Paul,
I have benefited from your audits of some extremes of Calvinism. The extremes being among others, “imperativeless Christianity”, “the Total depravity of the saints”, etc. . I think some of what you are pointing certainly needs pointing out.
Here is something to look at.
You seem to lump of these doctrinal issues and incorrect views into the intentionally pejorative term ‘New Calvinism”.
By using the term “New” I’m sure you mean that “Old” Calvinism does not and would never adhere to such things as you are denigrating. that the Calvinists of let’s say the 16th and 17th Centuries would never adhere to what the “New” Calvinists adhere to? Right? Isn’t that what you intend by the term?
So if your premise is correct that “Old Calvinists” did not or would never adhere to these “new” things, then I ask you if you have or have not read the 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith?
Herein is a summary of what sevearal Baptistic churches around the London area in the first 4 decades of the 17th century believed. This was a few years before the WCF.
Below are some statements that include phrases that sound like what you’re calling “New Calvinism” .
The numbers are footnote numbers to reference corresponding supporting bible passages .
XV.
Touching the Prophesy of Christ, it is that whereby he hath perfectly revealed the whole will of God out of the bosom of the Father, that is needful for his servants to know, believe, and obey; and therefore is called not only a Prophet and 56 a Doctor, and the 57 Apostle of our profession, and the 58 Angel of the Covenant; but also the very 59 wisdom of God, and 60 the treasures of wisdom and understanding.
XIX.
Touching his Kingdom,75 Christ being risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat on the right hand of God the Father, having all power in heaven and earth, given unto him……communicating and applying the benefits, virtue, and fruit of his Prophesy and Priesthood to his elect, namely, to the subduing and taking away of their sins, to their justification and adoption of Sons, regeneration, sanctification, preservation and strengthening in all their conflicts against Satan, the World, the Flesh, and the temptations of them, continually dwelling in, governing and keeping their hearts in faith and filial fear by his Spirit, which having78 given it, he never takes away from them, but by it still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all heavenly light in the soul unto immortality,
XX.
This Kingdom shall be then fully perfected when he shall the second time come in glory to reign amongst his Saints, and to be admired of all them which do believe, when he shall put down all rule and authority under his feet, that the glory of the Father may be full and perfectly manifested in his Son, and the glory of the Father and the Son in all his members
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,91 is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding Ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a92 sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made93 a Prince and a Saviour for such sinners.
Look deeply at this one especially the last several phrases:
XXIX.
That all believers are a holy and107 sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the108 new Covenant, and effect of the109 love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in110 truth and reality separated, both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the Commands which Christ as head and King in its new Covenant has prescribed to him.
XXXI.
That all believers in the time of this life, are in a continual warfare, combat, and opposition against sin, self, the world, and the Devil, and liable to all manner of afflictions, tribulations, and persecutions, and so shall continue until Christ comes in his Kingdom, being predestinated and appointed thereunto; and whatsoever the Saints, any of them do posses or enjoy of God in this life, is only by faith.
XXXII.
That the only strength by which the Saints are enabled to encounter with all opposition, and to overcome all afflictions, temptations, persecutions, and trials, is only by Jesus Christ,
Now, You have alluded much to Presbyterian Calvinisim so forwarding to you Baptist Calvinistic summaries of doctrine may not do anything for you. But I thought I’d let you know that at least the above statements have existed from the 1600s and likely before that, because the writers of the above confession were perjoratively called anabaptists. In other words some of their doctrines were seen to be held by the pre-Reformation anabaptists.
I sent you this chiefly because of your term “New Calvinism” . It denotes that Old Calvinism would not believe similar things but here, some of things you are concerned about seem similar to things in this old, old confession.
Thanks for reading.
Blessings,
Ron
paulspassingthoughts said, on February 6, 2012 at 5:01 PM
“Ron,”
Nice try. No, there are no parallels here at all. But it will make a great post to illustrate how New Calvinists want to muddy the waters to cover for the fact that Robert Brinsmead is their daddy.
Also, Paul, you probably already know this, but Calvinists have disagreed about the continuity of the Law and/or the continuity/discontinuity question since the Reformation. In other words, not all Calvinists have always believed in the continuity of the Decalogue-WAY Before two generations ago.
paulspassingthoughts said, on February 7, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Ron,
New Calvinist agreement on the separation of law and gospel is pretty solidified. Some like MacArthur who don’t get it yet might differ, but the majority of the big dogs of NC would definitely be one on this.
Paul,
Two questions. Please answer both and please answer them separately and please answer them in sequence.
1.How would you define “Quietist” or “Quietism”?
