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.

[raynearhood]

I think we need to assume that no matter how stupid or irrational a poster is that when they profess their theology on this forum that they are doing it in good faith. Also when someone misinterprets our position or misstates what they believe that we believe, that the person making that misrepresentation is doing so out of ignorance and not out of malice.

Agreed. This is probably a good and most gracious practice....

from a Calvinistic standpoint I would think that a person's soteriological, eccesiastical, or eschatological position on theology would be entirely irrelevant, as their position on the subject (from a strictly Calvinistic viewpoint) is the result of either the application or the withholding of God's grace. In other words, I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do. One would think a Calvinist would simply state their opinion and let God decide whether or not to change the heart and mind of the person to whom the doctrine was presented.

...a good and gracious practice quickly applied.

[raynearhood]

Sorry, didn’t fill out the “to:”

Ping to 401

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I find it quite inconsistent that a Calvinist would ARGUE and try to convince a Non-Calvinist to think differently than they do.

Why? Scripture tells us to contend for the faith. To give a good accounting for the reason for our confidence in Him. To try the spirits. We're all supposed to be lawyers when it comes to sound doctrine. We are to weigh the evidence, according to the word of God.

Most Calvinists on this forum started out as Arminians until God smacked them over the head by the good and Godly evidence in Scripture as given by His saints who preached the word in season and out.

Sound doctrine may be "divisive," but that's not always a bad thing. "“What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?"

when someone misinterprets our position or misstates what they believe that we believe, that the person making that misrepresentation is doing so out of ignorance and not out of malice.

Obviously you've never been on the receiving end of cat pictures.

I do believe that people's minds can be changed through rational argument, but then I am not a Calvinist

1) Calvinists believe in rational arguments.

2) It's finally Thursday. Is it safe to say you're a four or five-point Calvinist, but not on Wednesdays or Thursdays?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think you're appraoching infant salvation from the wrong perspective but ending up at the right conclusion.

True, but knowing God as I do, I believe it is inconsistent with His character to hold the 2 year old to the same standard as the 92 year old.

And if I were Roman Catholic, I'd agree with you because then I would believe that my works, including my work of faith, is what saved me.

But that's not what Scripture says. Grace saves us.

And that same grace that saved a worthless sinner like you and me is the exact same grace that can and probably does save infants who die so young.

Faith does not save. Grace saves. That's the distinction between Arminians and Calvinists. It's not what we do, but what Christ has done, that saves anyone, infants included, according to the will and purpose of God.

In fact, I think God takes everything into consideration.

And that's why you are not a Calvinist. For God to "take something in men into consideration" means there is something unknown to God, unplanned by God, unordained by God; something men do that is independent of the will of God. And that is impossible.

That perspective also gives men the same old Arminian credit for their salvation -- God sees something good in men that He first didn't put there Himself for His own reasons, and thus that man "deserves" salvation.

That's not how some of us have learned Christ. "All things" consist by Him, for Him, through Him. "All things."

[blue-duncan]

“It’s finally Thursday”

A man left work one Friday afternoon. Being payday, instead of going home, he stayed out the entire weekend hunting with the boys and spent his entire paycheck.
When he finally appeared at home, Sunday night, he was confronted by a very angry wife and was barraged for nearly two hours with a tirade befitting his actions.
Finally, his wife stopped the nagging and simply said to him, “How would you like it if you didn’t see me for two or three days?”
To which he replied, “That would be fine with me.”
Monday went by and he didn’t see his wife.
Tuesday and Wednesday came and went with the same results.
Thursday, the swelling went down just enough where he could see her a little out of the corner of his left eye.

[RnMomof7]

LOL..... good to see ya brother.. !!

[RnMomof7]

It's an interesting question about the good works of a non-believer. Yes, those actions are probably by the Holy Spirit, too, since everything good and righteous comes from God, and this entire universe is sustained by the Holy Spirit. But since anything not of faith is sin, those good works done by non-believers will not save them. They simply exist because it is a fact the rain falls on the just and the unjust.

Interesting thought..

I think the question as to the causation of the good deeds should be looked at in light of Gods sovereignty over all things, even the unsaved.. If they are being done because the person needs the attention or accolades of others, or they like to be known as "good people" , or they are some doing them because they believe God keeps a record of them and counts them toward your salvation or because they need to be needed to have purpose..then it is most definably not the Holy Spirit.. They are being preformed for their purpose and their good and not to the glory of God.

That is why God says they are filthy rags, and sin..that is why God says "I never knew you", because they flow not out of the indwelling Holy Spirit, but from mans sinful nature.. PRIDE .

God uses the saved and the unsaved to accomplish His good purpose just as He does Satan.

[The Citizen Soldier]

The major problem with calvinism is that when you take its premise that God is responsible for everything, then God is ultimately the source of all evil. In fact, terms like “sin”, “disobedience”, or “obedience” become meaningless since all human activity or actions is merely God’s robotic creation “acting” according to His divine blueprint. Courage, cowardice, even love are meaningless since human being are simply acting out the “plan” designed for them.

Very good points. If you want to hear this taken to the point of ridiculousness, just tune in any day to Harold Camping on Family Radio.

[blue-duncan]

“True, but knowing God as I do, I believe it is inconsistent with His character to hold the 2 year old to the same standard as the 92 year old”

Doesn’t this have more to do with the degree of punishment of the unbeliever rather than the judgment handed down on all men due to being in Adam?

[P-Marlowe]

And if I were Roman Catholic, I'd agree with you because then I would believe that my works, including my work of faith, is what saved me.

That may be true, but an infant is no more capable of good works than he is of volitional sin. So if you believe that good works save you, then all infants would be in the same position as the person to whom no good works are ascribed.

