumble on and even have been reluctant to embrace. This is not the group that is at issue. Many "baby Reformed" are in the category below but are simply eager for any knowledge of Christianity, simply because this is the most substantive faith they've encountered and they're hungry for more.

"New Calvinism" as being discussed here seems to focus first and formost on Mark Driscoll and the related movements that have defined their vision for the church as distinct from the Historical as New Calvinism as opposed to old. This illustrates the friction point: Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence. From what I've read in this thread, absolutely all of Rev. Winzer's concerns and criticism appear wholly directed at the latter group.


----------



## Montanablue

> "New Calvinism" as being discussed here seems to focus first and formost on Mark Driscoll and the related movements that have defined their vision for the church as distinct from the Historical as New Calvinism as opposed to old. This illustrates the friction point: Time Magazine Names New Calvinism 3rd Most Powerful Idea | TheResurgence. From what I've read in this thread, absolutely all of Rev. Winzer's concerns and criticism appear wholly directed at the latter group.



Right, and my point was that many people come into calvinism through people like Mark Driscoll, Donald Miller, and the others described in that article. Further exploration often leads them away from "new calvinism" and into being reformed. This seems to happen especially at colleges - in my experience. But these people would certainly identify as "new calvinists," so I think its appropriate to refer to them that way.


----------



## KMK

Theoretical said:


> From what I've read in this thread, absolutely all of Rev. Winzer's concerns and criticism appear wholly directed at the latter group.


 
I would take it one step further, Scott, and say the concern is not directed at the men themselves, but the movement/philosophy of this group of men. The concern is over the genesis/direction of the movement, not the individuals who are identified with that movement.


----------



## KMK

pesterjon said:


> 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.


 
This is poignant. Definitions of words like 'Reformed' and 'Calvinist' vary widely depending on who your audience is. I remember Morecraft saying once that he doesn't bother with labels when he is preaching to churches other than his own. He is confident that if he simply sticks to Scripture he will be teaching Calvinism even though many won't even know it is Calvinism. That's the point. We need to focus our energy on the Gospel regardless of what Time Magazine calls it.


----------



## Montanablue

KMK said:


> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is poignant. Definitions of words like 'Reformed' and 'Calvinist' vary widely depending on who your audience is. I remember Morecraft saying once that he doesn't bother with labels when he is preaching to churches other than his own. He is confident that if he simply sticks to Scripture he will be teaching Calvinism even though many won't even know it is Calvinism. That's the point. We need to focus our energy on the Gospel regardless of what Time Magazine calls it.
Click to expand...

 
So very true. Thank you.


----------



## au5t1n

Am I the only one who finds Driscoll's blog post on this infuriating? I've never read anything by him so uncharitable. Old Calvinists fled the cities and were fearful of joy and the presence of the Holy Spirit? _What?!_ Somebody send him some Puritan writings, stat!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

The interesting thing I find is that people are defining new Calvinism in two ways. But there is only one "Calvinism" and one "New" Calvinism. Calvinism is historical. New Calvinism is antithetical to historical Calvinism. The only reason we have different definitions of the words "reformed" and "Calvinism" is because of these "new" Calvinists. I'm young(very young to most on this board) but when someone my age sees a move away from being confessional while calling yourself "reformed"(especially coming from a non-reformed background), there is definitely something wrong with the "new". I'll take the old over the new any day thank you....


----------



## pesterjon

I think "old Calvinism" in the Driscoll context is unfortunate. What is he talking about exactly?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

pesterjon said:


> This thread has been an eye-opener for me. It sent me to the all powerful source of truth, the internet, to find different definitions of "Reformed." (that is sarcasm, for those of you ready to reprimand my epistimology) I find that some of the Reformed stalwarts who I personally have followed and admired for years do not define this term quite as narrowly as some of those on this thread care to (case in point, James M. Boice).
> 
> Here's a list of articles that show common ground and disagreement:
> Monergism :: An Overview of Reformed Theology
> 
> And here's an article from Frame that highlights some things to think about in this regard:
> Review of Clark's "Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice"
> 
> Clearly we live in a relativistic culture that needs the gospel of grace as delivered through a biblically and historically faithful context. But this thread has helped me realize I need to spend my energy on the focus which led to the Reformation, rather than labels that have derived from said Reformation.


 
The only thing wrong with this though is that we are human. We use language to determine what is being said. Words have meaning. In this case, a historical context as well. We live in a society that "claims" to be relativistic, but they contradict themselves when they use language to describe or define something. Therefore, relativism is just an underlining mindset. Therefore, these definitions and words are to be used in their historical(and a meaningful) context. Think about it this way, are you part of the emergent movement? Since you're not(i say this because you are a member of the PB) would you like to be associated with them? Members of this heretical movement have claimed being "reformed". Do you still think its not important to define so called "labels"? 

Something else to think about: Reformed Theology isn't just the "5" points, nor is holding to some of the confession's doctrines reformed either. Being reformed encompasses everything: Your Theology, Piety, and Practice. When coming to New Calvinism, Don't mistake ignorance for irreverence.


----------



## pesterjon

You nicely characterized how I must agree with you and there is a slight tinge of condescension if I am not mistaken (which I have often been), rather than actually answering anything substantial. A critical piece of this conversation which you are ignoring is that your definition of "Reformed" is by no means unanimous among people who are clearly Reformed. My point is not that "labels" or "words" are bad, but that substance is more important.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

pesterjon said:


> 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.



I did not mean to be condescending. I am just firm in my convictions.

My definition of Reformed? Here is my definition of being Reformed: Reformed- Holding to a Reformed confession. I would say that everyone on this board(besides you and I suppose a few exceptions) would agree with that definition. I would also say(with much confidence) that is the historical understanding of being "reformed"; hence my argument about words.


----------



## Philip

> My definition of Reformed? Here is my definition of being Reformed: Reformed- Holding to a Reformed confession.



Do the thirty-nine articles count? Otherwise J. I. Packer is out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

P. F. Pugh said:


> My definition of Reformed? Here is my definition of being Reformed: Reformed- Holding to a Reformed confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the thirty-nine articles count? Otherwise J. I. Packer is out.
Click to expand...

 
Out of what?

When people ask me what I am I respond that I'm a Christian with a Reformed Confession.

Again, I keep going back to this postmodern thinking where history or ideas have no fixed meaning but only those that we assign to them. We're all offended by any notion that we might not be called Reformed because, at the end of the day, who is one person to tell another whether they're Reformed? Your question implies that it might be some sort of insult to J.I. Packer that he's an adopted Son of God but that's nothing compared to the insult that he might not be considered Confessionally reformed in the strict sense.

It's the problem I have with John Frame's response to Scott Clark's book. He sort of ends up saying: "Really what Reformed is all about is really, really being committed to the Word of God." 

One guy says: "Hey, that's me!" 

"But you're Mormon."

"Who are you to tell me I'm out?"

This all seems to our modern sensibilities as one man making a power play over another because we all believe that words are ours to use as we desire. Consequently, there's this underlying angst by some "Oh, you can't tell a person they're not Reformed because you don't have that power..." as if words depend upon reader response or the community of people that use those words. It's the world we live in. People are offended because they've bought into fluid language. They've bought into post-modern hermeneutics.

If we can stop treating words like this is all about a power play then we stop worrying about who's feelings might get hurt that we're just using language as if there is some sort of normative definition that does not depend upon the individual reader but requires the reader to actually try to understand how the word was used in its original context.

People reading might find what I said absolutely of no value but I promise you all that this is exactly what is going on with the Scriptures themselves these days because words no longer have fixed meanings in their historical context and the response of the reader is all controlling.


----------



## Philip

> When people ask me what I am I respond that I'm a Christian with a Reformed Confession.



But then isn't calling it a "reformed confession" rather redundant? Does this mean that there were no reformed people before the drafting of reformation confessions? Does this mean that people like Jonathan Edwards and Martin Bucer weren't reformed, given that they never subscribed to a "reformed" confession? How do we determine which confessions are "reformed" and which ones aren't?


----------



## pesterjon

I am hardly against confessions which play such a key role in the gathered church.

But I have seen some of what I would call "old Calvinist" churches in the sense I believe Driscoll was referring to, and by that I do mean an ethnic social club that subscribes to a wonderful confession with no vigor or spiritual life whatsoever. And I have been reading Reformed writers for many years now, and had not until this board seen "Reformed = subscribing to a Reformed confession." Most descriptions of the Reformed faith I have seen in the past are much more centered on biblical truth.


----------



## jayce475

pesterjon said:


> I am hardly against confessions which play such a key role in the gathered church.
> 
> But I have seen some of what I would call "old Calvinist" churches in the sense I believe Driscoll was referring to, and by that I do mean an ethnic social club that subscribes to a wonderful confession with no vigor or spiritual life whatsoever. And I have been reading Reformed writers for many years now, and had not until this board seen "Reformed = subscribing to a Reformed confession." Most descriptions of the Reformed faith I have seen in the past are much more centered on biblical truth.


 
Could you provide some examples of these descriptions that are "much more centered on biblical truth"? 

Like how we can at times be about sweeping statements about the "New Calvinists", Mark Driscoll's piece was way too sweeping. The churches whom he has described certainly exist, but he painted them as what it is like with the majority of Reformed churches which are not part of the New Calvinist movement. Not terribly charitable.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

P. F. Pugh said:


> When people ask me what I am I respond that I'm a Christian with a Reformed Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then isn't calling it a "reformed confession" rather redundant? Does this mean that there were no reformed people before the drafting of reformation confessions? Does this mean that people like Jonathan Edwards and Martin Bucer weren't reformed, given that they never subscribed to a "reformed" confession? How do we determine which confessions are "reformed" and which ones aren't?
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point entirely. I identify first as a Christian and stand in solidarity with men like J.I. Packer as those who have a common Lord and Savior. The _confession_ of my visible communion is Reformed. It's the same reason I don't call people who are Christians by the title Arminian.


----------



## py3ak

pesterjon said:


> I am hardly against confessions which play such a key role in the gathered church.
> 
> But I have seen some of what I would call "old Calvinist" churches in the sense I believe Driscoll was referring to, and by that I do mean an ethnic social club that subscribes to a wonderful confession with no vigor or spiritual life whatsoever. And I have been reading Reformed writers for many years now, and had not until this board seen "Reformed = subscribing to a Reformed confession." Most descriptions of the Reformed faith I have seen in the past are much more centered on biblical truth.


 
Isn't that simply because when you're describing the Reformed faith you naturally set out its content materially? In other words, for instance, B.B. Warfield's "Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith" reiterates confessional teaching, but doesn't simply say "read all the confessions." That doesn't mean that the Confessions don't set the limits.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pesterjon said:


> I am hardly against confessions which play such a key role in the gathered church.
> 
> But I have seen some of what I would call "old Calvinist" churches in the sense I believe Driscoll was referring to, and by that I do mean an ethnic social club that subscribes to a wonderful confession with no vigor or spiritual life whatsoever. And I have been reading Reformed writers for many years now, and had not until this board seen "Reformed = subscribing to a Reformed confession." Most descriptions of the Reformed faith I have seen in the past are much more centered on biblical truth.


 
Some things don't need to be clarified or underlined until they are confused or challenged. Remember that the Reformed Churches never claimed to be the only Churches and even historically recognized Roman Catholic Baptism as valid. When they identified themselves a Reformed Churches it was not to distinguish themselves from being Christian in the catholic sense and it has always been distinguished by what they Confessed as a theology distinct.

In fact, clear Confession of what the Scriptures principally teach was one of the _blessings_ of the Reformation (even though today it is sadly viewed as some sort of blight). The Church who fails to tell you what they believe the Scriptures teach either opens the door for continuous innovation or slides the Confession under the door where you can't read it. In the former case, the Roman Catholic Church claims an infallible Magesterium but has only dogmatically defined less than 10 verses in the entire Scripture. In the latter case are all the people I hear who tell me that their Pastor "just teaches from the Bible" and they hang on every word he teaches without a clue as to the hermeneutical principle he has in play.

In my estimation, the eschewing of a Confession and the open-ended nature that many new Calvinists are willing to accept is a step backward away from a clear declaration of "This we believe" to "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"


----------



## MW

Kiffin said:


> Actually, I do need particulars and your definition of "culture" to understand where you are coming from. Where do New Calvinists fail to separate?


 
I provided you with the "New Calvinist" statement which consciously distinguishes its aims from Old Calvinists. One of the things it finds disagreeable about Old Calvinism is "separation." For you to ask where they "fail to separate" is irrelevant. By their own confession, they aim not to separate. Either you agree with that distinctive or you don't. You indicated that you agree with it, but now your question supposes that not separating might be considered a failure.


----------



## Herald

If I may elucidate a bit more on what Rich wrote. One criticism levied against Reformed confessional churches is that they have their head in the sand. They have what they believe is truth and are unwilling to consider other teachings. That's simply not true. Reformed churches don't believe they have exclusivity in the realm of biblical truth. Confessional churches are such because the confessions have been tested, tried, prodded, poked, and run through the ringer and are still standing. They are a lighthouse that brings us safely home and keeps us from shipwrecking our faith over new and untested doctrines. If a new doctrine appears on the scene it bears the burden of proving it's case against scripture. 

Are there confessional churches that have lost their way? Yes. Are there confessional churches that have become satisfied with their own numbers that they are more dead than alive? Again, sadly, yes. But that can be said about all Christian movements and denominations. The neo-Calvinist churches will be no exception. There's a reason that none of the seven churches of Revelation are around anymore. Churches that stray from the truth, even a little, eventually go extinct. Confessional churches are not immune from that same fate, but they have a solid foundation on which to stand; biblical truth that has been clearly explained and placed in a format that can be understood by all. If the neo-Calvinist churches are a moving target in respect to doctrine, how can they expect to avoid history?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

pesterjon said:


> It has not been written yet to my knowledge. I am questioning how Reformed peoples would react to a new confession if it was solid, i.e. a theoretical situation where a brand-new strong confession was developed.
> 
> I would like to throw another question onto this thread: what is the very bare minimum for someone to claim the label Reformed without being illegitimate? Obviously there are different answers out there, but it is laughable to me when dispensationalists refer to themselves as Reformed.



Sorry, I have not checked back in on this. This is my blog on whether Reformed Baptist are Reformed or not. We are not historically called Reformed unless you want A. A. Hodge's definition to take hold. According to him at one time we were the most thorough reformers. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/covenantal-baptists-reformed-historical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/


You evidently have a lot to learn as I do.


----------



## Kiffin

armourbearer said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do need particulars and your definition of "culture" to understand where you are coming from. Where do New Calvinists fail to separate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you with the "New Calvinist" statement which consciously distinguishes its aims from Old Calvinists. One of the things it finds disagreeable about Old Calvinism is "separation." For you to ask where they "fail to separate" is irrelevant. By their own confession, they aim not to separate. Either you agree with that distinctive or you don't. You indicated that you agree with it, but now your question supposes that not separating might be considered a failure.
Click to expand...


New Calvinists are departing from a certain type of "separation" and not separation entirely. Where an aspect of culture is deemed sinful, I am pretty sure New Calvinists wouldn't have a problem separating. The reason why I need clarification is because I come out of Fundamentalism--a movement where the Gospel became secondary to separation. This movement assumed its interpretation of culture was always correct (music, dress standards, alcohol, etc). So again, which areas do New Calvinists fail to separate and sin?


----------



## MW

Kiffin said:


> New Calvinists are departing from a certain type of "separation" and not separation entirely. Where an aspect of culture is deemed sinful, I am pretty sure New Calvinists wouldn't have a problem separating. The reason why I need clarification is because I come out of Fundamentalism--a movement where the Gospel became secondary to separation. This movement assumed its interpretation of culture was always correct (music, dress standards, alcohol, etc). So again, which areas do New Calvinists fail to separate and sin?


 
"Fundamentalism" holds to the fundamentals of the faith, so I'm not sure how you can claim that the gospel becomes secondary. Your particular situation might have warranted that assessment but it does not characterise the movement as a whole.

I think you need to go and read some of Driscoll's writings because your idea of "separation" is not what New Calvinists hold. As I've stated, there is no point descending to particulars when there is no agreement on the universal. While you continue to speak of separation you are maintaining a different paradigm.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> "Fundamentalism" holds to the fundamentals of the faith, so I'm not sure how you can claim that the gospel becomes secondary. Your particular situation might have warranted that assessment but it does not characterise the movement as a whole.


 
It originally meant that. Today it denotes a brand of Christianity that tends toward pharisaism, particularly in America. It is the _modus operandi_ of a lot of Baptist churches here in the states, particularly in the American South (the so-called "Bible Belt"). The result is a narrow legalistic view of Christianity that is largely cultural rather than evangelical (Gospel-centered).

The term at one time did mean all that you say, but has come to denote something far different. In our own time, the term "evangelical" is undergoing a similar change.


----------



## Kiffin

armourbearer said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Calvinists are departing from a certain type of "separation" and not separation entirely. Where an aspect of culture is deemed sinful, I am pretty sure New Calvinists wouldn't have a problem separating. The reason why I need clarification is because I come out of Fundamentalism--a movement where the Gospel became secondary to separation. This movement assumed its interpretation of culture was always correct (music, dress standards, alcohol, etc). So again, which areas do New Calvinists fail to separate and sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fundamentalism" holds to the fundamentals of the faith, so I'm not sure how you can claim that the gospel becomes secondary. Your particular situation might have warranted that assessment but it does not characterise the movement as a whole.
> 
> I think you need to go and read some of Driscoll's writings because your idea of "separation" is not what New Calvinists hold. As I've stated, there is no point descending to particulars when there is no agreement on the universal. While you continue to speak of separation you are maintaining a different paradigm.
Click to expand...


Philip hit it dead on.

Rev Winzer,

Here is Driscoll himself on culture:
YouTube - Christian Culture vs. Biblical Culture

YouTube - Worldliness and Culture

YouTube - Biblical Principles and Cultural Methods

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.

Thanks


----------



## Jared

My take on this is that the definition of calvinism and reformed is dependent on who you ask. If you ask someone who is truly reformed, they will tell you that you can't be reformed or a calvinist unless you are truly reformed or truly calvinist. However, if you ask someone like Erwin Lutzer, John MacArthur, Mark Driscoll, or C.J. Mahaney, they would probably say that you could be reformed or a calvinist without being truly reformed or truly calvinist although they would probably prefer reformed to calvinist since the word calvinist carries more negative connotations than the word reformed.

BTW: I thought of an interesting scenario. The Assemblies of God is presbyterian in their form of church polity. The SBC is more congregational. So, you could at least in theory have someone in the A/G who was truly reformed more easily than in the SBC. Of course, there's also the issue of continuationism on the A/G side, but I did see someone on here who had pastored an A/G church who was a cessationist. So, I guess that it's possible.


----------



## ThomasCartwright

Kiffin said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do need particulars and your definition of "culture" to understand where you are coming from. Where do New Calvinists fail to separate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you with the "New Calvinist" statement which consciously distinguishes its aims from Old Calvinists. One of the things it finds disagreeable about Old Calvinism is "separation." For you to ask where they "fail to separate" is irrelevant. By their own confession, they aim not to separate. Either you agree with that distinctive or you don't. You indicated that you agree with it, but now your question supposes that not separating might be considered a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New Calvinists are departing from a certain type of "separation" and not separation entirely. Where an aspect of culture is deemed sinful, I am pretty sure New Calvinists wouldn't have a problem separating. The reason why I need clarification is because I come out of Fundamentalism--a movement where the Gospel became secondary to separation. This movement assumed its interpretation of culture was always correct (music, dress standards, alcohol, etc). So again, which areas do New Calvinists fail to separate and sin?
Click to expand...


This is a somewhat bizarre argument that allows you to always win as you reject what most historically regarded as worldly and sinful as being so - so then you can never be accused of not separating from "sin."

Your real premise is that you believe what is called Fundamentalist today is wrong in its beliefs as to what constitutes worldliness. How that leads to the sweeping generalisation that biblical separation is more important to Fundamentalists than the essential doctrines of the gospel is beyond me. If Fundamentalists believe a certain practice is sinful or unhealthy for their local churches are they not entitled to separate over it? I would have thought that most people on PB recognise that doctrines that go beyond the essential doctrines of salvation are worth separating over - hence e.g. Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches. 

It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim to be committed to the historic Refomed Faith are so intolerant of those who try, albeit imperfectly, to live as separated a life from the world/age around them according to their conscience. As Mr Spurgeon put it,



> Avoid the appearance of evil. "But we must not be too rigid," says one. There is no fear of that in these days. You will never go too far in holiness, nor become too like your Lord Jesus. If anybody accuses you of being too strict and precise, do not grieve but try to deserve the charge. I cannot suppose that at the last great day our Lord Jesus Christ will say to anyone, "You were not worldly enough. You were too jealous over your conduct, and did not sufficiently conform to the world." No, my brethren, such a wrong is impossible. He Who said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," has set before you a standard beyond which you can never go.



Spurgeon and Places of Entertainment


----------



## kvanlaan

> Avoid the appearance of evil. "But we must not be too rigid," says one. There is no fear of that in these days. You will never go too far in holiness, nor become too like your Lord Jesus. If anybody accuses you of being too strict and precise, do not grieve but try to deserve the charge. I cannot suppose that at the last great day our Lord Jesus Christ will say to anyone, "You were not worldly enough. You were too jealous over your conduct, and did not sufficiently conform to the world." No, my brethren, such a wrong is impossible. He Who said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," has set before you a standard beyond which you can never go.



Very well put.


----------



## pesterjon

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.

We are at St. Jude and I am 750 miles from my library, but can get you some examples when I get home. Off the top of my head contemporary examples would be Boice and Frame. I have already linked on this thread to helpful articles in this regard.

Just received the latest Tabletalk on New Calvinism, and there are several helpful articles on this topic.

---------- Post added at 10:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 AM ----------

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.


----------



## Jeffriesw

Couple of good articles on the subject of "New Calvinism" in tabletalk magazine..


----------



## Kiffin

ThomasCartwright said:


> This is a somewhat bizarre argument that allows you to always win as you reject what most historically regarded as worldly and sinful as being so - so then you can never be accused of not separating from "sin."


Umm, no. What has been regarded as “worldly and sinful” has always been a point of contention. Please read Romans 14. If you cannot differentiate culture and sin, you will end up with liberalism or at the other extreme end, monasticism. Please watch the videos I posted.



ThomasCartwright said:


> Your real premise is that you believe what is called Fundamentalist today is wrong in its beliefs as to what constitutes worldliness.


Yes I do. That's why I left Fundamentalism (the movement).



ThomasCartwright said:


> How that leads to the sweeping generalisation that biblical separation is more important to Fundamentalists than the essential doctrines of the gospel is beyond me. If Fundamentalists believe a certain practice is sinful or unhealthy for their local churches are they not entitled to separate over it? I would have thought that most people on PB recognise that doctrines that go beyond the essential doctrines of salvation are worth separating over - hence e.g. Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches.


Ok, my apologies. My experience and the version I was a part of focused so much on the externals, it became its primary focus. There are some segments that have maintained its historical fervor, but those groups are rare. Many of these groups became anti-calvinist. So yeah, some groups did forsake the essential doctrines of the gospel. I’ve posted this article before, but here it is again. Dr. Bauder rebukes this flavor of Fundamentalism in this article- In the Nick of Time



ThomasCartwright said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim to be committed to the historic Refomed Faith are so intolerant of those who try, albeit imperfectly, to live as separated a life from the world/age around them according to their conscience.


I’m not intolerant of those who separate from apostates and sin. I advocate separation. But I do feel uncomfortable around those who want to separate over petty things. The church should seek to be holy, not isolated.




ThomasCartwright said:


> As Mr Spurgeon put it,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoid the appearance of evil. "But we must not be too rigid," says one. There is no fear of that in these days. You will never go too far in holiness, nor become too like your Lord Jesus. If anybody accuses you of being too strict and precise, do not grieve but try to deserve the charge. I cannot suppose that at the last great day our Lord Jesus Christ will say to anyone, "You were not worldly enough. You were too jealous over your conduct, and did not sufficiently conform to the world." No, my brethren, such a wrong is impossible. He Who said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," has set before you a standard beyond which you can never go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spurgeon and Places of Entertainment
Click to expand...

I'm sure that there are many in Bible Presbyterianism that would view smoking cigars as "the appearance of evil." Yet, Spurgeon wouldn't have a problem puffing a Cuban .


----------



## Michael Doyle

This Presbyterian happens to love Cubans as just an FYI


----------



## pesterjon

When I hear Roman Catholics talk about "holy smoke," my mind always goes to a high quality cigar for some reason.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kiffin said:


> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your real premise is that you believe what is called Fundamentalist today is wrong in its beliefs as to what constitutes worldliness.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do. That's why I left Fundamentalism (the movement).
Click to expand...

 
Just FYI EJ. Something you may want to keep in mind is that the American experience with Fundamentalism is not always well understood outside our borders. We use the term "Fundamentalist" and it conjures ideas that others outside our country might not identify it with.


----------



## Kiffin

Semper Fidelis said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your real premise is that you believe what is called Fundamentalist today is wrong in its beliefs as to what constitutes worldliness.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do. That's why I left Fundamentalism (the movement).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just FYI EJ. Something you may want to keep in mind is that the American experience with Fundamentalism is not always well understood outside our borders. We use the term "Fundamentalist" and it conjures ideas that others outside our country might not identify it with.
Click to expand...


Yes that is a good point. But considering that "Fundamentalism" was historically an American (primarily) movement, and that it has been exported beyond the States, I believe that what I am critiquing actually correlates with what happens in "international" Fundamentalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pesterjon said:


> 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.


Again, I don't know what "judgment" is going on. You are right to place your finger on the idea that the Reformed Churches have always excelled in providing very clear and systematic views of what they believe the Scriptures teach. An extension of this clear exposition of the Scriptures was a confession of the same. In other words, as I noted above, the Churches came together and clearly articulated and wrote down what they believed. They confessed, together, these things.

You are drawing a contrast between clarity in Biblical and Systematic theology and the Churches' confession of the same. I don't see the tension or the contrast.

It seems to me that the movement away from a Church being able to confess a standard exposition of the Word and be defined by it is an admission that there is a lack of clarity in Biblical theology.

But, again, I go back to my original comment about modernity. You seem very bothered that a Church can confess a standard exposition and call it a Confession and then be defined by it. You find it more appropriate to witness individual theologians writing about a common set of theological ideas with variations that individuals can sort of gather for themselves and consider themselves generically Reformed. It's less important that the individual's self-expression be challenged in the deliberations of Churchmen working together to clearly confess them together than that the individual has settled on some Reformed ideas for himself. The idea that he might be "checked" by a Confession seems out of turn because he's just studying the Bible.

My repeated point is that the Confessions represent centuries of thousands of men studying the Scriptures and coming together, clearly and articulately, and saying: "We believe the Scriptures teach this."

It's not that the Confession stands at the level of Scripture but the point is that if it's appropriate for the individual to study the Scriptures then its appropriate for the Church, together, to study and conclude matters as a Body. The individual's interpretation can hardly be considered to be more faithful to the Word simply because he's doing so outside a Church but that's what we're basically saying whenever we keep treating Confession as if it's some sort of odd appendage to the study and writing of theology. 



