The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 16; Three Reasons New Calvinism Is Here to Stay, and What We Should do About it
There is much discussion, even among New Calvinists themselves as to whether or not the New Calvinist movement has staying power. The best article I have read yet on that question is here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/11/confessions-of-a-theological-swinger/.
Yes, no doubt, the “swingers” mentality is very prevalent in the movement, but that is far from being what drives it. The movement is here to stay for the following reasons:
Because the Scriptures teach that the last age will be framed by type “A” doctrines (Antinomian).
And New Calvinism is type A. “Legalism” is not a biblical word, but “anomia” is. Consider:
Regarding Love in the Last Days:
“….and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of anomia, the love of most will grow cold” (Matthew 24:11,12).
“Their hearts are callous and unfeeling, but I delight in your law” (Psalm 119:70).
The Latter-Day Judgment :
“The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do anomia” (Mathew 13:41).
“And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of anomia‘” (Matthew 7:23).
Fellowship:
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with anomia?” (2Corinthians 6:14).
Already at work in the first century:
“For the mystery of anomia is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way” (2 Thessalonians 2:7).
The Antichrist:
Called “the man of anomia” once and the “anomia one” twice in 2Thesalonians, chapter two.
The purpose of redemption:
“….who gave himself for us to redeem us from all anomia and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14).
Those who continually propagate New Calvinism state that “legalism” is the big problem in today’s church. And the high priestess of New Calvinism, Elyse Fitzpatrick, even claims there is no such thing as antinomianism and was praised for saying so by the who’s who of New Calvinism.
Flesh Appeal
The apostle Paul made it clear that the last age (marked by the first coming of Christ and ending with His return) would be marked by the masses heaping to themselves teachers that tell them what they want to hear. What is more appealing than Jesus does it for us and all that matters is where people stand on the gospel? Don’t worry, be happy. “You say they believe in snake handling? That doesn’t matter, where do they stand on the GOSPEL?” Can’t we just all get along? Yes, Absolutely!
Lack of Opposition
Believers are marked by a love for the truth (2Thess. 2:10). I am alarmed by the lack of zeal I see among today’s leaders (and parishioners following) in regard to truth. It seems the only exception is when teachers like Joel Osteen start squeezing the market share. Subtle antinomian doctrines like New Calvinism are far more dangerous than what Osteen teaches. He would scoff at the idea that Jesus obeys for us, and that the Bible is primarily a gospel narrative, and not for instruction.
A reader sent me an email and stated that he initially thought New Calvinism was a fad that would pass; and therefore, not worth fighting about. He wrote to say that he was wrong about that. In fact, folks have been saying that since the doctrine was New Covenant Theology (blatantly antinomian), then Sonship theology, then Gospel Sanctification, and now New Calvinism.
Nevertheless, we are commanded to demolish “every thought” that raises itself up against the knowledge of God. Christians are in the truth business, that’s what matters. Unity and peace are important, but that duo comes via truth; truth is what truly unifies. The apostle Paul commanded us to be unified in the truth, not compromise. Truth and peace come with a price—you can pay it now, or you can pay it later.
paul
Ps: still working on the Southwood video, “An Introduction to New Calvinism.” Never made one before, hoping it turns out ok.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Lydia,
I addressed your comments earlier, but it seems my post has been lost somewhere. I did not say Baptists have always been Calvinists. That is clearly contrary to history. In fact, most Baptist were not even called Baptists until their enemies labeled them “Anabaptists” in derision. Since I haven’t heard Mohler’s claim, I can’t say for sure what he meant, but the whole idea behind the Founder’s Ministry is that the founders of the SBC were Calvinists. Your statement was, “Mohler is claiming the SBC was originally Calvinist.” That statement is true in the sense that I wrote above.
Since John Smythe made that statement in 1609, I don’t think he would have been considered a Southern Baptist, do you?
There is little question many of those who would now be called “Baptists” were not Calvinists. In fact, they weren’t even called Baptists until their enemies called them “Anabaptists” in derision.
I made the “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” statement in regard to your statement, “Why all the rules if their doctrine was correct?” The implication seemed to be that since they had all the rules, their doctrine in the area of soteriology couldn’t have been correct. There is no question, their practice was inconsistent with their confessed belief in that area of doctrine. That is why some of us are Baptist who believe in the same doctrines of grace they believed in. We believe faith cannot be produced or constrained by external coercion.
I believe you are right that Augustine was influenced by pagan philosophy. He was wrong about many things. Still, we must not reject the truth he believed because of his errors in other areas. The same is true of Calvin. Truth is truth, even on the lips of a fraud. I don’t believe anything I believe because Augustine or Calvin taught it. I believe it only because I find it written in the Scriptures.
