Pages

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

The "New Calvinism"

I’ve been asked to comment on an article by John Armstrong:

http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2009/03/the-new-calvinism.html

“The article quotes Southern Baptist Seminary president Albert Mohler, an older leader among the younger neo-Calvinists: ‘The moment someone begins to define God's [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist.’ (Really? If this were so why then do so many with a genuinely classical and high view of God, such as Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, not embrace what we call Calvinism?)”

Because they reject sola scriptura.

“Take a much-maligned modern biblical scholar like N. T. Wright and consider my point. Wright is not a neo-Calvinist by anyone's account. Yet his exegetical and biblical work is as indebted to John Calvin (in a broad and positive sense) as any major academic New Testament scholar today. My friend Scot McKnight, who is not a Calvinist, writes of N.T. Wright's new book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (SPCK): ‘Tom Wright has out-Reformed America's newest religious zealots---the neo-Reformed---by taking them back to Scripture and to its meaning in its historical context. Wright reveals that the neo-Reformed are more committed to Tradition than to the Sacred Text. This irony is palpable on every page of this judicious, hard-hitting, respectful study.’ You ask, ‘What is Wright saying and doing in this new book that Scot McKnight, a non-Calvinist, would praise so warmly?’ Answer: He is correcting the neo-Reformed movement regarding its reading of a major biblical doctrine. He is particularly correcting John Piper's treatment of justification, which is one of weaker efforts to prop up ideas that are not a part of Paul's first-century context or the full biblical narrative…Piper's book, widely praised by a who's who list of the very neo-Calvinists that Van Biema's research mentions (and assumes), is so severely flawed that it staggers me to think credible people are actually excited about it.”
This is nothing short of slandering each and every critic of the New Perspective on Paul–who range along a theological continuum.

“Because this movement is driven by neo-Puritanism it has all the marks of previous Puritan movements without a great deal of the maturity and the historical context of the times in which these movements evolved spiritually.”

“All the marks of previous Puritan movements?” Oh please! Hyperbole could scarcely be more hyperbolic. Is Albert Mohler the reincarnation of William Prynne?

If you want to read some modern-day Puritans, try Turretin Fan or William Young.

"’Classic Protestant backbiting’ is precisely what neo-Calvinism is creating. Look at the divisions in the Southern Baptist Convention and you will see my point. (I have watched this movement for neo-Calvinism from its infancy. I personally attended the first meeting (and several more the years following) of the group that started this effort back in the 1980s. I personally knew the founder who dreamed up the idea of recovering Calvinism in the SBC and then spread the ‘doctrines of grace’ very widely. He is now with the Lord.) Look at the quarrels between these neo-Calvinists and the various strands of emergent (and emerging) Christianity.”

This is comically one-sided. If there’s disagreement between Calvinists and fundamentalists (in the SBC), lay all the blame at the doorstep of the Calvinists. If there’s disagreement between Calvinists and Emergents, lay all the blame at the doorstep of the Calvinists.

To take just one example, you only have to follow the exchange between James White, Tom Ascol, and Ergun Caner to correct Armstrong’s absurdly prejudicial depiction.

To judge by autobiographical anecdotes which Armstrong himself as furnished, I think it’s obvious that Armstrong’s judgment has been warped by personal experience.

11 comments:

  1. Where is the the exchange between James White, Tom Ascol, and Ergun Caner?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I assume that much of it is now in the archives of

    http://www.aomin.org/

    and

    http://founders.org/blog/

    Try doing a "Caner" search at those sites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For a blog thread about Mcknight's blurb extolling NT Wright's book, please see the comments here.

    See this blog thread about Scot Mcknight's Caricature of the Neo-Reformed.

    If you want to see an 88-minute video where Scot Mcknight serves as a panelist with regards to the Emerg*** Church, click here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scot McKnight, I Howard Marshall, and now this guy.

    Does anyone know how Arminians in general have reacted to the NPP?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scot Mcknight's caricature of the Neo-Reformed is not far from Steve's caricature of people who cite confessions as authoritative: "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text." The difference in that ad hominem is one of degree.

    ReplyDelete
  6. James,

    I think you'd do well to read Justin Taylor's entry more closely. He did not say that "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text" was a caricature, nor did he say that it it's inherently ad hominem.

    You could easily have misunderstood him, thinking that he said it was "name-calling", which I suppose would be close enough to ad hom... But I'm fairly sure he was aiming the "name-calling" comment at something else. Let's look at what he said specifically. I'm annotating it with bold and italics formatting, to help you see what I mean:

    ------------
    In his blurb for N.T. Wright's new book, Scot McKnight labeled "the neo-Reformed" as "America's newest religious zealots" who are "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text." Pretty strong words. Since Wright's book is a response to Piper (and other critics like Carson and Seifrid), most readers will understand McKnight's name-calling and accusation as categorizing these pastors and scholars in this broad-brush category.
    ------------

    The "zealots" comment was name-calling, the "more committed" comment was an accusation, and both of them were "strong words" and a "broad-brush category".

