Another Critique of "Calvinism: The Old vs. The New"

A Critique of "Calvinism: The Old vs. The New"

The book "Calvinism: The Old vs. The New" presents a stark dichotomy between what it terms "Old Calvinism"—portrayed as the only pure, historical expression of Reformed theology—and "New Calvinism," which it depicts as a compromised, aberrant movement. While the text is a valuable compilation of historical Reformed thought, its critique of New Calvinism is founded on a highly specific and, at times, extremist interpretation of the Reformed tradition. This critique will argue that the so-called "Old Calvinism" presented is, in several key areas, a narrow segment of the broader Reformed tradition and that the charges against New Calvinism often fail to engage with its core mission: applying robust Reformed theology to contemporary mission.

1. On the Doctrine of Scripture and Textual Criticism (Pages 28-31, 40-49)

The book argues that a true Calvinist must hold to a doctrine of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP), asserting that the specific words of the Textus Receptus (TR) and Masoretic Text (MT) are the perfectly preserved, identical apographs of the original autographs. It condemns modern textual criticism and translations like the ESV as a compromise of biblical inerrancy, claiming they lead to "maximum uncertainty" (p. 48). The use of any modern critical Greek text is seen as a denial of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 1.8.

This represents a fundamentalist, not a classically Reformed, position. The mainstream Reformed and Evangelical view distinguishes between the inspiration of the autographs (which are inerrant) and the preservation of the text through the work of fallible scribes. The Reformers themselves, including Calvin, used the best available manuscripts of their time. Erasmus compiled the TR from a handful of late medieval manuscripts; it was not delivered by divine fiat. To claim that God’s providence only operated in the preservation of one specific textual tradition (the Byzantine) is a theological innovation.

The WCF 1.8 states that the Scriptures have been "kept pure in all ages" by God's "singular care and providence." Mainstream Reformed theologians have historically understood this to mean that the core text has been preserved from substantive corruption, not that every jot and tittle of a specific printed edition is inviolable. The work of textual criticism is not a rejection of God's providence but a participation in it—a scholarly effort to recover the original reading from the wealth of evidence God has preserved. Using the ESV or other modern translations based on older manuscripts is not a sign of low bibliology but of high respect for the textual evidence. To insist on the KJV/TR alone as a test of orthodoxy is to elevate a 17th-century translation to a position of authority that belongs only to the original languages.

2. On Cessationism and Spiritual Gifts (Pages 50-58)

The book asserts that "true Calvinism" has always been staunchly cessationist, believing that the miraculous "sign gifts" (prophecy, tongues, etc.) ceased with the completion of the biblical canon. It argues that 1 Corinthians 13:10 refers to the closed canon, not Christ's return. New Calvinism's openness to continuationism and fellowship with charismatics is presented as a dangerous error and compromise (p. 51-53).

This presents a myopic view of church history. While many Reformed stalwarts were cessationists, it is inaccurate to claim this as the definitive Reformed position. The Puritan John Owen held a more open view of the Spirit's extraordinary work, and figures like Jonathan Edwards testified to powerful outpourings of the Spirit that included phenomena which some might call charismatic. The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:10 is a matter of legitimate exegetical debate within Evangelicalism. To label one side of this intramural debate as "unbiblical" is uncharitable.

New Calvinism's desire for charitable engagement with Reformed charismatics (like those in Sovereign Grace Ministries) is not a compromise of doctrine but an application of the gospel's unifying power on secondary issues. It recognizes that a shared commitment to the doctrines of grace (TULIP) and a high view of Scripture is a more fundamental basis for fellowship than a particular view on the continuation of certain gifts. This reflects a wise and pragmatic approach to Christian unity, prioritizing core soteriology over peripheral pneumatology.

3. On Worship and "Reformed Rap" (Pages 59-66)

The book condemns the use of contemporary music forms, particularly hip-hop ("Reformed Rap"), as inherently worldly and sinful due to its historical origins. It advocates for the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) interpreted to mean that only culturally "reverent" music (implicitly, traditional hymns) is acceptable. It argues that music is not amoral and that certain styles cannot be redeemed for worship (p. 63-65).

This argument confuses culture with sin. While the origins of a musical genre may be sinful, the form itself is a neutral vehicle that can be redeemed and filled with new content. The RPW commands what we do in worship (based on Scripture), not the cultural form in which we do it. The Psalms command us to worship God with dance and loud cymbals (Psalm 150)—forms that would have been associated with the pagan culture of the day.

