Old Calvinism is Now the New Calvinism

American Vision ^ | March 23, 2009 | Gary DeMar

[Augustinian monk]

“Is this the same John Calvin that murdered Michael Servetus?”

The same way Bush “murdered” people on death row in Texas.

[Buddygirl]

Calvin was never born again. He held to some of the tenets of the Catholic faith, one being infant baptism. God showed me that Calvinism is wrong and I will never accept it.

[Augustinian monk]

“He held to some of the tenets of the Catholic faith, one being infant baptism”

So did John Wesley, btw. How do you know if a person was born again? Its disgraceful that armchair theologians can write off people simply because they disagree with some nonessential doctrine. Calvin and other reformers literally put their lives on the line to help spread the gospel going against the powers that be in their time.

[Proud2BeRight]

Thanks for posting. Calvinism is a very significant piece of my study of my own geneology.

[topcat54]

Is this the same John Calvin that murdered Michael Servetus?

mur·der (mûr'dər) (n) The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Since Servetus was not murdered by anyone, the answer is "no".

[ksen]

“Is this the same John Calvin that murdered Michael Servetus?”

No, John Calvin never murdered anyone.

“Why would anyone follow a murderer?”

Just curious, what do you do with all of Paul’s letters after you tear them out of your bible(s)?

Oh, or the books written by Moses?

Psalms by David?

Passages by Nebuchadnezzar?

[topcat54]

Calvin was never born again. He held to some of the tenets of the Catholic faith, one being infant baptism. God showed me that Calvinism is wrong and I will never accept it.

The “Catholic faith” also teaches that Jesus was the eternal son of God, the savior of the world. Calvin taught that as well. Does that mean that everyone who holds anything in common with the “Catholic faith” cannot possibly be born again?

“This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.”

[Louis Foxwell]

There is also a great opportunity to teach full-orbed Calvinism to combat the inane Left Behind nonsense that is common in confession-less Christianity.

Amen Brother!!

It is a poverty of theological training that allows the inane speculations of "Left Behind" to proliferate. As Calvin intoned, "Let God be God and man be man."

[r9etb]

If I find it in Scripture, I believe it.

Sorry.... That's just not good enough. So vague as to be useless.

Does "biblicism" mean that you believe nothing that you cannot find in Scripture?

Do you suggest, perhaps, that calculus or chemistry are not to be believed, because they're not in Scripture?

What does "belief" even mean, according to your definition of "biblicism?" Does it mean that you take Jesus literally when he describes Himself as "the gate" to the sheep fold? Does it mean that His parables mean exactly what they say -- even though Jesus said that He spoke in parables for the opposite reason: "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." (Matt. 13:13)

It's a nice slogan, Blogger, but it doesn't do much for you in real life -- I guarantee you that you don't live most of your life on the principle you just espoused.

[topcat54]

I agree, Calvinism, carefully and explicitly defined, is found in Scripture. Not everything John Calvin taught is.

Then what was your original objection again, since this post was about CalvinISM, not John Calvin per se?

Oh, I remember. You said:

The only “ism” I care about is biblicism. Beyond that, any of man’s constructs is dung. If I find it in Scripture, I believe it.

CalvinISM is a construct of men, therefore it is dung. But you accept this dung.

Would you like a Mulligan?

[Elsie]

Well. What an interesting development this is. Are you an old Calvinist or a new Calvinist?

HMMmmm...

It's kinda hard to say.

I do know that I'm not a Reformed Egyptian Anti-Calvinist.

I would actually have to STUDY something and COMPARE it to something else before I could make a JUDGEMENT call one way or the other.

---

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/17#17

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
  18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother,

“I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”

 

[Elsie]

Once every three years or so the pastor gives a sermon affirming Calvinism. The rest of the time the people of the congregation live as if they’re mainstream evangelicals. I like it that way because they are warm and loving.

AMEN!

[Lee N. Field]

The “Catholic faith” also teaches that Jesus was the eternal son of God, the savior of the world. Calvin taught that as well. Does that mean that everyone who holds anything in common with the “Catholic faith” cannot possibly be born again?

“This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.”

< sarcasm>Tut tut tut. Don't you know there are good Christian people who don't accept all that Nicene/Athanasean/Apostles Creed stuff??? Boo to the evil Constantine! After all, the Trinity isn't a core doctrine to break fellowship over.< /sarcasm>

[Fantasywriter]

Hey, Elsie—thanks for the amen! I’m on my way out the door for a Bible study, but before I leave I wanted to say I like your tag line. :)

[Blogger]

Calvinism is not a construct of man if it is found in Scripture. Calvin may have articulated Scripture when he put forth the TULIP. However, the doctrines can be found in Scripture and did not begin with John Calvin.

The initial article, as posted, was not solely about Calvinism. You know full well that you weren’t wanting a discussion on Calvinism, but were bating others regarding some other doctrinal beliefs that were not part of what most folks deem to be Calvinism.

[Blogger]

How about this...if I find it in Scripture, I believe it. If it conflicts with Scripture, then I don’t. Better?

[Blogger]

Also, don’t skip words when trying to articulate others views...I said “Beyond that”. I.E., beyond that which is biblical, man’s constructs are dung.

[r9etb]

If it conflicts with Scripture, then I don’t. Better?

Slightly. The problem is, of course, that many times the judgment of whether or not something "conflicts with Scripture" is subject to interpretation -- necessarily so, because things we encounter in our daily lives have no direct counterpart in Scripture.

The question in that case is, do you believe your interpretation of Scripture? What if my interpretation differs from yours? Given that Scripture is not directly on-point in such cases, on what basis do we decide which interpretation, if any, is closest to true?

There are a number of practical difficulties with the principle of Sola Scriptura (which is the traditional term for what you've called "biblicism").

Theologian Bruce Metzger offers the following very interesting discussion on the problems inherent in taking the Bible literally (however you define the term); and he also refers to N. T. Wright's wonderful discussion, How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?

[raynearhood]

Calvin may have articulated Scripture when he put forth the TULIP

Calvin didn't "put forth" TULIP. He taught the Doctrines of Grace before the doctrines were doctrines. There were contemporaries of Calvin that did the same. The five Doctrines of Grace developed into the acrostic TULIP from the The Decision of the Synod of Dordt on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands (The Canons of Dordt) which were a direct correction of the five statements of doctrine of the Remonstrants (followers of Jacob Arminius).

Calvin's teachings, and the teachings of his contemporary Reformers, were much more prolific than the five Doctrines of Grace.

[raynearhood]

Good article. Why this, though?

If the New Calvinism is going to have any staying power, it will have to abandon its pietistic streak, its amillennial eschatology...