Additional Thoughts on The New Calvinism

by Jesse Locken

I realized after writing my article discussing “The New Calvinism” as a propaganda tool, that I failed to explain where I saw the error in TIME Magazine’s interpretation of Calvinistic theology, and the problems I perceive within the theological movement of the New Calvinism and its acceptance of TIME’s portrayal of their faith. I hope to address a couple of my concerns here, with the hope that those who have read my article understand the perspective I am coming from.

The first statement in the article that stood out to me was “a sinful and puny humanity.” While this is one way to describe what Calvinistic theology teaches, without being taken in the broader context of the cosmic Biblical worldview from which Calvin was teaching, this statement is a somewhat misleading portrayal of how Calvin and his followers viewed humanity in the context of God’s sovereignty. It also sets the overall tone of the remainder of the article, with God’s sovereignty being associated with mostly negative ideas such as illness and home foreclosure, with God “unaffected by human action or decision” and being described as an “austerely demanding God of their country’s infancy.”

My concern with this statement and the tone of the article is that the theological leaders mentioned in the article did not bother to address the fact that one of the fundamental Biblical teachings is that man was in the beginning created good, in the image of God, and thus all men retain such dignity and worth in the sight of God–sinners and puny though they be, they are still representations of God’s image. This is why man was prohibited from taking the life of another human being after the flood: “Who so sheddeth a man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God hath he made man”(Gen 9:6, Geneva Bible). Calvin adhered to this teaching, and his own comments on this verse are insightful:

For the greater confirmation of the above doctrine (the shedding of man’s blood), God declares, that he is not thus solicitous respecting human life rashly, and for no purpose. Men are indeed unworthy of God’s care, if respect he had only to themselves; but since they bear the image of God engraven on them, He deems himself violated in their person. Thus, although they have nothing of their own by which they obtain the favour of God, he looks upon his own gifts in them, and is thereby excited to love and to care for them. This doctrine, however, is to be carefully observed, that no one can be injurious to his brother without wounding God himself. Were this doctrine deeply fixed in our minds, we should be much more reluctant than we are to inflict injuries. Should any one object, that this divine image has been obliterated, the solution is easy; first, there yet exists some remnant of it, so that man is possessed of no small dignity; and, secondly, the Celestial Creator himself, however corrupted man may be, still keeps in view the end of his original creation; and according to his example, we ought to consider for what end he created men, and what excellence he has bestowed upon them above the rest of living beings. (John Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis, Baker Books [2009] p. 295-296)

As someone who most people would label a “Calvinist” (I do largely agree with the majority of Calvin’s views, because I believe they are Biblical), I take issue when theological leaders do not correct a half-truth portrayal of what Calvin believed concerning God’s sovereign purpose and the end to which humanity was created (especially when it is presented by a mass-media outlet), and approve of a description of God as being “austerely demanding”–as if God has placed some burden on humanity that works against freedom and that man is nothing but a simple slave to the will of God.

First and foremost, God demands love for Him as our Creator, and secondly love for our neighbor who is created in his image–these are blessings for man under God and in right relationship with Him, not curses as the article leads one to believe. Rather than being enslavement, God’s sovereignty is freedom and is man’s hope for the future, because our future is determined and secure, and has purpose and meaning in this life–those who have faith in Christ know that we have a future and are to labor for the Kingdom of God.

While it is true that God is sovereign over things such as home foreclosures and illness, he does not delight in the punishment of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:33, 33:11) but seeks their repentance, as God maintains the created order in an expression of His continual goodness to all humanity (Matt. 5:45). If He does not delight in the punishment or suffering of the wicked, how much does He delight in the suffering of His people? Man’s sin is thus first and foremost a hatred of God, his sovereignty, and his act of grace in creating the heavens and the earth, and a hatred of man’s responsibility and obligation to God to have dominion over the creation as His image-bearers. Only in such a context can we understand the Biblical view of humanity and of sin against God, the seriousness of sin, and the atonement of Christ for our sins against Himself as the God who suffered for our sin against His own person and image in man. Indeed, as Hebrews teaches, “For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10). This is also one area the article does not touch on, which is the atonement of Christ as being central to the Kingdom of God, as it is God Himself who reconciles man to Himself by his sovereign act and purpose.

