Here is how Dr Myk Habets sketched what being an Evangelical Calvinist might entail:
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 π
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.
I think this is a very helpful start, what do you think about this list?
**I am planning on writing a post on the extent of the atonement and election this weekend, time has been tight**
Thank you for the previous welcome–hopefully, I don't become an annoyance.I think this is a very helpful start, what do you think about this list?This list definitely helps me to find a starting point for understanding what Evangelical Calvinism entails. Also, I ran across your "My" Theology section on your other site. The "Gospel, Evangelical Style", "Reformed Confession… " and "Holy Spirit" posts also helped me get a better feel for your position.I had some questions concerning your points…Probably I wouldn't be asking if I knew more about Reformed theology but hope you'll bear with my ignorance.1. What do you mean by "one divine decree"?2. Glad to hear that you do not place any single man-devised document on par with Scripture. While I'm sure that some are more accurate than others (and some which are downright heretical), I believe there is an inherent danger of leaning on a single perspective so heavily that all other options get filtered through the doctrine rather than through Scripture itself. 3. Not familiar with any of those statements so I guess I have some reading to do. My husband has read at least some of the Westminster Confession, so maybe he can help me compare.4. YOu lost me on this one, but it sounds good :o) Could you please illuminate me on what are logico-deductive and Biblical narrative methods are and what are the differences?5. Okay, does the divine decree of of election of humans to hell mean "due to Adam's fall, all are born with sin nature and are automatically destined for damnation (apart from divine intervention)?" Divine reprobation, then would mean that fallen man that is not "elected to regeneration" simply condemns himself by the choices he makes? Am I not understanding properly?6. Lost me again. Sorry :o(7. Is this point similar to the "Man who purchases the field for the treasure" parable?8. Whew!9. Is this a reference to TULIP, with a modified view of the "L"? 10. I think I understand the concept of penal substitution but am confused about the metaphor references.Well, I can often be a slow learner but am willing to continue to look at your thoughts if you can possibly break things down into bits that I won't choke on. Heather
What fun! Bobby, feel free please to answer some of this as I won't have time to work through all of them. Also feel free to disagree with any or add any of course. But let me start with #4. This is what I wrote about Charle's Partee's recent book on Calvin's theology (and I hope it helps to explain):On the basis of these two commitments; union with Christ and pneumatology, Partee is able to highlight how Calvinβs theology is profound, pastoral, and practical. To illustrate, Partee reminds the reader that Calvin does not call his Institutes a summa theologiae but a summa pietatis β meaning a comprehensive and systematic confession of the love of God the Father revealed in Jesus Christ the Eternal Son, and effected by the work of the Holy Spirit (p. 297). What this means in practice is that Calvin attempts to be faithful to Scripture more than faithful to philosophical logic. This does not mean Calvinβs theology is incoherent or contradictory, it is extremely logical. What it does mean is that when a decision is to be made between two ideas, both biblical, which are seemingly hard to reconcile, Calvin will assert both and resist the temptation to delve deeper than faith will allow. This is evident in his affirmation of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of the human person, for instance, or the eternal election of God to life and the βaccidentβ of reprobation. According to Partee, Calvinβs theology βis not a rational synthesis, it is a theological confession of the truth which is revealed in Jesus Christ, informed by Scripture, guided by tradition, certified by experience, and elaborated by reasonβ (p. 330). Once again Parteeβs instincts ring true and Calvinβs voice comes through clearly and, I think, accurately. God bless π
Hello again, Heather, First let me just say the only reason I really have a blog is to outlet some of my thoughts, but beyond that it is to hopefully provoke some good Christian discussion around important theological themes. So in short, your commenting is exactly what this blog is intended for . . . don't worry about being an annoyance (although I may become an annoyance to you ;-).Let me respond point-for-point (although I won't be able to give very developed responses at the moment).1.) I'll let Myk answer that one if he has a chance (if not, I will be posting on this one, since it is a very important point).2.) Yes, I think scripture is the final standard here; and because of that I pretty much have rejected most of Westminster's framing of things "Calvinistic."3.) These "confessions" should be seen as certain agreed upon standards — that were given in response to particular occassions — they should not be seen as the "standard of orthodoxy" (which I'm afraid Westminster has — I have not seen this to be the case with the Scot's Confession for example, and btw, I'm not a padeo-baptist).4.) See Myk (I might have more to say about this per a future post).5.) I'm not totally sure where Myk is lining up on election; but I appreciate T. F. Torrance's understanding (a la Karl Barth) — I will be posting on this soon. 6.) Are you aware of any kind of discussion on the "Order of Salvation," Heather?7.) Yes, a genuine universal offer, because Jesus genuinel died for all people. This is contrary to Westminster Calvinism (like what you might find at the Pyros); they hold that Jesus only died for the "elect."8.) Westminster Calvinists will look at Evangelical Calvinism and believe that our logic necessitates Universalism — but this is only if we accept the internal logic of determinism of Westminster or "Classic Calvinism." We don't, so we're not!9.) Yes, Myk is referencing the 5 points. I would like further clarification from Myk on this as well. I'm not really in favor of the TULIP. There is a historical reason the provision of the 5 points; but I just don't believe EC is consonant with the underlying Doctrine of God that has shaped the 5 points. Heather, I really need to try and flesh this out further — I will by future posts (this is alot of work ;-), and time is restrained).10.) Just that there are other theories of the atonement (Christus Victor, ransom theory, etc.) that are helpful in complementing the penal substitutionary view of the atonement.Heather, I realize I've not really begun to answer you; what is required is article or even short paper length responses in order to answer these questions with any depth and development. I plan on trying to do this at the blog here, but it is going to be slow going.Also, I just wanted to make sure that you saw that Dr Myk Habets provided this list.Heather, feel free to comment whenever you want; I really enjoy the challenge of interaction, you've really made me think with your questions! And as you'll notice, I'm still developing too, Heather; I don't claim to have all of this figured out, but that's the joy of it :-).Myk,Thanks. And thanks for providing response to your #4; I totally agree, and think Partee is spot on as well. Calvin was certainly more Christian Humanist in his approach vs. Scholastic methodological.If you have time to fill out more, great; if not, understandable, time is precious. Thanks for all the resources you have provided thus far!