2.Where in the 1644 do you see that “Quietism”? Just one example is satisfactory.
Paul,
What are you talking about???
How do you know me? I’m a no one.
I want to know what you see as important. That’s all. TO read into my questions beyond face value is just strange.
I don’t know you, you don’t know me.
Wow.
Ron
Paul,
Please answer the questions. My name indeed is Ron and I’ve been reading and benefit ting from your blog since December. I have no agenda. You don’t know me. I’m just curious about your views of Quietism and the 1644. I have studied both for some time and want to know your thoughts. That’s all.
Ron
paulspassingthoughts said, on February 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Ron,
Look, first, this is really bad footing because there are no words for how unimpressed I am with creeds and confessions. I’m struggling here, but from what I have read of the 1644, I perceive an unbalanced view of God’s sovereignty in some places. That’s all I was really saying. Creeds and confessions are good for learning different ways to frame beliefs, but for crying out loud, we have the very words and wisdom of God in the Bible. I am just tremendously disinterested in how that is spun by men.
Thanks for your kinder email. The reason i asked about the 1644 is what it represents. With your describing a part of it as sounding “Quietistic” I was intrigued. So telling me where in the confession you see Quietism will help me.
Thanks,
Ron
paulspassingthoughts said, on February 8, 2012 at 6:04 PM
Ron,
Your thesis seems to be:
“I sent you this chiefly because of your term “New Calvinism” . It denotes that Old Calvinism would not believe similar things but here, some of things you are concerned about seem similar to things in this old, old confession.”
If you are only arguing that New and Old Calvinism share some same elements, as I have mentioned below, I would not refute that at all. BUT, the crux, and gargantuan difference in the two is their interpretation of Romans 8:30, ie: the, “Why is sanctification missing” question. New and Old Calvinists answer that question in two totally different ways. The waters can be muddied with like elements all day long, but at the end of the day, Romans 8:30 distinguishes the two.
XV.
Touching the Prophesy of Christ, it is that whereby he hath perfectly revealed the whole will of God out of the bosom of the Father, that is needful for his servants to know, believe, and obey; and therefore is called not only a Prophet and 56 a Doctor, and the 57 Apostle of our profession, and the 58 Angel of the Covenant; but also the very 59 wisdom of God, and 60 the treasures of wisdom and understanding. No disagreement here, but this doesn’t = every verse in the Bible is about Jesus.
XIX.
Touching his Kingdom,75 Christ being risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat on the right hand of God the Father, having all power in heaven and earth, given unto him……communicating and applying the benefits, virtue, and fruit of his Prophesy and Priesthood to his elect, namely, to the subduing and taking away of their sins, to their justification and adoption of Sons, regeneration, sanctification, preservation and strengthening in all their conflicts against Satan, the World, the Flesh, and the temptations of them, continually dwelling in, governing and keeping their hearts in faith and filial fear by his Spirit, which having78 given it, he never takes away from them, but by it still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all heavenly light in the soul unto immortality, I would have to study this in complete context, especially since there seems to be a problem after “……communicating and applying the benefits, virtue, and fruit of his Prophesy and Priesthood to his elect.” Christ didn’t elect, the Father did. Other than that, I think this is saying that Christ secured justification for the saints and “nourisheth” them through the word and the Holy Spirit. No problem here, but this doesn’t = we are sanctified by justification. As Dr. Jay E. Adams says well: our sanctification is powered by regeneration, not justification.
XX.
This Kingdom shall be then fully perfected when he shall the second time come in glory to reign amongst his Saints, and to be admired of all them which do believe, when he shall put down all rule and authority under his feet, that the glory of the Father may be full and perfectly manifested in his Son, and the glory of the Father and the Son in all his members. Well now, I have a problem with that if it says what it seems to be saying. The goal of all redemptive history is not to encompass all glory in the Son (see 1Corinthians 15:26-28). Overemphasizing one member of the Trinity over the other was a tenet of the Forum, but also prevalent throughout church history. Should we take this as some kind of proof that the Forum did not construe a unique doctrine that launched new Calvinism? I don’t think so; I am still searching for: “Thou shall preacheth the gospel to thyself every day.” And, “The same gospel that saved thee also sanctifieth thee.”
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,91 is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding Ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a92 sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made93 a Prince and a Saviour for such sinners. No problem here, justification is not by works of the law.
Look deeply at this one especially the last several phrases:
XXIX.