Secondly, the article claims that the New Calvinism believes that “our satisfaction–and our purpose–is fulfilled simply by 'glorifying' Him.” Unfortunately, we are not given an example of how the New Calvinism views glorifying God other than the context of the article, which to re-emphasize, are topics such as illness, home foreclosure, austerity, and a sinful and puny humanity. The Christ of the Bible came to make atonement for His people, to establish His position on the throne of God’s Kingdom, to bear witness to the truth of the Scriptures, and to usher in a New Creation in which everything is being made new and taken captive for Him under the original dominion mandate of Genesis. While the Christian certainly suffers in this world, the purpose is not “by a logic we may not understand but don’t have to second guess,” but is for the purpose of the victory of Christ and the glorification of God and His Kingdom, with the final future eternal state being a total transformation of the entire created order in which sin and death no longer exist, as it did before the fall.

It is precisely because of the sovereignty of God that our suffering takes on meaning and purpose as we struggle in our battle against sin, death, and decay for the glory of God, bringing people and nations under His rule in time and history, with the ultimate victory already claimed by Christ on His throne. Thus as a general rule, the Christian society and culture will continually progress as a culture of peace, prosperity, and the application of God’s Word by His Spirit to the daily lives of believers, amidst the suffering and death sin and man’s own evil heart has impacted this world with.

Rather than see these flaws in the article as a fundamental attack on the God of the Bible–by portraying His sovereignty (and belief in such) as something bringing primarily suffering, austerity, divisiveness in the church, and backbiting among believers, rather than regeneration, victory, justice, and truth–it is interesting that TIME’s description of The New Calvinism embraces and approves of a humanistic, God-replacing philosophical belief in which God is merely sovereign over the evil that a “sinful and puny humanity” is subject to in this life. God is not viewed as a liberator from oppression through man conforming to His Law and what He requires of each and every person because He loves and cares for His creation, in particular mankind who bears His image, but as a heartless “micromanaging” deity who orchestrates everything and who is more akin to a tyrant, made in the image of man.

With just these couple of examples in mind, in my view the New Calvinism supports predestination by man rather than God, as it submits and approves of TIME magazine's theological definitions, which is for the most part comprised of those who hate God and His grace and seek to establish a global power structure antithetical to God’s Word and to the throne of Christ. Man in such a global power structure “collectively” becomes the arbiter of good and God becomes the “micromanaging,” “austerely demanding” deity of suffering to which Christians must submit. He is no longer in the place of primacy, honor, and obligation above everything (i.e. the covenant oath) who provides His creation with blessings, grace, mercy, truth, law, and order, but is relegated to the merely personal and is defined by the pragmatic ideas of those who seek to control and manipulate the church, governments, and society as a whole as they seek autonomy over God.

Therefore, when I see an article contained in a 10-part series run by a publication which espouses ideas traditionally antithetical to Scripture and supportive of man’s ideas as an autonomous collective, I tend to stop and question, wondering what exactly is being taught by our church leaders and theologians, and become inclined to view such a movement as a tool used for propaganda, instead of one used to “cast down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

Jesse Locken is an average guy with a full-time job as a sales consultant who desires to apply God’s Word to all of life. He resides in the beautiful Pacific Northwest in Seattle, WA. He blogs, rants, analyzes, and vents at his website, FrequencyPropogation.

