TIME names "New Calvinism" 3rd Most Powerful Idea Changing the World

TIME Magazine ^ | March 12, 2009 | David Van Biema

[CondoleezzaProtege]

John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.

No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.

[Gamecock]

***How does one know that he believes what is necessary to believe or that he has truly repented?***

How does one know if they have truly bought off on the 4 spiritual laws?

[RnMomof7]

Marlow.. remember the incident when the disciples fished all night and caught nothing.. they came back with empty nets, Jesus sent them out again and pointed them in a different direction.

These men were fishermen by trade, they knew where the fish SHOULD be, and where Jesus sent them made no sense.

But they obeyed expecting nothing... then their nets were so full of fish they could have broken..

God put the fish in those nets PM, and the net is the gospel ...

God made us all fishers of men.. He gave us the net and ..He will fill it with fish..all we have to do is cast the net..

God will fill it with fish...

PM where you want to admit it or not, you do believe in a limited atonement.. You believe that the atonement is limited to those that "accept Christ"

We believe the atonement is limited by those that Christ accepts

No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him...I believe (have not checked) that the word draws is the same word as the men drawing in the net and the woman drawing the water for Christ ...only instead of fish or water.. it is men that are drawn in by another..and instead of being a net or a bucket it is the Father that does the drawing... Brother, no matter how you want to take credit for your salvation.. it was ALL of God

[the_conscience]

I am just asking questions which naturally flow from the statements of Calvinists about their own theological construct.

My construct is to believe what Scripture says. I'm not the one trying to play God and determine philosophically whether his decrees are good or evil. I believe they are good even if my finite mind cannot fully comprehend how it all works together. Avoiding a man-centered theology/philosophy affords me a greater opportunity to trust God. This is not to dismiss the Reformed Confessions which I believe are a excellent summary of the story of redemption since they are Biblically based.

The biblical data is clear that those who try to add anything to the work of Christ truly do not have a sincere belief in Christ.

And what do you mean by that? That a person who believes that Faith without works is a dead (unsaving) faith is somehow not saved themselves because they have a different understanding of that scripture than you or Calvin had? And who died and made you Pope?

Have you gone full on post-modern on me? Is it all subjective? The Scriptures tell the story of how God redeems his people and it's not a matter of personal interpretation. The story needs to be seen in it's whole. Works for the regenerate are a sign of the gratitude they have for the grace wrought in them not an obligation for justification. If you're working for your justification you've missed the gospel.

I suspect that in one way or another everyone is guilty of attempting to add to the work of Christ. It is in our nature. The Catholic may believe that works can somehow be of help in securing their salvation, and you seem to think that a correct understanding and belief in Reformed doctrine is somehow essential to salvation (or an essential element of election).

Yes, I agree that because Adam was required to work to achieve glorification that is our natural instinct and why people have such a difficult time accepting Christ's righteousness alone for salvation since they want a part in their own salvation but the Bible is clear that unless we rest in Christ's work only we will never fully see his grace. But I don't believe I said that one had to have a correct understanding and belief in Reformed doctrine as essential to salvation. I said they had to trust Christ fully. Why is it so hard for you to understand my plain meaning?

[blue-duncan]

“Yes, I agree that because Adam was required to work to achieve glorification”

Adam in his natural state, even if he had passed his probationary trial and was obedient, could never achieve glorification. The best he could aspire to was the unveiled image of God, but no share in God’s glory. That is reserved for God alone and those in Christ.

[P-Marlowe]

If Esau had died as an infant, God in His omniscience knew what choices Esau would have made in the circumstances determined by God.

My understanding is that that is an Classical Arminian position, i.e., that God knows what choices a man would have made and therefore God would be justified in condemning a man or even an infant even without having given that person some specific opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. In other words, the election (or the choice not to elect) is somehow based upon God's foreknowledge of all the possible contingencies.

Chuck Smith has a great sermon on this passage, I don’t agree with everything he says, but for the most part he is right on.

IIRC Chuck Smith shows the flaws in both the Arminian and Calvinist positions on this subject in that sermon.

[ShadowAce]

He will fill it with fish..all we have to do is cast the net..

So works are required?

[Mr Rogers]

;>)

[wagglebee]

The Catholic may believe that works can somehow be of help in securing their salvation,

Can you dismiss as unimportant Matthew 7:21-29 and Matthew 25:31-46? Because in these passages our Lord is clearly talking about DOING something.

How can it be said that acceptance based on faith IS NOT a work? Are we to believe that faith comes without any prior thought and remains regardless of future events?

It sounds good to say that salvation is based solely on faith and not works, but how does that actually come to be unless a person is completely pre-programmed in a certain way? And, if this is the case, why should we waste even a second concerning ourselves with it?

