The Highway
Posted By: sojourner New Calvinism - Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:49 PM
I know that about a year ago we discussed this subject when a article authored by Dr. Peter Masters was posted.I only bring it up again because while reading an article today I was shocked to see "New Calvinism" listed third as to ideas that are changing the world.It lists John Piper,Mark Driscoll,Al Mohler and others among the flag bearers for this arm of evangelicalism.
Driscoll is quoted as saying that there four main differences between old and new Calvinism;1-Old Calvinism was fundammental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture.New Calvinism is missional and seeks to redeem culture.2- Old Calvinism fled from cities.New Calvinism is flooding to cities.3- Old Calvinism was fearful of the Holy Spirit and generally cessationist.New Calvinism delights in the Spirit and is generally continuationist.4- Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians New Calvinism loves all Christians.
R. Scott Clark,professor of church history and historical theology from Westminster Seminary argues that New Calvinists like Driscoll should not be called Calvinists merely because they believe in the five points of Calvinism,but rather he suggests that adherence to other Reformed confessions of faith is what qualifies one a Calvinist.
My question is,"Are these people making headway in established churches or are they forming new churches or is all this just smoke and mirrors?"
Posted By: Tom Re: New Calvinism - Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:33 AM
Driscoll by his own admission isn't a 5 point Calvinist.

What I find very strange is the fact that many such as Mohler would completely disagree with the 4 points that Driscoll wrote concerning New Calvinism.

I think R. Scott Clark makes a very good point, at least that way some of the things that New Calvinists are promoting in the name of Calvinism, couldn't legitamately be done in the name of Calvinism.

By the way, some are saying that John MacArthur is a New Calvinist. However, all one needs to do look at his writing concerning the movement and although he isn't as critical as Peter Masters. What he says is certainly not flattering.
One thing that really stands out is his writing against Driscoll.
I thought I would also add that I don’t think the movement will last all that long. There is a lot of disunity among the ranks between the more conservative and the more liberal.

Not sure that answers your question, but...

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by sojourner
My question is,"Are these people making headway in established churches or are they forming new churches or is all this just smoke and mirrors?"
I'm definitely unqualified to speak on how successful this movement is. I haven't taken nor read any Polls that would indicate if this is true or not. What I do see is new churches being formed vs. established churches throwing away biblical Calvinism and adopting the counterfeit New Calvinism, although doubtless there are certainly some that have and will. I also suspect that the appeal of New Calvinism is generally with younger (20-35) individuals with exceptions acknowledged.

Actually, the New Calvinism movement has only become popular lately but it has been around for more than 30 years. When I was at WTS (Philly) in the late 70s early 80s already C. John Miller was promoting this type of thing and established "New Life Presbyterian Church". It claimed to be Calvinist in its soteriology but contemporary in worship, etc. However, the literature that came from out of that church and from the pen of C. John Miller was not true Calvinism. His "gospel" tracts were nothing more than a re-write of Bill Bright's "Four Spiritual Laws".

As with all of these counterfeit movements, definitions of words are changed without making it known up front. Calvinism has a historic and long-standing definition both in literature but also as clearly understood in the Confessions, Catechisms and other church documents. These people think they can simply ignore that history and re-write definitions to suit their fanciful ideas of what Calvinism should be. Most basic is their assimilation with worldly philosophies and Calvinism. Put a drop of poison in a bucket of water and it becomes changed; so much so that it is deadly and proves to be fatal to anyone who drinks it (cf. Gal 5:7-9).

