Pages

Thursday, January 12, 2006

The ABC's of Calvinism

***QUOTE***

Sometime you guys are going to have to explain to me how it is that some "Calvinists" seem to believe in infant baptism, and others do not but they are still claiming they are Reformed but Baptists, but not Calvinists?

Maybe you might take a stab at a post "Calvinism for Dummies" or something like that trying to make sense of all the various "confessions" and the various five-point, or four-point, or infant baptism, or not, etc. etc. etc.

***END-QUOTE***

That’s a fair question. To some extent that question has already been addressed (not only in what I said, but the comments left by James Anderson and Jus Divinum):

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/whose-covenant-theology.html

But Paul McCain’s question goes a little beyond that, so I’ll both repeat myself and make some additional observations.

1.Although Calvinism takes its name from a particular individual, it is not as much of a one-man vision as is the Lutheran tradition. Hence, there is rather more doctrinal diversity within the Reformed tradition than there is within the Lutheran tradition.

2.Every theological tradition is, to some extent, a historical accident. As with any historical phenomenon in the history of ideas, the Reformed tradition is rather fluid, with somewhat fuzzy boundaries in time, space, and content. The doctrinal package is, in some measure, eclectic.

3.There are different ways of identifying the Reformed tradition.

a)You might take certain representative credal statements as your point of reference. These reflect differences of national character and political history.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is the doctrinal standard of confessional, English-speaking Presbyterians.

The Three Forms of Unity supply the doctrinal standard of the Dutch-Reformed.

The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644/77/89) represents the doctrinal standard of Reformed Baptists.

The New Hampshire Baptist Confession represents the doctrinal standard of Sovereign Grace Baptists.

The Old Baptist Confession of Faith, subsequently revised by John Gill, William Gadsby, and Joseph Philpot, represents the doctrine standard of Strict & Particular Baptists.

The Thirty-Nine Articles and especially the Lambeth Articles represent the doctrinal standard of Reformed Anglicans.

The Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists is the doctrinal standard of Welsh Calvinism.

Creeds are consensus documents, so they express mainstream opinion, although it may be the mainstream opinion of a particular nationality, ethnicity, or subculture.

b) You might take certain representative theologians as your point of reference (e.g. Bavinck, Calvin, Cunningham, Edwards, Gill, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Murray, Owen, Turretin, Warfield).

c) You might take the inner logic of certain doctrinal matrices as your point of reference (e.g. TULIP).

4.As with any faith-community, the question of who’s in and who’s out is a consensus question. You cannot have community without a certain measure of unity. If enough people can’t agree on enough things, they can’t function at a communal level. But there’s no abstract, uniform answer for where to draw the line.

For example, the Reformed tradition has spawned certain offshoots, such as the Amyraldins, Remonstrants, Hyper-Calvinists and antinomians.

These developments and deviations have been repudiated by mainstream confessional Calvinism. So, for instance, Strict & Particular Baptists, due to their Hyper-Calvinist and antinomian sympathies, would not be widely regarded as expressive of authentic Calvinism. The same holds true, for different reasons, of Arminians and 4-point Calvinists.

5.But some issues are not as clear-cut. Is covenant theology a Reformed distinctive? How do we classify Christians like Sovereign Grace Baptists or fundamentalists like S. Lewis Johnson who subscribe to the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP), but reject covenant theology? That’s a judgment call.

6.There are also differences of emphasis. The Puritans and Welsh Calvinists accentuate “experimental religion.”

7.There are parallel debates within Lutheranism. Was Flacius a Lutheran? Or Schleiermacher? Or Bultmann? Is the Lutheran World Federation or the ECLA an authentic expression of the Lutheran tradition?

8. Reformed Baptists are Calvinists because infant baptism is not a Reformed distinctive. Most Christian traditions observe infant baptism. Hence, that does not demarcate Calvinism from rival theological traditions.

Likewise, the efficacy of the sacraments is not a Reformed distinctive.

