When neo doesn't mean new

Ever since the Time Magazine decided that "new calvinism" was the no 3 idea that was changing the world many have been confusing the so-called "new calvinism" with neo-calvinism.

On new calvinism:

Mark Driscoll, one of the new calvinists describes it as follows:

• Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
  

• Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
  

• Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
  

• Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.
  

He then goes on to say

The New Calvinists are committed to complementarianism in the home and church.

This is certainly no neo-calvinism. Neo-calvinism goes back (at least ) to Kuyper.

Those that confuse the two include:

• Timothy Stanley


• Best of Both worlds


• Pastoral Musings from the Rain City
  


• Unfinished Christianity


• Axxess


• Alan Hirsch

Neo-calvinism has several distinctives - several I outlined here. These are a far cry from the often pietistic and puritan emphasis of the 'new calvinists'.

• Jesus is lord over all of creation


• The idea that all of life is to be redeemed


• Cultural mandate


• Creation, fall and redemption


• Sphere sovereignty


• A rejection of dualism


• Structure and direction


• Common grace


• The antithesis


• Worldviews


• The role of law

So, in this case new calvinism is not equal to neo-calvinism.

In fact, R Scott Clark has argued that Mark Driscoll isn't even a calvinist!