An analysis of the “new” Calvinism

From Chaplain Mike at the Internet Monk blog, a look at the recent resurgence of Calvinism, especially among young adults:

Like many previous incarnations of Calvinism, and despite its use of contemporary methods and inclusion of theological commitments previously considered suspect (such as charismatic gifts), TNC maintains a firm commitment to being “right,” to standing for “truth,” and to attacking those they think are “compromisers.” As Mark Driscoll said, it’s about authority. This makes TNC’s just as vulnerable to becoming Pharisaic, divisive, angry, power-hungry, and controlling as any fundamentalist group. If they succumb to the temptations of being dogmatic, doctrinaire, and dismissive of those who disagree with them, this will not serve TNC well in the long term. Many who are now fleeing to them for refuge from a failed evangelicalism will become disillusioned and seek other paths.

To me, Calvinism, whether old or new, misrepresents both the nature of God and the nature of man. Calvinism was seen as “more protestant” than Luther, because it tossed out Roman Catholic forms. However, in my opinion it was Luther who was more protestant, as he embraced the reality of God’s love as His prime motivator. Calvinism kept and locked on to some of the worst aspects of Augustinian philosophy and theology. I still don’t get what makes Calvinism so attractive to people.

This entry was posted in Theological Musings. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to An analysis of the “new” Calvinism

  1. Steve says:

    I still don’t get what makes Calvinism so attractive to people.

    Oh come on, who wouldn’t prefer to be right? 😉

    This may be a vice, but I don’t look for complimentary things to say about Calvinism old or new anymore. To me, it’s their whole orientation that’s off and besides acknowledging the validity of their faith, I have little positive to say about the movement.

    Like you, I identify the central problem as an abominable view of God and His nature. A close second is heir dogged commitment to their own opinions on Scrpture that they define as non-negotiable (orthodoxy), which speaks way louder than their attempts at orthopraxy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *