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).

[raynearhood]

I hit “post” too quickly.

I understand DeMar’s distiction between “old” and “new” Calvinism. He didn’t explain why the new calvinism needs to abandon amillennial eschatology along with other less than historic Reformed qualities.

[Nosterrex]

No doubt that you know more about the various developments within the Calvinistic tradition than I do. As I said, I'm a Lutheran, so I look at Calvinism through the eyes of the 16th century disputes between Lutheranism and Calvinism. I know that there were those after Calvin that developed some other views such as federalism, et al. I assume that Calvin's TULIP is still valid within the Calvinistic community?

I realize that Arminianism is a reaction to Calvin's view on “double predestination,” but I have little use for Arminianism. My wife was raised in the PCA, and they had joint VBS with the Methodists. I could never understand that.

[Blogger]

I am aware of all of this. My point was that the doctrines collectively known as TULIP did not originate with Calvin and in fact are found in Scripture. Luther, Augustine, and others have all articulated certain points within that acrostic. Where did they get it? From Scripture.

[wmfights]

And insofar what John Calvin said was consistent with Scripture, I agree with him. Where he strayed from Scripture, I disagree.

Let me join you in that sentiment.

[raynearhood]

Agreed.

[wmfights]

Well, if you find "biblicism" in scripture let me know. ;O)

This might apply:

Matt. 4:4 Jesus answered, It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

[Blogger]

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?
That isn't the right question. The question is not which interpretation is correct, rather, the question is which understanding is truly revealed by the Spirit of God to our spirit. If it all emanated from us, true, there would be no solid ground to hang our hats on. It would all be interpretation. But that is not where it rests.

The infallible Spirit of God teaches us the inconceivable (apart from Him) truths of God through the inerrant Word of God. To the extent that we yield ourselves to Him, we get it right. It isn't our interpretation. It is His revelation. When we walk in the Spirit, our minds are like Christ. Problem comes in when we don't walk in the Spirit. God still speaks, but our understanding may be a bit dimmer.

I do not expect to reach heaven being the only person who got it all right. However, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have One who leads me into ALL truth and that anything that conflicts with His written Word (either explicitly or in principle)should be disdained. I may not always get it right as far as my understanding of that conflict, because I yield way too much to the flesh. But, my own failure does not in any way negate sola scriptura or the biblicism I speak of.

[HarleyD]

In some cases, regrettably not all, Christians accept the scriptures as the very Word of God. What is often argued is the interpretation of those words.

Consider the following verse:

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

Honestly now, how many Christians today believe this verse? Before anyone says anything, please reflect on 9-11 or Hurricane Katrina. Did God work them together for our good? I bring this up because people frequently say, "Yes, but...".

God is in control in all of life's events to bring good things to His people, whether we understand them or not. God will work any future events for the good of His people-that is His promise.

[wmfights]

In some cases, regrettably not all, Christians accept the scriptures as the very Word of God.

More often than not those that don't accept the Scriptures as the very Word of God have a problem with authority.

What is often argued is the interpretation of those words.

A wonderful area of discussion. A tipping point though is where we follow all interpretations of particularly insightful theologians and don't measure them for consistency with Scripture.

[Blogger]

That’s true. And we’re particularly lazy in that regard.

[topcat54]

I understand DeMar’s distiction between “old” and “new” Calvinism. He didn’t explain why the new calvinism needs to abandon amillennial eschatology along with other less than historic Reformed qualities.

I believe the issues goes back to the difference between the older eschatology of the a-/postmils coming out of the Reformation via the Puritans and into the legacy of old Princeton Seminary (The Hodges, BB Warfield) vs the more modern pietistic amillennialism found at places like Westminster Seminary California. Modern amillennialism is also associated with principled pluralism in the political sphere vs. older Puritanism and Kuyperian views. DeMar would argue that today's amillennialism, with touches of Lutheranism, is not your (fore)father's thoroughly Reformed amillennialism.

Perhaps the struggle is more pronounced among Presbyterians.

See Greg Bahnsen's appendix on “The World and the Kingdom of God” in The Reduction of Christianity by Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart. The authors see a parallel between dispensationalism and pietistic amillennialism.

[Blogger]

When my brother killed himself, that verse stuck in my head. I wated for the good. I know of two souls that God used the event of my brother’s death to save. Saw R 8:28 in action right there. It isn’t always so clear though. Yet, you still trust and obey. He knows what He is doing.

[topcat54]

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.

That's not exactly what you said originally (which I fully quoted), but I accept your clarification.

[r9etb]

I believe the issues goes back to the difference between the older eschatology of the a-/postmils coming out of the Reformation via the Puritans and into the legacy of old Princeton Seminary (The Hodges, BB Warfield) vs the more modern pietistic amillennialism found at places like Westminster Seminary California. Modern amillennialism is also associated with principled pluralism in the political sphere vs. older Puritanism and Kuyperian views. DeMar would argue that today's amillennialism, with touches of Lutheranism, is not your (fore)father's thoroughly Reformed amillennialism.

Looks to me like a terminal case of Ismism..... Doncha think maybe all those "isms" of yours represent a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ's message?

[topcat54]

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.

What most folks deem to be Calvinism doesn't matter. What matters is my definition ... just like your view of biblicism. Fair enough?

[topcat54]

Looks to me like a terminal case of Ismism..... Doncha think maybe all those "isms" of yours represent a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ's message?

Perhaps ... if I were of the "no creed but Christ"-ism.

[topcat54]

A wonderful area of discussion. A tipping point though is where we follow all interpretations of particularly insightful theologians and don't measure them for consistency with Scripture.

Interesting. And what role, if any, does the Church play in resolving the death match of Battling Interpretations?

[Buddygirl]

Catholics believe you have to be saved through the Roman Catholic Church. It is one of their sacraments. I believe we can be saved without the RCC. I stand on believing that you are saved when you believe and receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

[Blogger]

If you are speaking in terms of what you believe, yes. If you are speaking in terms of what the majority believes, then no.

You seem to have a problem with my taking the Bible as my core authority on everything. It supercedes all creeds and doctrinal dissertations. Ironic, that a person who proclaims to be a Calvinist would have a problem with that stance. Even John Calvin would agree that the creed should be tested by Scripture. Apparently, you are prone to accepting more sources as authoritative than Mr. Calvin was. No?

[Blogger]

The local body of believers may disfellowship a person for going off in what that body of believers believes is an errant way; however, ultimately, the judge of one’s beliefs will be how it aligned with Scripture - not the church.