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Robert De Leon

I'll repeat it once and twice and ever.
As we read in the Old Testament Israel people feared to God so badly that they even didn’t dare to raise their face and look at Him.
Our dear Lord Jesus Christ came to show us the real God’s Face, a face full of love and Mercy. Against what Jesus Chris taught us, some “deformer” Protestants – mainly Calvinist – live as if they where still in the Old Testament era. That’s not so surprisingly due to the fact that John Calvin, the founder of this “deformed” Protestant church was quite severe fanatic person, a perfect heretic, an intolerant ruler, a real dictator. Calvin is the clearest example of what Christians shouldn’t be. As we read in the Gospel, Jesus Christ said (John, Chapter 13):
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Calvin never followed this Commandment.
Robert.
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  More hostile, ignorant, biased and emotion only driven religious Jesuit propaganda from a goat of Rome…
  The fact is DeMelon than you never ever read any serious work from Reformers yet you mumble in your
  arrogance certain that the propaganda you have been poisoned by your nefarious illegal priests is giving
  you a platform to do so. Unfortunately you are as deeply ignorant about this as you are deceived in your false
  damning "gospel" made in Rome. What is worst despite many offered arguments, sources and books
  you refuse to learn and refuse to be corrected in so many lies you plaster here which truly shows that
  you are indoctrinated beyond a human rescue.
  
  Your "sweet Jesus" sitting in a lap of Mama Mary ready to run any errand for her in a demonic conjuration and
  a vain false idol having nothing to do with a real Jesus but name only as is much of your works righteousness
  damning religion. Jesus is not only "love, love, love" and "mercy, mercy, mercy". That is a bastardized version
  erected by men for men to control them easier and manipulate them with satan behind it all. Real Jesus is
  love and mercy but also judgment, justice and yes DESTRUCTION also as in the past and as in the future.
  
  "Now I desire to remind you even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, laterdestroyed those who did not believe."
  
  ~ Jude 1:5
  
  "From his mouth extends a sharp sword, so that with it he can strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod, and he stomps the wine press of the furious wrath of God, the All-Powerful. He has a name written on his clothing and on his thigh: “King of kings and Lord of lords.”
  
  ~ Revelation 19:15-16
  
  "love, love, love" only? "mercy, mercy, mercy" only? Nope DeMelon and the One described above certainly is not a little helpless baby sitting in his mama's lap or nailed to the cross as your nefarious Roman religion loves to box him for its goats.
- John J Flanagan
  
  Robert, Calvin was a brother in Christ and he points us to God's word. He did not invent a new religion. Christians can and often disagree. God's love is rightly taught in the verses you listed, however, one cannot only focus on certain verses and avoid others. We must look at the entire Bible, even consider those verses which seem harsh to us, or which we do not understand. We must address God's righteousness, and understand how the fruit of our actions, as well as our words, reflect the sincerity of our Christian faith. If you can find teachings of Calvin that came from outside of the Bible, you will have a case against the man. If not, you must look at the verses yourself. There are people in liberal denominations today who actually believe that God accepts homosexuality and will affirm this lifestyle, or that He affirms abortion as a woman's right to choose. Such values cannot be taken from the Bible. Christ forgives sinners, including prostitutes and homosexuals, and all other sinners of all types, but He never affirms the sin as right. In fact, He says one must leave sinful behavior and live righteously. Similarly, when we speak of what Calvin and Luther taught, we must look at the origin of their ideas, the Bible, and if it is proven to be recorded in scripture, we need to look closely and think about it. Jesus instructs us in the New Testament to not judge others nor to stone them, but He does not say we can accept their sins as normal, nor should we not contend for the truth and be vocal about it.
- Pastor Dwayne
  
  De Leon,, is the worship of statues, like mary, in the new or old testement
- keyboardshark
  
  Robert:
  You seem to have a problem with John Calvin, but I am unable to determine where you disagree Scripturally with him. You mention that he taught to "live as if they where still in the Old Testament era. " That is pretty vague, if you would not mind explaining.
  
  You also say he "was quite severe fanatic person, a perfect heretic, an intolerant ruler, a real dictator." Again, these are vague generalizations and I cannot decide whether I agree or not without additional details.
  
