II Corinthians 2:15 says:
15 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life.
Which illustrates something about the”why” of appropriating of salvation (or not); and that is, simply, that Scripture really never speaks to “why” (i.e. why some choose and some don’t, to follow Christ). We do know that the Holy Spirit is the one who so works on the hearts of those who finally believe; but we also know that He works on the hearts of those who don’t believe (Jn 16). For one He works in a way that the Gospel is a “sweet aroma and the fragrance of life;” for the other the “smell of death.” This is where scripture leaves it, certainly all of this is grounded in Christ’s work . . . even His rejection (but we are never fully led to know “why” folks remain in “unbelief”).
Here is how T. F. Torrance describes Jonathan Fraser of Brea (an 17 century Scot, and one of the foremost Evangelical Calvinists of his time):
Quite clearly, then, Fraser held that Christ died for all people, the unbelieving as well as the believing, the damned as well as the saved, the reprobate as well as the elected. How, then, did he think that the death of Christ, not least his atoning satisfaction for sin, bears upon those who reject Christ and bring damnation upon themselves? This was one of the basic issues where James Fraser sided with the teaching of John Calvin, rather than with that of those β Protestant Divinesβ who, he complained, had not followed the old road. The particular point we must take into account here is that according to St. Paul the knowledge of Christ is to some people a βsavour of life unto lifeβ, but to others it can be a βsavour of death unto deathβ. In that light it may be said that while the preaching of the gospel of Christ crucified for all mankind is meant for their salvation, it can also have the unintended effect of blinding and damning peopleβit becomes a β savour of death unto deathβ. That is how Fraser regarded what happened to the reprobates in becoming β the vessels of wrathβ. (Thomas F. Torrance, βScottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell,β 198β201)
Unlike the Classic Calvinist (Westminster), the Evangelical Calvinist does not look — necessarily — for all the “causal” reasons of “Why.” We want to look at scripture, and most definitely work out and into the inner logic of the scriptures; but this only means that we can only press as far as the boundaries of scripture, and Christ’s life, allow. I would suggest, then, that knowing “Why,” in the form provided by the CC’s; is not a tenable approach to interpreting scripture. And the reason I know this, is because in their method, in their desire to “fill in the gaps,” they end up flattening out scripture; when scripture in reality is alot more rough than “our systems” would have them to be.
I'm loving this blog Bobby. Keep it up.Haven't got a lot of time to comment, but just so you know, it's a refreshing breeze through my otherwise stale Westminster environs.Glen
Glen,Well that's great to hear! Thanks for the encouragement, I'm glad to know that you're being refreshed by it; I too am continually encouraged as I further delve into this exciting approach to Calvinism.
Hi Bobby,Nice post! It may be useful for you to work out and possibly post something more on the way in which Christ dies for all, but he does so in different ways for the elect from the non-elect. I know you have mentioned this in passing in the last few posts and it has been helpful – perhaps a more specific look at it would be good, tracing the idea through Reformed thought, through its demise in Westminster Calvinism, and then more recently being found again in the likes of TFT etc. Just an idea. Would make a good chapter of the PhD! π
p.s. it is this differentiated view of atonement that allows me (and other EC?) to affirm a doctrine of limited atonement while at the same time affirming a doctrine of universal atonement – understanding each in a different way. It also makes it possible to affirm the intent of 'effective for all – efficient for some' but not use that phrase (Calvin hated it) or adopt the theology that goes with it.
Hey Myk,Great ideas. I do need to spend more time hashing that out (on election); like you said, fodder for a PhD (which I'll need to email you about), but I suppose I could try and provide a brief sketch here (carnal union, spiritual union . . . anyone? ;-). Myk, what do you do with Barth's view of election relative to the more Scottish undercurrents in TFT's thought? In other words, do you see a way to synthesize someone like Fraser or Campbell, with Barth's articulation? Do you want to?
Nope – don't see any need to. I am not that enamoured with Barth that I look to him as my primary theological source. I think he is genius, but he is not my go-to guy if that makes sense. So I don't care, in many respects, as to his doctrine of election per se.