> 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.


I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Repeatedly, you call for charity toward new Calvinists and yet you seem to want to extend very little to those that believe the Church has something to say about theology and that centuries of Confession are somehow something that needs to be defended because it's odd.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kiffin said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThomasCartwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your real premise is that you believe what is called Fundamentalist today is wrong in its beliefs as to what constitutes worldliness.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do. That's why I left Fundamentalism (the movement).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just FYI EJ. Something you may want to keep in mind is that the American experience with Fundamentalism is not always well understood outside our borders. We use the term "Fundamentalist" and it conjures ideas that others outside our country might not identify it with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is a good point. But considering that "Fundamentalism" was historically an American (primarily) movement, and that it has been exported beyond the States, I believe that what I am critiquing actually correlates with what happens in "international" Fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

 
Not true. The denials that provoked the affirmation of Fundamentals were happening across the Western Church and there were similar movements in Europe. We may have exported certain Fundamentalist ideas but we can hardly claim to have the monopoly on the reaction to Modernism.


----------



## christianyouth

EJ, it's been a point of contention but it doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. Some clothing is modest and others is immodest even though some people will insist that bikini's are modest and people like me will think they're crazy for that. But the standard of modesty still has to exist even if it's not accessible to all people in all cultures or able to be demonstrated by clear argument, otherwise modesty/humility/soberness of mind and phrases like that are meaningless. There has to be a way to determine what is 'modest' and what humility implies, and how, as a believer, I'm supposed to be sober minded. 

You probably agree with that--and I think most of the New Calvinists would, that there is such a thing as 'modest' and 'immodest' apparel even though believers don't agree on what that is--but you would appeal to Romans 14 to make it a thing to be decided individually. That's an extreme anti-Christian tradition, one scholar who I like calls it gnostic Protestantism. It's what Rev. Winzer talked about earlier when he mentioned the evangelical passive participation in the cultural rebellion against social institutions. 

It says that I'm more fit to determine the application of Gospel principle A in my life than my leadership, the historical witness of the church(esp. on birth control), or the council of the godly. But I don't even think we are just wondering about the correct application of Gospel principle A, I think you and most of the evangelical community are saying it can't have a correct application.

I could be wrong though: Do you think we can designate cultural practices as immodest? Could we decide that a certain music does not aid in the type of worship we should portrayed in the scriptures, that is, thoughtful, deliberate, meditative worship?

- Andy


----------



## Kiffin

christianyouth said:


> EJ, it's been a point of contention but it doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. Some clothing is modest and others is immodest even though some people will insist that bikini's are modest and people like me will think they're crazy for that. But the standard of modesty still has to exist even if it's not accessible to all people in all cultures or able to be demonstrated by clear argument, otherwise modesty/humility/soberness of mind and phrases like that are meaningless. There has to be a way to determine what is 'modest' and what humility implies, and how, as a believer, I'm supposed to be sober minded.
> 
> You probably agree with that--and I think most of the New Calvinists would, that there is such a thing as 'modest' and 'immodest' apparel even though believers don't agree on what that is--but you would appeal to Romans 14 to make it a thing to be decided individually. That's an extreme anti-Christian tradition, one scholar who I like calls it gnostic Protestantism. It's what Rev. Winzer talked about earlier when he mentioned the evangelical passive participation in the cultural rebellion against social institutions.
> 
> It says that I'm more fit to determine the application of Gospel principle A in my life than my leadership, the historical witness of the church(esp. on birth control), or the council of the godly. But I don't even think we are just wondering about the correct application of Gospel principle A, I think you and most of the evangelical community are saying it can't have a correct application.
> 
> I could be wrong though: Do you think we can designate cultural practices as immodest? Could we decide that a certain music does not aid in the type of worship we should portrayed in the scriptures, that is, thoughtful, deliberate, meditative worship?
> 
> - Andy



Well, I agree that modesty does exist and that it is commanded. But like you have suggested, that some people like me would believe, that modesty "applied" is different across cultures. I believe modesty has to do more with the heart than any dress code. I would ask, "What is your motivation behind your choice of garments?" Modesty encompasses the entire being.

For example, there are some who believe that pants on women is sin and that they should only wear dresses that extend down to the ankle. Other women wear pants (I am sure you are familar with this considering you are IFB). In the Middle east, or any other strict cultures, would apply modesty different as well.

In regards to music, there is music that may be inappropriate in worship. But again, some of this "appropiation" is culturally motivated.


----------



## christianyouth

Thanks for clarifying abit on that. When we think about modesty differences and music differences, why do we assume that because there are different takes on it God doesn't have a standard for it? Don't you think we can reason ourselves to a position that says bikini's are immodest? To some, I even bet some of the New Calvinists, that's not even a possibility(I don't think anyone here on the PB is representative of them since we all have confessional subscriptions).

What about with music? I have my own observations about how music effects me, this morning I listened to some classical music on PBS and, as always, it put me in a very happy/reflective mood. A lot of the people I talk to say the same thing about this style of music. When I hear Pie Jesu, even though I don't know what they are saying, I sense holiness.

I don't know, I'm just saying that I have made personal observations like this and I don't even reflect a lot. Imagine a saint of 50 years who also is steeped in the Christian traditions and is well read enough to see things in our culture--the origins of certain cultural trends and how they deviated from previous trends--think of the accuracy in his thought when he says he see's TV as a danger and feels led by God to ban his congregants from using them? That's anti-Protestant gnostic but it just makes sense to me that there are people out there who are able to answer the 'grey areas' for us just as Paul answered a grey area for the believers in Rome. They may have a heightened spiritual awareness, like a wisdom from communing seriously with God--or they might have immense knowledge of our culture and Christan history so they can see connections we can't see(ie the RCC position on Birth Control, if you type in sean hannity catholic on YT you can see a good example of a priest doing something like I'm describing).

You were raised in the IFB, we probably have some war stories brother.  I think it's a good movement and I see the rationale for the positions taken--but there should have been some type of disclaimer like : only obey these if you're a Christian and don't speak of this if you don't believe the principle duty of a Christian is love. We would have been an awesome movement brother. We still can be.


----------



## Kiffin

christianyouth said:


> but you would appeal to Romans 14 to make it a thing to be decided individually. That's an extreme anti-Christian tradition, one scholar who I like calls it gnostic Protestantism.



I appeal to Romans 14 not to decide individually, but to decide on truth. Truth according to the word, not according to tradition. Paul was anti-Christian?


----------



## christianyouth

Kiffin said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you would appeal to Romans 14 to make it a thing to be decided individually. That's an extreme anti-Christian tradition, one scholar who I like calls it gnostic Protestantism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appeal to Romans 14 not to decide individually, but to decide on truth. Truth according to the word, not according to tradition. Paul was anti-Christian?
Click to expand...

 
I'm saying that to use Romans 14 to affirm the liberty of individual Christians to decide how the Gospel applies to their life is anti-Christian, because it denies the role of the leadership in the Church. Because so many of us have that attitude, that it's up to me to determine the applications of scriptural principles(modesty, sobriety) we trivialize the role of elder/pastor and totally destroy the shepherding imagery that the Bible uses when talking about them.

Edit to add: It's anti-Christian because it's anti-authoritarian. It denies that God has a 'social order' in place to figure out issues like this. It also, as my good brother pointed out up a few posts, provides extreme laxity for rebellious Christians because they can interpret 'modesty' in a way that allows them to go nude, as long as they have downcast eyes or something. Does the leadership have the ability to rule on that subject, to offer an interpretation of this Gospel principle? If so, that has massive implications man.


----------



## Kiffin

I'm not suggesting that God doesn't have a standard. I just believe that a "standard" is applied differently across cultures.

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------




christianyouth said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you would appeal to Romans 14 to make it a thing to be decided individually. That's an extreme anti-Christian tradition, one scholar who I like calls it gnostic Protestantism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appeal to Romans 14 not to decide individually, but to decide on truth. Truth according to the word, not according to tradition. Paul was anti-Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that to use Romans 14 to affirm the liberty of individual Christians to decide how the Gospel applies to their life is anti-Christian, because it denies the role of the leadership in the Church. Because so many of us have that attitude, that it's up to me to determine the applications of scriptural principles(modesty, sobriety) we trivialize the role of elder/pastor and totally destroy the shepherding imagery that the Bible uses when talking about them.
Click to expand...


Ok, I see what you're saying now. But don't you believe that pastors are to submit to the teaching of Romans 14? Anyways, I believe that Romans 14 is just as much about contraint as it is about liberty. Both types, weaker and stronger, need to exercise grace.


----------



## christianyouth

Kiffin said:


> I'm not suggesting that God doesn't have a standard. I just believe that a "standard" is applied differently across cultures.
> 
> Maybe--or some cultures are less concerned with obedience to God than others. Paul said that the Cretians were scoundrels, making a huge generality about them--some cultures are just wicked cultures and they show forth that wickedness in a lot of ways--Aboriginee/Masai, any of those cultures that have sexually deviant, body destroying male initiation ceremonies, for example.
> 
> Those wicked cultures have different standards on modesty(like, no clothes modesty lol)--do you think that their standard on this issue is messed up because they worship demons and suppress knowledge of God?
> 
> Anyways this is too complex to discuss really. I feel like I'm doing the subject injustice because of the rapid interaction we're having and because my thoughts aren't really developed on this yet. I'm going to read the thread now--good talking.


