Can you think of any contemporary Evangelical Calvinists? I’ll start the list off:
- Thomas F. Torrance
- George Hunsinger (out of Princeton)
- Myk Habets (our Kiwi theologian)
- Bobby Grow (that’s me π
- . . .
Who else would you include on this list? In fact let me open it up to include theologians from the history of the church . . .
Here’s an easier task. Who are contemporary, or even historical Classic and/or Federal Calvinists? I’ll kick this off too:
- R. C. Sproul
- Richard Muller
- Mike Horton
- . . .
Anymore come to mind? I think this listing will be indicative of what “system” has actually been prevailing within Christianity.
H/T: Dr. Myk Habets, for inspiring this post
Bobby, the classic Calvinist has their theolgy broken down into 5 points which makes it easier to figure where they are coming from but does the Evangelical Calvinist have something similar that we can take a look at?Thanks, Mike
Mike,You're right, that's why Classic Calvinism is much more user friendly; it is this way by, in part, because of their theological method.I wish Evangelical Calvinism had a 1, 2, 3, . . . point system to point to (well, maybe not a logical syllogism as the TULIP represents); but unfortunately, it doesn't. I can point you to certain authors (like TF Torrance); but, again, unfortunately, because of the powers that be in the past (like Westminster), EC was considered "non-orthodox," in its beginning/seminal forms — in many ways, simply because of its view of the extent of the atonement, and its non-usage of deterministic categories (like irresistable grace), which the Classic/Westminster Calvinists "used" to vouchsafe their particular view of God's sovereignty.That said, since it was pushed down, early on — both in its Scottish version and English version ("The Spiritual Brethren") its distillation was also mitigated. So, in other words, we don't have clergy (like Classics do), from the past, working this kind of theology (EC) into easy to understand ways of thinking.I will have to try and write a summary/synopsis statement of what EC's believe; or maybe I'll ask a friend to do that ;-).So in short: No EC's don't have something similar. I would say much of that has to do with theological method. There is quite a bit of context behind the scenes here; my goal is to try and unpack that, esp. for the laity.I am going to be posting a list of resources — books — that will be helpful towards introducing some historical context that will make what I'm on about here even that much more clear. I want to concretize, for the regular churchman, what is usually only left abstracted to the academy.If you want me to speak to anything else here, or clarify what I just rambled; let me know, Mike. I really appreciate the time you're spending to communicate your questions and concerns . . .
Hey Bobby, would you – and how would you – distinguish between an evangelical (non-universalist) Barthian and an evangelical Calvinist?When I think of people like Ron Frost and Paul Blackham I could put them in either category, but perhaps their love of the Puritans makes the EC label more fitting.Glen
I think we could ad to the list the following:Alan TorranceJames TorranceThomas TorranceElmer ColyerMark AchtemeierKarl BarthChristian KettlerCharles ParteeAndrew PurvesGeritt DawsonTodd SpeidellThe Scottish ministers/theologians TF Torrance wrtes of in his work on Scottish Theology.Andrew T.B. McGowanIvor DavidsonJohn Webster – perhapsDarryl Hart – perhapsAnthony Lane – perhapsClassic Calvinists:Richard MullerAlmost all of Westminster Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, Puritan Reformed Theological SeminaryJoel BeekeR Scott ClarkLigon DuncanSinclar FergusonRichard GambleHywell JonesDouglas KellyGeoffrey ThomasDerek Thomas
Glen,That's a great question, and one I've been thinking about myself.I think the criteria I've been using for "Evangelical," is how one handles the issue surrounding the "atonement." I'm going to write a post on this, since it really is central to the point and even name of this blog.So, strictly speaking, since Frost is infralapsarian, and follows "hypothetical universalism;" he probably wouldn't fit the "Evangelical" position — I'm really not sure where Blackham is at, could you fill me in? But I do have Frost's blog linked as an "Evangelical," because he follows the "The Spiritual Brethrenism" of Richard Sibbes; or non-Westminster Calvinism. So it really depends upon how we're going to define this. In one sense Frost is Evangelical (if non-Dordt is a prerequiste), on the other he is classic (since he follows the traditional framing of election and the atonement). Frost isn't a huge fan of Barth (as far as I know, he may have changed his position by now).Strictly speaking, I want to stick with TF Torrance (as the best exemplar of this position), and then go back to some of the Scottish Theologians he mentions in his book.Let me do a post on this, though . . . what do you think?Myk,Thanks for that filling out the list; that would be great if John Webster was.Have any suggestions on how to narrow out our definitions on "Evangelical" Calvinist?
