What is 21st Century Neo Calvinism?

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Brother Bob Topartzer opened a blog in April 2006 with and still a single article. This is the BIBLICIST CHRISTIAN TRUTH blog. For your consideration I am offering Brother Topartzer’s article, in it’s entirety, on 21st Century Neo-Calvinism. I do not share every sentiment expressed below, but there is enough here that I feel makes this a worthwhile read. His article is titled,

CALVINISM TODAY (NEO CALVINISM): What is Neo Calvinism?

It is an emerging emphasis on 5 point Calvinism that is highly argumentative, has a tendency to bash Dispensationalism, and has a temperament of pseudo intellectualism. Their time and efforts have little place for evangelism much to say about those who do.

Some will deny that there is such a thing. However, it is my impression that not only does it exist, but it is perpetuated by some in Pastoral ministry who endeavor to make this the great “sine qua non” of their ministry. Like the “old light” European Calvinism of the Puritans of New England, it is critical of many evangelistic efforts as having undesirable methodology and presenting an easy believism no Lordship Gospel. There is often some truth to criticism. There is some truth to their criticism. However, there is often the presentation of those they criticize with exaggeration and mis-statement of facts.

To the Neo Calvinist all scripture can be exegeted to fit into the wonderful world of the “5 points box.” To them, 1 Tim. 2:4 does not mean “all men” but rather “all kinds of men.” Many other passages that do not quite fit into the 5 point box are given this insightful exegetical methodology. Actually, this is the same kind of methodology that is used by liberals to find monogamous homosexual relationships as approved in scripture.

Approach the passage with a truth that you perceive as being true and find a way of explaining the passage according to that truth.

Neo Calvinism is not just Calvinism. Many historians do not find limited or particular atonement as that which Calvin advocated. Some would call it Hyper Calvinism because of that. But it is not just 5 point (or hyper) Calvinism. It is a mood or spirit that aggressively advocates the view against even a moderate Calvinism. American Evangelicalism (Gospel believers) have included many who would call themselves “moderate Calvinists.” They believe that Calvin said much that was right about the Sovereignty of God. They also would agree with regard to the depravity of man. However, they declared the intent and sufficiency of Christ to die for the sins of all men. However, it was only applied to all who believed and were placed into Christ. They also saw in scripture a human accountability that made men accountable for behavior and choices. They were real choices. They realized that there were some inconsistent philosophical collisions in their position. However, they saw this as consistent with what God had revealed. Many good Bible teachers and Theologians of the past and of the present were and are comfortable with that presentation of Scriptural truth. The Neo Calvinist often seeks to present the moderate Calvinist as not understanding Calvinism and simply a Pelagian heretic or a universalist. They view them as philosophically ignorant because all that the moderate Calvinist states cannot be squeezed into the 5 point box.

Neo Calvinism is also a hazard to balanced Christian living and evangelism. They will show up anywhere with their “five shooters” ready for the quick draw debate. They have no time for the evangelism effort.

Neo Calvinism is not just 5 point Calvinism. It is 5 point Calvinism with an attitude! It harks back to the spirit of the last effort for a theocratic Christian government on this earth by New England Puritans. Most do not advocate a theocracy, but their spirit reflects the old lights Calvinism of those who did.

America needs another great awakening. Neo Calvinism presents a mood and spirit moving in the opposite direction.


The following thread comment was added by Bob Topartzer to address this concern from a reader, “5 Point Calvinism is NOT hyper-Calvinism, which is what you seem to be stating here.”

Of course I am aware of the different definitions of “Hyper Calvinism.” Some have called 5 point Calvinism as hyper because they dare to borrow the name of Calvin while the clear evidence today is that Calvin did not set forth Limited atonement. See Alistair McGrath as one of many Calvin scholars who acknowledge this. (bold added)

Site Publisher's Note:
On May 29, 2010 Bob Topartzer reproduced this article in a thread comment at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron site.

For related reading see,

The Dangers of Reformed Theology by George Zeller

The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness by Dr. Peter Masters.

The “No Lordship” Counter-Claim by Pastor Tom Stegall.

The Gospel and Separation: Is the Term “Final Salvation” Necessarily Wrong?

Bob T: The KJV & Me

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Well, one more time- This morning I had planned to post the second installment of Let’s get “CRYSTAL” Clear… , which is my review of Kevin Bauder’s article, Let’s Get Clear on This. This will be posted on Friday. The delay is because of a second issue that arose yesterday.

Yesterday afternoon at the pseudo- fundamentalist *Sharper Iron (SI) site Bob Topartzer posted a comment in which he identified Lordship Salvation, as John MacArthur defines it, as a false gospel. He wrote the following, which I heartily agree with:

“[John] MacArthur declares a false Gospel and has made his version of the so called Lordship Gospel a distinctive of his church.”

However, in the midst of his extended comment he responded to another man’s query with the following,

“You mentioned ‘reading Lou.’ I have read his book and it is poorly researched and he does not understand the issues. Lou is a KJVO person. His is also a gospel of legalism.” (bold added)

I don’t mind folks criticizing my book. When you put your theology out for public consumption you had better count on criticism well meant, or to demonize and/or defame.

What Bob’s criticism does for me, however, is allow me the golden opportunity to announce that the revised and expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation will be released in about 30 days. This edition has six well known, respected preachers and/or theologians who take a very different view of my book than Bob have offered an opinion. Four submitted endorsements that appear on the new back cover. The remaining two each submitted a foreword that appears in the opening pages of the new edition.

