"Neo-Puritanism" vs. "Neo-Calvinism"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stope

Stope

Puritan Board Sophomore
The attached side by side comparison of what the author calls "Neo-Puritanism" and "Neo-Calvinism" I think displays an accurate picture of the two. Do you guys agree?

I ask because Im finding myself leaning very much to the "Neo-Calvinism" "camp"... What are the dangers you see?
 

Attachments

  • neo-puritanism_compared_to_neo-calvinism.pdf
    236 KB · Views: 55
I wonder if Grudem, SBTS, and the Navigators know that they are considered 'Neo-Puritans'. Personally, I have never heard the term.
 
Neo-Calvinism is a much better defined term with a history and movement behind it. Neo-Puritanism in this document seems to lump together a lot of people/groups who focus primarily on piety that have no historical basis in the Puritans. Puritanism shouldn't be conflated with other piety-focused movements on that basis alone.
 
Neo-Puritanism should be changed to New Calvinism or YRR. There are dangers in both. Piper has come out with silly statements in his older age. Grudem has a funny view of the Trinity. And I fear the SBC is embracing Critical Race Theory.

Old-School Neo Calvinism of the Kuyperian/Dooyeweerdian/Bavinckian stripe is interesting, but that's not what you are getting today. The Toronto School was socialist at one time. There is a (not-so) underground homosexual movement at Calvin College. One of the philosophy profs there said the distinguished Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne should get *#@! in the $%^ for criticizing homosexuality (I think I can still find the facebook status).

If you like Neo-Calvinism, go read Bavinck.
 
Ah, I saw this coming from Scot McKnight on his blog a few years ago, the sorta liberal NT scholar who thinks he's an expert at everything, has to blog about it and yet has poor writing skills...
 
Grudem has a funny view of the Trinity? Either I haven't read that chapter, or I don't remember it, or I have a funny view of the Trinity.
 
arapahoepark said:
That reminded me of an article on there that Grudem wrote citing all these supposed people who would be on his side of the debate. It was laughable. He even cited Robert Reymond! He didn't investigate in context at all, it was so sloppy, like a procrastinating high school student.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand how blogs work. Are blog writers under pressure from advertisers or such to provide new posts at a certain clip? Is it possible that blog writers don't have time for thorough research and editing?
 
KMK said:
I don't really understand how blogs work. Are blog writers under pressure from advertisers or such to provide new posts at a certain clip? Is it possible that blog writers don't have time for thorough research and editing?
Click to expand...
I don't mean to sound arrogant but, when you have someone acting like an expert on things yet you've clearly done a little deeper reading and found them to be in error then I am unsure why they can't be called out for distortion.
 
arapahoepark said:
I don't mean to sound arrogant but, when you have someone acting like an expert on things yet you've clearly done a little deeper reading and found them to be in error then I am unsure why they can't be called out for distortion.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a comment section? Or do they filter all negative feedback?

I have noticed a great deal of sloppiness on internet copy in many venues. It appears that people are under pressure to write quickly.
 
Von said:
I skimmed the above article... Does that mean that the eternal subordination of the Son is frowned upon? I never gave this view a thought - I took it to be true. Didn't Owen hold to this view in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ?
Click to expand...

Grudem confuses "subordination" with the idea of a revealed order in the Trinity. Relation is also an essential category (at least according to Aristotle's nine views of substance). It's hard for Grudem to affirm both homoousios and eternal subordination, since Athanasius said that the relations between the Trinity are also homoousios.
 
I want to know more about the difference between "subordination" and "revealed order in the trinity", but I realise we are going :offtopic:. - sorry Jason. Is there anywhere (or maybe a previous thread that discusses this) or should I start a new thread on this topic?
 
ReformedReidian said:
Grudem confuses "subordination" with the idea of a revealed order in the Trinity. Relation is also an essential category (at least according to Aristotle's nine views of substance). It's hard for Grudem to affirm both homoousios and eternal subordination, since Athanasius said that the relations between the Trinity are also homoousios.
Click to expand...
He would not see subordination for Jesus while just Incarnated, but that was eternally within the trinity Hos position as being subordinate to the Father...
 
