How many Calvinism?

[ardmore]

Can somebody give me a list of Calvinism?
I know a few of them.

• Historic Calvinism.
• Neo-Calvinism.
• Hyper-Calvinism.
• New-Calvinism.

And so on...

 

[hedrick]

You're not going to get much variation here. The participants here are mostly what you'd call historic Calvinism, except one or two Reformed Baptists and me (the mainline version of Calvinist).

 

[JM]

Can somebody give me a list of Calvinism?
I know a few of them.

• Historic Calvinism.
• Neo-Calvinism.
• Hyper-Calvinism.
• New-Calvinism.

And so on...

Hypocalvinism
Amyraldisn


Mainline Calvinism is liberalism dressed in Calvinist language.

 

[ardmore]

What?Wait a minute...

Mainline Calvinism is liberalism dressed in Calvinist language.

Can you please explain it?

 

[hedrick]

What?Wait a minute...

Can you please explain it?

I think he's referring to my position. I'm a member of the PCUSA. We are part of the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, but we share most of the usual characteristics of mainline Christianity. That includes not accepting inerrancy, and a certain skepticism about whether traditional theology always captures the intent of Scripture. If you're interested in this part of the Calvinist heritage, the best statement of our theology that I've seen is this: http://www.creeds.net/reformed/PCUSA1985/1985-int.htm

Most participants in this group are traditionalists. To them, mainline theology is liberal, and liberal is a swear word. However that doesn't mean that they speak for the Reformed tradition as a whole.

In the US, the largest churches from the Reformed tradition are mainline. Are they Calvinist? If you define Calvinism by the 5 points, probably not. But Calvin was about more than the 5 points. I'd argue that we are a legitimate part of the theological tradition started by Calvin, and embody the spirit of his work, if not always its letter. He made some pretty radical changes in theology. There's no reason to think that he would have wanted people to adopt his views (or more realistically, the views of the next generation) as a new infallible Holy Tradition. If you want to look at the whole spectrum of Calvinism, you get a misleading picture if you just look at the conservative parts.

Indeed to get the whole picture you probably have to go further out than the mainline. In the US at least, universalism developed out of the Reformed churches, and probably should be looked at as the most radical wing of the Reformed tradition.

 

[JM]

What?Wait a minute...

Can you please explain it?

Liberalism is not Christianity. It seeks to redefine the faith according to culture, undermine biblical authority for human authority and is therefore Reformed in appearance only. Mainline denominations were taken over by Liberalism during the 1900's.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[ardmore]

So what is the main difference between "Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism"? Please use your own plain language rather than just give me a link.

Thanks.

 

[JM]

Historic would use creeds and confessions, relying on them in a strict sense. Neo-Calvinism seeks to blend into culture and this often means ignoring creeds and confessions or using them sparingly.

Historic Calvinist Groups

Orthodox Presbyterian Church
The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America

Neo-Calvinist

Home - Redeemer Fellowship · St. Charles, Illinois
Acts 29 Network: Homepage

Other groups would include Sovereign Grace Baptists who do not use Reformed creeds or confessions, Primitive Baptists, John MacArthur-ite or like groups.

 

[ardmore]

How about PCA? Presbyterian Church in America.

 

[JM]

How about PCA? Presbyterian Church in America.

PCA is largely conservative but I've heard liberal rumblings of late. I think the difference would be found in the idea of Confessional Subscription: Strict vs Substantial » It Is Written

 

[bfdd6988]

My church and I are probably more "Johnny Mac" Calvinists than "RC Sproul" Calvinists. However, unlike even JMac, we rarely use Calvin's name because we tend towards expositional teaching rather than topical (which is when Calvin themes are likely to take place). Therefore, an apt description would be that we're Calvinistic.

 

[twin1954]

My church and I are probably more "Johnny Mac" Calvinists than "RC Sproul" Calvinists. However, unlike even JMac, we rarely use Calvin's name because we tend towards expositional teaching rather than topical (which is when Calvin themes are likely to take place). Therefore, an apt description would be that we're Calvinistic.