Lastly, Tom mentioned MacArthur and so did Peter Masters but from two different opinions. The problem I have with MacArthur is that there are people under his authority, working for his ministry who are openly embracing and promoting New Calvinism. Yet, one would be hard-pressed to find any indication that those individuals have been disciplined and/or dismissed from their positions. Then, there are those men who have been given MDiv degrees from The Masters Seminary who take positions as pastors in established churches and/or start new ones who are very open about their theological views, i.e., they are full-fledge promoters of the New Calvinism. A new church opened very close to me called Crossroads Church. The pastor is a graduate of The Masters Seminary. They state that they are Calvinists but subscribe to no Reformed confession. Additionally, they revel in their contemporary worship and state that the Bible has nothing to say about regulating worship. They have a statement on salvation which puts faith before regeneration, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Granted, John MacArthur cannot be held directly responsible for this 'pastor' and those like him that come out of The Masters Seminary. But, it would seem prudent to me that MacArthur should take a close look at what is being taught at that school. Are these men taught historic, conservative, confessional Calvinism; in their case the Baptist London Confession of Faith 1689? Or, is their a co-mingling of biblical truth with worldly ideas and practices being taught?

That's my [Linked Image]
Posted By: Tom Re: New Calvinism - Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:46 AM
Pilgrim

Though I have read material written by MacArthur that is critical of New Calvinism. Like you, there are things such as what you mentioned that just don't add up; especially considering the fact that MacArthur isn't one to show the fear of man.

Tom
Posted By: John_C Re: New Calvinism - Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:04 AM
How do people distinguish Calvinism from Reformed, or are they the same? Calvinism as talked about is mostly about soteriology wheres Reformed is the theology as seen in WCF.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:31 AM
Originally Posted by John_C
How do people distinguish Calvinism from Reformed, or are they the same? Calvinism as talked about is mostly about soteriology wheres Reformed is the theology as seen in WCF.
Oh boy!! Calvinism is defined by people according what they want it to mean... seriously! For many (most?), if asked, they would say it has to do with the infamous "Five Points". In truth, Calvinism is a complete cosmology; world and life view. It is the application of the Scriptures to all of life. The undergirding truth or principle is the absolute sovereignty of God.

Reformed is more a historical term which goes back to the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant churches which emerged from it, both Continental (Dutch mainly) and others (English, Scot, Irish, etc.) But often the two terms are used interchangeably.

Here are some salient articles on the meaning of Calvinism/Reformed:

"The Fundamental Principle of Calvinism" - H. Henry Meeter
"The Practical Implications of Calvinism" - Albert N. Martin
"What is the Reformed Faith"
"A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith" - B.B. Warfield
"How Many Points?" - Richard A. Muller
Posted By: Robin Re: New Calvinism - Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:04 AM
I was really surprised to find a lot of disdain of "the Reformed" while reading Lutheran literature (commentaries on the Ausburg Confession). My first thought was, "Waitaminute, I thought Lutherans were Reformed. Wasn't Luther one of the original reformers?" Lutherans reject Calvinism, and perhaps the terms "Calvinist" and "Reformed" are synonymous to Lutherans as well.

I encountered a bit of the "new Calvinism" in the Christian and Missionary Alliance. I don't know if that is their "official" stance, but it seems to be in the denominations summaries of their doctrine.

Posted By: John_C Re: New Calvinism - Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:15 AM
I'm probably completely off base here, but Lutherans reject Luther in his theology. There's some guy name Melan.. . . that they follow.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:28 AM
Originally Posted by John_C
I'm probably completely off base here, but Lutherans reject Luther in his theology. There's some guy name Melan.. . . that they follow.
Well... that's quite a B R O A D statement to make; perhaps just a bit too all incompassing? evilgrin

However, there is some truth to it and in perhaps not a few cases much truth concerning particular doctrines. One of those doctrines which Luther held to firmly but which is generally disregarded or even repudiated is predestination.

Here's a great article that deals with this issue: Lutherans vs. Luther

Clicky here: Double or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Tom Re: New Calvinism - Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:11 AM
Pilgrim

Great article.
Another example is Luther's book 'Bondage of the Will'. I have yet to read it myself, but I am told by a few people who have read it, that it supports what we now know as Calvinism more than it does modern Lutheran doctrine.

Have you read it?

Tom
Posted By: Robin Re: New Calvinism - Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:51 AM

Superb book by Doctor Luther! His writings aren't quite what one might expect from a theologian. His language is earthy, and he freely uses sarcasm and wit in his argument with Erasmus on the issue of "free will." Brilliant stuff.