    Then later he said:
    ------------
    He then labeled this group as being "religious zealots" who are more committed to tradition than God's Word. Those are pretty harsh words, and I hardly think they apply to someone like John Piper and Don Carson.
    ------------

    So, that particular critique of McKnight is that he used strong/harsh words, which JT hardly thinks apply.

    And JT said that the following was caricature:
    ------------
    And if you are NeoReformed/Fundamentalists, then you believe that the only true evangelicals are those that believe in double predestination and you have a win-at-all-costs mentality that seeks to demonize your opponents!
    ------------

    So. JT understands that "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text" is a strong criticism--one that might actually apply to people, but one that should be used carefully. Strong, harsh words should never be used when they aren't warranted. He doesn't upbraid McKnight for daring to talk that way--he faults McKnight because he "hardly think[s] they apply to someone like John Piper and Don Carson."

    If you want, you can try to argue that Steve's use of "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text" wasn't accurate. But you can't draw on JT's blog as support for your apparent notion that it's an inherently ad hom thing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JAMES VANDENBERG SAID:

    "Steve's caricature of people who cite confessions as authoritative: 'more committed to tradition than to the sacred text.' The difference in that ad hominem is one of degree."

    That's a gross oversimplication of my criticism. You have serious problem with basic honesty. And you have yet to offer a single positive argument for your position. You're just an ankle-biter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve, do you think calling someone an "ankle-biter" is an argument? I don't think I'm the one with a serious problem here. You simply don't see your own contentiousness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've given you a number of arguments. You don't respond to arguments.

    You make no positive contributions. This got started when I was responding to an attack on the faith by Richard Carrier. What did you do? Did you offer an alternative response to Richard Carrier? No.

    Instead, you're the type of person who does nothing useful in useful own right, but when you see another Christian defending the faith, you shoot him in the back.

    Unless you can make a constructive contribution, you're wasting my time. Don't come back until you learn how to pull your own weight.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You're the type of person who does nothing useful in useful own right..."

    My previous response vanished, so I assume this will too. Again, your entire interaction with me has presumed bad faith over and over. We live in a society that accepts verbal abuse online as normal, but that doesn't mean you ought to shout opprobrium.

    "Did you offer an alternative response to Richard Carrier?"

    Briefly put, that wasn't my point. Rather, I object to this crazy implication that believing in Jesus is somehow in the same category with necromancy. There are reasons to reject ongoing miracles today that have nothing to do with naturalism. Marian appearances and Pentecostal prayer languages may be be rejected for theological reasons, why not demonic visitations, apparitions and Ouija boards?

    ReplyDelete
  11. JAMES VANDENBERG SAID:

    “My previous response vanished.”

    Because you didn’t heed my warning. Present arguments.

    “Again, your entire interaction with me has presumed bad faith over and over.

    Because you’ve demonstrated bad faith over and over. Indeed, your very next comment (see below) is a perfect illustration.

    “Briefly put, that wasn't my point. Rather, I object to this crazy implication that believing in Jesus is somehow in the same category with necromancy.”

    That’s a complete misrepresentation of what I said and did. Carrier made a blanket statement: “Nor am I even arguing that ‘no resurrections now means none then’ on the false analogy that ordinary people today are like Jesus. Since Jesus was a special case, you might say, obviously his resurrection hasn't been repeated. But my argument has nothing to do with this analogy. It has to do with the fact that "no miracles now means none then’--in other words, it would not be necessary to repeat the exact same miracles of Jesus to change my conclusion. All that is needed is the demonstration that God, like the laws of nature, is a regular, functioning part of what exists today, and that he actually has powers sufficient to work a resurrection. There is, in my experience, no such demonstration of present miracle-working, of any kind, sufficient to suggest that a particular miracle, like the resurrection of Jesus, is likely to be a miracle from a god. This is actually the way everyone thinks, all the time: we do not believe stories that come to us second-hand which contradict our direct experience, because each fact presents us with two possible realities, the only evidence of one is a story, the only evidence of the other is direct observation.”

    That’s the sort of thing I was responding to. I even quoted a portion.

    i) Therefore, I cited testimonial evidence from the patristic era through the modern era reporting on miraculous, occultic, and/or paranormal phenomena–all of which are sufficient to falsify his claim.

    ii) Whether this is in the “same” category as dominical miracles is wholly irrelevant to the point at issue since Carrier himself said “it would not be necessary to repeat the exact same miracles of Jesus to change [his] conclusion.”

    iii) And my examples were hardly limited to necromancy. That’s a patently false description on your part.

    iv) Finally, what you personally think believing in Jesus in analogous or disanalogous to is also irrelevant. I was merely answering Carrier on his own grounds–which is not the same as giving my own reasons for why we should believe in biblical miracles.

    So, yes, you’re acting in bad faith.

    “There are reasons to reject ongoing miracles today that have nothing to do with naturalism. Marian appearances and Pentecostal prayer languages may be be rejected for theological reasons, why not demonic visitations, apparitions and Ouija boards?”

    That’s a singularly undiscriminating argument. And it isn’t even logical. One reason for rejecting Marian apparitions is if they can be reinterpreted as demonic apparitions. So it’s not a question of rejecting both. To the contrary, one furnishes an alternative explanation for the other.

    ReplyDelete