I am not sure what your question is. I am a Calvinistic Baptist. Baptists aren't technically Calvinists because we do not hold to infant baptism or Presbyterian church government. I, like most Reformed Baptists, are covanental in our theology but differ from Presbyterians in how we view the covenant. There are many Dispensational Baptists who hold to the five points as a soteriology but that doesn't make them Calvinistic. You simply can't be Calvinistic by just holding a proper soteriology you must also hold to a covanental theology. Johnny Mac is no Calvinist he is a Dispensationalist who happens to believe a true soteriology.

Expository preaching and teaching is the norm among Reformed and Calvinistic Churches.

 

[JM]

Excellent point brother. We must view scriptural covenantally...Calvinism is covenantal.

 

[JM]

A gem from Spurgeon: Covenant theology glorifies God alone. There are other theologies abroad which magnify men; they give him a finger in his own salvation, and so leave him a reason for throwing up his cap and saying, “Well done I;” but covenant theology puts man aside, and makes him a debtor and a receiver. It does, as it were, plunge him into the sea of infinite grace and unmerited favour, and it makes him give up all boasting, stopping the mouth that could have boasted by filling it with floods of love, so that it cannot utter a vainglorious word. A man saved by the covenant must give all the glory to God’s holy name, for to God all the glory belongs. In salvation wrought by the covenant the Lord has exclusive glory.

 

[bfdd6988]

@twin1954, I never considered the covenantal aspect of it. If Covenant embraces a replacement theology (Church has replaced national/ethnic Israel), then we indeed wouldn't be of that persuasion. Since TULIP is typically called Calvinism, I use Calvinistic in that sense, but I do see your point.

 

[hedrick]

First, Reformed theology is not TULIP. Reformed theology is a whole theological system, one of the few such systems that exists among Protestants.

For a summary of the issues between Judaism and Christianity, see the following piece by a PCA scholar: To The Jew First - A Reformed Perspective. One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology, at least as much as TULIP, is the concept that post-Adam, there is a single covenant, and a single way of salvation, through Christ. Paul is really quite clear on this in Romans. There is a single people of God, a single Israel, into which Gentile Christians have been grafted.

You are correct that infant baptism is an implication of the Reformed way of understanding the covenant. As such it's not a minor side issue, but part of the core of Reformed theology, particularly conservative Reformed theology as the concept of the covenant developed in the 17th Cent. But for other reasons it's part of the core of mainline Reformed theology as well. The paper above talks about that as well.

 

[twin1954]

@twin1954, I never considered the covenantal aspect of it. If Covenant embraces a replacement theology (Church has replaced national/ethnic Israel), then we indeed wouldn't be of that persuasion. Since TULIP is typically called Calvinism, I use Calvinistic in that sense, but I do see your point.

Covenant theology doesn't embrace replacement theology. That is a lie perpetrated by Dispensationalists. We simply do not recognize that Israel and the church are separate.

 

[JM]

Covenant theology doesn't embrace replacement theology. That is a lie perpetrated by Dispensationalists. We simply do not recognize that Israel and the church are separate.

I tweeted that.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Most participants in this group are traditionalists. To them, mainline theology is liberal, and liberal is a swear word.

That made me laugh, but it is true.

Seriously though, Hendrick, I've read a few of your posts, and you seem a very conservative liberal, rather than a flaming liberal. And, you seem very reasonable, which can only mean that you are not really a Liberal. . .

 

[Don Maurer]

Covenant theology doesn't embrace replacement theology. That is a lie perpetrated by Dispensationalists. We simply do not recognize that Israel and the church are separate.

I do not wish to ratchet up the emotional issues. Twin, what you said could have been said less emotionally. You could have said "That is a straw man because covenant theologians do not believe in the Church replacing Israel."

I for one, would like to see more dialogue between us and the dispensationalists. While dispensationalism is difficult to understand because it has fragmented and teaches a spectrum of things, one of the things that is notable is that the latest form of dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalism) actually begins to deal with the covenants. The progressives admit that they have moved into a middle ground between the older dispensationalism and covenant theology. I am not satisfied with their position, but I am not always totally happy with everything every covenant theologian says.