That all believers are a holy and107 sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the108 new Covenant, and effect of the109 love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in110 truth and reality separated, both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the Commands which Christ as head and King in its new Covenant has prescribed to him. First of all, I had to read this about ten times. It’s just a torturing of the English language to appear pious. So, do I think “whereby” connects the former and latter thoughts to = we “presseth” in sanctification by justification (the blood )? Let me think for a moment. Ok, I’m done thinking: no. Actually, I think this is saying that we are not only declared righteous, but we are also made righteous and that has a practical effect on obedience.
XXXI.
That all believers in the time of this life, are in a continual warfare, combat, and opposition against sin, self, the world, and the Devil, and liable to all manner of afflictions, tribulations, and persecutions, and so shall continue until Christ comes in his Kingdom, being predestinated and appointed thereunto; and whatsoever the Saints, any of them do posses or enjoy of God in this life, is only by faith. Well, this could be saying that sanctification is by faith alone, which wouldn’t be anything new. Is your point that New Calvinism shares some elements from beliefs of the past? I don’t refute that, but where is “the centrality of thou gospel completely outside of thee.”
XXXII.
That the only strength by which the Saints are enabled to encounter with all opposition, and to overcome all afflictions, temptations, persecutions, and trials, is only by Jesus Christ, Again, I disagree with the Jesus only language. Salvation is Trinitarian. The Father elects and justifies, the Son bore the penalty of our sins, and the Spirit regenerates. But again, like elements don’t = same doctrine.
Thank you very much for the time you took to answer.
Behind my questions was my thought that a chunk of “New Calvinism” isn’t necessarily new. And perhaps some of the the things in “New Calvinism” are arguably older than some tenets of “Old Calvinism”.
But thanks again for your clarification.
I am still curious of one or two things though…
You stated that the confession had “Quietist” leanings? What do you refer to ? Or more helpful, how would you define “Quietist”?
paulspassingthoughts said, on February 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Ron,
The thesis of my book: Quietism is a reductionist theology that reduces the role of man to the lest common denominator in sanctification as an attempt to fuse it with the plenary monergism of justification.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul,
I have benefited from your audits of some extremes of Calvinism. The extremes being among others, “imperativeless Christianity”, “the Total depravity of the saints”, etc. . I think some of what you are pointing certainly needs pointing out.
Here is something to look at.
You seem to lump of these doctrinal issues and incorrect views into the intentionally pejorative term ‘New Calvinism”.
By using the term “New” I’m sure you mean that “Old” Calvinism does not and would never adhere to such things as you are denigrating. that the Calvinists of let’s say the 16th and 17th Centuries would never adhere to what the “New” Calvinists adhere to? Right? Isn’t that what you intend by the term?
So if your premise is correct that “Old Calvinists” did not or would never adhere to these “new” things, then I ask you if you have or have not read the 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith?
Herein is a summary of what sevearal Baptistic churches around the London area in the first 4 decades of the 17th century believed. This was a few years before the WCF.
Below are some statements that include phrases that sound like what you’re calling “New Calvinism” .
The numbers are footnote numbers to reference corresponding supporting bible passages .
XV.
Touching the Prophesy of Christ, it is that whereby he hath perfectly revealed the whole will of God out of the bosom of the Father, that is needful for his servants to know, believe, and obey; and therefore is called not only a Prophet and 56 a Doctor, and the 57 Apostle of our profession, and the 58 Angel of the Covenant; but also the very 59 wisdom of God, and 60 the treasures of wisdom and understanding.
XIX.
Touching his Kingdom,75 Christ being risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat on the right hand of God the Father, having all power in heaven and earth, given unto him……communicating and applying the benefits, virtue, and fruit of his Prophesy and Priesthood to his elect, namely, to the subduing and taking away of their sins, to their justification and adoption of Sons, regeneration, sanctification, preservation and strengthening in all their conflicts against Satan, the World, the Flesh, and the temptations of them, continually dwelling in, governing and keeping their hearts in faith and filial fear by his Spirit, which having78 given it, he never takes away from them, but by it still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all heavenly light in the soul unto immortality,
XX.
This Kingdom shall be then fully perfected when he shall the second time come in glory to reign amongst his Saints, and to be admired of all them which do believe, when he shall put down all rule and authority under his feet, that the glory of the Father may be full and perfectly manifested in his Son, and the glory of the Father and the Son in all his members
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,91 is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding Ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a92 sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made93 a Prince and a Saviour for such sinners.
Look deeply at this one especially the last several phrases:
XXIX.
That all believers are a holy and107 sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the108 new Covenant, and effect of the109 love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in110 truth and reality separated, both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the Commands which Christ as head and King in its new Covenant has prescribed to him.
XXXI.