----------



## Kiffin

christianyouth said:


> It also, as my good brother pointed out up a few posts, provides extreme laxity for *rebellious Christians* because they can interpret 'modesty' in a way that allows them to go nude, as long as they have downcast eyes or something.


If this is your interpretation of my statements, then you have misread. You cannot be rebellious and apply modesty at the same time. That was my whole point: that modesty is beyond the external and is an internal posture.


----------



## christianyouth

Kiffin said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also, as my good brother pointed out up a few posts, provides extreme laxity for *rebellious Christians* because they can interpret 'modesty' in a way that allows them to go nude, as long as they have downcast eyes or something.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your interpretation of my statements, then you have misread. You cannot be rebellious and apply modesty at the same time. That was my whole point: that modesty is beyond the external and is an internal posture.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't know about that. I might come back and contribute but I want to see others interact with your points for now.


----------



## KMK

christianyouth said:


> Don't you think we can reason ourselves to a position that says bikini's are immodest?


 
Who is the 'we' in this sentence? You and EJ? You and your family? Your church? A discussion board? You can reason with others all you want, but your reasoning has no authority over the consciences of others. In addition, for some cultures a bikini would actually be more modest than what they normally wear.


----------



## Philip

> Those wicked cultures have different standards on modesty(like, no clothes modesty lol)--do you think that their standard on this issue is messed up because they worship demons and suppress knowledge of God?



Not necessarily---in many parts of Africa, it is perfectly normal to have mothers breastfeeding during Lord's Day worship, but it is also considered immodest for a woman to wear a skirt that doesn't reach the knees. Are they wrong? No, just applying biblical principles in a particular context.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If you want to debate modesty, please start a new thread.


----------



## pesterjon

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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pesterjon said:


> 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.


 
Well, ironically, the whole point of the thread is to try to define terms. There are plenty of fora on the board where Theology might be discussed if you're averse to that discussion. You have seemed to be pretty eager to nail down the "can I be called Reformed" question from your first post in this thread. I've been content to leave that question alone and simply focus on how the Church has historically used it. I've also frequently pointed out that this is not an issue of binding and loosing from the Kingdom of God or failure to extend the right hand of fellowship. I never thought to call my Christian brethren in Okinawa "Reformed" because I attended a Baptist Church but they never felt like I loved them less because a term wouldn't have fit the Confession of that Church.

Again, I'll return to my earlier statement about broad principles. It is helpful to clarify and distinguish. It is helpful to define terms. The Reformed Churches have been marked by their Confessionalism as an outgrowth of their commitment to the Scriptures and confession of the same. The thread has focused on whether or not "New Calvinism" is a species of the same and whether "old Calvinists" are simply a bunch of meanies for even asking the question. While nobody here has claimed that these men and bodies are not Christian, there is a sense in which it is proper to ask whether or not an indeterminate and ever-evolving theology can be called "Reformed" or "Calvinist" simply because it has some points of contact in common.

If you asked me if I would be a source of division in a crowd of young men who want to call themselves "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" then I would answer "No". I get to know people and, when I have the time, I try to explain things to them and it is not of chief importance to me that people understand what Reformed means. 

But this thread is discussing why the Reformed Churches have a problem with New Calvinism and whether they believe they can properly be called what has been a term of distinction. It hasn't been a "label" but it meant something when a Church called itself Reformed or Calvinist. That's what we're discussing. 

Calling somebody "fundamentalist" because they're trying to hold fast to what a term meant is an example of "labeling". Trying to determine the grammatico-historical meaning of a term is not.


----------



## MW

Kiffin said:


> 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.


 
Having wasted time watching the videos, it is clear that his philosophy is the same as he expresses in his writings. He makes Christianity all about content, and relativises form. The basic idea he presents is that culture is a glove; worldliness is a hand; and biblical Christianity is a new hand to fill that glove. As already noted in previous posts, it is simply an unmanly escape from responsibility. Christians are to abstain from the "appearance [form] of evil." It is not simply about values, but the way values come to expression in cultural activity. Further, there are the values of humanity which the Christian is able to share with the non Christian. The non Christian abuses these and perverts them according to his commitment to autonomy, but it is still a fact that cultural forms might be things which Christians and non Christians participate in as a result of shared values.

Turning to his books, one should read what reformission is, in the book containing that word in the title. There is also a recent work on the church which outlines his ideals. It is, as I have already stated, the culture of freedom of expression which is being pressed on the church. It has not avoided the problems of fundamentalism; it has simply created a new culture to take the place of the old culture, only it flees the responsibility to give a reasoned account of itself.


----------



## MW

pesterjon said:


> 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.


 
I hope you can see that you are using a reformed confession of "Bible" in order to arrive at this conclusion. What you end up with is a conclusion that has been helped by a method which the conclusion finds unhelpful.

The reality is that confessionalism "manifests" what is often kept "hidden" in theological method, 2 Cor. 4:2.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The reality is that confessionalism "manifests" what is often kept "hidden" in theological method, 2 Cor. 4:2.


 
That's a great way of putting it.

It's always easier to hit something solid rather than something made out of jello. It's easier to attack a Church's confession because it actually spells out what we confess the Scriptures are, what they teach, and how we interpret them. All of these are explicit.

Notice how difficult it is to define what marks the new movements. The hermeneutic isn't revealed but implied. Do I, a sheep, have a right to know what a Church confesses about the Scriptures? Is it all about my confidence in a man and that his unstated hermeneutic is correct? Is there any Body that can supervise what my Pastor is teaching that can protect me and my family if he starts teaching heterodoxy? Is heterodoxy even a term that has form or is it morphing too?


----------



## Philip

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?


----------



## au5t1n

P. F. Pugh said:


> I happen to think that all of these (except for the owning slaves bit) are overkill.


 
Spend a lot of your spare time "espousing liberalism," then, do ya?


----------



## jayce475

P. F. Pugh said:


> 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?


 
In my limited experience, I have never come across people being against beards. They probably exist, but I haven't seen any. Owning slaves was not condemned by scriptures (as seen in Col 3 and 4), so it's odd that that's the bit you have issues with. What exactly is worldliness to you then?


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> 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.


 
I think Owen's definition, and the Puritans in general, is something like "living affections to dying things." That seems to me to be the biblical sum of it. But there is no point descending into particulars because the new Calvinist theory deliberately undermines particularisation. You have expressed sympathy for the new Calvinist theory by saying that the examples you provided are overkill. According to the Puritan view, worldliness is not only expressed in partaking of unlawful things, but also in partaking of lawful things unlawfully. This leads to cultural forms, that is, distinct attitudes towards, and degrees of separation or participation in, the actions of life. Accordingly, all of the things you have mentioned require thought-captivating attention.


----------



## Kiffin

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?

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 PM ----------




jayce475 said:


> 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....


----------



## MW

Kiffin said:


> 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.


----------



## pesterjon

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.


----------



## Kiffin

armourbearer said:


> 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.



Ok, I think I'm getting the issue now. How about this...Can you tell me what the "Old Calvinist" way of separation and participation is?


----------



## Philip

> Now, as noted, the New Calvinist theory undermines the particulars by insisting on the redemption of 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.

Would you grant that maybe as Christians we have a duty both to practice separation and to redeem culture? Is it possible that when in Rome we may do as the Romans do without sinning as the Romans sin?

When I hear "redeeming culture" I think of Christians who create, do art, do philosophy, bring the Gospel to bear in city planning, architecture, legislation, music---in other words, realizing the cultural mandate as it was meant. When I think of redeeming culture, I consider my Christian friends who are artists, lawyers, teachers, soldiers, scholars, and engineers. Those who create, sustain, and redirect culture and bring the Gospel to bear on it.


----------



## jayce475

Kiffin said:


> 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?



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. 

On a separate note, getting into the particulars will likely derail this topic and turn this into an RPW and worldliness debate, especially since the issues with New Calvinists do not solely lie with how they are engaging culture.



Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...

 
Of course, absolutely agree. But you did only specifically mention owning of slaves.


----------



## Kiffin

jayce475 said:


> 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..


----------



## jayce475

Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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..
Click to expand...

 
Kindly show the specifics on how New Calvinists (and yourself) practise separation from worldliness while doing this "redeeming the culture" thing if you wish to harp on the particulars. You believe in a "standard of holiness", so it may be helpful if you would spell out what it is. This thread is not the best place to do it, so we may wish to take it elsewhere. Just because the conservative-leaning interpretation is not universal to Christianity, and is contrary to what you believe in, does not make it wrong per se. I agree that this thread is going nowhere, but it is useful to note that one of the issues with New Calvinism is precisely their idea of separating worldliness and culture into 2 distinct entities, so let us not make it sound like they are all that distinct. The most useful way of deconstructing the theology, as Rev Winzer has noted, is not to dwell on the specifics but looking at how the New Calvinists view culture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jon,

I'm honestly befuddled by your continued frustration but folks are free to come and go as they please. The thread started out this way:


presbyterianintexas said:


> 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.


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.

Your first post:


pesterjon said:


> 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?


Did you not want definitions? I haven't been drawing battle lines but trying to provide definitions.

You continue:


> 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.


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.

At one point you thanked me and I thought we were communicating:


pesterjon said:


> 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?


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.

You continue... 


pesterjon said:


> 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.


Can "old" Calvinists "deal" with people. Again, your battle line.




pesterjon said:


> 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.


Battle line - Reformed people say that the Protestant Reformation is the be-al, end-all.



pesterjon said:


> 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.


Ripped to shreds. Battle line.



pesterjon said:


> 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.


You wonder if this is all motivated out of jealousy for people who are "old school calvinists."




pesterjon said:


> 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).


The definition of Reformed has been defined "narrowly".



> 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.


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.



pesterjon said:


> 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.


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".



pesterjon said:


> 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.


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.



> 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.


Battle line. Reformed peoples sound like the Fundamentalist peoples.



pesterjon said:


> 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.


Again, labels. I have seen much labeling in this thread, Jon, but it has been by you. 


pesterjon said:


> 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.


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".

Then you accuse the board of having drawn battle lines and labeling others? I'm confused.

I've been trying to be patient and helpful throughout. If you can point out a single case of someone being labeled or "judged" or "separated from" then please provide the substance because I can't see it. Perhaps, however, I'm blind to my own interaction which has given this impression. As for claims that I have represented you as "new Calvinism", I have not. I have been answering your questions and responding patiently and extensively to your concern that we are "narrow" or "ripping others to shreds" or "separating" or are "fundamentalists". Perhaps you can provide the quote where you are called a New Calvinist.


----------



## KMK

Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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..
Click to expand...

 
You are welcome to start a new thread anytime, EJ.


----------



## MW

Kiffin said:


> Can you tell me what the "Old Calvinist" way of separation and participation is?


 
The Lord is the Creator of all things, continues to act bountifully towards His creation, and restrains the wickedness of man (see Ps. 136). Through the Word of God (instruction) and prayer (consecration) all creation can be received as God's good gift and used to the glory of God. The result is a commitment to participatation in culture. On the other hand, sinful man idolises the world which God has created and abuses it to his own destruction so that "nature" becomes distorted and "culture" becomes a means of self-gratification (see Rom. 1). By means of the perspicuity of God's Word (instruction) and the sanctifying influence of prayer (consecration) the evil actions of men are to be proved, exposed, separated from, and condemned. The result is an abstention from culture.

I highly recommend the reading of the Larger Catechism's exposition of the ten commandments with solemn meditation on the proofs from Scripture. The Catechism clearly sets forth the duties required and the sins forbidden in each commandment. One of the primary lessons one learns from the Catechism is the distinctive nature of Christian culture which is developed through loving the law of God and making it one's study all the day.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> 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.


----------



## Kiffin

armourbearer said:


> The result is an abstention from culture.



Thanks for your response. Can you interact with how I and others have defined culture in the other thread? With the definition I provided, "abstention" is impossible.


----------



## jayce475

Hey everyone, now that we have shifted over the talk about culture to another thread, are we still going to discuss other aspects of New Calvinism? Or is this thread as good as dead?


----------



## py3ak

This thread will survive as long as people post to it, unless I or one of my compeers decides enough is enough.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

 
Phillip,
If you want to hear some more about Kupyerianism, they speak about it at the WSC Conference they just had recently. Also, I'd read critiques on Kuyper as well.

Rev. Winzer is correct on Kuyper. Kuyper is not the norm in the Dutch tradition, nor reformed tradition.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> 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.



And Neo-Calvinism predates Kuyper as well (I'm trying to remember if Bavinck is considered a Neo-Calvinist or not).

So what exactly do you think is meant by "redeeming culture" in New Calvinism and the Kuyperian tradition? Again, I think you can find both ideas in the reformed tradition, just as one can find both Presuppositional and Scottish Common Sense (more traditional, actually) thinking in the reformed tradition. My point is not that you can't find critique in the reformed tradition, just that the reformed tradition is divided on this point, as it is on epistemology.


----------



## NB3K

I grew up in the Church of God denomintation. It was Arminian, Pentecostal, I was invited every week to say the sinners prayer, and I did. I just never came to any knowledge of God. I created many gods that were in my likeness. I am Reformed, but I am "New-Calvinist." My generation seems to reject the idea of God being dependant upon the sinner's so-called freewill. Through modern teachers like Paul Washer, Charles Leiter, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, I have seen that God is absolutely Sovereign in ALL THAT HE DOES. The Bible teaches this. I am also seeing that the new-calvinist are not so much like Calvin. Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement. I think that sometimes Calvin sounds Arminian in his commentaries. Hey but what do I know, I am nothing but a pathetic mountain of dung, or as Calvin would say," God has the great job at governing this 5 foot worm" [Institutes 1.5.3 p]


----------



## Scott1

> *NB3K*
> 
> Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement.



Perhaps not explicitly, but it was and is implicit in the systematic theology he developed- and it is logically and necessarily related to each of the other points posthumously called, "the five points of Calvinism."

Don't be fooled- there is nothing new in that.


----------



## Steve Curtis

NB3K said:


> Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement.[Institutes 1.5.3 p]



People like R. T. Kendall have perpetuated that idea [in _Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649_. Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 1997], but as Scott said, while not explicit perhaps, Calvin did say this of 1 John 2:2

"Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? [Some] have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world." 

And, more explicitly, in a discussion of the Communion table, Calvin wrote: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.” 

[Calvin, _Theological Treatises _(trans. J. K. S. Reid, editor), 285.]

See also, Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.” Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (1985) 197-225. 

The point is, Calvin was a "Calvinist," in the traditional sense of the term. "New" Calvinism, then, is a step in a "new" direction.


----------



## Pergamum

pesterjon said:


> Semper Fi (from an active duty Army soldier, no less)-
> I appreciate what you are saying. Totally agree with the lack of appreciation or commitment to history, let alone confessions, in our contemporary setting. What I find hard to believe is the notion that reformation is ever over. Perhaps someone could comment on this aspect of Reformed theology, that we are not simply satisfied with the complete New Testament and yet we arbitrarily land (in my case) at 1689.
> 
> Do you think there is ever a warrant at any level to contextualize the Reformed faith in a given cultural setting? We always got missionary prayer cards at Reformed Baptist church and they would wear dress shirt and tie in Majority World settings, as opposed to other missionaries who dress like the natives. Is contextualization automatically confessional compromise? That is very difficult for me to understand, but I am open to your comments.




The Dutch church in Indonesia made new Javanese believers take on a "Christian name" and cut their hair and wear dutch clothes to church, where they entered in and sang translated songs from the dutch to the tune of the pipe organ instead of local instrumentation. I.e., they became dutch to become Christian.

While some New Calvies over-contextualize, the tendency among the "Truly Reformed" has been to Under-contextualize the Gospel and to transplant Western culture and think it is all Gospel. 


I think being fed up with the Churchianity and the 1950's cultural forms of church are one reason people are flocking to New Calvinism


----------



## Ivan

Pergamum said:


> The Dutch church in Indonesia made new Javanese believers take on a "Christian name" and cut their hair and wear dutch clothes to church, where they entered in and sang translated songs from the dutch to the tune of the pipe organ instead of local instrumentation. I.e., they became dutch to become Christian.


 
Oh dear, that would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


----------



## Pergamum

Ivan said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dutch church in Indonesia made new Javanese believers take on a "Christian name" and cut their hair and wear dutch clothes to church, where they entered in and sang translated songs from the dutch to the tune of the pipe organ instead of local instrumentation. I.e., they became dutch to become Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear, that would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Click to expand...


Correction: My characterization is a generalization. I can cite my sources. It may not reflect some from the dutch church that accompanied the East India Company. Also, it reflects missions at the time of the East India Company..but it does prove that under-contextualization is also bad.


----------



## Scott1

DeborahtheJudge said:


> I have some sympathy... I am a product of this movement, after all! I think for me it was a great feat simply to understand the 5 points. I mean, I had to push through all of the Campus Crusade material, read the entire bible (and new testament like 10 times) before I could see coherence. Even then it took an apologetics class with some guy talking about "the antithesis" and blowing my mind with scripture references. When I joined a reformed church, it was because I was convicted by ecclesiastical and worship doctrines.
> 
> "Choosing a church" based on what is true to scripture (well, past "The Gospel" which is evangelicalism-speak for Christian fundamentals) was not emphasized. Becoming a member of a church was not emphasized. But what is emphasized is every new book and musical fad and conference that comes about. And reading yourself into every passage of scripture.


 
Reformed theology includes an all-of-scripture summary, a confession.

It took me a longer time to understand covenant theology and even that there might be a link between it and a "doctrines of grace" (Calvinist) soteriology- but there is.

Read John Gerstner, _Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth_ for this.

Also, understand, the whole of biblical theology fits together- all doctrines are somehow related to our doctrine of God. It is not merely one doctrine among many, but something to which all other doctrines are in some way related.

These truths are invaluably summarized in a confession of faith.


