Mark Driscoll (a guy I must admit is either a guy you like or hate...and I tend to like him) has posted on the New Calvinism versus the Old as noted by Time. I have to say, though, I think the distinction is extremely unhelpful. Driscoll makes the distinction between New Calvinism and Old and the four points are not things I am on board with. Here they are:
Four Ways 'New Calvinism' is So Powerful
1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into
3. 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.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.
I have to say #1 is totally wrong. Anyone that has studied Machen knows this. What does #2 mean? How "old" are we talking? Ever heard of Geneva, Strasburg, Zurich, Edinburgh, Amsterdam? #3 is a good thing. and #4 is a generalization without substance. From reading history, it seems to me that Calvinism tried to play nicer with Lutheranism and eventually the Baptists (though not the Anabaptists) than the Lutherans did in return.
Oh, well. I still like Driscoll, but he's not good at analysis, nor of characterizing his intellectual ancestors.