From Calvinism to Adapted Calvinism to Neo Calvinism

In this article I would like to deal with the question “What is Calvinism and who is Calvinist”. Calvinism essentially refers to Calvin’s conviction and philosophy that can be found in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (5 volumes), sermons, and other writings. Calvinism was clearly seen in the model of the Geneva Church that Calvin has established and controlled, and also in the running of the Geneva local government. According to Calvin’s conviction, these two institutions were not independent from one another. The approximation between the church and the state was not only as the result of him being both the ecclesiastical leader and a powerful politician, but also as the result of his conviction that a “national church” was a necessity to counter the Roman Catholic Church. This idea of a “national church” was commonly shared by almost all the reformers.

When Calvinism is defined by Calvin’s conviction and philosophy, and the way in which he managed both the Geneva church and the local government,  defining “Calvinist” would be quite straight forward. Obviously, Calvinist is one who has read and understood Calvin’s writings and sermons and accepted Calvin’s conviction as his own conviction. In this sense, Calvin and his close associates in Geneva and some other parts of Europe were the first Calvinists.

What about the Puritans who subscribed to both the teachings of Zwingli and Calvin? What about the Methodists who were under the leadership of George Whitefield? These believers were regarded as Calvinists by church historians, but were they actually Calvinists? Strictly speaking the Puritans were not Calvinists simply because they did not subscribed 100% to Calvin’s conviction. The fact that the Puritans, while subscribing to Calvin’s teaching, they also included Zwingli as their mentor, speaks clearly that certain part of Calvin’s teaching was not suitable for their struggle. They did not subscribe, but adapted Calvin’s teaching. Similarly, George Whitefield and his associates did not subscribe but adapted Calvin’s teaching for their ministry.

What about reformed faith in general and reformed Baptist conviction (The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith) in particular? I have established  that both the reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction are no Calvinism in one of  my  articles[i]. Should there be any trace of Calvinism and it should be regarded only as adapted Calvinism at most, because it does not agree totally with Calvinism. This is obvious with reformed Baptist conviction. The word “reformed” is employed and not “Calvinist” simply shows that the early believers did not want to limit themselves with Calvin’s teaching alone. They preferred to have the freedom to select what they deemed as suitable from the other reformers’ teaching. The name “Baptist” suggests an independent local church and this is an obvious break away from Calvin’s and other reformers’ idea of a national church. Its conviction of believer baptism also played a role to distant themselves from Calvin’s permission to allow child baptism. Under such circumstance, do we still insist that reformed faith and reformed Baptists are Calvinists? Judging from history, reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction is the result of a long process of adoption and adaptation of theological thinking. The whole process is dynamic and it cannot just be equated with Calvinism alone.

Strangely, yet, there is a dispute among the reformed people about Calvinism. At the global level, there is this group of conference speakers, with reformed background, who managed to attract to themselves a good following with their reformed teaching. Unfortunately, they have also attracted to themselves the unnecessary attention and criticism from certain party from within the reformed circle. They called them the New Calvinist because allegedly they have compromised the Calvinist conviction. Alarm has been sounded to the reformed believers to dissociate themselves from these New Calvinists. Such accusation can be heard also among the reformed Baptists locally. Reformed Baptists is such a small group of believers and yet we have fallen into this illogical dispute and division.

The question is, why bother to label another as New Calvinist when Calvinist does not exist? Why a reformed believer should condemns another reformed believer as New Calvinist? Strictly speaking, most of of the reformed believers are adapted Calvinists but never Calvinists. We do not uphold all the teaching of Calvin as the tenet of our faith. We have adapted Calvin’s teaching selectively . Our struggle therefore should not be between choosing either Calvinist or New Calvinist, but a firm commitment to preach the gospel fully as the Bible has taught it. We have to actively preach it to men and women who come from different cultures, different age groups, and different political situations.

---

[i] What is reformed faith?

What is reformed faith?

It is a difficult question to answer, because “reformed faith” means different thing to different people today. The scenario is like a few blind men are asked to explain what an elephant is after they have each got a feel of the animal with their hands. Some would say that reformed faith is a better alternative to evangelical belief. It has nothing in common with the “charismatic teaching”, and this has led some to regard it as narrow and anti Holy Spirit. Some say it is just another denomination, since there are Methodist, Anglicans, Lutheran, Assembly of God, and Gospel Chapel, and so there is the Reformed Church. Some would associate it with the 16^th century Reformation. The Reformed Baptist, in particular would refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith as the authority of their faith.