LikeLike
Lydia, no problem. I have three first names so I usually answer to any 🙂 I am a SB pastor. Grad of ky Baptist school (and no not Southern). You are right that the cool thing is to jump on bandwagons and not to think about what we’re reading or believe. I often shake my head at young believers of all stripes who refuse to be challenged or think for themselves.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I read the articles you suggested and found them interesting for a couple of reasons. I believe he is right that if Mohler believed the rank and file in the conservative SBC movement wanted him to take Southern in a Calvinistic direction, he was badly mistaken. Most of them wouldn’t have recognized Calvinism if it hit them in the nose. I suspect most Southern Baptist Pastors couldn’t adequately define Calvinism if their lives depended on it. I would wager even those who claim to deny “limited atonement” have never read the Canons of Dort in which that doctrine was stated and do not have a clue what they are denying.
Secondly, I found this statement interesting:
The truth is, our issue was inerrancy. That’s it. One issue. One! We proudly flew that flag wherever we could. We were interested in inerrancy not election, predestination, effectual call, or being born again before faith. We wanted a seminary where the Word of God was not questioned but rather assumed. Calvinism was not on the table; the authority and truthfulness of Scripture was.
It reminded me of the statement that was made shortly after the conservatives won the day due to the capitulation and departure of their opponents. It was this, “Now the Southern Baptist have an inerrant Bible they do not understand.” What difference does it make if you have a Bible that is without errors if you don’t know or care what it is talking about?
Thirdly,
It made me wonder if Mohler was, in his comment about Calvinistic views extending well into the mid 20th Cent., talking about SB Pastors or SB church members. I believe it is true that, at that time, most SB Pastors would have in their questioning for ordination and in their studies have at least given lip service to the doctrines of grace. They are what I call “closet Calvinists.”
Finally, I found the following statement to be extremely telling:
But it can be very confidently affirmed that there is now no Baptist church that holds or defends the five points of Calvinism. Some of the doctrines are repugnant to our people.
Notice why no one holds or defends the five points of Calvinism. Is it because we have through a careful, exegetical, study of the Scriptures discovered that these doctrines are untrue? No, it is because SOME OF THE DOCTRINES ARE REPUGNANT TO OUR PEOPLE. No wonder the SBC allowed its seminaries to fall into a state of theological infidelity. The standard ceased to be the Scriptures and began to be what seemed palatable to the masses. Why have an inerrant Bible if you don’t believe it?
LikeLike
“Since John Smythe made that statement in 1609, I don’t think he would have been considered a Southern Baptist, do you?”
I am not sure that matters when we are talking about “baptist” beliefs in general. I totally agree with you about the anabaptists, etc. But I suppose I should have focused on “Baptist” beliefs in general historically.
The SBC was brought about because of the split in our nation….The history of the SBC is interesting. The SBC founders, as were, were either Calvinist slave holders or Calvinist slavery empathsizers to the point of writing pro’s for slavery. (An irony since the Calvinist Mohler makes the arguement that the SBC must change it’s name because of slave past but also that correct theology is Calvinism. Seems that correct theology had no influence when it came to practical beliefs and daily living. Hmmm) And there is my problem with most of it. If correct doctrine has no bearing on practical living then I am not sure what the point of the cross was or being a New Creation in Christ. We can learn a lot from history that is bad. And I am not one of those who says, “oh, he was a man of his time”. So is Driscoll. It is no excuse. .
But to make a point even finer, the SBC from day one has cooperated in missions with both Calvinist and non Calvinist churches pooling resources. They accepted the differences for the sake of missions. Those days are about to be over. I would really recommned reading some of Lumpkins blog posts on it. There are people over there doing some digging in SBC history that is very interesting.
“I made the “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” statement in regard to your statement, “Why all the rules if their doctrine was correct?” The implication seemed to be that since they had all the rules, their doctrine in the area of soteriology couldn’t have been correct. There is no question, their practice was inconsistent with their confessed belief in that area of doctrine. That is why some of us are Baptist who believe in the same doctrines of grace they believed in. We believe faith cannot be produced or constrained by external coercion.”
Then why call the teaching of God by a man’s name? It is confusing for the new believer who dives into Calvin looking for truth only to find a tyrant who presided over a state church with magistrates and ordered green wood for Servetus when he was burned at the stake. (Yes, he wanted him beheaded so he could claim it was a civil offense whereas burning was a church offense). There is a lack of common sense about this whole focus on Calvin that really bothers me.
“I believe you are right that Augustine was influenced by pagan philosophy. He was wrong about many things. Still, we must not reject the truth he believed because of his errors in other areas. The same is true of Calvin. Truth is truth, even on the lips of a fraud. I don’t believe anything I believe because Augustine or Calvin taught it. I believe it only because I find it written in the Scriptures.”
I agree that truth is truth. I am not debating whether they said and taught truthful things. What I cannot figure out is why they are elevated so much by certain groups. Or why they are defended to the point of a person being accused of ‘demonizing” them when pointing out the influence of pagan thinking in Augustine or Calvin’s tyranny in Geneva. These are facts. And we must come to grips that doctrine should influence behavior. But that is not really what the NC believes. There is much cult of personality in Calvinist circles that really concerns me about not only dead guys but the current celebrities, too.
LikeLike
Lydia,
You,
“Then why call the teaching of God by a man’s name? It is confusing for the new believer who dives into Calvin looking for truth only to find a tyrant who presided over a state church with magistrates and ordered green wood for Servetus when he was burned at the stake. (Yes, he wanted him beheaded so he could claim it was a civil offense whereas burning was a church offense). There is a lack of common sense about this whole focus on Calvin that really bothers me.”
That is why I wrote to you that I don’t call myself a Calvinist unless I now I am talking to people who understand this theological shorthand. As you know, what we now call Calvinism didn’t originate with Calvin at all but from the Synod of Dort after Calvin’s death.
Just so you know, I am not a Southern Baptist and would never want to be one. In my opinion, they are some of them more biblically ignorant and shallow people on earth. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare indeed. Most of them are more interested in how many noses they can count than the depth of their ministries. They will seemingly do or say anything to keep the crowd.
LikeLike
Wow Randy. The arrogance shines through:
“It was this, “Now the Southern Baptist have an inerrant Bible they do not understand.” What difference does it make if you have a Bible that is without errors if you don’t know or care what it is talking about”
“Notice why no one holds or defends the five points of Calvinism. Is it because we have through a careful, exegetical, study of the Scriptures discovered that these doctrines are untrue? No, it is because SOME OF THE DOCTRINES ARE REPUGNANT TO OUR PEOPLE. No wonder the SBC allowed its seminaries to fall into a state of theological infidelity. The standard ceased to be the Scriptures and began to be what seemed palatable to the masses. Why have an inerrant Bible if you don’t believe it?”
First of all, I totally agree that much of the SBC got off rails and on the seeker track….following a sort of Rick Warren “sins are mistakes” theology. (funny how Piper views Warren as orthodox…I know Warren and he is a chameleon and plays to his audiece. He can be Calvinistic one moment and “all roads lead to Jesus” another moment. Piper was played big time which says little for his discernment or wisdom since Warren had been doing this for years. Piper the shock jock Calvinist)
Many of us find the idea of perpetual totaly depravity after one is Born Again to be repugnant. Makes me afraid to trust New Calvinists since you remain worms. :>) And how do you know the person who said that has not studied scripture and simply rejected your ST based on illumination from the Holy Spirit? I have studied deeply and as a result have rejected some of your NC ST. I believe God is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty.
And Mohler would be very insulted at your comments. He takes full credit for bringing SBTS around to correct doctrine of New Calvinism.
I read your comments and think of my late mother who studied scripture for 2-3 hours daily getting up at 4 am her entire life. Or my educated grandmother who wrote an exegetical study on Romans. Just more ignorant SBC’ers who know nothing about what the Word.
See Randy, you equate knowing the Word with Calvinistic beliefs. That is your measure. And it is one reason there will never be unity. Your argument is they are ignorant because they do not subscribe to Calvinism…or whatever the name de jour is. You can change the name all you like but it is forever known as Calvinism when you start explaining it. It is a man made system of theology. And I agree with some of it but I know the dangers of following an ST. It is man centered. One does not need the Holy Spirit to do so.
And your thinking, which is widespread with the YRR, would turn into burnings at the stake if it were the 1500’s. Hyperbole? I think not. It is historical fact that “Christians” thought such things righteous according to their ST and since you all remain totally depraved worms after Justification…… you are not to be trusted. (wink)
LikeLike
Lydia,
My argument is they [and I am not talking about all SBs since I know there are some who are the exception to the rule] are ignorant because they don’t study the Scriptures, and if they do, they don’t want to tell anyone what they have found because it will decrease their numbers. The reason that was given was not we have studied the Scriptures and rejected it, but we have rejected it because it doesn’t play well to the crowd. There are some hard truths in Scriptures. I have known multitudes of Pastors who, in private, will admit they adhere to them, but in public will deny them to protect their position.