  Finally, you say Calvin "never" followed the Commandment to love one another. "Never"? Seems like that might be a bit of an overstatement.
  - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
    
    This is just one hint why Romanists like DeLeon or those under a viral influence of Romanists theology like msjallen hate Calvin and Reformation so much:
    
    "…. Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives.536 There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord’s Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ. The communion of the Church was not instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evil, but rather to retain us in the fear of God and obedience of the truth. They, indeed, vaunt loudly of their Church,537 as if there was not another in the world; and then, as if the matter were ended, they make out that all are schismatics who withdraw from obedience to that Church which they thus depict, that all are heretics who presume to whisper against its doctrine (see sec 5). But by what arguments do they prove their possession of the true Church? They appeal to ancient records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and Spain, pretending to derive their origin from those holy men who, by sound doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine, and reared the edifice of the Church
    2306
    with their blood; they pretend that the Church thus consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs was preserved from destruction by a perpetual succession of bishops. They dwell on the importance which Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others, attached to this succession (see sec. 3). How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations are, I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with me, to understand without any difficulty. I would also exhort our opponents to give their serious attention, if I had any hope of being able to benefit them by instruction; but since they have laid aside all regard to truth, and make it their only aim to prosecute their own ends in whatever way they can, I will only make a few observations by which good men and lovers of truth may disentangle themselves from their quibbles. First, I ask them why they do not quote Africa, and Egypt, and all Asia, just because in all those regions there was a cessation of that sacred succession, by the aid of which they vaunt of having continued churches. They therefore fall back on the assertion, that they have the true Church, because ever since it began to exist it was never destitute of bishops, because they succeeded each other in an unbroken series. But what if I bring Greece before them? Therefore, I again ask them, Why they say that the Church perished among the Greeks, among whom there never was any interruption in the succession of bishops—a succession, in their opinion, the only guardian and preserver of the Church? They make the Greeks schismatics. Why? because, by revolting from the Apostolic See, they lost their privilege. What? Do not those who revolt from Christ much more deserve to lose it? It follows, therefore, that the pretence of succession is vain, if posterity do not retain the truth of Christ, which was handed down to them by their fathers, safe and uncorrupted, and continue in it…"
    
    ~ John Calvin
    Institutes of Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 2, Point 2
    Link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.iii…
Evermyrtle

From what I have read, some of the early church leaders, is what we would call dictators, today. They spoke the WORD and believed in their way and IF the followers dare not contradict them. Instead of hating the evil they hated to be disobeyed. Don't, please don't get the wrong idea here, I am not saying that all of the leaders because many of the teachers of GOD'S WORD, WERE TRULY SINCERE AND TRUE WORKERS OF GOD AND JESUS CHRIST. This is another case when one bad apple spoils the entire barrel, not really but in the minds of many people. We just have to weed out the lies and follow the true GOD'S WORD.
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  I would like to know what you actually read from Early Church fathers or from Reformers? I am talking about primary and not secondary sources. Name it…
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

Against the World – The Reformed Difference

Video: http://youtu.be/iCqKGQgRj_M
- tbone
  
  I hold to the Dispensational world view.
  - tbone
    
    I also believe in a Pre-tribulation rapture
    - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
      
      I used to as well. Then I started studying the Word apart of outside Evangelical influence and it all went tumbling down and Christian history only confirms it as a complete fiasco.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville

Amazing Grace – The History & Theology of Calvinism
http://youtu.be/G16RoqupFUY
John J Flanagan

It is amazing how we Christians argue with one another over Calvinism and other issues. Both Calvin and Luther were believers in election, but Calvin went further with the idea of "double predestination," believing God has ordained some to eternal damnation while saving others. Well, God, being sovereign, has done just that, but in principle I believe as Luther, that God has elected His people, but did not desire that any unbelievers should perish. One who rejects God and salvation through Christ brings damnation upon himself or herself. Before one judges Calvin, read the verses in scripture he uses, and you will see it is right from the Bible. Even many Christians do not understand Calvinistic teachings, but if one reads the Bible, it is right in there. Jesus Himself said, and Calvin would agree, that …"No man can come to me except the Father draw him." Calvin and Luther never said they were perfect. Both point you to scripture. Read the Bible. Do not accuse either of legalism, because what they taught is found in scripture in many verses. Neither Calvin nor Luther wanted to start their own religion, as both were humble Christians who wanted Christ's followers to read the word of God and discover the truths of the Bible, and even if some verses seem complex or incomprehensible, we need to address them. Calvin and Luther are closer to the truth than free will Christians and Arminians, who feel they alone hold their own salvation by the decision they made during an altar call or at a crusade. Calvinists and Lutherans give God the glory, where it belongs.
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  ' Calvin went further with the idea of "double predestination,"
  