Prior to answering the question, it is necessary to make a distinction between Reformation and Reformed faith. They are not identical though related. They represent two entirely different developments that belong to two different periods in church history. First of all, the Reformation is also known as Protestantism. It was a sociological, ecclesiastical, and political movement. It began in Germany in the early 16th century as a reaction against medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, especially in regard to salvation, justification, and ecclesiology. The movement was held together by a common desire in denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the  principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth. These tenacious principles eventually became the core belief of more than 30,000 strong protestant followers throughout Europe. These followers, while holding on to this core belief, disagreed with one another on various other doctrinal issues as soon as the movement gained momentum in breaking away from the papal authority.

Then, Reformed faith was believably referring to the core belief of this movement. When the movement was divided by doctrinal dispute, the definition of “reformed faith” soon faded into the chaotic background. Later the name was once again being revived and associated with the teaching of Calvin and Zwingli during the time of the English Puritan in the 17^th century. This time around, the Puritan did not fight against the papal authority, but instead they fought hard to free themselves from the powerful hand of the Anglican authority. While the Reformers sought to deny the papal authority, the Puritan resorted to push for changes from within the Anglican Church. Some left the Anglican fold to pursue a greater freedom. The Puritan saw a greater need to minister to the inner man rather than the political situation. They produced a “pastoral theology” to minister to the spiritual need among the likeminded believers. This association was later confined more to Calvinism in the 18^th century, especially during the time of Methodist Evangelical revival that was under the leadership of George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers.

Reformed faith found its way into Malaysia in the early 20^th century or might be earlier and was commonly known as Calvinism. It was shared by some believers across various denominations. We can trace the influence of Calvinism on Christian thinking in Malaysia from various sources. One of them was the overseas students and Bible students who came home with their Christian learning.  Another one of them would be the Presbyterian Church. Reformed faith did not leave a good impression among the Christian community. The first Reformed Baptist congregation in Malaysia was pioneered by a group overseas student who returned from England, in the later part of 20^th century. This new church was supportive of Calvinism. The negative impression about reformed faith has not improved with the establishment of the first Reformed Baptist congregation.

What is reformed faith? Is it all about conforming to a doctrine that is known as “Calvinism”? Judging from the two periods of the Reformation and the struggle of the Puritan, reformed faith did not appear to be hanging on Calvinism alone. Indeed Calvin had contributed quite a fair share in shaping the movement, but he was not the only one to do that. His teaching was part of the whole movement. “Calvinism” was not the only banner the reformers carried. They were promoting something much larger than Calvinism. They were promoting the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were pursuing the freedom of worship as granted by the gospel. To these believers the gospel was far more important and much larger than just one shade of doctrine.

Only very few would equate reformed faith with Calvinism today. Under the close scrutiny of the Bible study, “Calvinism” has been proven “outdated” as a philosophy, and inaccurate as a piece of theology according to the standard of the gospel.  Moreover, Reformed Baptist believers would not be able to agree 100% with “Calvinism”. Reformed Baptist believers would disagree with Calvinism on the interpretation of the presbytery. Reformed Baptist believers would also find it hard to accept its idea of a “national church”. An acceptance of Calvinism minus any part that is regarded not suitable for present day application would result in an adapted version of Calvinism. An adapted version of Calvinism is no Calvinism.  If the Reformed Baptists can only accept an adapted version of Calvinism, then reformed faith cannot be equated with Calvinism.

There is a need to redefine reformed faith and to distant it away from any thinking that is narrow and does not reflect clearly the gospel of Christ Jesus. It is urgent that close examination should be carried out on every tenet that claims to represent reformed faith. Attention must be given to careful study of the Bible just as the reformers had worked out their philosophy from the Bible to challenge the papal authority. Reformed faith was a faith in Christ Jesus that brought changes into Europe. Can reformed faith give the world the same magic today?

We can now safely conclude that reformed faith is all about the gospel of Christ Jesus and never about Calvin, nor Luther, nor Zwingli. Reformed faith is for careful study of the Bible, and not for lip servicing the slogan that the Bible is the final authority of our belief and practice. Reformed faith is ultimately for radical change according to the demand of the gospel. Reformed faith would not be complete without the “reformed gut”. The good faith was there in the Bible, but without someone who was courageous enough to champion it, it would remain mere words. God had raised a generation of Christians who were courageous enough to do that. These Christians could, in no uncertain terms, said to one another, “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also. The body they may kill; God’s truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever”.