The following link is posted in the Aquila Report:
Is Neo-Calvinism different from the old, classic Calvinism?
Here is another reason for the clash between Cornelius Van Til and Gordon H. Clark. Van Til, having come from the Christian Reformed Church, followed the theology of neo-Calvinism via Vos, Bavinck, and Kuyper. Clark followed the trajectory of classical Calvinism. Is Neo-Calvinism different from old-line classical Calvinism? You bet. And the worst part of it is that so-called "Calvinists" today are attacking the classical Calvinists as "rationalists" and "hyper-Calvinists." Nothing could be further from the truth. Oh, did I forget to mention we are called "fundamentalists"?
Posts
2 comments:
It wasn't until I'd met you and Monty that I even learned of people who believed in what Calvinism was always said to represent. Every so-called 'Reformed Church' I was involved with and had visited in the past years was filled with members and teachers who all taught free-will, conditional election, universal atonement, 'resistible grace', and that one can lose their salvation through disobedience. The 'Reformers' today are mostly just Arminians.
Amen. I remember when I first became a Calvinist that I was surprised to learn about "common grace" and the "free offer." I had read many articles about Calvinism and Arminianism in the Encyclopedia Britannica as a kid. Not once did the article mention common grace, but there was plenty about supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.
Post a Comment