I share your vitriol on this, you are a better man than I am because it infuriates me to the point I can hardly contain myself (and often I don’t and I stick my foot in my mouth more than a few times on such). That hell hole she speaks of, I know what that feels like. This is something, if it were asked of me, I’d explain to her:

One of the reasons I left Calvinism (the Baptist variety and then later the more pure Reformed variety) was the link I saw between infants, adults and the sacraments. In the unhinging of the sacraments one will find that the actual out play and affect of the doctrine, regardless of any repair job one attempts to bring Calvin back toward Luther, that at the end of the day in the balance of the scales there is in fact just as much synergism in Calvin (and particularly in his successors) as there is in any Arminian doctrine. And with that synergism, explicit or implicit, eventually it’s false promise ends in utter despair and terror, or utter pride.

Luther once made the observation speaking of the Anabaptist, ironically, that if we cease to baptize babies we loose the Gospel (paraphrased from memory – ldh). That resonated with me personally when I was in those long deep dark years of “am I saved, elect, reborn, truly baptized” within the non-sacramental versions in Reformed Baptist circles and Reformed Reformed circles. I was about ready to literally hang myself so despairing and dark it was. I was like the prostitute needing to hear via the sacraments, a Word from God, “I forgive YOU all your sins”, and not just some generic word. I told my wife once that if I cannot tell that my children were baptized and the sacrament was utterly objective to them and – and this is the key difference in Luther and Calvin – that it actually gave to them (not awaiting their faith) forgiveness of sin, the Holy Spirit, rebirth, etc…then I can never tell it for myself ever – neither under Calvin and especially under Baptist versions of it. One undermines the other. Why? Because if grace is not truly given, and I mean really given not just signs and symbols of it, but actually and really bestowed upon an infant that is the PICTURE of “can only helplessly receive it”, then no amount of examining, no amount of secondary forms of fruit inspection, no amount of repair work to bring Calvin’s doctrine in line with Luther, none of that whatsoever can ever make me, or anyone else assured of the mercy of God toward them. In other words when we require of infants something for the sacraments to actually give you forgiveness and/or we make the sacrament a sign pointing to a reality elsewhere, even faith itself, that requirement MUST extend to adults. When that happens, you will loose the Gospel and either despair utterly of any hope and assurance, or you will be filled with pride that you’ve somehow found the “coin” that buys your conscience assurance. I make this opening point for a reason because it speaks to the reality and direction of grace, utterly and totally free, from heaven actually down to and on earth in the present tense.

Now when it comes to infants who die I think the scriptures are in fact very explicit about the matter. At a minimum if I cannot find explicitness to the answer I think Luther’s advice is best, stick to the revealed God, and the revealed God who became flesh and blood and soul as a man for us and suffered for us and died for us, to me, screams explicitly the answer for the dying infant! Second to that, and I find this explicit too, the Calvinist writer seems to be giddy over the concept of original sin. I would submit first of all that as a Calvinist and with that doctrine’s understanding of the sacraments, that he does not really understand original sin at all, nor can he as long as he clings to his view of the sacraments. Total depravity under Calvinism is not at all the same as bondage of the will of which Luther speaks, and ultimately the two gospels are different, because one cannot disconnect one with the other. Again, Luther is correct in saying Christianity is a tapestry that if one strand is altered, it is ruined and worthless. Luther was not being hyperbolic. To that what Sasse said one time has always stuck with me, “if you get the sacraments wrong you will necessarily get the rest of Scripture wrong”. He was never more correct. I say that having been a Calvinist myself and having had to ferret out the differences as a laymen between Luther and Calvin, and they are essential differences. And in principle a Calvinist would have to agree with Sasse for if they perceive their doctrine THE true doctrine, including the sacraments, then they must conclude that Luther’s view on the sacraments drives the errors they see in Luther that oppose their doctrine.

The one thing Calvinist, especially of the neo-puritan brand, forget is that Jesus Christ ACTUALLY, TRULY, FACTUALLY, REALLY, GENUINELY, VERILY, SINCERELY, THOROUGHLY, COMPLETELY, etc…died for original sin. Nothing could be more crystal clear in the Scripture than that. This is why I say ultimately a Calvinist does not really understand original sin. Because he imagines, somehow, that Jesus only died for original sin in “Edward the elect over here” but not “Robert the reprobate over there”, but not ORIGINAL SIN holistically and entirely. And while in the doctrine of original sin some Calvinist, like this guy, like to fry people’s faith and assurance to a burnt crisp, they forget the part about Christ dying for original sin. I’m not even sure Calvin would agree with them, though he tossed too and fro closer to and further away from Luther, which is why he’s dangerous at length (again the sacraments being his disconnect, because of this he was tossed to and fro in his thinking). Original sin is indeed terrifying, but that just makes the Gospel all the more sweet!

One last thing I’d address that this guy said, and this links crucially back up with what and why I opened with what I opened (can’t tell an adult’s salvation if you can’t a child’s, the linkage there). He accuses her, with his nefarious “alarm”, that she ultimately had faith in faith that infants go to heaven and not Jesus. That’s BS. She like many tender souls sees the link! What utter grace she saw as revealed by the revealed God to the dying and aborted infants, she sees applying to herself and adults. Again, one cannot divorce the sacrament issue here, Sasse was brilliant on that point. Thus, her faith was not in “just because infants go to heaven” but rather the utterly gracious God revealed in Christ to which this bears witness too and she believes extends to dying infants. Again, as Luther said if we cease to baptize infants, we will loose the Gospel, and then synthesis that with Sasse who said if you get the sacraments wrong you will get the rest of Scripture wrong – well both were 100 percent correct.

I apologize for the “fire” in my words, I am a sinner and my blood boils over things like this when I see Christ hidden from a tender soul, I know the “hell hole” she speaks of, it’s an accurate adjective she uses there.

Yours truly in Christ alone,

Larry

I agree with you, Challies’ response was quite graceless. But this sort of thing seems to me to be rather characteristic of the “new Calvinists” (or as I have referred to them, “neo-Puritans”) who are mostly Calvinistic Baptists, as opposed to more classical Calvinists /Reformed like Horton, Clark et al. As you say, it is a “virulent strain” of Reformed thought.

The new Calvinists’ attitude seems to be, “God is sovereign and you should rejoice in that sovereignty and in the fact that He is glorifying Himself,” and that might even mean rejoicing in the fact that people are being predestined to hell. Why? Because God is being glorified by it, and to them, God’s sovereignty/glory is absolutely central – even over and above God’s mercy in Christ. To be fair, Calvin himself seems way more close to Luther than these folks. I doubt Calvin would even recognize certain aspects of their theology. The “new Calvinism” is like TULIP on steroids with a large dash of pietism thrown in.

Blessings,
Dawn

You are right on target about the Reformed and don’t let anyone tell you any different. Been there and done that Any Calvinist who holds to TULIP is mainstream Reformed, plain and simple. One’s views on baptism don’t determine who is mainstream Reformed and who is a splinter group. They are all splinter groups starting with Zwingli and continuing through Calvin, both of whom splintered away from Luther’s reformation early on, same as the Anabaptists.

The Lutheran Cyclopedia explains the difference between Calvin and Luther in this way:
“Luther stress the glory of God’s love; Calvin stresses God’s love of [His own] glory.” Which God would you rather serve” Luther’s God or Calvin’s?

The problem with the above definition is that it does not go far enough. The difference is not merely a matter of emphasis; it is a matter of a different gospel. The “execrable doctrine of limited atonement” prevents the Calvinist from telling anyone, including himself, that Christ died for you on the objective, outside of us, basis of the bare Scripture alone, regardless of what we feel or do not feel inside of ourselves. Some Calvinists go so far as to say “you don’t have to believe that Christ died for you in particular in order for you to be saved”. If not, then what, pray tell, is the gospel? That Christ died for sinners? The devil believes that. That you are a sinner? Saul and Judas believed that. That is certainly not the gospel that Paul preached to the Corinthians and summarized in the beginning of I Cor 15.

The Calvinists have to reason themselves into the kingdom in this way: 1) Christ died for sinners, 2) I know myself to be a sinner (on the basis of what Scripture says, or what I feel inside of me, or whatever), and 3) ergo, Christ must have died for me. And then comes the “but”. But, if I don’t see some fruits pretty quick I have to question whether I am truly elect, saved, etc. That throws one back on his feelings and/or performance in the end and not on the bare Word of God alone.

In the final analysis, the consistent Calvinist has to base his assurance on what Christ has done to him through the Holy Spirit and not on what Christ has done for him on the cross, all outside of himself based on the bare promise of God. I know many of the Reformed camp, regardless of to which splinter group they belong, will cry “foul”. Nevertheless, they truly are, in the main, “of a different spirit” than Luther. They are of Zwingli’s spirit through Calvin and not Luther’s. What Luther said to Zwingli at Marburg applies to Calvin and his followers.

In my humble opinion.

I agree with the Lutheran Cyclopedia in one thing: “There existed, nevertheless, a distinct difference between the two reformers [Luther and Calvin], characterized by Calvin’s predominantly formal and legalistic approach to Christianity in contrast to Luther’s warm and evangelistic spirit.

We know and like Dr. Clark. and peruse his blog from time to time.

I appreciate your explication of the differences between the Old and New Calvinism, and our readers will find this to be of help.

Yes Tim Challies may be quoted by Ligonier’s Ministry (which is mainstream reformed) but that doesn’t make him, nor does that make him the voice of Reformed Thought and circles. If I quoted you on something, I cannot make the generalization that all Lutherans teach, say, and practice exactly what you do?

As far as in “splinter groups among the Reformed” I can see what you mean within the Reformed Faith its self. There are a good many denominations. However it is important to know that there is a vast difference in the New Calvinism, or the New Reformed Faith from the Old-Calvin-Reformed Faith.

Most of Challies blog follower’s are those that have been a part of the New Calvinism movement in the last 10-years. He however has reader’s now from all different end’s of the spectrum, both the New and Old Reformed Faith, to Lutherans such as yourself and Calvinistic Baptist like himself.

Lastly you say, “Please note that in my post I said this was true of certain streams of Reformed thought, not all of them.”

In your article you tend to bash ALL of them. However at times the pig-headedness of the Reformed Faith can get in the way of hurting and dealing with others, but that in most cases comes from the younger, new converts that are still learning to do both learn theology and practice it. I for myself can tell you my mentor Dr. Joel Beeke is not in the least bit like that.