ReformedReidian said:
But if you want Old School Neo Calvinism (I know, sounds like a contradiction in terms), then this is pretty good. Lots of free pdfs.
http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/
Click to expand...
O my...yes this is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In other news, by way of follow up:

If the YRR/Neo-Puritans focus on Personal salvation, and the Neo-Calvinists (of the Kuyper sort) focus on, in addition to personal slavation, but ALSO a focus on the Culture mandate and the restoration of all things... Is there any red flags here on the Neo-Calvinist end?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stope said:
O my...yes this is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In other news, by way of follow up:

If the YRR/Neo-Puritans focus on Personal salvation, and the Neo-Calvinists (of the Kuyper sort) focus on, in addition to personal slavation, but ALSO a focus on the Culture mandate and the restoration of all things... Is there any red flags here on the Neo-Calvinist end?
Click to expand...

There is a tendency to downplay piety (though you don't see that in Bavinck). The modern day Calvin College types are flaming liberals.

I would start along these lines:

1. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena.
2. Mouw, Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction
3. https://www.amazon.com/Free-Church-...UTF8&qid=1497473323&sr=8-4&keywords=john+bolt

Here is a good guide here.
https://hermanbavinck.org/
 
ReformedReidian said:
There is a tendency to downplay piety (though you don't see that in Bavinck). The modern day Calvin College types are flaming liberals.

I would start along these lines:

1. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena.
2. Mouw, Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction
3. https://www.amazon.com/Free-Church-...UTF8&qid=1497473323&sr=8-4&keywords=john+bolt

Here is a good guide here.
https://hermanbavinck.org/
Click to expand...
Great - very helpful indeed. having said that, do you yourself align yourself with these type folks? Also, have you ever heard of Jon Tyson? If so, what are your thoughts?
 
Stope said:
Great - very helpful indeed. having said that, do you yourself align yourself with these type folks? Also, have you ever heard of Jon Tyson? If so, what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not on all counts. I am sympathetic to the early aims of the movement.

1. I am a partial-preterist; they usually aren't.
2. They tend towards social democracy. I do not.
3. Epistemologically, we are on the same page.
 
ReformedReidian said:
I also strongly recommend you read the following books as well. I wouldn't call them neo-calvinists, but they appreciate the efforts of those guys.
https://www.amazon.com/General-Reve...d=1497489621&sr=8-16&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Image-Go...id=1497489621&sr=8-3&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer
https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Dogm...id=1497489621&sr=8-5&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer
Click to expand...
WHOA! Those look so good - aye aye aye, no I have to finish my current books, think Ill start with Man in the Image of God text first. Thank you so so much!
 
Stope said:
WHOA! Those look so good - aye aye aye, no I have to finish my current books, think Ill start with Man in the Image of God text first. Thank you so so much!
Click to expand...

TO get your feet wet, I recommend the following short books.

Al Wolters, Creation Regained. An outstanding presentation of the Kuyperian position.
Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck (Wolters and somebody else). Can be read in under an hour.

Then find some essay where Bavinck deals with Nature and Grace. The Herman Bavinck audio is a good start.
https://bavinckinstitute.org/resources/audio-lectures/pearl-and-leaven-conference-audio/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

RamistThomist
  • Locked
On Neo-Calvinism
Replies
22
Views
2K
Stope
Stope
Jash Comstock
  • Locked
Some questions about Neo-Calvinism of the Kuyperian variety.
Replies
3
Views
1K
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
M
  • Locked
What is the Practical Difference between 2K and Neo-Calvinism?
Replies
28
Views
4K
ZackF
ZackF
arapahoepark
  • Locked
Neo-orthodoxy, anything to learn?
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
jwright82
  • Locked
Neo-2K and Ralwsian secularism.
Replies
14
Views
2K
jwright82
jwright82
Back
Top