**I’ve been trying to think of the best way to proceed, relative to introducing an Evangelical Calvinist approach to predestination and election. I’ve decided the way I’m going to do it, at least at this juncture, is to work through Myk Habets’ essay, The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as a Case Study (from Irish Theological Quarterly 73 [2008] 334-354). So what I’m going to do is quote large chunks, to open our discussion, then I will — through following posts — work at distilling what Habets is uncovering in regards to T. F. Torrance’s Evangelically Calvinistically tensed understanding of ‘our’ topic (the great thing is that Dr Myk Habets reads here, and so if I err too much he can reign me back in ;-). Let’s begin, this first section will just entail a lengthy quote (hey if I can transcribe this whole thing, including footnotes, the least you can do is read it π from Habets, and serves as a great intro into our discussion (Like I said, I will have a series of posts breaking down this first quote, I’m hoping even this first run will generate some feedback from you all — which just might shape my “breaking down” posts).**
__________________________
I. The Prothesis of the Father and the Eternal Decrees
Torrance adopts the language of prothesis to refer to divine election whereby the Father purposed or ‘set-forth’ the union of God and humanity in Jesus Christ. Divine election is a free sovereign decision and an utterly contingent act of God’s love; as such, it is neither arbitrary nor strictly necessary 4. Torrance holds to the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election,5 one which represents a strictly theonomous way of thinking, from a centre in God and not in ourselves.6 ‘Predestination’ simply emphasizes the truth that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), which Torrance links with the teaching that Christ as Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world. The eternal decrees of the Father are not to be thought of in exclusion of the Son, for the eternal purposes of God do not take place apart from Christ or ‘behind his back’ as it were. As such, ‘predestination was understood simply as the decretum Dei speciale [special decree of God].’7 This allows Torrance to distinguish between predestination and election in the following way: predestination refers ‘everything back to the eternal purpose of God’s love for humanity,’ while the cognate term election refers ‘more to the fulfillment of that purpose in space and time, patiently worked out by God in the history of Israel and brought to its consummation in Jesus Christ.’8 In one of his earlier works he writes: ‘Election is not therefore some dead predestination in the past or some still point in a timeless eternity, but a living act that enters time and confronts us face to face in Jesus Christ the living Word of God.’9One of the distinctive features of a Reformed doctrine of election is the recurring instance that election ‘is christologically conditioned.’10 Following Calvin, Torrance claims that Christ is the ’cause’ of election in all four traditional senses of ’cause’: the efficient and the material, the formal and the final. ‘He is at once the Agent and the Content of election, its Beginning and its End.’11 Election proceeds from the eternal decree of God but this eternal decree of election assumes in time once and for all the form of the wondrous conjunction of God and humanity in Christ.12 The hypostatic union is the heart of any understanding of election as Torrance makes clear when he writes, ‘How are we to relate God’s action to our faith? The secret of that is seen only in the God-manhood of Christ, for that is the very heart of election, and the pattern of our election, and is visible only there since it is election in Christ.’13
Torrance is adamant that election and predestination must be expounded in terms of christology for it has to do with the activity of God in Christ.14 As a direct consequence, it is to Christ and the salvation he purchased that one must look for the ground of election, not to some secret decree of God ‘behind the back of Christ.’15 Torrance even subjects Calvin to criticism at this point for not holding strongly enough to the fact that Jesus Christ is the ground of election, not only the instrument and author of election.16 When Christ is seen as the object and subject of election then more deterministic conceptions of election are done away with. ‘These then are the two sides of the Christian doctrine of predestination: that salvation of the believer goes back to an eternal decree of God, and yet that the act of election is in and through Christ.’17 It is Christ’s election which forms the basis of a correct understanding of his person and work, something Torrance affirms is central to the history of Scottish theology and reflected supremely in the Scots Confession. In general agreement with Torrance is Fergusson who, when referring to the Scots Confession, considers it to root election in the person and work of Christ so that it ‘produces a strikingly evangelical exposition of election.’18
Because election is bound up with Christ, it must not be thought of in any impersonal or deterministic sense.19 The encounter between God and humanity in Christ is the exact antithesis of determinism; it is the ‘acute personalization’ of all relations with God in spite of sin. Interestingly, because Christ is the ground of election there can be no thought of indeterminism in relation to the encounter between God and humanity either.20 Owing to the adoption into Protestant scholasticism of deterministic thinking, something Torrance attributes to an artificial importation of Greek determinism, election is often thought of in terms of cause or force, and so forth.21 But this is to transpose onto God our thought and in the process distort the doctrine of election. It is here Torrance becomes most animated: ‘Thus, for example, in the doctrine of “absolute particular predestination” the tendency is to think of God as a “force majeure” bearing down upon particular individuals. That is to operate with a view of omnipotence that has little more significance than an empty mathematical symbol.’22 Evident in this statement is Torrance’s methodological commitment to work from an a posteriori basis rather than an a priori one, and so reject a natural theology.23 Omnipotence, for instance, is what God does, not what God is thought to be able to do because of some hypothetical metaphysical can. What God does is seen in Christ. What then does the ‘pre’ stand for in ‘predestination’? asks Torrance. Originally it made the point that the grace by which we are saved is grounded in the inner life of the Trinity.24 ‘That is to say, the pre in predestination emphasises the sheer objectivity of God’s Grace.’25 It was this view of the priority of divine grace which fell away in scholastic Calvinism so that predestination could be spoken of as ‘preceding grace’ and election came to be regarded as a causal antecedent to our salvation in time. The result of this shift was a strong determinist slant.26 (Myk Habets, “The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as a Case Study,” Irish Theological Quarterly 73 [2008], 335-38)
Footnotes
4. That is, it must be constructed in the fashion of Protestant scholasticism or of process theology. Torrance, Christian Theology and Scientific Culture, 131.