There are clear texts in the Scriptures that demonstrate God’s sovereignty over all things, even the Salvation of sinners. There are other verses that teach human responsibility to believe, repent, and obey. We cannot be safe in ignoring any of those passages. People will ignore, dance around, invent straw man arguments etc. against the verses that indicate God’s sovereignty and label anyone a heretic who asserts they need to be taken seriously. I believe anyone who has not been biased against these truths and who uses the widely accepted rules of interpretation that are available to anyone who wants to learn them, will come to the understanding that God is King in every facet of human existence. If my standard of authority were human emotions or peer approval, I wouldn’t like that truth either. If feels better to me to think that to some extent at least, “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” I do not hold these truths lightly; it has cost me dearly to teach them over the years. I am sorry you think me arrogant. Let me assure you I am not nearly so arrogant as the person who believes he has anything of eternal and spiritual value that he has obtained on his own. The reality is, I simply believe what God has revealed in his Word, and feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t.
You wrote, “I have studied deeply and as a result have rejected some of your NC ST.” I am not sure what you mean by ST., but if by NC you refer to New Calvinism, I don’t know what you mean by “Your NC.” I am not a New Calvinist. With regard to the doctrines of grace, I teach what Calvinists have consistently taught over the centuries, with a couple of exceptions: I don’t adhere to the CT aspect of Calvinism, and I don’t believe that New Covenant believers, indwelt by the Holy Spirit are incapable of doing what is pleasing to our Father.
Of one thing I am fully convinced–you and I would play better in separate rooms (wink).
Oh, never mind the ST question. It finally occurred to me what you are talking about. At least I think it did. Do you mean Systematic Theology? If so, you would have been well served to have read some of what I have written before making such an assumption about me. Though I have no problem with ST, I have, for years, consistently argued against a ST that is not preceded by and rooted in biblical and exegetical Theology. Though I believe the mind of God is orderly with the result that his revelation of himself is orderly and logical, I don’t think we should include anything in our theological systems that cannot stand on its own exegetical feet. Still, God did not make rational beings, reveal to us a logical and rational schema and then expect us to arrive at conclusions by beginning with faulty presuppositions, ignoring much of the datum, and using faulty logic.
LikeLike
So Randy, I have yet to find an institutional church that not only teaches correct doctrine, including the hard stuff about God’s wrath but at the same time does NOT cater to a specially anointed hierarchy caste system of believers. The institution is in real trouble because it IS an institution and not a living breathing Body of Christ with a true priesthood. They tend to love their “offices”, buildings, etc.
The one thing I like about the SB is that there are a few left that actually believe in the Holy Priesthood. And the pastor is one of us not some specially anointed office holder who God speaks to for us. There aren’t many left thanks to Mohler, Akin and others. In fact, there is some really good source material on the pastorate now attracting lots of narcissists. You might want to look into that. From Rick Warren to CJ Mahaney. They are all pretty much the same to me.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I don’t think you have heard me advocating for the institutional church. For most of then, the standard of success is closer to Madison Ave and Forbes Magazine than the Scriptures. I have never believed in the Mega Church concept. In the churches I have pastored, we have had a plurality and parity of elders that was subject to biblical scrutiny by the members of the congregation. That is not to say that the church could be ruled by the less mature Christians among us, but that if biblical arguments could be brought against any decision the elders might have made, those decisions were not sacrosanct and beyond dispute.
That said, I think it is a mistake to forget that God has given gifted men to the church, including shepherds whose job it is to equip believers to do the work of ministry. Shepherds, by definition are leaders of the flock who usually know better than the flock where they need to graze and what dangers lie in death valley. The apostle instructs us to esteem them very highly because of their work. If they are being faithful, we should honor them. If they are not, we should fire them. Still, the standard must be the Scriptures, not the latest opinion poll.
My understanding of the priesthood of believers is not that God has not gifted some above others or delegated levels of authoritative functionality having nothing to do with inferiority/superiority, but that every believer has an equality in his/her approach to God and an equal right, though not equal ability, to interpret the Scriptures for himself.
LikeLike
“My understanding of the priesthood of believers is not that God has not gifted some above others or delegated levels of authoritative functionality having nothing to do with inferiority/superiority, but that every believer has an equality in his/her approach to God and an equal right, though not equal ability, to interpret the Scriptures for himself”
Interesting. You basically said the opposite in the prior paragraph. I realize you nuance things differently and they make sense to you “biblically”. It is a lot like comp doctrine: Some animals are more equal than others. Equal but different but the “difference” is not really equal…but “shh…if we say it is, it is even if by our actions we know it is not true”.
LikeLike