Comments on: The New Calvinism: TIME Magazine

By: Hone

Hone — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:25:36 +0000

I read the article in the online Time magazine. I am not sure where your previous commenter gained his information but there was no hint of pop-Calvinism in the article. I feel it likely that, had it been possible to point the finger at hypocrisies in the movement, the article would have done so. It was as antagonistic as a (supposedly) objective piece could be. Working for a newspaper taught me to recognize the editorial policy in this.
Nevertheless, from what I have heard of John Piper’s Church and the other Reformed Churches I have had contact with around the country, the idea that one can believe in the doctrines of Calvin and keep an unchanged = sinful – life is rejected by all. In reality, some of those leading the movement back to Calvinism are Churches which have quietly been preaching these doctrines since the Great Awakening (under that Methodist mentioned in the Time article, George Whitefield). They would certainly deny that any form of Calvinism which ignored obedience to the Law of God was worthy of the name.
But, your question was “How can Calvinism be discussed without a mention of the cross?” I would submit: by focusing on those doctrines and attitudes which are most offensive to fallen, sinful, man. The sovereignty of God is central to the Time discussion because, to the Calvinist, God is the one who planned our atonement via the cross and without that element there would be no atonement. The cross is our redemption because the Father determined to give his son as a ransom for sin. The son died in order to suffer the penalty due for our sins, by agreement with the Judge of all the earth, who gave proof that the sacrifice was acceptable by raising him from the dead. And the Holy Spirit applies that atonement to the life of the individual sinner, making us born again and so we embrace the saving work of Christ on the Cross. Leave the sovereignty of God out of this discussion and you have a salvation which is dependent on our corrupted, rebellious nature deciding to open a door we are unable to.
But, I’m sure you already knew this – what a pity the writer of the article didn’t. But then, if he had, he’d already be a Christian – and, maybe by defining his view of God biblically he would already be drawn to Calvinism
Just an aside – because you did touch on an important issue – don’t you think it’s an important thing that Jesus focused on the Kingdom of God in his preaching, the Apostles preached the Kingdom of God and yet we focus on individual salvation? What is Jesus doing now? According to the Bible: reigning until everything is put under his feet. Doesn’t it seem to you that individual salvation is important (true) but as a means to an end?
Though it may not have appeared clearly that it was true – I *did* enjoy your blog.

By: b williams

b williams — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:00:24 +0000

Let’s call it what it is, Neo-Calvinism is about as truly Calvinistic as the self-labeled neoconservatives are to the Constitution–NOT! If J. Edwards, John Gill, or even the comparatively ecumenical and jovial Spurgeon were to walk into the modern neo-Reformed churches, pray tell, what would they think? Irreverent is the word that comes to mind, mere intellectually driven “doctrinal conversions” (“I used to be an Arminian”), doctrine without the “manners”, a “form of (orthodox) godliness, while denying the power (of holiness in living) thereof” (2 Tim. 3). Of this Timothy was warned of the apostasy of “latter times”, “from such turn away”–a frightening parallel to those who are “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God” while claiming to be Reformed. “Examine yourselves to see if ye be in the (true) faith”, remembering that “without holiness, no man (no professor of Christianity) shall see the Lord”.

The mark of neo-Calvinism (pop Calvinism) is that it appears to impact the life (except in external propagation of doctrines, or some modes of worship) very little, and certainly does appear to convert many away from worldly conformity, pop culture itself (which it makes great use of, while condemning mega churches, justly, that do the same–e.g. Pyromaniac), and what reformers called “worldly pleasures and entertainments”. Indeed, raise such objections and you will be branded “hyper critical” or “censorious”, because the neo-Calvinist pastors make much of “Christian liberty” in order to prevent the (false) charges of “legalism” (as if the law of God is not “broad”, and apply equally to Christian professors, for “sin is lawlessness”). This suits the membership roll and “offering” (a Judaistic term) plate, which these shepherds (of which some are no doubt ‘hirelings’) are much dependent upon. “Lifestyle” is the great untouchable Idol of Self that will not “kiss the Son”.

So after all is said and done with New Calvinism, it appears that Jude’s warning that “turning the GRACE of god into LICENTIOUSNESS” is not a charge easily dismissed from modern reformed churches, where Orthodox Doctrine is married to Worldly Conformity while wearing Calvin’s (or Spurgeon’s) white clothes! Such has “crept in unawares”, for who would suspect an Orthodox Anti-Christ? Yet the “man of sin” is called the “man of lawlessness”, and so Orthodoxy with sinful, worldly lifestyle (“manners” is the scriptural term Paul used to Timothy) is a mere pretense of “godliness” and “true Christianity”, while being evidence of unregeneracy and mere nominal profession.

While Time publishes of course a hit-piece on the Doctrine (which they would dare not raise against any Jewish synagogue and their New Judaism), there is just cause to be critical and skeptical of a mere Pop Calvinism of the neo-reformed churches by a multitude of sheep that are “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine”. Alas, where will they land in the end? “God is known by his judgments” and the “Emergent Church” is a plague against nominal Christianity, both Arminian and “Calvinistic”. “The people have no (true) shepherds”, cried Jeremiah, “they are scattered”.

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend”, if they be taken for as they are intended.

By: davide

davide — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:36:22 +0000

Y’know, I was actually surprised to see how accurate this unregenerate man describes Calvinism. Sure, he misses the gospel and neglects to show the whole picture, but I think he was pretty accurate in his description considering he lacks any spiritual discernment. How else could we expect an unregenerate man to receive/understand the sovereignty of God? –Anyway, I definitely see your point, Nathan.

By: James

James — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:23:20 +0000

“Again, the tone here communicates a �selfish� God who doesn�t care about human illnesses and troubles, as He is apparently infatuated only with �glorifying� Himself.”

In my understanding of Calvinism, God is not necessarily “moved” by human suffering in the sense of regretting human sorrow and wishing/willing it were otherwise, whether it be the suffering of the elect or the reprobate. All that is, for good or ill, is arranged and planned for His own glory. There does not exist some better alternate reality of the material universe outside of the one we’re currently living in.

As Calvin himself stated: “It is an awful decree, I confess…God not only foresaw the Fall of the first man and the ruin of posterity in him, but arranged all by the determination of his own will”

That is “selfish” only by human standards. God is self-directed in all things, and could God be MORE glorified by condemning to eternal suffering all of humanity, He would do so.

At least this is my understanding of this. I think some will object because over-simplifying as the Time author does will tend to shed a negative light on anything and make it appear absurd. Juxtaposing more base material worldly matters with these heavy concepts will also necessarily create a feeling of absurdity. I think that was the intent.