This is interesting, Myk.When I read TFT's Scottish Theology, I certainly saw him describing something that he highly appreciated; but I was also under the impression that he also incorporated some of Barth's articulation on election/reprobation into his own unique framework. Is this not the case (I guess I'll have to reread your essay on TFT as the Evangelical Calvinist)?Do you think that maybe Barth is not as original as some folks propose (in re. to election and his broader theological trajectory)? And thus it is more prudent to deal with (Scotist) the underlying informing grid and tradition which is actually informing Barth, TFT, the Scots and others.
I wouldn't go that far. That Barth was so nfluential on TFT is beyond disute, and especially in his doctrine of election. So Barth is key to understand here, but TFT did not slavishly adopt all his ideas. He developed them in his own way. So yes, we ahve to understnad Barth and his doctrine of election, but that is not the end of it. And while John Duns Scotus is an important source for TFT I don't think he is that influential over his theology that he can be looked to as an 'underlying informing grid'. It is more the case that TFT adopted aspects of Scotus' theology but not many others. Where and what makes an interesting study.
Yes it does, PhD worthy ;-).Thing is, I've adopted some of Barth's election a la TFT as well. I'm curious, Myk, how you would articulate your own (personal) view of election. Does Barth have any play in your own understanding (maybe qualified by TFT's appropriation).
I forgot to put ?'s at the ends of my questions :-).
I've been reading through your posts and wish I was a little better educated. Much of what you have written goes completely over my head. I'm not familiar with the Westminster Confession or Synod of Dort or Calvin's Institutes and am not a card carrying member of the TULIP club (even though I consider myself a "practical" Calvinist because my own understanding of Scripture seems to closely resemble some of the TULIP teaching–or at least what I think is the teaching)I recently discovered I do have a difference on the point of limited atonement. On a particular site I wrote:I've wondered if it makes sense to look at Christ's death as involving the purchase of the whole world (thus making the Gospel message universal in that we all need to be reconciled with the owner).And as exclusive, rightful owner, He will redeem that produce which suits His purpose (thus making atonement particular in it's effect).Everything belongs to Him, but when harvest time comes, the wormy apples, unproductive wheat heads and moldy grapes will be rejected. And was told that this perspective is known as Amyraldianism? And I guess tends to be rejected by TULIP'ers because their stance is that if He paid for the whole world, yet didn't save all of it, then He didn't accomplish His purpose (i.e. redemption of the elect). My thought was that perhaps they have an unnecessarily limited view of what His purpose is, but I don't know enough to formulate any sort of argument. At any rate, I think you have a good point in that we often demand a satisfactory explanation as to "why" when God offers us nothing except "You just need to trust Me".Heather
Hey Heather, your comment reminds me of Matthew 13:44. The Man (who represents Christ throughout the chapter) buys the field (which represents the world throughout the chapter) in order to gain the treasure (His people, cf Ex 19:5).Glen
Thank you, Glen. That is actually where I originally got the notion. I guess I don't mind being "Amyraldian" in my perspective if it means I line up with what the Bible appears to say…H
The LORD is my banner! (Ex 17:15):)
Welcome Heather,Glad you've stopped by. First off, my goal is to try and communicate some of this 'academic' stuff at accessible levels — this is a hard task ;-), but I'll try harder. Second, let me just put Amyraldianism out of its misery right now. Evangelical Calvinism comes out of a different Tradition than 'Amyraldianism', but the confusion by some 5-pointers is understandable. Five-point Calvinism and Amyr. come from a 'tradition' known as Thomism, to one degree or another, Evangelical Calvinism is aligned with Scotism (in some respects) . . . so in other words, Amyr. tried to work within the Five points; and Evangelical Calvinism works without the framework that gave us the 5-points. And all of this really revolves around a "Doctrine of God."Heather, I'm not going to try and explain this all in this post; just know there is a historic alternative to 5-point Calvinism, and its Amyr. derivation, which is known as Evangelical Calvinism. Third, I like your reading, and statement of things. Let me try to answer some of your questions through my next post (it is going to be on election and the extent of the atonement). Hey Glen.