The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum More media attention to the New Calvinists

I know that many members of this forum do not consider the so-called New Calvinists to be true Calvinists. Nonetheless I think that many will find this article from the Christian Science Monitor to be of interest.

Thanks for the link.

Personally I am not in favor of all these new labels. Although I have heard of "New Calvinism", I have not done a lot of research into it. Therefore I have mixed feelings about it.
I will say however, I am a fan of Mark Dever and his IX Marks of a healthy Church philosophy.
If you are interested in reading about IX Marks you can do so at http://www.9marks.org/what-are-the-9marks/

I thought I would also add that Mark Dever has written an excellent book called 'The Gospel and Personal Evangelism'.
I found it very similar to JI Packer's 'Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God'; but a little easier to understand.

Tom

Interesting article but really no different than others which have been written from those "outside the camp" of the New Calvinist movement. What these authors are deficient in and what the New Calvinists lack is a biblical understanding of the totality of Calvinism, aka: The Reformed Faith. It isn't simply the "Five Points" nor even more restrictive, the doctrine of predestination but a world and life view; an ideology where the Scriptures have the ultimate authority over EVERYTHING, not excluding the moral law of God. The result is, of course, as can be seen in the vast majority of these groups is the denigration of "worship in spirit and truth", as Dr. Peter Masters and others, including myself have been so critical. One simply cannot assimulate biblical Christianity and the world. Biblical, historic Calvinism and "hip-hop", for example, are not compatible.

A few salient articles by Peter Masters and Spurgeon can be found here:

- Worship in the Melting Pot
- The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness
- Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?
- No Compromise

I already received the June issue of Tabletalk magazine. And guess what the theme is: The New Calvinism.

And...???? Is it pro or con?

Speaking of the article by Peter Masters.
Something was written concerning what Peter Master's wrote.
If you are interested you can read it at http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/10/...some-biblical-clarity-on-a-misused-term/
Particularly where it reads "Practical Lessons".

Tom

Tom,

Thanks for the link to the article written by Bob Gonzales. I am wanting to respond but I'm having great difficulty knowing where to begin due to the fact that Mr. Gonzales has expressed so many errors; some fundamental errors. Perhaps I'm just feeling lazy right now because to respond properly I should sit down and take the time to extract the errors and rebut them in a succinct and orderly way but I'm not wanting to do that.

However, I simply cannot say nothing due to the gravity of the subject and the ensuing consequences of not understanding the Scriptures teaching concerning the doctrine of sanctification.

First, the errors we are ALL prone to fall into are: 1) Legalism or Pharisaism, and 2) Antinomianism (against law).

Second, and here I'll begin to critique Mr. Gonzales' view; it is a fatal error to construct any doctrine based solely upon one single text in isolation from the whole of Scripture. This violates the hermeneutical doctrine of "The Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture. It appears that this is what Mr. Gonzales has chosen to do as he bases his view primarily upon 1 John 2:15-17. From this text he makes the following statement:

And, upon this premise he finds Peter Masters and all who stand with him in error because they define worldliness as engaging in practices or embracing things which they believe are sinful. Mr. Gonzales' error isn't anything new, albeit it has become increasingly popular in our day. So, what is that error? Simply put, it is confuse "motive" with "duty". Put another way, it is to over-emphasis the "affections" in such a way that it diminishes, distorts or even in some cases denies the expressions (fruit) of the affections. Returning to the two fundamental errors we are all prone to make, Legalism/Pharisaism and Antinomianism, he would fall into the latter, perhaps due to an over-reaction to the former.

Third, The "heart" is the seat of man, i.e., it is what a man is, his soul or spirit. It is the source from which all that a man does flows (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Prov 4:23; Matt 15:18,19; Mk 7:21-23). Man does what he does, either good or bad depending upon his inclinations. In the case of an unregenerate man, the propensity of his heart, his heart's inclination is only toward that which is evil, i.e. against the law of God. In the regenerate man, who has been given a new nature by the work of the Holy Spirit, he has an inclination toward good, and thus he delights in the law of God and desires to do that which is according to the law. Of course, the glorified man, unlike the regenerate man, still has some of that "old man" in him and thus there is a constant war within him where the two inclinations are at odds with each other (cf. Rom 7; 1Pet 2:11). As Solomon, by the inspiration of the Spirit wrote: Proverbs 23:7 (KJV) "For as he thinketh in his heart, so [is] he:..."

