I wrote about Mark Driscoll’s New Calvinism a couple of weeks ago. I’m still rather mystified. Many of the Old Calvinists are actually New ones. You can go to The Resurgence and find all the posts on the New Calvinists that he’s written about since then (which may be of interest to some of you), most of which are Old New Calvinists. So I’m wondering who the Old (but not Old New) Calvinists are.

Most of the stuff I wrote about is null and void now but as I said, there was no context to go on.

Somebody clue us in here.

I’m a relatively young New Calvinist and hope to eventually be an Old New Calvinist but not a plain Old Calvinist. Or just a respectable Reformed guy.

The blogs are starting to be lit up by Time Magazine’s listing of the ‘New Calvinism’ as the third biggest idea that is changing the world right now.

Mark Driscoll capitalized on this right away with a post on New Calvinism Versus Old Calvinism which really annoyed me. “Old” Calvinism is portrayed negatively and I think erroneously.

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Driscoll and don’t need to comment on them here (and why would anyone care). I’m only addressing his post/article here because his blog doesn’t have comments enabled.

The short version is: Did Driscoll’s Calvinist hero, Charles Spurgeon exhibit any of the negative qualities of an Old Calvinist? The answer is a definite no.

To address each point to the best of my ability realizing that I’m not the best historian or expert on Calvinism:

Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.

I don’t know about Calvin, but I know that Spurgeon smoked cigars, didn’t shy away from alcohol (although he was before the prohibition) and often preached in a theater to help people feel more comfortable in hearing his message. I suppose though this could be seen as syncretized. Is Mark Driscoll not syncretized with the culture? What’s the middle point between syncretized and separated?

The Puritans, who are almost always mis-characterized, contributed significantly to culture in a positive way.

I’m still not sure exactly what missional means other than being a hip and trendy term, but Calvin’s sermons were very evangelistic and he himself traveled to Brazil on a missionary journey against the advice of his friends. Spurgeon, George Whitefield and Jonathon Edwards heralded great revivals.

Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.

I don’t know what this means.

Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

From what I’ve read, Spurgeon had the gift of healing and there were charismatic elements to his ministry. I wouldn’t doubt that Calvinists in general are cessationists but this certainly isn’t across the board or anything dogmatic as far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong). John Piper is charismatic but he’s probably considered an old New Calvinist being mentioned in the Time Magazine article.

The Holy Spirit played a vital role in Calvinist theology but I would gather that he’s talking about a charismatic type of power here. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never thought of Calvinists as being “fearful” of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in a negative way. See The Holy Spirit and Good Works in Reformed Theology (not fully relevant but I thought I’d provide the link)

Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

Again with Spurgeon and others like Whitefield, they had dear friends who weren’t Calvinists. See Spurgeon: A Defense of Calvinism (and Arminians)

I would say that there are many new or hyper-Calvinists who exhibit more of the tendencies of the “Old Calvinists” so that’s why I’m annoyed and confused by this.

I may be taking this out of context, but there is no context to go on in his short article. I’m not going to make any assumptions as to why he wrote this because I don’t know what his motives are and I can’t read his mind. I tried but I think my WiFi is interfering with the signal.

Again, I’m not addressing Driscoll himself in general here or meaning to slam him, I just felt like writing my thoughts on this.

Update: Mark Driscoll posted More Thoughts on Time Magazine and New Calvinism.

More Updates:

• Driscoll’s Confusion on “Old Calvinism” at In Light of the Gospel
• Old Calvinism or Dispensationalism? at Reformation Theology
• Driscoll’s New Calvinism by Paul Grimmond at the Sola Panel

Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism by Joel R. Beeke with contributions from: Sinclair B. Ferguson, James Grier, Michael A. G. Haykin, Nelson Kloosterman, Ray Lanning, Robert Oliver, Ray Pennings, Derek W. H. Thomas

Joel Beeke says, “The target audience for this book is laypeople and ministers who are interested in learning the basics of Calvinism. I hope it also will serve as a stimulating summary and refresher course for those who are already avid Calvinists, much as Steven J. Lawson’s The Expository Genius of John Calvin from Reformation Trust excites those of us who are already familiar with much of its content. I have worked hard to keep this book simple, clear, and non-technical, in the hope that you might hand it to others to help them understand how you think as a Calvinist.”

I felt this was the case except the chapter on philosophy can be a more difficult read for those of us not well versed on the subject.

While John Calvin – A Heart for Devotion Doctrine & Doxology, also from Reformation Trust and reviewed here, is about John Calvin himself and a brief introduction to his theology, this book is less about Calvin himself and more about Calvinism from the beginnings of the Reformation through the time of the Puritans both in Europe and after they arrived in the U.S. It’s longer and more thorough than the previous mentioned book but is still introductory.

Included in this history are the Reformed canons, confessions and catechisms. There is a lengthy treatment of these documents which may be of interest to some who are unfamiliar with their content and origins.

Other notable figures from Martin Luther (including an explanation of the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism) to Jonathan Edwards are mentioned in the book.

