"new" calvinism

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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 ----------

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.

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 ----------

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.

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.
 
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.

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 ----------

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.

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.


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.
 
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

Appreciating Mark Driscoll and Theo-Cultural Blindness | Think! – Wrestlin’ With Wordz-N-Ideaz
 
At this point, the dummy here would like to say something. :lol: 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.
 
At this point, the dummy here would like to say something. :lol: 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
 
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.

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 ----------

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top