The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Resurgence of Calvinism?

I've recently been seeing articles and hearing reports on "New Calvinism," and have been researching this in my spare time. Here's a link to an interesting (and very current- it was posted today)article on the subject, and on the apparent resurgence of popularity with Calvinism:

http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/19932

Anyone have any insight into this? Perhaps there are some threads on the subject on this forum that you could point me to? (I remember seeing one recently either on this site or on another, but now I can't find it). Thanks!

Hmmm, yes there are a few threads on this subject here on the board. To find them click on "Search" on the Menu Bar. Then simply type in "New Calvinism" (including quotes). You should get 10 items in the results.

Now, as to 'insights'... There are a few here, including myself, who have serious mixed feelings about this "New Calvinism" movement. First of all, it is NOT promoting "Calvinism" in its totality, i.e., a world and life view. It has a very narrow focus on soteriology (doctrine of salvation), aka: "The Five Points of Calvinism". Consequently, the APPLICATION of all of Scripture to ALL of life is woefully lacking. For example, the Regulative Principle of Worship is ignored and in many cases violated. The first, second and third Commandments are in many instances ignored and/or violated. Then there is this matter of 'worldliness', i.e., an assimilation of media which is dishonoring to God, e.g., music, movies, theater, graphic arts, etc.

This is admittedly a 'hot' topic and one which has and will continue to divide denominations, churches and fellowship. However, I am of the opinion that this is inevitable and avoidable. What we do NOT need today is a truncated or dumbed-down Calvinism. The Reformed Faith cannot be bartered away for the sake of attracting alleged adherents. Ignoring history will produce negative and devastating results in the visible church.

Ah- I didn't place it in quotes the first time- thanks for the tip, Pilgrim. I'll look those posts up.

It was already suspect to me, just because of the word "New" in front as a qualifier. It's like we have to wrap or cloak everything as "new", "improved" or something else in order to make it more acceptable. Either it's Calvinism, or it isn't; just like the oximoron "four-point Calvinism."

Have a nice weekend, Sir!

Praise be to the Father of lights, who alone gives light and opening of the eyes to see, that people are caused to search for the old paths, even if they do not follow them completely or thoroughly at first!
The 5 points, IF the "neo-calvinists" have them, are a summation of the Gospel and so, if we can agree on the Gospel, that is significant. For instance, I cannot in good conscience call Arminians brethren, for they espouse a false gospel of salvation by free will. But I can call particular Baptists brethren and though we disagree severely on some weighty issues, so that, as far as practical ecclesiology is concerned, I could never merge with them, yet nevertheless, they have the Gospel in essence and so they can be recognized as brethren in Christ.

At the same time, the importance of applying supremacy and sovereignty of God in matters of worship and daily walk may not be downplayed either. It is a matter of historicity that wherever the Regulative Principle of worship was not kept, it has been to the effectual undoing of all reformation in a generation or two. As it has been said, the Arminians had sung their way into once sound churches through man-made hymns. A Scripturally informed doctrine of the Covenant is also vital for the life of the redeemed and their children. And yet...one must start somewhere. There are degrees of and steps in growth in the knowledge of God's grace in Christ. And a good beginning, especially for those who are lead by the grace of God out of Arminian synagogues, is getting the 5 points right.
Once they get them right, they are compelled to go on, but without first getting the gospel of God's grace right, they cannot proceed and even if they do ascent to other doctrines it is of little avail(like I once knew a guy who embraced infant baptism with enthusiasm, coming out of a Baptist background, yet held on to his Arminianism pretty firmly, at least at the time I had conversations with him).
Another factor with those neo-Calvinists is that they get their Calvinism from folks like John Piper and MacArthur. It is then a modified, watered down version of Calvinism that they are getting. And yet, IF their conversion be genuine, they won't stop with Piper, they will, by God's grace proceed (just as I have, so that at some point, my former "Reformed" Baptist mentors began to be intimidated / scared off by my increasing paedobaptism, exclusive psalmism, supralapsarianism, etc.) Yet they (Piper and co) have played their part in the initial transition from evangelical easy-believism on to the faith according to Scriptures.
So...if it so be that they are not against us, they are definitely for us and so we may rejoice that people are caused to turn to the gospel of the grace of God!