  Not precisely. There is a difference active choosing of God and passive by passing of others.
  Those two are not the same.
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  'It is amazing how we Christians argue with one another over Calvinism and other issues…"
  
  That is not necessarily a bad thing… It is all over NT. Read that Acts 15 for example to see how this "arguing" was absolutely needed for preservation of the Gospel and God ordained too.
John J Flanagan

How wonderful that God already knows about our ignorance of parts of His word, and that we have an imperfect understanding in so many ways. Stressing the fundamentals, of which even the most ignorant and uneducated of men can understand; that we are saved by grace, that Christ is our savior, that we must repent of our sins and live our lives in obedience to Him; these things motivate me when thorny theological issues seem to separate me from brothers and sisters in Christ. I am a senior citizen now, with more years behind me than in front of me, and I am here only by the grace of God. I look forward to the day I shall see His blessed face, as a humble child of God, and it will be revealed to me the many questions we have all struggled with over the past 2000 years. We will find peasants and simple folks, and some theologians, but one thing is certain, our faith is where we need to focus, not on the debates that divide us.
msjallen

Calvinist believe that God has chosen who are to saved and man’s volition to sin or believe in Jesus Christ has nothing to do with God giving us a choice. Covenant theology believes the church and Israel are the same. Check out the following web site: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/…
I John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the WHOLE WORLD.
2 Cor 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
John 4:42…and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the WORLD.”
- http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
  
  Sadly but rationally one who actually knows what you smearing cannot escape the observation that your ignorance about Reformed Faith (which is nothing else but re-exposition of Apostolic faith) and your hostile bias is exactly the same as Roman Catholic DeLeon's. Same for it comes precisely from the same source – Roman Catholic counter-reformation propaganda bent on smearing Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and others.
  
  As to your Roman Catholic inspired abusive universalism as to atonement of Christ (which you undermine and corrupt calling it bloodless as a proper Gnostic you are) and your reading into the word "world" your false ecumenical universalism one would also have to conclude if to be consistent (which you are not) that then the whole world would also be consistent of nothing else but sheep for Christ died for sheep only as He said:
  
  NASB© John 10:15 " even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."
  
  So where are the goats then? On the moon? Yet your man produced myths end up in such dead ends. Problem is that confused religious like you never want to connect the dots and never want to be consistent in their myths for they know that their cherished ear tickling myths can function only in blur and confusion. Why don't you actually learn something about Reformed Faith, Reformation and Covenant structure of the Bible from primary sources for your "great and many notes taken since 1972" from your gurus are obviously laughably insufficient, caricature like and astonishingly ignorant.
lambsev11

“casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

A very good word to end any article of faith. But in order to accomplish the goal of this word we must actually HAVE KNOWLEDGE of God! And the Holy Spirit is the only one to bring and give this to us. Jesus is in heaven. Two days after Pentecost Sunday I ask you, have you received the Holy Ghost?
Steve

To the point of the article, I believe that there is substance in the author's concern for the potential of what TIME has described as "Neo-Calvinism", for those in this movement to be passive in the face of encroaching globalism as a result of Calvinistic doctrinal understandings of predestination. It is incorrect, however, to paint with a broad brush the whole "reformed" movement because that movement appears to be made up of a number of theological moving parts and many shades of understanding of the salvation of Christ as related to human will. There has not been one so-called Christian "father" that has not been without failings. Maybe that is why Christ admonished the disciples to "call no man father", as it is God alone who is to be our true father in the our walk with Him. There are certainly spiritual fathers, as Paul was to Timothy, but it is compellingly clear that each must come to a personally genuine saving knowledge of Christ, rather than solely upon one theological understanding or another. From there we are to be led by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God unto "salvation to the fullest" as Paul described it.