Does anyone actually have any idea what Calvinist International actually believes??

[Myson]

So I enjoy a lot of their posts, and I think they have a lot to say about moral/natural law, consistent two kingdoms view, Meredith Kline, Horton, VanTil and Vandrunen (negatively) and Hooker, Lewis, and themselves (positively) and a more "catholic" Reformed view... But no matter how hard I try or how deeply I read and reread their articles, none of it makes sense, they refuse to actually have any kind of posts that briefly and succinctly explain what they believe, and instead decide to write 8,000 word posts analyzing the development of a certain doctrine with little to no interaction on what they feel is good or bad. Their stuff on the issues with Westminster Cali seem overly critical and could likely be harmonized (but... How would we really know since they won't actually explain what they're getting at), and their appreciation of Lewis at the expense of VanTil seems to make sense but... Not really.

I've e-mailed them several times just asking for basic help and have never gotten a response back. I want to know their stuff! I want to probably agree with it! I want to know why the folks I love reading (Kline, VanDrunen, Horton, N.T. Wright especially) are so wrong and can't be harmonized with each other, and the folks I'm slowly thinking less of enjoying (R. Scott Clark, VanTil's narrow and contradictory view on Common Grace/antithesis and distaste of Lewis) are as bad as TCI says they are! I want to know what Two Kingdoms and Natural Law is supposed to mean but they seem intent on not telling me and assuming I know more than I feel like I can. Does anyone else have this problem? Is it just me?? Can literally anyone help me figure out what they're actually getting at and how it makes any sense at all??

 

[Andrew P.C.]

So I enjoy a lot of their posts, and I think they have a lot to say about moral/natural law, consistent two kingdoms view, Meredith Kline, Horton, VanTil and Vandrunen (negatively) and Hooker, Lewis, and themselves (positively) and a more "catholic" Reformed view... But no matter how hard I try or how deeply I read and reread their articles, none of it makes sense, they refuse to actually have any kind of posts that briefly and succinctly explain what they believe, and instead decide to write 8,000 word posts analyzing the development of a certain doctrine with little to no interaction on what they feel is good or bad. Their stuff on the issues with Westminster Cali seem overly critical and could likely be harmonized (but... How would we really know since they won't actually explain what they're getting at), and their appreciation of Lewis at the expense of VanTil seems to make sense but... Not really.

I've e-mailed them several times just asking for basic help and have never gotten a response back. I want to know their stuff! I want to probably agree with it! I want to know why the folks I love reading (Kline, VanDrunen, Horton, N.T. Wright especially) are so wrong and can't be harmonized with each other, and the folks I'm slowly thinking less of enjoying (R. Scott Clark, VanTil's narrow and contradictory view on Common Grace/antithesis and distaste of Lewis) are as bad as TCI says they are! I want to know what Two Kingdoms and Natural Law is supposed to mean but they seem intent on not telling me and assuming I know more than I feel like I can. Does anyone else have this problem? Is it just me?? Can literally anyone help me figure out what they're actually getting at and how it makes any sense at all??

Although I understand and can agree (to a degree) with the idea of "reformed catholicity", we have to understand that there is also a stark contrast between Anglicans and the Reformed. I say this because I have come into contact with some of these guys. For the most part they are decent on a variety of topics.

They have a connection to the Davenant Institute as well.

Although we can adamantly agree that many of them are brothers in the Gospel of Christ, Anglicanism is contrary to Reformed/Presbyterian doctrines such as Escclisiology (think of Divine Right Presbyterianism), the Regulative Principle, doctrines concerning the civil magistrate, the Kingdom of Christ and the Mediatorial-Kingship of Christ. We aren't only different in church government, but in very fundamental issues like Worship.

The Calvinist International guys seems to minimize this issue under the umbrella of "Reformed Catholicity".

 

[RamistThomist]

I read and reread their articles, none of it makes sense, they refuse to actually have any kind of posts that briefly and succinctly explain what they believe, and instead decide to write 8,000 word posts

That's exactly my problem with them. Nobody cares about 30 page essays exploring Musclus's possible use of Lucretius's certain use of a verb.

They basically see the golden age of reformed thought as that moment when James I almost welded Anglican and Presbyterian thought together.

 

[RamistThomist]

From personal conversation with the guys who started the website (but in my own words), "They have the fear that someone, somewhere is a Van Tillian." They think Van Til ruined modern Reformed theology. Also bad is worldview talk.

 

[Taylor]

From personal conversation with the guys who started the website (but in my own words), "They have the fear that someone, somewhere is a Van Tillian." They think Van Til ruined modern Reformed theology. Also bad is worldview talk.

When I became a convinced Van Tilian this past year, my friend who mentored me through this “conversion” told me that there are many, many Reformed who are not friendly to Van Til. I would always laugh and say, “Surely not!”

Then I see websites like this...

 

[NaphtaliPress]

And so Hooker is the go to as a cure for what they think are the errors of modern reformed theology? Hooker said if the weaker brother must suffer for what his church wanted to do, then let them, they must suffer. Can't be helped. So welcome, sign of the cross, holy days, etc. imposed on everybody. And folks wonder why puritans called them half reformed (so much for reformed catholicism).