Renat

Though I have mixed feeling about "New Calvinism" as well. I must admit that I have grown to respect Mark Dever of 9Marks.
Have a look through his site at http://www.9marks.org/ and see what you think.

Tom

I also think one should not be too negative about this "New Calvinism" but I ask myself why Calvinism should be popular?

I recently bought is little book with the title "The Gospel as taught by Calvin" by RC Reed (Banner of Truth). It is a rather thorough (I would say) comparison between Calvinism on the one side and Arminianism and Pelagianism on the other side. What we hear around us from so-called reformed circles many times echoes more the sentiment of Arminianism than of Calvinism I would say.

Johan

Calvinism is not popular. One of the main reasons for this faddish interest in this "New Calvinism" is just because it is NOT Calvinism, as I've already pointed out. It not only does not embrace nor teach the APPLICATION of biblical Calvinism, it turns a blind eye to its own antinomianism. I see it as nothing more than Fundamentalism's "God loves you just the way you are!" with a calvinistic twist; a different soteriology. In short, you can continue to live your worldly life, violate every commandment on the first table of the Law, claim to be saved by grace and then profess that you are a saved Calvinist.

When I look at the teaching that I see by one who many consider a "New Calvinist" by the name of Mark Dever; I see anything but antinomianism. I am not saying that he agrees with every facet of the Reformed faith. However, I think he would be in agreement with almost everything written in the LBCF.
At least from what I have read from his site and a book I read of his.

Personally, I am not sure why he is considered a “New Calvinist”.

Tom

Tom, you seem to have this penchant for putting forth and defending Mark Dever in regard to the "New Calvinism". I'm not privy to whether some have lumped him in with the movement or not. But be that as it may, even IF he has been mentioned as being one of those teaching the "New Calvinism", IF he was an exception, he would be just that... an EXCEPTION, which certainly doesn't negate the many criticism of the movement, which includes, for example, a rejection of the Regulative Principle of Worship, which is based upon the first two of the Ten Commandments. Many also reject the Fourth Commandment, i.e., they are anti-Sabbatarian. And some are blatantly guilty of violating the Second and Third Commandments, e.g., the flippant wearing of Jesus t-shirts, telling crude jokes, using profane language, ad nauseam while claiming to be a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, whether Mark Dever believes and/or practices any of the above, which is but a short list of sins and errors I'll leave it to you to find out. Whether he turns a blind eye to these things although personally opposing them, again I do not know, but I'll leave it to you to find out. Whether he cooperates with such people and participates in their gatherings, which in my mind shows he has little or no convictions about such things, I am not privy, but I'll leave that to you to find out. The point is, however, that Mark Dever the "New Calvinism" does not make or break.

The HISTORIC Reformed Confessions and Catechisms define what Calvinism, the Reformed Faith is and how it is to be practiced. That many are trying to "stretch" their meaning and obviscate the common practice/application of them which has been done for centuries is undeniable. But in so doing, they have no warrant to call themselves "Calvinists".

As I previously said, I have mixed feeling about the so called "New Calvinism"; basically for the reasons that you talked about.
It is just that I have looked into the practice and beliefs of Mark Dever and found for the most part he is quite solid.

If that is defending Mark Dever, then I am guilty as charged, but then again most Reformed Baptists I know, would be guilty as charged also.
Come to think about it, Reformed Baptists are not the only ones who enjoy the ministry of Mark Dever and this includes people like RC Sproul.

Tom

Tom,

You seem to be missing the point. The issue and topic under discussion is the "New Calvinism" and NOT Mark Dever. IF <--- Mark Dever is part of this new movement then whether he is one who embraces contemporary worship, wears Jesus t-shirts, is anti-Sabbatarian, etc., or not makes little difference as to the legitimacy of the criticisms many have launched against these views and practices, i.e., in essence reducing the Reformed Faith/Calvinism to nothing more than "The Five Points". IF he is more in-line with the historic confessions, e.g., the LBCF... all well and good in regard to him personally. But again, the criticisms are NOT focused upon one man but the movement and ALL those who are behind it.

Now, most Reformed Baptists I know are the most vehement in their criticism of this "New Calvinism". One of the most out-spoken and well known is, of course, Peter Masters. Just goes to show that one's personal "experience" is hardly a reliable source from which to make judgments.