Have you ever heard Luther's own original version of his great hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God?" Syncopated, lively, militant. Not at all like the metronomic, toned-down version I grew up hearing in church. I hope the Lutherans haven't dismissed Luther's style of hymnody as they have so much of his teachings!

Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:29 AM
Originally Posted by Tom
Have you read it?
Quite a number of times, actually. I used to read it through once a year, around late October... sort of my way of remembering "Reformation Day".

You REALLY should read it, Tom. It will warm your heart and bless your soul.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: sojourner Re: New Calvinism - Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:05 PM
Can someone point me to something that Dr. Mohler has said/done that would be a reason for him to be included in the group mentioned in my original post.I'm sure there is some evidence somewhere,I'd just like to read it.
I just finished listening to a one hour interview with him in which I heard nothing that would brand him a "New Calvinist".Also, my pastor seems to regard him rather highly and says that he brought Southern Seminary back to it's roots when he came there.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:59 PM
I'm not so sure that Mohler is directly participatory in the New Calvinism movement. But in This Interview he openly defends it and implictly promotes it. I also read a statement he made where he promotes "mission cooperation" with non-Calvinists. Here is the quote:

Quote
2) If Calvinists and non-Calvinists do not find a way to coexist enthusiastically and and partner in missions, the splintering will divide Southern Baptists to the point that we can no longer sustain the program of Cooperative Missions that has marked our existence. If we don’t learn to get along and walk together, the SBC is in a lot of trouble! (source: HERE)
I don't know any possible way to "partner in missions", i.e., the bringing forth the gospel to the world, with non-Calvnists for they believe in a different God, different Jesus, different Spirit and a different gospel. shrug See an antidote to this claim here: Cooperation in Evangelism, by John Murray.

He has also appeared at New Calvinist conventions along with other speakers who are an integral part of the New Calvinism movement, e.g., John Piper, C.J. Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. This could be construed as "guilt by association" which may or may not have any substance to it.
Posted By: Tom Re: New Calvinism - Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:59 AM
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Tom
Have you read it?
Quite a number of times, actually. I used to read it through once a year, around late October... sort of my way of remembering "Reformation Day".

You REALLY should read it, Tom. It will warm your heart and bless your soul.

[Linked Image]

I certainly plan on reading it. However, I have learned something about myself in the last few years. It is a bad habit of mine to have too many irons in the fire and as a result, I actually accomplish less.
I am trying to finish books I already have, before I buy more. Your recommendation of Luther's book pushed it higher up on my wish list. bravo

Tom
Posted By: Tom Re: New Calvinism - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:05 AM
Originally Posted by Robin
Superb book by Doctor Luther! His writings aren't quite what one might expect from a theologian. His language is earthy, and he freely uses sarcasm and wit in his argument with Erasmus on the issue of "free will." Brilliant stuff.

Have you ever heard Luther's own original version of his great hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God?" Syncopated, lively, militant. Not at all like the metronomic, toned-down version I grew up hearing in church. I hope the Lutherans haven't dismissed Luther's style of hymnody as they have so much of his teachings!

I don't think I have heard Luther's original version. Great song though and one of the songs that is sung fairly regularly in our Church.

Tom
Posted By: Peter Re: New Calvinism - Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:04 AM
Lutherans are Protestants Robin not reformed. They separated with the Reformed when it came to the Lord's supper Luther kept repeating Hoc est corpus meum (this is my body)ie: consubstantiation. Also there was twenty five years between the two men so in reality Calvin was the next generation of reformers.
Posted By: Peter Re: New Calvinism - Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:26 AM
Well Philipp Melanchthon was the next theologian after Luther died, but keep in mind that the Augsberg Confession and the Book of Concord is the definite declaration of the Lutheran Church (orthodox Lutherans). And Melanchthon himself tried to reconcile Calvinists and Lutherans with regards to the Eucharist and as such wrote the Confessio Augustana Variata or the Altered Augsberg Confession... People then accused him and his followers of being crypto-Calvinists.