But that's not what Scripture says. Grace saves us.

Not everything we are called upon to believe is necessarily clearly marked out in scripture. Some things are revealed directly into our hearts and implied either in specific scriptures or in the scripture taken as a whole. My understanding of God convinces me that infants are subject to grace and not wrath. I might be wrong, but I'm not sure that in the grand scheme of things, what I think is all that important to anyone other than me.

For God to "take something in men into consideration" means there is something unknown to God, unplanned by God, unordained by God; something men do that is independent of the will of God. And that is impossible.

I'm sure you can point to some esoteric interpretation of scripture which will prove your point, but then I have seen both sides of the argument and frankly, both sides have good arguments. God does not explain what he means by "foreknowledge" in predestination. It is clear by the scripture that his foreknowledge is an element in the process. I cannot rule out anything and therefore I have to assume that it is covered under "everything".

That perspective also gives men the same old Arminian credit for their salvation -- God sees something good in men that He first didn't put there Himself for His own reasons, and thus that man "deserves" salvation.

That's why I am not an Arminian. I suppose you might call me a soterological agnostic. I don't think I was meant to understand the process and I don't think that God has made that process known to men. He has given us clues to his method and one of the clues is "foreknowledge". He has not explained what he means by that term. So at this point I'm not ruling out anything. That is why I find fault with the WCF. I don't think the authors of that confession had enough information to come to the dogmatic conclusions about what that term means that they did. It is implied in the understanding of TULIP, but then TULIP is something that I think nobody fully understands, even if it is true.

[P-Marlowe]

Doesn’t this have more to do with the degree of punishment of the unbeliever rather than the judgment handed down on all men due to being in Adam?

I'm not sure the term "unbeliever" can be applied to an infant. Sinner by nature, perhaps, but unbeliever? Unbelief is a conclusionary state. One has to be presented with the object of belief before one becomes an "unbeliever".

[RnMomof7]

Yes, but what it DOES NOT say is that the person doing this necessarily has any knowledge of Christ

The sheep are the saved, the goats the unsaved standing for eternal judgement

Yes He does say that Wag..

:John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me
,John !0 25 Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. 29 That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. 30 I and the Father are one.

[wagglebee]

What of a person who does good deeds just to do them and had NO KNOWLEDGE that Christianity even existed? I realize that this is not very possible now, but could have been the case centuries ago.

[RnMomof7]

Roman2: 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

God showed Himself and saved men prior to Christ, God declared Noah righteous by His grace.. , God revealed Himself to Abraham and His off spring

If God had so ordained a man to be saved, He would make that man aware of Himself and His coming mercy . The OT saints were saved looking forward to the cross (Gods mercy) but they never knew Christ or Christianity.

[blue-duncan]

“I’m not sure the term “unbeliever” can be applied to an infant”

Doesn’t this concern the nature of God and the omniscience of God? His plan encompassed the sin of Adam and its imputation on all mankind. Either the unborn and infants are persons, therefore in Adam, or non-persons until the age of accountability and therefore not in Adam and not born under sin.

If Adam’s sin is not imputed to them at conception, then Job’s complaint that he should not have been born or it would be better if he died before birth is a legitimate complaint for all who never believed. Why go through vicissitudes of life when by death before birth or age of accountability one can be assured of escaping judgment or Obama?

[wagglebee]

What about the Indians in America prior to 1492? They had no knowledge of Judeo-Christian teaching (unless you believe the Mormons), but presumably there were some altruists who did good deeds just to do them.

[P-Marlowe]

If Adam’s sin is not imputed to them at conception, then Job’s complaint that he should not have been born or it would be better if he died before birth is a legitimate complaint for all who never believed.

Who is to say that it is not a legitimate complaint?

Secondly, even if Adam's sin is imputed to them at conception, would it not be consistent with the nature of God to impute to infants the righteousness of Christ at death, especially a premature death before such an infant could be tagged with the title of "unbeliever"?

Why go through vicissitudes of life when by death before birth or age of accountability one can be assured of escaping judgment or Obama?

I suspect, unless you are a Mormon, that none of us is capable of making the claim that we asked to be brought into this world, and both our life and our eternal destiny is determined by the grace of God. While there is no specific biblical basis for an "age of accountability" I think it is fairly clear from Romans chapter 1 that God does reveal himself to all men so that they are without excuse, I do not think the same can be said for infants who have no capacity for making any the doctor conclusions regarding the existence of God for their requirement to acknowledge that existence, turn, repent, and follow Christ. Following the logic in Romans chapter 1 all "men" are without excuse, but I do not think the same can be said for infants.

[blue-duncan]

“Following the logic in Romans chapter 1 all “men” are without excuse, but I do not think the same can be said for infants”

Do infants have a sin nature?

[P-Marlowe]

Do infants have a sin nature?

Do they have a conscious awareness of God as defined in Romans Chapter 1?

Why would Paul say that "men" are "without excuse" once they have witnessed the Glory of God's creation if, in fact, the failure to witness that Glory in creation is not, in fact, an "excuse"? Was Paul just mumbling words, or do those words have meaning?

[RnMomof7]

If men could be saved without God revealing Himself to them then there would be no purpose in the great commission would there?

Scripture tells us that no man comes to the Father BUT by Him...He does not give alternative or “excepts”

We know that the OT Jews had encounters with God and Christ that were saving. God has revealed that to us. People were saved by grace and mercy before the cross,as God so ordained to reveal Himself

Your question flows from the belief that somehow it would not be “fair” or that in some way God has an obligation to save anyone.
The truth is all men deserve hell, that He saves any is a miracle .

Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.