[P-Marlowe]

PM where you want to admit it or not, you do believe in a limited atonement.. You believe that the atonement is limited to those that "accept Christ"

Not necessarily.

Children do not "accept Christ" but I believe they will be accepted by Christ. As I stated, I am not a rigid Arminian nor do I think that Calvinism is necessarily wrong in what it asserts. Both constructs are correct in what they assert and IMHO both constructs are wrong in what they deny.

Ultimately the whole thing comes down to this: God is sovereign. Man is responsible.

Any construct which diminishes one of those axioms at the expense of the other would necessarily be flawed.

[blue-duncan]

“My understanding is that that is an Classical Arminian position”

Not quite. I believe God’s foreknowledge is based on the predeterminism and providence of God. God creates all of the circumstances in which one voluntarily chooses the plan and purposes of God. One can choose no other and yet it is what one desires. Noone will say I chose against my will or against my desire either for or contrary to God.

“IIRC Chuck Smith shows the flaws in both the Arminian and Calvinist positions on this subject in that sermon.”

That’s why I said I disagree with part of the sermon, but on the whole it was good.

[xzins]

The problem with any bit of works involved in salvation is that we all know that Christians sin and sin continually. Otherwise, we’d be just fine and dandy with holding ourselves up as shining examples.

Sin in Christians is why we’d better have grace and mercy. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.

[P-Marlowe]

Have you gone full on post-modern on me? Is it all subjective?

All? No, but I do think there is a subjective element. We are told that if we believe we are saved and we are (all of us) called to believe. Ultimately what you believe will be judged by God as to whether or not it is the belief that God requires in order to secure Salvation. I do believe that belief is an essential element in Salvation (at least to those who have received the message of repentance and belief), but I also believe that there may be a different dispensation for those who by virtue of age or geography or intellect have never been given the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond accordingly.

God is Love, is he not? God is Just, is he not?

If you're working for your justification you've missed the gospel.

Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding of the scriptures rather than a rejection of the gospel. Works are an essential element in a person's walk with Christ. If they are not present, can you say that a man is justified? The Calvinist might think that he is securing his election by doing works. But how can he assure his election if he is already elected? Yet he recognizes that without works, his election is not secured, that his faith may be a non-saving faith. His attitude is probably no different from the Catholic who is doing works to ensure that he too is justified before God. In that sense it is subjective for both the Reformed and the Catholic.

[blue-duncan]

“Sin in Christians is why we’d better have grace and mercy”

And wives, never forget wives. They are the eternal reminders here on earth!

[wagglebee]

Sin in Christians is why we’d better have grace and mercy. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.

Correct, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to do anything.

[raynearhood]

So God lied when he said there were NONE RIGHTEOUS in Sodom? That in fact there were righteous children who God destroyed? Or were those children all under the same curse as the Adults?

*sigh* Imputed righteousness. Man, it would be a lot easier if you just read my reply. Your swatting flies aimlessly and missing every time.

You seem to be equivocating on the idea of Total Depravity if you claim that children who die are not sent to hell because they didn't live long enough to sin. Calvinism clearly teaches that people are Born into sin and that whether they commit their own sins is irrelevant, because they have sinned by nature of their birth.

Your misrepresentation of the Doctrine is amazing.

First: I do not claim "that children who die are not sent to hell because they didn't live long enough to sin." In point of fact, I claim the EXACT OPPOSITE:

I believe that a child that dies in infancy, according to God's purpose is elect. Not because they have not sinned, but because they are elect. Nothing extra. They are not elect because they haven't sinned. They are not covered in grace because they are in infancy. They are in God's grace because they are. They are because that is God's sovereign choice. (Me, from reply 205. The long reply I assume you have yet to read.)

Second: Calvinism Christianity clearly teaches that people are Born into sin... There, fixed it. It's called Original Sin. However, Calvinism clearly teaches... that whether they commit their own sins is irrelevant... is just wrong. Your fighting a strawman.

Quickly, Total Depravity teaches that the whole being of man is affected by sin. His heart, soul, mind, will, body, and even the world around is bent towards death because of sin. The effects of the flesh are total. Total Inability is a "subset" of the Total Depravity.

So apparently, since you insist that God does not judge children who have not sinned on their own and that if they die in some state of "innocence," that they will automatically be numbered among the elect. That seems to be totally inconsistent with your Calvinist pre-supposition of Total Depravity.

Strawman

You stated earlier on this thread that God hated Esau from before he was born and hated him while he was an infant. If that is true, then if he had died as an infant, he would have been a vessel of God's wrath.