5. It is based on unconditional election ‘for it flows freely from an ultimate reason or purpose in the invariant Love of God and is entirely unconditioned and unmotivated by anything whatsoever beyond himself’ (ibid, 131)
6. See ibid, 131-1327. Torrance, ‘Predestination in Christ,’ 108.
8.Torrance, ‘The Distinctive Character of the Reformed Tradition,’ 4.
9. Thomas F. Torrance, ‘Universalism or Election?’ Scottish Journal of Theology 2 (1949): 310-318, 315.
10. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 14 (emphasis his).
11. Torrance, ‘The Distinctive Character of Reformed Tradition,’ 4.
12. Torrance, Scottish Theology, 14.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., 172.
15. Ibid. Torrance considers the one covenant of grace to be completely fulfilled in Christ so that the covenant idea is completely subordinated to Christ. See Torrance, ‘Introduction,’ Iv-Ivi and ‘Predestination in Christ,’ 111.
16. On Torrance’s reading, Calvin attributed the ultimate ground of election to the inscrutable will of the Divine decree. He cites John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1960), 3.22.2, which asserts that election precedes grace. A similar criticism of Calvin is given by Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4 vols (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956-1975), II/2, 111.
17. Torrance, ‘Predestination in Christ,’ 109.
18. David A. S. Fergusson, ‘Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,’ Scottish Journal of Theology 46 (1993): 457-478, 462. He also notes that ‘Barth claimed [it] was without parallel in the other Reformed confessions,’ (ibid, 462), referring to Karl Barth, The Knowledge of God and the Service of God (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), 68-79, and Barth Church Dogmatics, II/2, 308. And yet, Ferguson does admit that even the Scots Confession does not entirely escape the ‘errors of double predestination,’ (ibid.).
19. See, for example, ‘In the early centuries of the Church, theology was marked by an emphasis upon the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom, largely to combat Stoic determinism and astrological fatalism’ (Fergusson, ‘Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,’ 457).
20. Fergusson sees this as one of the weaknesses of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, that due to God’s forekowledge God passes over the reprobate and this is an explanation why some believe and some do not. Ibid., 457-459. Cf. Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/2, 16, 307.
21. It was not simply Calvinistic scholasticism that made this determinist move but also Lutheranism. See, for instance, Luther and Erasmus, Free Will and Salvation (London: Library of Christian Classics, 1969).
22. Torrance, ‘Predestination in Christ,’ 114.
23. Torrance comments that ‘there is no doctrine where natural theology causes more damage than in the doctrine of predestination’ (Torrance, ‘Predestination in Christ,’ 114).
24. Torrance, Christian Theology and Scientific Culture, 134.
25. Ibid.
26. A weakness of Torrance’s argument is his refusal to acknowledge this determinist element within Calvin’s own theology and not simply that of his followers. It seems clear that Calvin presents a doctrine of double predestination, albeit not as strictly as many of his followers do. See Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.21-24 (especially 3.23.1), and John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Clarke, 1961). An account of Calvin’s doctrine of double decree can be found in F. H. Klooster, Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination, 2nd edn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977), 55-86. Someon who shares Torrance’s basic convictions on election but does not share his views on Calvin is Fergusson, ‘Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,’ 460-462.
