HT: Nick
It’s interesting to hear what the “Westminster” types (as in WTS) have to say about the “New Calvinists.”
Athanasian Reformed
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
Okay, stupid question time. What *do* the WTS types say about the new Calvinists? Are you lumping these three guys in with the WTS crowd, in which case they are giving the answer to your question? Or are you lumping them in with the new Calvinists, in which case I don’t know what the WTS types are saying about these guys?
The WTS guys, like our friend, Scott Clark, do not believe these guys — the “New Calvinists” (Piper too) — are not truly ‘Reformed’ because they kind of represent a ‘Big Tent’ approach to their respective ‘Calvinisms’.
It just shows how sectarian WTS is, amazing.
a few brief observations…
1) In their description of themselves as a “big tent”,the “tent” seems to function basically as the eqivilent of the gospel.
2) Al Mohler made it quite clear that this is the case by basically saying that there is no place for truth seekers to go to other than to the “new calvinists”.
3) It was also made clear that anyone who thinks biblically and rationally will inevitably end up like them.
Does that about sum it up?
Yep, sounds good, Brian. I was hearing Jn 6, when Peter said to Jesus: (paraphrase) “Where else can we go, you alone have the words of eternal life.” π
Yes…that same verse came to my mind as well.
π Great minds . . .
I actually thought Mohler’s point (“where else will they go”) is largely correct, from a phenomenological perspective. I think it’s true that, on the ground level, a young evangelical will not be intellectually fed except in those churches that lean toward the New Calvinism or the more established confessional Reformed churches (e.g., the OPC). They may find intellectual depth in a mainline church, but the liberalism is the deal breaker. Likewise, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy will provide depth but at the cost of Reformation truths. So, where else will they go? Neo-orthodoxy has died with the mainline, where it was once a strong minority presence. Perhaps neo-orthodoxy or “evangelical Calvinism” will find a stronghold in the future of evangelicalism, but that’s not the current situation.
Kevin,
Culturally, I think you’re probably right, unfortunately. Ironically I was just having this same kind of conversation with some Christian bros. from work, today. In fact I basically told them the same thing (e.g. giving them a reason why folks might turn to “Calvinism” in general — because, in fact, there is more “depth” in many ways that is typical in any other sectre in the American church . . . which again, I think, needs to be corrected).
I think Brian made some good observations.
“2) Al Mohler made it quite clear that this is the case by basically saying that there is no place for truth seekers to go to other than to the ‘new calvinists’.”
I caught this, too. Although he didn’t say that it’s the only place one can ever go, he makes it clear that it’s the only show in town right now. I’m wondering how interested these guys are in keeping it this way.
“1) In their description of themselves as a ‘big tent’,the ‘tent’ seems to function basically as the eqivilent of the gospel.”
One foot outside the tent and, Houston, we’ve got a problem. I’ve really tired of the neo-Calvinists’ defining of the faith that includes all their pet secondary issues as essentials. In other words, Brian’s #3.
Yes, Steve, I think both you and Brian are astute. I went to Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (Chuck Smith) in the past (their Bible College for a year too). They have this same sense about their “movement,” they really believe that the Holy Spirit (the Lord) is doing something unique and special with them in these last times (almost like a neo-Reformation, w/o the “theology” per se π ). Nevertheless, my point is, is that this kind of thinking isn’t necessarily particular to the “New Calvinists;” it seems to be the kind of thinking that is in fact particular to American Evangelicalism — uniquely so (although, I’m sure stuff like this goes on throughout Christendom in the world).
Bobby,
On a related and similar topic, are you familiar with Harold Camping?
Yes, kind’ve, but not interested π .
I think that you are right Bobby, and its a real shame that this is the case. I guess we are all guilty of thinking that “we” have it figured out more than the other guy (or else we probably would not believe the way that we do).
Kevin makes some good points that are difficult to disagree with on one level, but at the same time, I’m not sure that the kind of intellectual food offered by the “new Calvinists” is healthy to eat.
The time that I have spent in FC circles has challenged my thinking, and in many ways, I am probably better off for having been involved with them. My time in other evangelical traditions was not nearly as challenging intelectually.
That said, this type of intellectualism seems to breed self righteousness (and I am the prime example of it) because it tends to elevate our own philosophy to equal status with the gospel, and then we use that philosophy as a test as to whether or not someone is truly intelectual, or mature, (or maybe even Christian!)or whatever one wishes to call it.
I am thankful for the challenge to think, but I regret that the things that I was directed to think about in these circles usually were a distraction from the gospel, rather than growth in it.
Scott, you are right on, and I think it is dangerous to allow secondary issues to become divisive, something that these guys (it seems) are unable to avoid.
Brian,
Thanks for sharing your testimony in this re. I tend to agree with you, much of what the “orthodox” focus on — or really the “way” they focus on it is not fruitful towards promoting a vibrant spirituality with the Lord of the universe. That is ultimately what concerns me about folks within that “system” of thought, and why I think EC offers a better way forward — because it simply starts with Jesus (its not a “polemic” theology, per se).
Hey Bobby!
I cain’t believe Deyoung used the term “cheap grace” as a pejorative. I have a scintilla of an idea what it cost Christ to be the Grace of God, but how much does His grace cost us?
Bobby, I was converted to Christianity through listening to Camping so many years ago. He had the whole “I’m right, you’re wrong” thing down pretty well. FYI.
Amazing how the Lord works through all of us broken vessels π . Thanks, Steve.
Duane,
That’s what Deyoung believes. Cheap grace is pejorative, you’re right . . . it’s like calling someone a semi-Pelagian (but in some cases that shoe fits, Deyoung needs to qualify his usage of “cheap grace” and not just throw it out — all though he’s pitching to his choir, eh).