Fourth, Mr. Gonzales takes us back to the Garden and Eden where Eve "assesses" the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and says her assessment was right. True enough. But the problem with his use of that portion of Scripture is not relevant to OUR present situation. ALL that existed in the Garden was pristine. It was all deemed "good" by God Himself. There was nothing in and of itself which was evil. Contrariwise, we live in a fallen world in which "things" are the "creation" of those who have evil hearts. The comparison isn't analogous at all. Additionally, what caused Eve to sin was this evil inclination, of which we are want to know its origin; the mystery of the origin of sin in man. Be that as it may, what we DO know is that since the Fall, "no one does good" (Rom 3:12). Thus the world consists of many things which are evil due to the evil inclinations of fallen men's hearts. All that God has provided is without question, "good". But not so with those things which man provides. Yes, there is "common grace" by which God restrains man from the unbridled expression of his evil heart. And, due to which man does relative good, i.e., others benefit in regard to temporal needs. The point here is that the Christian must evaluate everything, philosophies, laws, and things, taking them captive and putting them under the scrutiny of the Word of God. And thus the very text which Mr. Gonzales bases his view upon contradicts that view for it says,

It isn't simply a warning to avoid "loving" the world nor the things which are in the world, but we are also to avoid the evil things which are in the world since they are the fruit of evil.

Fifth, The Pharisee/Legalist externalizes sin and obviates the necessary motive to doing what is right and further exacerbates the error by creating a list of acceptable and non-acceptable practices which God Himself has not required. (cf. Matt 23:4ff; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Col 2:8f) And, in so doing, they fail to do what God does require, i.e., unfeigned perfect obedience to His law. Again, the Antinomian wants to dispense with the law altogether or to disallow any application of the law, i.e., to understand it as applying to any particular thing. Are we to really think that anything that comes out of the world of Rock & Roll, including CCM is on the same level as Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"? Are we to really think that the former qualifies as acceptable worship as would the Church's traditional Hymnody? Is it really possible that all music is glorifying to God without exception and thus a true Christian who has a godly inclination, a new heart that yearns to be holy as God is holy, who is becoming created in the image of Christ, who is a partaker of the divine nature, is not vexed in soul when he hears certain kinds music? Are there not certain musical arrangements which attack a Christian's godly sensibilities? Do they not war against his/her godly inclinations knowing that they are not of God?

The Pharisee/Legalist says all dancing is sinful in and of itself. But Scripture does not have any such prohibition. The Antinomian says that all dancing is acceptable, although one may prefer one type over another. Yet the Christian knows within his/her very soul that there are many forms of dancing which are sinful because they are nothing less than expressions of man's lustful heart; they are lewd, enticing, abasing, etc.

Perhaps Mr. Gonzales is trying to justify his own affection for worldly music, which he certainly has?

Last, A Christian's "love" is always expressed in what he/she DOES. "If you love me, keep my commandments." (Jh 14:15; 15:10) Likewise, one's faith is evidenced in one's works (Jam 2:24,26) The Lord Jesus Christ said, "Matthew 7:21 (KJV) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." And, again, Luke 6:46 (KJV) "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" It is not enough to claim to have right "affections", to love God and one's neighbor, for that love will be expressed in the things one does. To love God with all the heart, mind, soul and strength and to love one's neighbor as yourself are SUMMARIES of the law. The emphasize the "motive" that should be resident in one's heart. They do not spell out the details of how that motive is to be worked out. The Epistles are commentaries on the Old Testament and the Gospels in which we do find the specifics on how a Christian is to live. There are specific injunctions, prohibitions and principles upon which we can come to know how to conduct a life of holiness before God. It isn't enough to claim to have "love" for God. And it isn't sufficient to "do" what one thinks is right. We must have BOTH the right motive, "love for God and His Word" AND the "fruit of righteousness" lived out according to His Word.

As a closing example, I would suggest that Isaiah 58:13,14 to be a paradigm to follow. There we find both the "affections" (delight/love) and its "expression" (prohibition/injunction of things) in regard to what it is to keep the Sabbath: