Old Calvinism is Now the New Calvinism

American Vision ^ | March 23, 2009 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

“Calvinism is back,” so says David Van Biema in the March 22, 2009 issue of Time magazine. Calvinism is listed as one of “10 ideas changing the world Right now.” It’s third on the list. When most people hear the word “Calvinism,” they bite down only on the gristle of predestination and then spit out the whole piece of meat. There is much more to Calvinism that is obscured by the misapplied aversion to particular redemption. As a student at Reformed Theological Seminary in the 1970s, I was taught that certain cultural applications flowed from a consistent application of Calvinism. Calvinism is synonymous with a comprehensive biblical world-and-life view. Simply put, I was told that the Bible applies to every area of life. To be a Calvinist is to make biblical application to issues beyond personal salvation (Heb. 5:11–14).

[paulist]

Your problem isn’t with Calvinism, it’s with Scripture. Acts 13:48 - “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”

You’ve decided that the belief comes first, whereas the Word of God declares that it is the other way around.

[paulist]

that’s funny, the Arminians I have met and interacted with have come across as proud, scripture twisting people

[raynearhood]

Calvin’s optimistic eschatology, where he clearly expects gospel progress in this age (kinda like postmil-lite), is not the eschatology of the modern amils.

It seems that this is where I hae the post-mil leanings.

The kingdom of God is therefore both a present reality and a future hope. Jesus clearly taught that the kingdom was already present during his earthly ministry: “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt. 12:28, NIV). When the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, he replied, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, `Lo, here it is!’ or `There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Lk. 17:20-21). But Jesus also taught that there was a sense in which the kingdom of God was still future, both in specific sayings (Mt. 7:21-23; 8:11-12) and in eschatological parables (such as those of the Marriage Feast, the Tares, the Talents, the Wise and Foolish Virgins). Paul also makes statements describing the kingdom as both present (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:19-20; Col. 1:13-14) and future (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2 Tim. 4:18).

The fact that the kingdom of God is present in one sense and future in another implies that we who are the subjects of that kingdom live in a kind of tension between the “already” and the “not yet.” We are already in the kingdom, and yet we look forward to the full manifestation of that kingdom; we already share its blessings, and yet we await its total victory. Because the exact time when Christ will return is not known, the church must live with a sense of urgency, realizing that the end of history may be very near. At the same time, however, the church must continue to plan and work for a future on this present earth which may still last a long time.

Meanwhile, the kingdom of God demands of us all total commitment to Christ and his cause. We must see all of life and all of reality in the light of the goal of the redemption not just of individuals but of the entire universe. This implies, as Abraham Kuyper, the renowned Dutch theologian and statesman, once said, that there is not a thumb-breadth of the universe about which Christ does not say, “It is mine.” -Anthony Hoekema "A Brief Sketch of Amillennial Eschatology"

I think that Brahn was a bit uncharitable to the amillennialist in his conclusion that we "spiritualize" the Kingdom of God or identify it only as the church or "otherworldly" (especially in his use of Geerhard Vos). From the article quoted above:

Amillennialists believe that the kingdom of God was founded by Christ at the time of his sojourn on earth, is operative in history now and is destined to be revealed in its fullness in the life to come. They understand the kingdom of God to be the reign of God dynamically active in human history through Jesus Christ. Its purpose is to redeem God’s people from sin and from demonic powers, and finally to establish the new heavens and the new earth. The kingdom of God means nothing less than the reign of God in Christ over his entire created universe.

However, I have today read a few articles by post-millennialists on amillennialism and I guess the prevelant view is that modern amillennialism is pessimistic. Well, all I can say is, not in the amillennialism I know.

[krb]

[Watch me get attacked just for relating a little piece of personal history.]

I doubt you'll get attacked. But if someone asks you to explain yourself, I bet you'll act as if you were attacked.

[raynearhood]

I hate to interrupt the conversation with something that has to do with the article, but:

The Presbyterian dispensationalist, Donald Grey Barnhouse, had no such high view of the law. He considered it to be a “tragic hour when the Reformation churches wrote the Ten Commandments into their creeds and catechisms and sought to bring Gentile believers into bondage to Jewish law, which was never intended either for the Gentile nations or for the church.” In following the debate over Christian Reconstruction, a number of Reformed brethren seem to be more comfortable with the dispensationalism of Barnhouse than the high view of the law of the Reformed confessions and catechisms. It is time for Calvinists to abandon dispensationalism, not just in name but in principle.

I can't agree more. I was ecstatic to find local Reformed Baptist Church (arguments over the name aside topcat) that was not only confessional but catechizes.

[4Godsoloved..Hegave]

Amen!

Another study I did this evening cross referenced this discussion. We are slaves of Christ. Now really doesn’t that mean we have been bought by a Master. Since when does any slave choose his master?

For those earnest in their study see:
http://www.theobjectivetruth.com/files/f16e383962b111cdcefb72c13af6cdfb-120.php

[Ping-Pong]

I am well aware of our grafting in. Romans 9 is one of the passages that makes me a Calvinist. That said, Romans 9 and Zechariah 12-14 are speaking of two different groups. Zechariah 12-14 is a subgroup of the Romans 9 group; but they aren't the same way.

I know you are aware of it and that is why your saying, "No we are not" adopted puzzled me. As far as the "subgroup"...I can't agree with that. God doesn't make a distinction.

I have no idea why the Israelophobes are so intent on stripping the Jews and Israelites of God's promises. Zechariah has a geographic location. It is very specific (as opposed to generalized ‘Christians’) in its scope. And makes sense only in the context of the whole. Ya’ll are incorrigible!

Israelophobes? LOL. That's a new one. How do you see being part of Israel as "stripping them of God's promises?" The "geographic location" needs to be spiritually understood for it pertains to Christians.

Zechariah 12:1-2 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, Which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.

His Word is for Israel...that is all twelve tribes so you have to look past the geographical location. Notice He said...Judah and Jerusalem. What does that mean? Judah is the "house of Judah" or...the Jews. What is Jersualem? Jerusalem is His "beloved city."

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Jerusalem, spiritually, is/are the saints, the elect...His children. They/we are His beloved city, the bride of Christ. So, Zechariah is explaining that God will pour His cup of wrath, the cup of trembling, on all those that come against us...His children. That will be a world wide event..not just in Judaea, when they come against the Jews and Christians (Judah and Jerusalem).

[Ping-Pong]

It only makes sense if you drink the dispensational kool aid and start thinking that God runs a two-fer sale: two sets of people, two sets of promises, two set of destinies, two second coming, two judgments, two thrones, two Jerusalems, two temples. You must also believe that “old covenant” and “new covenant” are really misnomers, and what God really intended to say was earthly covenant and heavenly covenant running in parallel with two different sets of people.

The two to understand is the physical and the spiritual. Jerusalem is a physical and a spiritual city. The temple was physical and is now spiritual. There is a second coming, there are two judgments...He tells us there is. I don't know what you mean by "two thrones."

[Blogger]

There is absolutely NOTHING in the text that says we must spiritualize Zechariah 12-14. NOTHING. It is literal and to interpret it in any other way is to do violence to sound hermeneutics.

As to being a sub-group of the other, God DOES make distinctions. Apostles, Prophets, etc., are subgroups of the overall group “Christians”. The Remnant is the same way. The Remnant is the elect part of Israel that will come to know the Lord. They are distinguished in Romans 11 from Gentile Christians.

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

[paulist]

Or when did adopted children start choosing the parents?

Romans 9 really says it all, but it is crushing to the pride of man who demands an ounce of credit for their salvation.

[Ping-Pong]

There is absolutely NOTHING in the text that says we must spiritualize Zechariah 12-14. NOTHING. It is literal and to interpret it in any other way is to do violence to sound hermeneutics.

There is nothing in the text anywhere, as far as I know, that tells us to understand any Words as spiritual...but we should for therein lies the greater lessons.

As to being a sub-group of the other, God DOES make distinctions. Apostles, Prophets, etc., are subgroups of the overall group “Christians”. The Remnant is the same way. The Remnant is the elect part of Israel that will come to know the Lord. They are distinguished in Romans 11 from Gentile Christians.

Yes, there are the elect, the very elect, etc. but together they are all....Israel. Where it is written, "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," it continues and tells us..."And so all Israel shall be saved." The gentiles become adopted into the family and then we are "all Israel."

[Terabitten]

God doesn’t force Himself on anyone. You can accept or reject Him.

I must respectfully disagree. We all rejected God a long time ago. Were it not for God "forcing" Himself on us, none of us would be saved.

I thank God daily that He forced Himself on me.

[Blogger]

There is nothing in the text anywhere, as far as I know, that tells us to understand any Words as spiritual...but we should for therein lies the greater lessons.

Oh. I see. So, even though Jesus explicitly took stories like Jonah and Adam literally, we should dump that method of biblical interpretation and go with your methodology because we will learn greater lessons than the text actually says. Very dangerous, Ping-Pong. And wrong.

Yes, there are the elect, the very elect, etc. but together they are all....Israel. Where it is written, "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," it continues and tells us..."And so all Israel shall be saved." The gentiles become adopted into the family and then we are "all Israel."
Not that you are listening, but to any Freeper who may be, there is spiritual Israel which we have been grafted into & there is physical Israel. Some of physical Israel will also be a part of spiritual Israel. Zechariah 12-14 and many many other texts in the Old and New Testaments deal with them. They are a literal people, in a literal people, at a literal time. They are not yet, but I believe they are very close. That is to say, the blindness on Israel is still happening in part. Paul is speaking of this blindness as occuring to his brethren, his fellow Israelites. He is saying when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, THEN God will bring in the rest of the harvest- i.e., the currently unbelieving Jews.

[topcat54]

Jousting at straw men ... Of course, the Old Testament is the New Testament Concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament Revealed.

Not according to dispensationalism. The New Testament age (aka the so-called “Church age”) is a parenthesis in the plan of God, wholly unknown in the Old Testament. Even LS Chafer takes issue with the term “parenthesis” as a misstatement of the radical distinction between old and new when he wrote:

In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the out-calling of a heavenly people from the Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age is not thus related and therefore is more precisely termed an intercalation.

An intercalation is an insertion without regard to what comes before or what comes after, like the insertion of a February 29th into the calendar every 4 years. According to Chafer the OT has no relationship to the “present age”.

CC Ryrie says something similar:

The Church is not fulfilling in any sense the promises to Israel. … The church age is not seen in God’s program for Israel. It is an intercalation. … The Church is a mystery in the sense that it was completely unrevealed in the Old Testament and now revealed in the New Testament.

The NT was not merely concealed in the Old, it was totally unrevealed. No hint of it at all. And it is not the OT that is revealed in the NT, it is only the Church, according to Ryrie. “The Church is a mystery … now revealed in the New Testament.”

This is no strawman. It is the position of the dispensational forefathers from the beginning. It is the system, and every text must be evaluated in light of the system.

Zechariah 12:8-14:21

I would be interested in hearing your new covenant-informed, Christocentric interpretation of that passage. But, I realized I’m asking the impossible from the dispensationalist. They are forced by their system to interpret every Old Testament prophet as if the New Testament does not even exist. Because that is the way it was written and that is the way it was intended by God to be interpreted for all time, according to the system. The dispensationalist is forced to interpret all the prophecies of the Old Testament as any unbelieving Jew would. There is no distinctively Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, according to the system.

The battle cry of the dispensational system is, “This hasn’t happened yet!” That is their entire approach to the prophets.

The Bible is all about Christ, not national Israel. The Christian view of understanding the OT follows that of our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles.

“And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” (Luke 24:27)

[topcat54]

The two to understand is the physical and the spiritual. Jerusalem is a physical and a spiritual city. The temple was physical and is now spiritual. There is a second coming, there are two judgments...He tells us there is. I don't know what you mean by "two thrones."

One in heaven (the real throne), where Christ is presently reigning over the nations bringing them into subjection (Matt. 28:18ff; 1 Cor. 15:25), and one in the futurist millennium when Christ is reigning from a throne in earthly Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is a physical and a spiritual city

Yep. Paul tells us about the two.

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Galatians 4)

Earthly Jerusalem corresponds to spiritual bondage and death. Christ and His followers have their place eternally in the new, heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22ff).

[topcat54]

Reformed Baptist Church (arguments over the name aside topcat)

Hey, some of my best friends are Reformed Baptists.

[topcat54]

However, I have today read a few articles by post-millennialists on amillennialism and I guess the prevelant view is that modern amillennialism is pessimistic. Well, all I can say is, not in the amillennialism I know.

I know a lot of amils who do not share entirely the views being advanced in places like WSC. Unfortunately, WSC sees itself as the great white hope of confessional Reformed “Christendom”. Their eschatology is “Reformed Eschatology” by definition. Their interpretation of Calvin, et al is the correct interpretation.

I just wish the optimistic amils were more visible.

[Ping-Pong]

Oh. I see. So, even though Jesus explicitly took stories like Jonah and Adam literally, we should dump that method of biblical interpretation and go with your methodology because we will learn greater lessons than the text actually says. Very dangerous, Ping-Pong. And wrong.

No, that isn't what I am saying:

1 Corinthians 10:11-12 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

That is to say, the blindness on Israel is still happening in part. Paul is speaking of this blindness as occuring to his brethren, his fellow Israelites. He is saying when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, THEN God will bring in the rest of the harvest- i.e., the currently unbelieving Jews.

Yes, the blindness is still happening to Israel and we should understand that means...on Christians as well as Jews. The "rest of the harvest" isn't just the unbeliving Jews but the misled Christians.

[Blogger]

In the context of Romans 9-11 Paul is differenciating the people of his birth from the Gentiles. You are badly distorting the text to say otherwise.

[Blogger]

You are combining terms.

We were talking about the purpose of Christ and you have brought in the mystery of the church.