The real founders of orthodox Lutheran theology were Johann Gerhard, Abraham Calovius, Martin Chemnitz, Aegidius Hunnius, Leonhard Hutter, Nicolaus Hunnius, Jesper Rasmussen Brochmand, Salomo Glassius, Johann Hülsemann, Johann Conrad Dannhauer, Valerius Herberger, Johannes Andreas Quenstedt, Johann Friedrich König and Johann Wilhelm Baier.

Another thing to remember is that Lutherans look the Book of Concord more than Luther's writings as the authority as to what the church teaches. I've seen Lutherans quote Chemnitz more than Luther when it came to theology.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:59 AM
Let's not forget the matter of baptism as well. There is a significant difference between Lutherans and Calvinists. However, although many (most?) Calvinists historically rejected baptismal regeneration, some such as John Calvin held to presumptive regeneration of covenant children, which is different to be sure but unfortunately too similar in the effects.

Men such as Jonathan Edwards, I believe, made the necessary complete breakaway from Rome's sacramentalism and held to the biblical teachings concerning the Lord's Supper and Baptism without falling off the edge like another group did. evilgrin
Posted By: Robin Re: New Calvinism - Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:55 AM
Thanks for the history lesson! I've had a look recently at some Lutheran liturgy and I think it's very beautiful and rich. I couldn't be comfortable with the Lutheran practice of the Lord's Supper of course, but most of the Lutheran liturgy evokes a sense of awe and reverence that is missing in so many evangelical churches.

Posted By: John_C Re: New Calvinism - Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:10 PM
Sorry, not up to speed. What other group are you talking about?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:30 PM
Originally Posted by John_C
Sorry, not up to speed. What other group are you talking about?
Mainly Baptists, who do not view Baptism as a sacrament (see HERE; article I). Of course, even further removed from the Reformational doctrine of baptism are the Campellites who view baptism as essential to salvation, which is a heresy (synergism).
Posted By: Lichawa Thole Re: New Calvinism - Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:12 PM
Having read an article on the New Calvinism by E.S.Williams and presented at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, I felt very sad that the men involved with this movement are men I have held in very high repute, especially John Piper who is among my favorite preachers.
However, one of the chief characteristics of this movement is a total disregard for the regulative principle of worship especially with respect to the use of contemporary worship music (CWM) which also includes "holy hip-hop." Very sad indeed.
But help me to understand the Biblical rationale for this condemnation of CWM. I have two concerns:
1. All I seem to hear is "the music sounds wordly." Isn't this a matter of individual taste rather than a matter of Scripture? What in America is called "classic" may also "sound wordly" in my African context. Who judges what sounds worldly and what sounds godly?
2. I think that we are shooting ourselves in the leg when we condemn CWM. This is so because we planted its seeds by abandoning the historic Reformed position of non-instrumental music in worship. It is only the non-instrumental position which is truly a Biblical bulwark against CWM. Other arguments seem to me to be cultural preferences with no Biblical support.

Kindly help me understand.

Lichawa.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: New Calvinism - Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by Lichawa Thole
But help me to understand the Biblical rationale for this condemnation of CWM. I have two concerns:
1. All I seem to hear is "the music sounds worldly." Isn't this a matter of individual taste rather than a matter of Scripture? What in America is called "classic" may also "sound worldly" in my African context. Who judges what sounds worldly and what sounds godly?
Lichawa, this subject of music has been discussed here on the board over many years. If you do a search for "music", for example, I'm sure you will find many interesting and helpful discussions.

The author of this series of articles on the "New Calvinism" has also addressed this issue of music in the church and "hip-hop" specifically. I think he deserves a hearing and his reasons evaluated from Scripture. You can read his expose on "Holy Hip-Hop" HERE.

