I realize the last three posts are rather abstract on actually fleshing out this discussion on election. In the next few weeks I will be trying to develop and explain this stuff further; I plan on comparing and contrasting, in more simple terms, the differences between the Classic view of election versus the “Barthian” and “Torrancian” understanding (and to be honest there are differences to be made between Barth and Torrance’s understanding, I am more comfortable with the latter’s approach). Like I said, I will be digging into an essay by Habets; which deals directly with T. F. Torrance’s understanding of election/reprobation (if I had electronic-permission-access I would make that article available to all, I think it is clear and lucid in presenting TFT’s understanding, in ways that would be beneficial for all Christians — not just ones who have the funds to subscribe to academic journals ;-). Anyway, I will be posting portions of it.
I want everybody reading to know that my primary intended audience here are those in the church; thoughtful Christians who may not realize that there are more alternatives than the typical ones offered (e.g. Arminianism or Classic Calvinism — usually this biurfication is it). I want folks to know that it is possible, and necessary — both historically and scripturally — to be a “Calvinist” (i.e. that Westminster is not the only stream allowed to claim that title, historically — unless their into asserting an ad hoc conciliar ecclesiology, so that we have a Protestant Magesterium in place [so much for sola scriptura]) — and “Evangelical.”
On a side-note, I’ve had at least one Classic Calvinist (an informed one) dismiss “Evangelical Calvinism” based upon the pronouncements of the Synod of Dordtrecht; his assumption was that Dordt and Westminster (and other such synods and councils) represent “Orthodox” Protestant Christianity — like I said, ad hoc. Anyway, more to come . . .
I really must say that I'm pretty confused by this equivalence made by certain folks between Dort and Westminster — I'm not "Reformed" (confessionally), by the way — but it seems a pretty mistaken association (in fact, it seems to be almost mere equivocation). You know? I'm not saying that the acts of the synod of Dort weren't influential on the way in which Reformed orthodoxy emerged in the Church of England (quite to the contrary). But, to say that the Synod of Dort was influential on the Westminster Assembly, and thus the former finds expression in the Westminster Catechism is a pretty big leap. Instead, it should be said that the Synod of Dort finds expression in the Heidelberg Catechism and in the Belgic Confession (both of which, of course preceded Dort)…especially insofar as the synod merely codified that these were to be binding for the Reformed churches in the Netherlands and West Friesland (to say nothing of the Reformed in England). Sorry…I just get kind of annoyed when the variations in "Reformed theology" get collapsed into this monolithic whole, especially on the basis of a shared "centraldogme" such as predestination or limtied atonement (or even the Tulip itself), as though there are no other doctrines or teachings central to the faith of these folks, and on which various groups of Reformed are not necessarily in agreement…in other words, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Larger or Smaller Catechisms are not in fact identical to one another (as the faulty logic in the above equivocation seems to assume).Sorry! That was a rant! Forgive me.
I hope it's clear, by the way, that though ranting I was in fact affirming your call for something beyond those "ad hoc" pronouncements!
Hi Dave,Thanks for feedback. And welcome to the site! I think your points are right on. In fact your points are exactly the same that motivate me for trying to do what I'm doing here with this blog.There is no doubt that there is nuance and difference amongst the various representives of the so called "Reformed faith;" and that Dordt was certainly one hick-up within a larger ground swell that gave it birth. Maybe for accuracies sake instead I should just the "label" of Federal Calvinists, or as Janice Knight has labeled this movement (the one spawned by folks like William Perkins, Ames, et al) The Intellectual Fathers; or maybe I should just call it Scholastic Calvinism. While I recognize there is certainly nuance amongst "Federalists" (as you rightly note), there is also a certain fundamental commonality amongst these folks — primary of which is their Doctrine of God, and the methodology and conceptuality that this camp has per this "Doctrine." This variant approach to understanding God (and the decrees) leads to viewing God's work in redemptive history differently as well. So that "Federalists" (in general) follow, for example, a view of the atonement that is shaped juridically; while what I am calling "Evangelical Calvinism" per Myk Habets and others emphasizes an ontological view of the atonement based upon a realtional understanding of Union with Christ (instead of the absolutum decretum). This is what distiguishes Federalists from "Evangelicalists," and is the primary distinction that I am trying to alert folks to. There certainly is an internal/in-house debate amongst the variations of Federalists; but I don't think the distinction I am trying to highlight pivots on recognizing the variant symptomatic problematics that arrive because of different emphases "within" the Federal camp. My point is that there is the Federal version of Calvinism, and the Evangelical versio of Calvinism. And both represent continuums of belief, so while there are certainly recognizable and important variations of belief upon these two disparte continuums — they are still two separate continuums.I do thank you though, Dave, for making your point; it is important not to reduce these things to flat and static issues.
In other words, Dave,I could see how what I've done here could be construed as a "hasty generalization," and thus faulty logic; but that's only if my generalization involved talking about second order variation between Evangelical Clavinists vs. Federal Calvinists — or even amongst Federalists themselves (as your point highlights). But my generalization involves issues surrounding "first order" issues (like Doctrine of God) . . . and so in thise sense, I don't think what I've done here is "faulty" (anymore than Janice Knight designates The Spiritual Brethren as one continuum [in fact dominate in English Puritanism for awhile] vs. The Intellectual Fathers [which has become dominate in American Calvinism today]). Hope that helps clarify for you, what I'm on about here . . .
Btw,I would not consider myself Confessional either . . . I've grown up as the son of a "Conservative Baptist" pastor (and in many ways I've not fallen to far from the tree — although I may now be considered a hybrid version of the so called "tree").
Hi Bobby, Thanks for the helpful replies! Yeah, I was mainly going after the "ad hoc" sort of associations, not what you're after here. But, I do appreciate the explanation, because it does help me to think through what you're doing here a little bit better (I know Torrance mainly through his trinitarian writings, and a bit on Calvin, so some of this stuff is very new to me). Thanks again, and I'll enjoy perusing the rest of your site! Peace.dave b
Dave,I'm just glad that you're reading here, you have great insight; and I don't think what you said about the development of Calvinism is off, at all. I'm certainly still learning, and developing here as well; I'm definitely not an expert on such things. I've really come to appreciate Torrance over the last few yrs, and so his voice is going to be pretty prominent here; but not exclusively.Thanks for visiting, and I hope you'll provide more feedback in the future!Peace.