Calvinists differ over covenant theology, church/state relations, polity, the sacraments, open or closed communion, the rule of worship, and the terms of church membership.

9. Superficially speaking, a 4-point Calvinist is a Christian who subscribes to TULIP except for limited atonement.

However, 4-point Calvinism is a misnomer since it redefines each of the remaining points.

It affirms original sin, but denies spiritual inability.

It rejects unconditional election in favor of conditional election—contingent on foreseen faith.

It rejects limited atonement in favor of unlimited atonement.

It affirms freewill and thereby denies irresistible grace.

It denies the doctrine of perseverance in favor of an antinomian version of eternal security.

If you like, I can flesh out the details of this classification system. For now I’m simply presenting a thumbnail taxonomy.

8 comments:

  1. McCain's questioning and assertions resemble how Schumer and Kennedy have beed attacking Alito showing their inability to listen and interact fairly.

    It is still a wonder to me as far as McCain is concerned is why he left a certain chatroom when James White popped in rather than chat. He had a change to interact in real time with a Calvinist.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, thanks, your quick guide was very helpful and informative. I appreciaste it.

    As to the question raised by the other person, please know that on that evening Mr. White actually privately messaged me under a fake name and tossed off a few ad hominems and such and then, finally, when I said basically, "Who in the world are you?" admitted he was James White and in the same breath said I had no virtue.

    Hmmm...at that point I realized there is little point in attempting conversation with such as White.

    I find this curious "groupie" phenonemon with White to be ... unsettling.

    But, again, many thanks for the helpful quick primer on Calvinism's various groups.

    John, if you feel the need to exercise your rhetorical ad hominem boxing gloves further, feel free, but I'm disinclined to further converse if that is how you wish to go. But, don't let me spoil your fun. Knock yourself out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That doesn't sound like something White would do. I'm not a huge White fan (I think he's dishonest on the manuscripts issues), but what you describe doesn't sound like White. Even just on a technical level White wouldn't be sending emails like that. There has been an increase of people impersonating other people on the internet these days, in these various Christian blogosphere arenas, and it's best - especially with personalities that people tend to have extreme reactions to - to take any emails like that with a grain of salt. To be frank, there's a large community on the net that feel White has attacked them, and they have been known to engage in hoax emails and similar types of behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ptmccain, my rhetorical ad hom boxing gloves? Calvinsts have tried to engage in an actual diaglogue with you only to have you make comments as if you're playing a game. Shall I produce the chatroom logs?

    I am more attacking what I've witnessed to be your current mode and method of understanding when it comes to Calvinism. I don't intend to have an ad hom fight. The comparison may be assessed by the fact the Steve and Gene even had to correct/interact with you again on your misrepresentations of Calvinism. Those two men as well as others have answered you very well yet you continue.

    I'm sorry, but I've spent some "real time" with James White and I cannot believe he'd attack you with ad homs. I'd have to see it to believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As to the question raised by the other person, please know that on that evening Mr. White actually privately messaged me under a fake name and tossed off a few ad hominems and such and then, finally, when I said basically, "Who in the world are you?" admitted he was James White.

    If it was a fake name, why did you believe it was really James White? It could have been anybody. So, what you did was make an assumption based on what? Did you call his ministry to discuss the matter? Email him? Write about it on your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find one of the statements in your post to be fairly interesting. You talk about those who accept the 5 points but reject covenant theology.

    Doesn't this just illustrate the differences between English and Continental Calvinism?

    As I understand it, covenantal theology rose in England. TULIP (though accepted by many Calvinists in England) is continental.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve (or any of the other writers here) could you give a quick thumbnail take on the recently published: Systematic Theology by Robert Duncan Culver? I can't find any description that even states if he's Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian or, you know, that basic info. Just curious whenever a seemingly big ST comes out.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chaz, this is a brief, excellent rundown of the history of covenant theology written as an outline:

    http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/History_Covenant_Theology.htm

    Here's the main page where you can find the Covenant Theology link to more excellent outlines:

    http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/

    ReplyDelete