Also, on The Highway's main website there are several excellent articles which address this matter of godly music vs. ungodly (worldly) music. Here are a few for your perusal:

"A Reason to Sing" - Dr. P.J. Janson
"Congregational Singing and the Ministry of the Word" - Leonard Payton
"Is it a Prelude or a Quaalude" - Leonard Payton
"Glossary of Church Growth & Contemporary Christian Music" - Leonard Payton
"Evangelicals on the Durham Trail" - Darryl Hart
"Evaluating Music for Christian Worship and Enjoyment" - Leonard J. Seidel
"Rock 'n' Roll, the Bible, and the Mind" - Tom Allen

As you will find in the several threads here on the board that deal with this subject of music and worldliness, I have tried to layout in clear biblical terms the principles by which the Church and its individual members should discern what is acceptable music for the Church and their individual lives.

I think one of the basic principles that professing Christians are to adhere tenaciously to and apply with all prudence and wisdom is:

Philippians 4:8 (ASV) "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Even more basic is that all that one does is to be done as stated by the apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:31 (ASV) "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

Notice carefully, that Paul didn't write that we should do all FOR the glory of God, but rather TO the glory of God. It was the Lord Christ who exemplified this principle in His entire life; thought, word and deed. Isaiah prophesied by the Spirit of God, "and the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it." (Isa 40:5) Similarly, John wrote, "we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (Jh 1:14) The apostle Paul expressed this same thought with, "For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;" (Col 1:19) And, the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews directs us to the essence of the Lord Christ and His glory this way, "who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance,..." (Heb 1:3)

If we are cognizant of what the Spirit was speaking through these prophets and disciples of Christ, we will come to see that what they were all conveying was that the Lord Jesus Christ exhibited and was in Himself the display of all that God is; the sum total and more of God's attributes. Thus, to "glorify God" we are to strive to be holy as God is holy is everything. We are to reflect holiness in our hearts, our minds, our very souls God. As one put it, we are to be 'analogs' of God. This is not only the goal of every true believer, but it is being infallibly accomplished to one degree or another in every one of Christ's precious sheep (cf. 1Jh 3:2).

2 Peter 1:2-9 (ASV) "Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue; whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust. Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in [your] virtue knowledge; and in [your] knowledge self-control; and in [your] self-control patience; and in [your] patience godliness; and in [your] godliness brotherly kindness; and in [your] brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins.

Thus, these biblical principles must guide us in evaluating all things (Rom 12:2).

Music is NOT "a-moral", but rather music is the product, the expression of one's cosmology, philosophy and epistemology. And, every composer has a purpose, an intent which he desires to achieve through the music. In simple terms, all music effects the emotive side of man. And those who write the various forms of music realize this truth which has been incontrovertibly documented through myriad scientific and psychological studies. God created the basis for music, but man arranges those 'notes' to create something which is in accord with his philosophy and for his intended purpose. The world is under the power of the Devil and its citizens are at enmity with God; they hate God and all that is good. But on the contrary, they love evil and sin (Gen 6:5 8:21, 1Jh 2:16; 5:19; et al). Therefore, it is only inevitable that the world's music will be against God and His Church.

Lastly, and very briefly, "good" music, music that glorifies God will be excellent, harmonic, beautiful, and not entice the natural lusts which reside in the hearts of all mankind by nature. But this could easily be another topic of discussion, i.e., the standards of musicology.

Originally Posted by Lichawa Thole
2. I think that we are shooting ourselves in the leg when we condemn CWM. This is so because we planted its seeds by abandoning the historic Reformed position of non-instrumental music in worship. It is only the non-instrumental position which is truly a Biblical bulwark against CWM. Other arguments seem to me to be cultural preferences with no Biblical support.
1. You would have to prove that the "historic Reformed position" was non-instrumental music. I do not find that this was the case at all.

2. Abandoning musical accompaniment completely so as to prevent the use of instruments used in modern "Rock Music", in all its various forms, is not a valid argument. Abstention of anything because of its actual or potential abuse would prove too much. For example, all the historic doctrines of the true Church have been assailed, distorted and even denied, e.g., the doctrine of the Divine Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. Should we therefore dispense with those doctrines because they have been and continue to be "abused"? scratchchin
© The Highway