That all believers in the time of this life, are in a continual warfare, combat, and opposition against sin, self, the world, and the Devil, and liable to all manner of afflictions, tribulations, and persecutions, and so shall continue until Christ comes in his Kingdom, being predestinated and appointed thereunto; and whatsoever the Saints, any of them do posses or enjoy of God in this life, is only by faith.
XXXII.
That the only strength by which the Saints are enabled to encounter with all opposition, and to overcome all afflictions, temptations, persecutions, and trials, is only by Jesus Christ,
Now, You have alluded much to Presbyterian Calvinisim so forwarding to you Baptist Calvinistic summaries of doctrine may not do anything for you. But I thought I’d let you know that at least the above statements have existed from the 1600s and likely before that, because the writers of the above confession were perjoratively called anabaptists. In other words some of their doctrines were seen to be held by the pre-Reformation anabaptists.
I sent you this chiefly because of your term “New Calvinism” . It denotes that Old Calvinism would not believe similar things but here, some of things you are concerned about seem similar to things in this old, old confession.
Thanks for reading.
Blessings,
Ron
LikeLike
“Ron,”
Nice try. No, there are no parallels here at all. But it will make a great post to illustrate how New Calvinists want to muddy the waters to cover for the fact that Robert Brinsmead is their daddy.
LikeLike
Say again. So do you see that the 1644 London Confession is proper orthodoxy?
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
Uh, it contains some Quietist leanings.
LikeLike
Also, Paul, you probably already know this, but Calvinists have disagreed about the continuity of the Law and/or the continuity/discontinuity question since the Reformation. In other words, not all Calvinists have always believed in the continuity of the Decalogue-WAY Before two generations ago.
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
New Calvinist agreement on the separation of law and gospel is pretty solidified. Some like MacArthur who don’t get it yet might differ, but the majority of the big dogs of NC would definitely be one on this.
LikeLike
Paul,
Two questions. Please answer both and please answer them separately and please answer them in sequence.
1.How would you define “Quietist” or “Quietism”?
2.Where in the 1644 do you see that “Quietism”? Just one example is satisfactory.
Thanks,
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
1. I know who you really are.
2. Your questions are designed to confuse the issue.
3. You are being spammed as of right now.
LikeLike
Paul,
What are you talking about???
How do you know me? I’m a no one.
I want to know what you see as important. That’s all. TO read into my questions beyond face value is just strange.
I don’t know you, you don’t know me.
Wow.
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
Then my apologies. Maybe too much defense going on because of the absolutely brutal emails I receive from the grace and mercy experts.
LikeLike
Ron,
Also, I have learned much from discourse here, so as long as it is beneficial, I am all for it–I will parse the 1644 excerpt after lunch.
LikeLike
Paul,
Please answer the questions. My name indeed is Ron and I’ve been reading and benefit ting from your blog since December. I have no agenda. You don’t know me. I’m just curious about your views of Quietism and the 1644. I have studied both for some time and want to know your thoughts. That’s all.
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
Look, first, this is really bad footing because there are no words for how unimpressed I am with creeds and confessions. I’m struggling here, but from what I have read of the 1644, I perceive an unbalanced view of God’s sovereignty in some places. That’s all I was really saying. Creeds and confessions are good for learning different ways to frame beliefs, but for crying out loud, we have the very words and wisdom of God in the Bible. I am just tremendously disinterested in how that is spun by men.
LikeLike
Thanks for your kinder email. The reason i asked about the 1644 is what it represents. With your describing a part of it as sounding “Quietistic” I was intrigued. So telling me where in the confession you see Quietism will help me.
Thanks,
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
No problem–sometime after lunch.
LikeLike
Great. Thanks.
Ron
LikeLike
Paul, any time for my two questions? No rush I suppose.
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
Not yesterday, today should be no problem.
LikeLike
Ron,
On my way to wait for a printing order–about the only way i can get some spare time–will parse while I am waiting and report back.
LikeLike
Ron,
Your thesis seems to be:
“I sent you this chiefly because of your term “New Calvinism” . It denotes that Old Calvinism would not believe similar things but here, some of things you are concerned about seem similar to things in this old, old confession.”
If you are only arguing that New and Old Calvinism share some same elements, as I have mentioned below, I would not refute that at all. BUT, the crux, and gargantuan difference in the two is their interpretation of Romans 8:30, ie: the, “Why is sanctification missing” question. New and Old Calvinists answer that question in two totally different ways. The waters can be muddied with like elements all day long, but at the end of the day, Romans 8:30 distinguishes the two.
XV.
Touching the Prophesy of Christ, it is that whereby he hath perfectly revealed the whole will of God out of the bosom of the Father, that is needful for his servants to know, believe, and obey; and therefore is called not only a Prophet and 56 a Doctor, and the 57 Apostle of our profession, and the 58 Angel of the Covenant; but also the very 59 wisdom of God, and 60 the treasures of wisdom and understanding.