Although the acronym TULIP wasn’t developed until the 1900′s, the Canons of Dort contain a response to the Remonstrance of 1610, a response to Calvinism by forty-three of Arminius’ followers. “The canons were structured to correspond with the five articles of the 1610 Remonstrance” which correspond to the contents of TULIP but in a different order. This is covered quite a bit in the book. Therefore, this book isn’t an objective look at Calvinism as compared to other areas of theology and Arminianism is talked about negatively and even called “heretical” (or at least referring to what Arminius’ followers had to say) which is going too far. Just when I thought there may have been too much time spent refuting Arminian theology, the book moved on from there.

The book doesn’t dwell too much on TULIP though, as Calvinism is much more than that:

“It is important to note that the five points do not summarize all of Calvinism; that would be a truncated view of the Reformed faith. One of the aims of this book is to show the panoramic grandeur of the Reformed faith’s worldview.”

The book also covers the popular 5 Solas–Scripture alone (sola Scriptura), grace alone (sola gratia), faith alone (sola fide), Christ alone (solus Christus), and the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria).

A couple of ancillary benefits to this book are the extensive citations and bibliographies at the end of each chapter and an introduction to the history and theology of the Puritans who carried on the Reformed tradition.

Other than listing some of the current denominations that are Reformed, I would like to have seen the history go even farther–past the Puritan era–but that may have been beyond the size and scope of the book.

This book is very readable, enjoyable and educational. I highly recommend it.

Hardcover: 414 pages
Publisher: Reformation Trust Publishing
Publication Date: September 12, 2008
ISBN-10: 1567691056
ISBN-13: 978-1567691054

Buy it from:

• Reformation Trust
• Amazon.com

In a sermon by C. H. Spurgeon popularly titled A Defense of Calvinism, Spurgeon also speaks highly of his Arminian friends. There are some quotable quotes in this message that those who are Reformed (of which I am one) often rightly use, but I thought I would point out another quote that may get overlooked:

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’ I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.

Of which I agree. It pains me when people say otherwise.

I hope this isn’t taken the wrong way. It’s a note of love towards my Arminian friends. If it sounds condescending in any way, which I imagine to some it could, that’s not how the posting of this quote was intended or understood by me.

I have mentioned in the past and have been noticing to a great degree lately that Calvinists and Arminians almost always misrepresent each other in the blogosphere. As Gordon Fee says,

Before you can say, ‘I disagree,’ you must be able to say, ‘I understand.’

As far as I can tell, 98% of people in each group misrepresent the position(s) of the other. And on top of that, the majority of Calvinists don’t really know what classical Calvinism is and haven’t read much of Calvin himself. I would guess the same might go for some who would call themselves Arminians. In addition, Arminianism is very different from Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism.

I also don’t believe it’s the job of the Calvinist to convert other Christians to Calvinism. We are to proclaim Christ and the basic sound doctrine clearly laid out in Scripture. There is a place for debate and some are gifted in presenting the case of Calvinism or Arminianism to a contemporary audience for the education of the listener or reader.

I think it’s important for us Calvinists to learn not only what Calvinism really is but also to understand what Arminianism is to dispel any misconceptions we may have and understand their position may not be as different from ours as we may have thought.

I came across this paper and thought I would pass it on:
A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION OF SEMI-PELAGIANISM WITH THE TEACHINGS OF JAMES ARMINIUS: PRESENTED TO DR. RUSSELL WOODBRIDGE ~ CHR. THEO. I.

This deals with the difference between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism but also speaks pretty fairly of Calvinism. It’s interesting to read about how some Calvinists like John MacArthur may misrepresent Arminianism (which I’ve heard myself) but R.C. Sproul seems to have a better grasp of what it really is.

Also of interest is how Arminius admired Calvin’s writings:

Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin’s Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself [a Dutch divine, 1551-1608]; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison . . . in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy . . . His Institutes ought to be studied after the [Heidelberg] Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination . . . , like the writings of all men.

I’ve started to read more of Calvin and will have a book review coming up within a week.

Here are some posts related to a passage that doesn’t usually come up in comparisons.
Luke slips in predestination… – He Is Sufficient
Acts 13:48 – “Appointed” or “Disposed?” – I follow Christ
Acts 13:48: Arminian? Calvinistic? – Connecting
Acts 13:48 An Exegetical Study – Love Acceptance Forgiveness

For books related to this subject:
Arminianism and Calvinism Books: A Starter List

Arminianism:
Arminian Perspectives
Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian – Roger E. Olson

Psalm 139:16 TNIV
your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Acts 13:48 HCSB
When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Romans 8:29 HCSB
For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

Romans 9:14-16 HCSB
What should we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! For He tells Moses: I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it does not depend on human will or effort, but on God who shows mercy.
and also:
Romans 10:9-10 HCSB
if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation.

Ephesians 1:11 HCSB
In Him we were also made His inheritance, predestined according to the purpose of the One who works out everything in agreement with the decision of His will,

2 Timothy 1:9 HCSB
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.

How these two sides of God’s truth—His sovereignty in choosing us (Rom. 9) and our responsibility to confess and believe (Rom. 10)—reconcile is impossible for us to understand fully. But Scripture declares both perspectives of salvation to be true (John 1:12-13). It’s our duty to acknowledge both and joyfully accept them by faith.

–John MacArthur

1 Timothy 2:4 HCSB
who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 HCSB
The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

Ezekiel 33:11 HCSB
Tell them: As I live”-the declaration of the Lord God-”I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked person should turn from his way and live. Repent, repent of your evil ways! Why will you die, house of Israel?