The Incarnation is God’s ultimate model of contextualization: the eternal Word took on flesh and spoke in the language and cultural forms of 1st-century Judaism. To argue that hip-hop is inherently irredeemable is a form of cultural imperialism that mistakes 18th-century European musical forms for divine law. If the lyrics are theologically rich and God-exalting (as many Reformed rap songs are), the genre can be a powerful tool for reaching a generation that finds traditional forms inaccessible. The critique here is not a defense of Reformed orthodoxy but a defense of a particular cultural aesthetic.

4. On Separation and Ecumenism (Pages 67-72)

The book champions a strict form of secondary separation, condemning New Calvinism's ecumenical cooperation across denominational and theological lines (e.g., Baptists, Presbyterians, charismatics) as a "neo-evangelical" compromise. It criticizes platforms shared with figures like Rick Warren or T.D. Jakes as an unbiblical failure to "touch not the unclean thing" (p. 69-70).

This represents a hyper-separatist strand of fundamentalism, not the spirit of the Reformers. Calvin himself engaged extensively with those he disagreed with (e.g., his letters to Melanchthon). The New Calvinist movement, through entities like The Gospel Coalition, is attempting to build a broad coalition based on a core of essential, gospel-centered doctrine. This is not a compromise of truth but a strategic effort to foster unity and mission around primary issues (the gospel, Trinity, authority of Scripture) while allowing for disagreement on secondary ones (baptism, spiritual gifts, eschatology).

While discernment is always needed regarding specific teachers, a blanket refusal to engage with any broader evangelical world is a retreat into irrelevance. It mistakes isolation for purity. The New Calvinist approach is far more consistent with the Reformed emphasis on the unity of the body of Christ and the need for a common witness in a secular age.

5. On Contextualization and Mission (Pages 73-81)

The book views "contextualization" with deep suspicion, equating it with compromising the gospel message to make it palatable to culture. It argues that methods like those of Timothy Keller dangerously focus on "cultural renewal" over individual sin and salvation (p. 75). It claims that true Reformed mission relies solely on the plain preaching of the Word without cultural adaptation.

This critique fundamentally misunderstands missiology. Contextualization is not about changing the message, but about translating it into the language and thought forms of a culture so it can be truly heard. The apostle Paul is the prime biblical example: in Acts 17, he contextualized his message for the Greek philosophers in Athens, quoting their poets and engaging their intellectual framework to point them to Christ.

Timothy Keller does not sideline sin; he expertly diagnoses the underlying idols of a modern, secular culture (power, approval, control) to show how the gospel is the answer to its deepest brokenness. This is not a compromise but a deepening of gospel application. To insist that the gospel can only be presented in one cultural form is to hamstring the Great Commission. The "Old Calvinism" presented in the book, for all its doctrinal precision, often failed to move beyond its own cultural context, leading to the decline it laments. New Calvinism's missionary impulse is its greatest strength and is entirely consistent with the legacy of Calvinist missionaries like William Carey.

6. On Worldliness and Holiness (Pages 81-86)

The book lambasts a perceived "antinomian" and worldly streak within New Calvinism, pointing to things like drinking beer and cigar-smoking as evidence of a rejection of Puritan sanctification. It argues that one cannot have "Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification" (p. 85).

This confuses biblical holiness with cultural asceticism. The Bible condemns drunkenness, not the moderate consumption of alcohol (Jesus made wine). The Puritans lived in their cultural context with its own set of customs; to absolutize their specific applications of biblical principle is itself a form of legalism.

True Reformed piety, as Calvin taught, is about the heart's orientation toward God, flowing from a doctrine of grace. It is a "joyful seriousness," not a dour legalism. New Calvinism's push against a man-made list of "forbidden things" is a healthy recovery of the Christian liberty that Paul championed in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10. The call is to be governed by love for God and love for neighbor, not by a set of extra-biblical rules. The real issue is not a particular beverage but the heart attitude behind its consumption.

Conclusion

"Calvinism: The Old vs. The New" defends a version of Reformed theology that is doctrinally rigid, culturally sequestered, and missiologically stagnant. It mistakes its own particular interpretations—on the Textus Receptus, cessationism, worship styles, and separation—for the very essence of Calvinism itself.

In contrast, the New Calvinism, for all its flaws and diversity, represents a vibrant attempt to recover the heart of the Reformed faith—the sovereignty of God in all of life—and to unleash it upon the modern world. Its commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, the doctrines of grace, the centrality of the gospel, and the mission of the church places it firmly within the historic Reformed stream. Its willingness to engage with culture, to utilize modern scholarship, and to partner with other gospel-hearted believers is not a compromise but a necessary and faithful application of Reformed truth for our time. The goal is not to preserve a museum piece of 17th-century European Christianity, but to build a living, breathing, and reaching Reformed faith for the 21st century and beyond.