No disagreement here, but this doesn’t = every verse in the Bible is about Jesus.
XIX.
Touching his Kingdom,75 Christ being risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat on the right hand of God the Father, having all power in heaven and earth, given unto him……communicating and applying the benefits, virtue, and fruit of his Prophesy and Priesthood to his elect, namely, to the subduing and taking away of their sins, to their justification and adoption of Sons, regeneration, sanctification, preservation and strengthening in all their conflicts against Satan, the World, the Flesh, and the temptations of them, continually dwelling in, governing and keeping their hearts in faith and filial fear by his Spirit, which having78 given it, he never takes away from them, but by it still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all heavenly light in the soul unto immortality,
I would have to study this in complete context, especially since there seems to be a problem after “……communicating and applying the benefits, virtue, and fruit of his Prophesy and Priesthood to his elect.” Christ didn’t elect, the Father did. Other than that, I think this is saying that Christ secured justification for the saints and “nourisheth” them through the word and the Holy Spirit. No problem here, but this doesn’t = we are sanctified by justification. As Dr. Jay E. Adams says well: our sanctification is powered by regeneration, not justification.
XX.
This Kingdom shall be then fully perfected when he shall the second time come in glory to reign amongst his Saints, and to be admired of all them which do believe, when he shall put down all rule and authority under his feet, that the glory of the Father may be full and perfectly manifested in his Son, and the glory of the Father and the Son in all his members.
Well now, I have a problem with that if it says what it seems to be saying. The goal of all redemptive history is not to encompass all glory in the Son (see 1Corinthians 15:26-28). Overemphasizing one member of the Trinity over the other was a tenet of the Forum, but also prevalent throughout church history. Should we take this as some kind of proof that the Forum did not construe a unique doctrine that launched new Calvinism? I don’t think so; I am still searching for: “Thou shall preacheth the gospel to thyself every day.” And, “The same gospel that saved thee also sanctifieth thee.”
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,91 is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding Ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a92 sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made93 a Prince and a Saviour for such sinners.
No problem here, justification is not by works of the law.
Look deeply at this one especially the last several phrases:
XXIX.
That all believers are a holy and107 sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the108 new Covenant, and effect of the109 love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in110 truth and reality separated, both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the Commands which Christ as head and King in its new Covenant has prescribed to him.
First of all, I had to read this about ten times. It’s just a torturing of the English language to appear pious. So, do I think “whereby” connects the former and latter thoughts to = we “presseth” in sanctification by justification (the blood )? Let me think for a moment. Ok, I’m done thinking: no. Actually, I think this is saying that we are not only declared righteous, but we are also made righteous and that has a practical effect on obedience.
XXXI.
That all believers in the time of this life, are in a continual warfare, combat, and opposition against sin, self, the world, and the Devil, and liable to all manner of afflictions, tribulations, and persecutions, and so shall continue until Christ comes in his Kingdom, being predestinated and appointed thereunto; and whatsoever the Saints, any of them do posses or enjoy of God in this life, is only by faith.
Well, this could be saying that sanctification is by faith alone, which wouldn’t be anything new. Is your point that New Calvinism shares some elements from beliefs of the past? I don’t refute that, but where is “the centrality of thou gospel completely outside of thee.”
XXXII.
That the only strength by which the Saints are enabled to encounter with all opposition, and to overcome all afflictions, temptations, persecutions, and trials, is only by Jesus Christ,
Again, I disagree with the Jesus only language. Salvation is Trinitarian. The Father elects and justifies, the Son bore the penalty of our sins, and the Spirit regenerates. But again, like elements don’t = same doctrine.
LikeLike
Thank you very much for the time you took to answer.
Behind my questions was my thought that a chunk of “New Calvinism” isn’t necessarily new. And perhaps some of the the things in “New Calvinism” are arguably older than some tenets of “Old Calvinism”.
But thanks again for your clarification.
I am still curious of one or two things though…
You stated that the confession had “Quietist” leanings? What do you refer to ? Or more helpful, how would you define “Quietist”?
Lord bless,
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
The thesis of my book: Quietism is a reductionist theology that reduces the role of man to the lest common denominator in sanctification as an attempt to fuse it with the plenary monergism of justification.
LikeLike
Where did this definition of Quietism come from? Can i study it elsewhere? Other sources?
Thanks,
Ron
LikeLike
Ron,
Yes, I found some good stuff on it by googling “Reductionism,” especially by some Lutheran guy.
LikeLike