----------



## alhembd

armourbearer said:


> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the ones I have known, their biggest disparity with "old" Calvinists would be their Grudem-esque openness to charismatic gifts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-expression is part and parcel of feminine nurture. The openness to charismatic gifts is simply an indulgence to self-expression. As noted, Calvinism stands for order, which means seeing the work of the Holy Spirit as functioning through the ordinances of the Holy Spirit's appointment, otherwise known as the ordinary means of grace.
Click to expand...

 
Very well said. The historic Calvinist stance for order, and specifically, for the regulative principle and the means of grace as set forth in the Word, is little known today. The historic Calvinist stance, I might add, is culture-neutral. It does not seek to be culturally-relevant; it seeks to be Scriptural.

Al Hembd

---------- Post added at 08:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------




kainos01 said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement.[Institutes 1.5.3 p]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like R. T. Kendall have perpetuated that idea [in _Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649_. Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 1997], but as Scott said, while not explicit perhaps, Calvin did say this of 1 John 2:2
> 
> "Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? [Some] have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world."
> 
> And, more explicitly, in a discussion of the Communion table, Calvin wrote: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”
> 
> [Calvin, _Theological Treatises _(trans. J. K. S. Reid, editor), 285.]
> 
> See also, Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.” Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (1985) 197-225.
> 
> The point is, Calvin was a "Calvinist," in the traditional sense of the term. "New" Calvinism, then, is a step in a "new" direction.
Click to expand...

 
Excellent quotes from Calvin's Theological Treatises! Yes, Calvin did indeed believe in particular redemption. Some of Calvin's doctrines, however, were not fully fleshed out by himself, yet he did indeed believe in them. For example: Sabbath-keeping. James Dennison's book on _Market Day of the Soul_ does an excellent job of proving that Calvin was a Sabbatarian. However, some of his comments in the Institutes on the Sabbath are rather vague, because he hadn't yet fully fleshed out his doctrine. But _Market Day of the Soul_ proves that Calvin believed in Sabbath observance, and it quotes his Sermons 34 and 35 on the book of Deuteronomy to well prove it.

Thanks so much for these choice quotes.

---------- Post added at 08:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 AM ----------




kainos01 said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin did not teach Limited Atonement.[Institutes 1.5.3 p]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like R. T. Kendall have perpetuated that idea [in _Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649_. Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 1997], but as Scott said, while not explicit perhaps, Calvin did say this of 1 John 2:2
> 
> "Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? [Some] have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world."
> 
> And, more explicitly, in a discussion of the Communion table, Calvin wrote: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”
> 
> [Calvin, _Theological Treatises _(trans. J. K. S. Reid, editor), 285.]
> 
> See also, Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.” Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (1985) 197-225.
> 
> The point is, Calvin was a "Calvinist," in the traditional sense of the term. "New" Calvinism, then, is a step in a "new" direction.
Click to expand...

 
Steve,

I have a question: where are these "New Calvinists" with respect to Sabbath-keeping. You know that John MacArthur doesn't even believe in the Sabbath.


----------



## alhembd

P. F. Pugh said:


> My definition of Reformed? Here is my definition of being Reformed: Reformed- Holding to a Reformed confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the thirty-nine articles count? Otherwise J. I. Packer is out.
Click to expand...


Philip,

A lot depends how how one defines the thirty-nine articles. In the times of Archbishop Laude, the doctrine of the thirty-nine articles was redefined to allow or promote Arminianism. However, that was not the original intent of those articles.

I have a friend, an excellent man, and a true Calvinist - the Reverend Brian Felce. He is a member of the Board of the Trinitarian Bible Society. He is a member of the Church of England Continuing.

CofEC | The Church of England (Continuing)

It is a fully Calvinist denomination. They subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles in accordance with their original intent. If one is an "original intent" subscriber to the Thirty-Nine Articles (as was Bishop Ryle) then one is an Old-School Calvinist.

---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------




Andrew P.C. said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phillip,
> If you want to hear some more about Kupyerianism, they speak about it at the WSC Conference they just had recently. Also, I'd read critiques on Kuyper as well.
> 
> Rev. Winzer is correct on Kuyper. Kuyper is not the norm in the Dutch tradition, nor reformed tradition.
Click to expand...

 

Andrew,

I cannot think of a better explanation of what constitutes "Neo-Calvinism" than this excellent paper by Reverend Sherman Ishbell of the Free Church Continuing.

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/Recovering_Experimental_Religion.pdf

It's entitled "Recovering Experimental Religion." Reverend Ishbell proves that experimental religion was at the heart of the old Calvinism, but that cultural Calvinism became, under Kuiper and Bavinck, the driving force of the new, that is, Neo-Calvinism. Secularism was a big problem in Holland in the late 1800s, and Kuiper, himself a politician, began to promote a Calvinist outlook on culture. However, sadly, Kuiper also promoted the false doctrine now called "presumptive regeneration," in which he assumed that, normally, the infant was to be regarded as already regenerated when brought to the baptismal laver. He presumed that, by virtue of the covenant, the child would already be regenerate.

Consequently, the preaching of the Christian Reformed Church then changed from being a preaching to address the unconverted in the congregation, and to imploring the covenant children to come to Christ, to a preaching to the whole congregation, children and infants included, as already converted. And if the children memorised the catechism, and continued in Church membership, they were assumed regenerate. The preaching then focussed, not on regeneration, but on changing the culture. Interestingly, Herman Bavinck, a scholastic Reformed theologian, became a leader in this movement, but he himself had been raised as a child in an experimental community. He lamented the loss of experimental religion in his day.

Interestingly, also, the same Kuiper who promoted the doctrine of presumed regeneration, himself entered the pulpit an unconverted man, by his own confession. Through the exhortations of the Lord's people in his own congregation, he came to see his own unconverted state, sought the Lord, and then professed to be experimentally converted. But sadly, he then later set aside all experimental preaching from the pulpit.

Again, I think you will find the above paper most enlightening. Neo-Calvinism, quite frankly, pervades the whole Christian Reconstructionist movement, as Reverend Ishbell proves. Sad to say, many of the modern Reconstructionists are inimical to experimental religion. They condemn Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Boston, George Whitefield, and others, as being "pietists." But Calvin himself was fully experimental. Just read Book III of the Institutes, where he vividly describes what true regeneration is.


----------



## reformed trucker

DMcFadden said:


> After you have been around here a bit longer, you will learn that a couple of professional historians here (and not a few members) do not believe that Baptists are Reformed, as a matter of fact.


 
 You stinker...


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Pergamum said:


> pesterjon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fi (from an active duty Army soldier, no less)-
> I appreciate what you are saying. Totally agree with the lack of appreciation or commitment to history, let alone confessions, in our contemporary setting. What I find hard to believe is the notion that reformation is ever over. Perhaps someone could comment on this aspect of Reformed theology, that we are not simply satisfied with the complete New Testament and yet we arbitrarily land (in my case) at 1689.
> 
> Do you think there is ever a warrant at any level to contextualize the Reformed faith in a given cultural setting? We always got missionary prayer cards at Reformed Baptist church and they would wear dress shirt and tie in Majority World settings, as opposed to other missionaries who dress like the natives. Is contextualization automatically confessional compromise? That is very difficult for me to understand, but I am open to your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dutch church in Indonesia made new Javanese believers take on a "Christian name" and cut their hair and wear dutch clothes to church, where they entered in and sang translated songs from the dutch to the tune of the pipe organ instead of local instrumentation. I.e., they became dutch to become Christian.
> 
> While some New Calvies over-contextualize, the tendency among the "Truly Reformed" has been to Under-contextualize the Gospel and to transplant Western culture and think it is all Gospel.
> 
> 
> I think being fed up with the Churchianity and the 1950's cultural forms of church are one reason people are flocking to New Calvinism
Click to expand...


Appreciating Mark Driscoll and Theo-Cultural Blindness | Think! – Wrestlin’ With Wordz-N-Ideaz


----------



## Kiffin

BlackCalvinist said:


> Appreciating Mark Driscoll and Theo-Cultural Blindness | Think! – Wrestlin’ With Wordz-N-Ideaz



Good blog entry brother.


----------



## Andres

Kiffin said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appreciating Mark Driscoll and Theo-Cultural Blindness | Think! – Wrestlin’ With Wordz-N-Ideaz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good blog entry brother.
Click to expand...


----------



## sonlight

At this point, the dummy here would like to say something.  Feel free to drop kick me in the head and tell me to go sit in the corner and I won't get offended. I do a customer service related job for a living. I talk to a lot of people all over the country. Sad to say, but most of these folks are NOT what I would consider to be overly bright. I am not exactly an Einstein myself. Now if you take one of these un-churched people and drop them in a church, they are going to be expecting a show. Think? They are not going to want to think. They won't want to learn a whole new set of rules, but they will have a desire and be led by the Spirit to a church. People under the age of 40, for the most part, have been brought up with no rules and not much discipline. They were raised with a TV and everything is all about instant gratification. If you were born after 1980, you would not have known a life without cable or MTV. When I was a kid, we had a black and white set and an antenna that got four channels. 
The point I am trying to make is to first consider the audience you have to work with. Why do you think Warren and Osteen can jam 20k + into a service? They serve up the feel good stuff hot and fresh and instant. No thought needed here. It's a spiritual bag of Doritos. But Doritos don't fill you up for long. And you get tired of eating Doritos. You think to yourself, I'd like a nice steak dinner with a baked tater with some sour cream and...
So some of these people figure out that there has to be more and go out to find it. Like me, they find the five points. This is good stuff. After a while, you find out that this is only the beginning. Here is some more good stuff and off it goes.
I've been attending a Landmark Sovereign Grace Baptist church. I know from talking to the pastor that they are premill. He believes in the rapture. As for me, I am not completely sure what I believe yet on that. I'm still learning. I think there has to be more of me out there that are learning. 
It was stated that the five points needs the whole package of reformed theology and the confessions and church government to survive. This might turn out to be quite right but let's not be so hasty to condemn anything that is leading people into a good direction. 
There are lots of dummies out there like me that have no clue where Dort is or half of the other things of theological nature that were stated in this thread. For those brought up in a reformed church that have all this stuff wired down solid, they probably can't see what is so hard about it all. There are times when I feel like I was dropped in a forest with a pen knife and two matches and told to find my way home. In seconds I am wishing I had Bear Grylls and MacGuyver with me to get me out of this mess. 
The average Joe's impression of a church these days is where you sit for an hour and listen to a rock band do some songs and then some guy read something out of the Bible and then talk on it for a half hour or so and then you go home. If they are wanting this to be a meaningful thing, they say the prayer at the altar call and that works for them. In most churches out there, that's about it. There isn't much organization and there is a lot of people coming and going. Sometimes the salvation sticks and they develop a walk with the Lord but more often, they think.. I said the prayer, it's all good.
Sure, I can see that the whole system of reformed theology is needed to make it all work for any extended period of time. Maybe you could think of the New Calvinist churches like Denny's. They are getting fed better than over at Osteen's Mickey D's. Hopefully they will see that there is much more and maybe step up to a five star restaurant some day.


----------



## Michael Doyle

sonlight said:


> At this point, the dummy here would like to say something.  Feel free to drop kick me in the head and tell me to go sit in the corner and I won't get offended. I do a customer service related job for a living. I talk to a lot of people all over the country. Sad to say, but most of these folks are NOT what I would consider to be overly bright. I am not exactly an Einstein myself. Now if you take one of these un-churched people and drop them in a church, they are going to be expecting a show. Think? They are not going to want to think. They won't want to learn a whole new set of rules, but they will have a desire and be led by the Spirit to a church. People under the age of 40, for the most part, have been brought up with no rules and not much discipline. They were raised with a TV and everything is all about instant gratification. If you were born after 1980, you would not have known a life without cable or MTV. When I was a kid, we had a black and white set and an antenna that got four channels.
> The point I am trying to make is to first consider the audience you have to work with. Why do you think Warren and Osteen can jam 20k + into a service? They serve up the feel good stuff hot and fresh and instant. No thought needed here. It's a spiritual bag of Doritos. But Doritos don't fill you up for long. And you get tired of eating Doritos. You think to yourself, I'd like a nice steak dinner with a baked tater with some sour cream and...
> So some of these people figure out that there has to be more and go out to find it. Like me, they find the five points. This is good stuff. After a while, you find out that this is only the beginning. Here is some more good stuff and off it goes.
> I've been attending a Landmark Sovereign Grace Baptist church. I know from talking to the pastor that they are premill. He believes in the rapture. As for me, I am not completely sure what I believe yet on that. I'm still learning. I think there has to be more of me out there that are learning.
> It was stated that the five points needs the whole package of reformed theology and the confessions and church government to survive. This might turn out to be quite right but let's not be so hasty to condemn anything that is leading people into a good direction.
> There are lots of dummies out there like me that have no clue where Dort is or half of the other things of theological nature that were stated in this thread. For those brought up in a reformed church that have all this stuff wired down solid, they probably can't see what is so hard about it all. There are times when I feel like I was dropped in a forest with a pen knife and two matches and told to find my way home. In seconds I am wishing I had Bear Grylls and MacGuyver with me to get me out of this mess.
> The average Joe's impression of a church these days is where you sit for an hour and listen to a rock band do some songs and then some guy read something out of the Bible and then talk on it for a half hour or so and then you go home. If they are wanting this to be a meaningful thing, they say the prayer at the altar call and that works for them. In most churches out there, that's about it. There isn't much organization and there is a lot of people coming and going. Sometimes the salvation sticks and they develop a walk with the Lord but more often, they think.. I said the prayer, it's all good.
> Sure, I can see that the whole system of reformed theology is needed to make it all work for any extended period of time. Maybe you could think of the New Calvinist churches like Denny's. They are getting fed better than over at Osteen's Mickey D's. Hopefully they will see that there is much more and maybe step up to a five star restaurant some day.


 
This is all fine with respect to the novice lay-person, the new convert if you will. I believe however, the beef is not with people gradually coming to know the truth but in those foxes who are trying historical revision and the rewriting of the orthodox theological texts. They start these movements because they are sure they have discovered a still better way and it waters down the soup. This is at least my beef and my objection. It is certainly not the people off the streets of Seattle or name the city coming in and hearing the word of God in a fresh culturally relevant way that are the culprits (at least not in lieu of this post)

I dont find myself so much as a hater here but the Reformed model has been mis-characterized by the new Calvinists and it is good to bring it to light and expose their error


----------



## alhembd

Kiffin said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> EJ, it's been a point of contention but it doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. Some clothing is modest and others is immodest even though some people will insist that bikini's are modest and people like me will think they're crazy for that. But the standard of modesty still has to exist even if it's not accessible to all people in all cultures or able to be demonstrated by clear argument, otherwise modesty/humility/soberness of mind and phrases like that are meaningless. There has to be a way to determine what is 'modest' and what humility implies, and how, as a believer, I'm supposed to be sober minded.
> 
> You probably agree with that--and I think most of the New Calvinists would, that there is such a thing as 'modest' and 'immodest' apparel even though believers don't agree on what that is--but you would appeal to Romans 14 to make it a thing to be decided individually. That's an extreme anti-Christian tradition, one scholar who I like calls it gnostic Protestantism. It's what Rev. Winzer talked about earlier when he mentioned the evangelical passive participation in the cultural rebellion against social institutions.
> 
> It says that I'm more fit to determine the application of Gospel principle A in my life than my leadership, the historical witness of the church(esp. on birth control), or the council of the godly. But I don't even think we are just wondering about the correct application of Gospel principle A, I think you and most of the evangelical community are saying it can't have a correct application.
> 
> I could be wrong though: Do you think we can designate cultural practices as immodest? Could we decide that a certain music does not aid in the type of worship we should portrayed in the scriptures, that is, thoughtful, deliberate, meditative worship?
> 
> - Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I agree that modesty does exist and that it is commanded. But like you have suggested, that some people like me would believe, that modesty "applied" is different across cultures. I believe modesty has to do more with the heart than any dress code. I would ask, "What is your motivation behind your choice of garments?" Modesty encompasses the entire being.
> 
> For example, there are some who believe that pants on women is sin and that they should only wear dresses that extend down to the ankle. Other women wear pants (I am sure you are familar with this considering you are IFB). In the Middle east, or any other strict cultures, would apply modesty different as well.
> 
> In regards to music, there is music that may be inappropriate in worship. But again, some of this "appropiation" is culturally motivated.
Click to expand...

 
EJ,

When one holds to the regulative principle as taught by the Westminster Divines, one practices exclusive psalmody without musical instruments. That right there restricts cultural differences. It tends to make the worship culture-neutral. It makes it Scriptural.

This should be the model, really. The worship of God is God's worship; He has sovereignty over it. The worship is for Him, not for us, properly speaking. He comes down with His Spirit when we honour Him in it, and not ourselves.

Colossians 2.23 speaks of "will worship." That means "worship that is self-willed, done after man's standards, and not God's." 

"...Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh..."

Many things which have a show, even, of mortifying the flesh, such as the extraScriptural ascetiscms of Rome, are will worship. But certainly, modern entertainment in Church is also will worship.

We need to have the worship that God wills, not what man wills.

---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------




armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> True Godly leadership is about serving those led, not about controlling or reshaping to fit your vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godly leadership requires being faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. The service performed to men's souls is in leading them to be reconciled to God and followers of God.
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I need to ask what exactly you mean by "self-expression" just so we're clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self-expression teaches that the test of any genuine experience is to be found in whether the true self is being expressed. It traces back to the selfish theory of motive which became a driving philosophical force in the 19th century. Jesus taught the denial and the losing of self.
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we may not claim that it is outside the bounds of the reformed tradition because historically that just isn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no precedent in the reformed tradition for the openness position. You mention the name of Jonathan Edwards, but Edwards was one of the first to refer the cessation of 1 Cor. 13:8 to the post-apostolic period. I think you would do well to study the reformed tradition before making comments concerning it.
Click to expand...

 
To be specific, Jonathan Edwards states very expressly the cessationist position in his wonderful book _/Charity and its Fruits_, which is a commentary on 1 Corinthians 13. In his comment on vs 8, he clearly articulates the cessationist position.


----------