Hmm – if Barth is an EC then that makes it easier! π I am not sure how narrowly or specifically I would wnat to define EC at this stage – ie – it should be more about exemplifying a position than noting what it is not etc. But the two are not mutually exclusive.Here is a start:1. an EC believes in one divine decree (albeit in several parts)2. is not slavishly committed to Dort or Westminster. ie respects both as Reformed confessions but does not see either as being the definitive standard. Drtrecht was an historical response to an historical situation so the 5 points were never meant to define Calvinism or the Reformed faith in toto, they were simply a response to the 5 points o the Remonstrance, and Westminster, while very good, is couched in its own very specific Puritan context and logic which again is specific to that context and as such does not necessarily translate well into other contexts. The same would go for the other confessions. 3. related to #2, probably likes the Heidelberg Catechism and the Scots Confession more than Dort and Westminster :-)4. sees no compulsion to work with strictly logico-deductive logic in their systematic theology but prefers to follow the biblical narrative and systematise that (ie I love the way Partee characterises Calvin as biblical over logical in his book on Calvin – I think he is quite right). 5. as a result of #5 an EC has no doctrine of the Divine Decree of Election of humans to Hell but rater holds to a doctrine of Divine reprobation in which he leaves the nonelect to their own choices. ie the double decree is out or at the very least very weak. 6. Structures the ordo salutis (if indeed they have or want one – I do but…)from the basis of union with Christ and not some Divine decree as Beza, Perkins, Williams etc do. Not that this becomes the central dogma or a philosophical centrum but from union with Christ all the blessings and benefits of Christ flow – such as justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. 7. Can genuinely preach the Good News to all that Christ has died for them and their salvation and has forgiven their sins. ie holds to universal atonement, universal forgiveness.8. Is not a univeralist.9. can affirm the 5 points of sovereign grace and defend them from Scriptre and Reformed hsitory, but would want to nuance limited atonement to what the Reformed divines meant this to signify, not what a system of thought came to make it signify. 10. Sees penal substitution as the central Pauline metaphor for slavation but not the only one and understands that upon this metaphore Paul et al were able to incorporate the otehr metaphors – war, realtionships, moral, etc. EC's would do the same today.How's that for 10 lashings to start with. I look forwad to what others think.
Wow! I just might be a Evangelical Calvinist after seeing the 10 points from Myk Habets. I can agree with 2,4-9 but not sure what Myk means on points 1, and 10 and don't know enough about point 3 to decide if I agree but that list really helped. Thank you for all your hard work. I am redefining my Calvinist beliefs according to what fits scripture because if it's not then what am I doing believing it. Mike Huston
Myk,Thanks, that was helpful.Could you clarify what you're getting at on #5? I had kind've incorporated Barth's recasting of election into my understanding; but then of course tweaked through Torrance (i.e. per your essay, the distinction between carnal and spiritual union). In other words, I have been approaching this through the lens of Christ as the center, relative to double-predestination.This, of course, is what I would like to look at further through some "formal" research ;-).I would say that I respect Dordt and Westminster because of their intention; but the ground-swell of theology that shaped that response (Federal/Scholasticism) is at odds with what it means to be an "Evangelical Calvinist." Wouldn't you agree, Myk? Mike,I'm glad you're benefiting from the blog; Myk is very helpful on all fronts here.Here is the Scots Confession: Scots Confession I think your ideal is sound: sola scriptura!
Michael Bird has posted up three short position statements on the extent of the atonement hereIt's Paul Helm ('Calvinist'), Michael Jensen ('Amyraldian') and Ben Witherington ('Arminian').Jensen said 'Amyraldian' was not his choice of term – I've suggested that 'Evangelical Calvinist' might describe him better.http://mpjensen.blogspot.com/2009/08/for-whom-christ-died-and-john-calvin-on.htmlAlso Bobby – have you seen this video? http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/might/Hilarious.
Cool, Glen! It's interesting how few have been exposed to this.I'll have to look at that video. I see that Ben Myers offers the "Barthian" category; but I think EC actually offers a fifth.