Now, on the balance of Bob’s statement, and in reverse order. As for his charging me with a “gospel of legalism” I will not give this any possibility for credibility with a reaction to it.

On the KJV:
I read and study from a KJV Bible. When I was 23 and newly saved I went to a secular bookstore and bought the Living Bible because I liked the photo on the front cover and it seemed easy for me to read. That’s all I knew being only days old in the Lord. Not long after I found out about some of the problems with a paraphrase so I think I bought an RSV, or NASB; I don’t recall. Later in 1987 I did buy my first KJV and have been using that version ever since. The KJV is my preference.

I reject the extremes such as those coming from Ruckmanism. My personal preference is the KJV because I truly enjoy the language and believe it is the most reliable translation. My conviction toward those who prefer a different version is to allow for soul liberty and the autonomy of a local church. I also allow for men and ministries to decide for themselves as their conscience directs them. I have friends with various views in the debate and I allow for them the same soul liberty they have allowed me.

In the mid-90’s when I was a deputation missionary through Baptist World Mission I visited dozens of churches. Never once did the version controversy become an issue at any of these. I was at three or more churches that used a version which was not a KJV. I can assure my readers that I did not rise to my feet, rent my garment, and run out the back door shrieking “HERESY!!!”

My reputation belongs to God, and God knows the truth!

That is my normal mind set when absurd comments to or about me, such as Bob posted yesterday, make their way on to the Internet. However, after consulting with pastors I trust they suggested that with this one I shouldn’t just let it stand without any correction for the sake of others reading.

I have posted this correction to Bob’s statement so that all reading can know the truth about my personal view of the KJV debate and so they can see that Bob Topartzer is not being accurate or honest.

Feel free to post any comment or question.


LM

*If I had not publicly resigned my membership at SI over nine months ago I might have posted this- there.

IFCA Statement on: The Nature of Saving Faith

To All:

In 1990 the IFCA International, of which John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church is a member, had several scholars do a study to interpret their statement of faith on salvation. It is my understanding that this statement was drafted in response to Dr. MacArthur's original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, published in 1988.

The title of the IFCA statement is: The Nature of Saving Faith.

The IFCA statement appears to be very balanced and to speak against MacArthur’s Lordship interpretation of the gospel. The study committee is listed at the end of the paper. It is very impressive.

Dr. Robert Thomas of The Master’s Seminary was on the committee. Dr. Thomas is considered a world class New Testament scholar, he taught at Talbot for years (1959-1986) where John MacArthur was one of his students. Dr. Thomas has been at The Master’s Seminary since 1987.

This is just a sample from the statement:

Some suitable expressions equivalent to the reliance on Christ that brings salvation include “believe in,” “trust in,” and “depend on.” Other terminology that may be misleading in representing this relationship include “submit to,” “yield to,” “dedicate [oneself] to,” and “make Jesus Lord of one's life.” These are better reserved for a stage of sanctification that usually comes subsequent to saving faith. Two additional phrases, “make a commitment to" and “become a disciple of,” are ambiguous because they could or could not refer to reliance on Christ, depending on how they are defined. “Repent” is not a suitable way to describe saving faith, because it only partially represents what it is to rely on Christ alone.

That paragraph addresses several of the controversial terms/phrases that are inherent in the Lordship gospel. They appear in The Gospel According to Jesus and in the later works by MacArthur on Lordship Salvation.

The sentence in bold is the key to the Lordship error. As I demonstrate in my book and in various articles here and at other sites John MacArthur, and the Lordship advocates he represents, conditions the reception of salvation on the upfront promise from a lost man to "submit, yield, dedicate" his life in "exchange" for eternal life. Lordship Salvation places demands on a sinner (requirements for salvation) that belong to the born again child of God in regard to growth as a disciple of Christ.

This IFCA statement was adopted by the Executive Committee (Board of Directors) in November 1990 and was affirmed by 93% of the individual members participating in a straw poll.

Incidentally, another Master’s Seminary faculty member, Dr. James Rosscup (retired June 2005), also wrote about his reservations with MacArthur’s expressions of his Lordship theology. See post #10 on page 2 by Bob Topartzer at Sharper Iron in my response to Pastor Todd Wood’s review of my book.


LM

Important Contribution at SharperIron

Dear Guests:

Please visit this link to SharperIron. In the thread of an article titled, Lordship Teaches... you will find an important contribution by Bob Topartzer.

There are several important contributions, which Bob Topartzer makes in his post at SharperIron. One of which has to do with one of John MacArthur’s former professors. I am not the first to raise concerns with Dr. MacArthur’s position, and I will not be the last. Since the introduction of The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) men have raised concerns with portions of Dr. MacArthur’s definition of the Gospel.

At the SharperIron site you will find documentation by Bob Topartzer that supports and further confirms the problems with John MacArthur’s statements.

Dr. James E. Rosscup is retired Professor of Bible Exposition at The Master’s Seminary. Dr. Rosscup was one of John MacArthur’s professors at Talbot.

Bob Topartzer documents how Dr. Rosscup had written to point out some of the "exaggerations" in his former student’s books. Ironically, several of the excerpts Dr. Rosscup refers to are the very same, which I have been addressing all along.


LM