Man! It's like banging my head against a wall. You keep saying this as if I said it, or I MUST believe what you think I ought to believe. Here, you say, "...it was stated that..." Um, no it wasn't. And, you keep presenting a strawman and you continue to beg the question.

Look, I'll try to break it down kindergarten style:

1. God prepared Esau for his purpose from before time began.
2. In God's divine will, he hated Esau and loved Jacob.
3. Because of his purpose for Esau, Esau lived out his life according to God's sovereign plan - in Esau's case, as a reprobate.
4. There is NO "what if." If Esau would have died as an infant is not an option. He was foreknown and created as a vessel of wrath. Any "what if" in the life of Esau denies God's sovereign direction.

Q: What if David would have gotten mauled by a lion he faced while tending his flocks?
Q: What if Samson would have avoided Delilah?
A: Illogical. Assuming that what will not happen happens.

But somehow you seem to be of the opinion that men are not Totally Depraved and that somehow they are in a state of innocence at Birth and are corrupted by their own sins and not by their sinful nature.

Really, you should have read that long reply I made, because I argue the EXACT OPPOSITE:

We bear the stain of Original Sin. That is, from birth we are the spiritual progeny of Adam and face the problem of separation from God. (Psalm 51:5, Genesis 8:21, Romans 5:12)

You know, I think I figured out the communication problem we are having. Because you haven't read that long reply, in which I discuss all of this stuff you are saying, you seem to think that I am arguing that infants can get to heaven on their own merit. I'm not.

[RnMomof7]

So works are required?

The elect do works..the difference they are Gods works in us..not our work for God..

" Eph tells us " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

from a non Calvinist..John Wesley

Wesley's Notes

2:10 For we are his workmanship - Which proves both that salvation is by faith, and that faith is the gift of God. Created unto good works - That afterwards we might give ourselves to them. Which God had before preprepared - The occasions of them: so we must still ascribe the whole to God. That we might walk in them - Though not be justified by them.

[raynearhood]

At what age would you lose your confidence about God's choices in sending children to hell? 7, 8, 9, 10, 11? At what point can you start to worry about whether or not your child has lived long enough to be numbered among the reprobate?

Funny that I address what is nearly this exact argument in my long reply. Normally, I hate repeating myself and having to go back and quote myself over and over to knock down your strawmen is getting tiresome.

To your question:

To be completely honest, I don't know. At first I would say they stand condemned for the sins they have committed in the flesh, and I think that that is a perfectly accurate Biblical statement.

"And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. (Genesis 21:8 - post flood promise)

And I think that this understanding rightly gives us the sense of urgency to "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverb 22:6) But, here's the thing... I can't speak to that with full confidence. I can't know a child's heart just as I can't know any man's except for by the fruits produced. If I see, still in a child, a sense of innocence even in their elementary understanding of good and evil then I am forced to conclude (by my heart, not by Scripture) that they are innocent. Should they die with this innocence then all I said about infants that die in infancy may apply.

But, I don't think that that is completely accurate. I lean more towards the former than the latter, and very heavily towards the former because I know that there is Scriptural basis for it. Some children at the age of 5, 6, 7, or whatever will die condemned, I think.

My limited sense of justice is not God's. To me it may seem unjust, but if it is just (and I believe it more likely is than not) I have to understand that it is my sinful nature that understands justice different than what justice truly is. In my sinful nature I may see innocence where there is none. But, at the same time, in my limited, but guided understanding, I may be seeing innocence where there actually is innocence. I don't know.

In the end, I trust God's electing Grace and I understand that no-one, no-one, deserves the free gift of salvation (not even my beautiful little son). I know that I am used as a vessel to bring people to God in Christ and my first priority, above all others, is my family. I do have a sense of urgency to see my son saved. But, when I pray I pray that my son is saved and that it is done according to the will of God.

This will be my last reply unless you can take the time to actually address an argument that I make.

[RnMomof7]

Children do not "accept Christ" but I believe they will be accepted by Christ. .

How very Roman Catholic of you..of course you have scripture that there is an age of reason and that all infants are innocent as opposed to being born in sin ??

I believe the scripture is silent on this.. but lets see your proof that heaven will have 2 kinds of residences ..those saved by repentance and faith and those that got in based on age regardless of sin

[Diamond]

...offspring of 16th century Muslim theology.

Augustine was a proto-Muslim?

Who knew?

Cordially,

[RnMomof7]

Adam in his natural state, even if he had passed his probationary trial and was obedient, could never achieve glorification. The best he could aspire to was the unveiled image of God, but no share in God’s glory. That is reserved for God alone and those in Christ.

There is a whole world out there that thinks that we save ourselves , we sanctify ourselves and glorify ourselves. Poor Christ He did it all for nothing