___________________________
Feedback is welcomed, from “trained theologians,” “budding theologians,” and “regular Christians — who also happen to be theologians” ;-). I will be working through some of this in the days to come, your questions and/or comments will certainly help shape my future posts. I am looking for critical/informed feedback (on this piece by Habets), but more importantly, I simply want to hear back from “regular Christians” who have questions about what they’ve read thus far. My method, I think, is going to be to try and get at the “general themes” that emerge from Habets’ rather technical (for the untrained eyes) and academic essay.
Is this a correct understanding of predestination and election that you are presenting?The Holy Trinity before time and space predestined that Jesus Christ through the hypostatic union, would be "God's Elect". That the Holy Trinity decreed that because Christ is God's Elect, mankind through union with him can share in his election. In other words, we are not elect directly by God's decree but we are through individual faith/repentance in the Incarnation.I know that one is drawn into Union with Christ through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, but is man drawn by free will or by the call of God? I keep coming to the idea that man is totally depraved and unable to respond to God apart from the call of God and He needs to regenerate our spirit first. Thanks for all your help, Mike
Mike,I think first off what needs to become clear is that this approach steps back a step or two; and is not trying to answer the kinds of questions that more classic *deterministic* models have traditionally offered. So in other words, from the "reporters questions," Classic/Scholastic/Federal Calvinism is concerned with the WHY of salvation; Evangelical Calvinism is more concerned with the WHO of salvation (namely, Christ as the centre, our centre).Here's how I see this: If Christ is both elect/reprobate in Himself for us, then objectively speaking all humanity (by virtue of the Incarnation) are "elect." What remains is for us to respond (which indeed is where the Holy Spirit comes in, creates the possibility, through what Christ has already accomplished, by chosing the cross, by chosing the Father's will; for us to appropriate and echo in Christ's response, we can now say Yes to the Father). I think the primary challenge, Mike, for Evangelical Calvinism is to disabuse the culture that is obssessed with the Mathematical "causal" questions of Classic/Federal Calvinism; for a culture is obssessed with the relational/trinitarian questions that I think Evangelical Calvinism operates out of.To say that Christ is the ground, the object and subject of salvation; is to say that all of humanity operates within the 'sphere' of God's life. They either respond to 'their election' in Christ (experience 'spiritual union' with Christ), or they respond negatively to 'their election in Christ' (and experience the *Gospel-wrath* that is associated with such rejection).Let me know if this makes sense, Mike.
Thanks for being patient with me, it is hard to step outside of the "classic Calvinist" viewpoint.This is very exciting to say the least. So all mankind by default become God's elect because of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ. The question of salvation then becomes, who do we place our allegiance? If not Christ, then one basically rejects their election through Christ and becomes reprobate. That the Holy Spirit convicts all men to respond to God's call to faith and repentance in Christ. A positive response solidifies their standing with Christ for eternity to come?
Mike,That's the way I understand it too :-). The problem is, though, you realize, that a classic will look at this and say that you've just become an Arminian; and that you've sacrificed the Sovereignty of God. I'm playing "devil's" advocate here. What Classics fail to recognize is that they have sacrificed God's sovereignty by making Him dependent upon us. I.e. That His acts, in redemptive history, have been dictated to Him by "our sin." In a nutshell, Mike, what you've said here is exactly where I'm coming from on this stuff.You see then when TFT says that this whole issue revolves around christology . . . He is the Alpha and Omega.I'm getting excited, Mike!
This is not to imply there is no such thing as irresistable grace. Total depravity necessitates total grace so the two go hand in hand. So God does elect people to savlation in Christ, that is biblical and clear. What of those that reject Christ? Calvin replies – it is an'accident' (Latin). It is incorpehensible, a mystery that we simply accept. It stagggers us that forgiven sinners would reject their Saviour – but that is what happens. Instead of appealing to a double decree we appeal to the biblical category of God's hidden and mysterious ways and to humanities sinfulness – it is ultimately a mystery.
Myk,I'm glad you responded, I agree with you on "total grace." So, and this is what I need to clarify with you, you reject Barth's double-predestination? I'm under the impression that TFT accepts it, am I wrong (albeit he reframes it according towards his Scottish theology)?So in other words, you follow an infralapsarianism?
Boy, Myk,I'm troubled. How do we then ground, reprobation, christologically? I guess following 'accident' language, at this point, doesn't do it for me.Before I was ever exposed to Barth I was infra with a "hypothetical universalism." I only held that because I thought it was the only intelligent, biblical option I could agree with . . . until I ran across Barth's framing. Anyway, how would what you're saying differ from an infra hypothetical universalism — functionally?
And here we get to one of the central issues of this whole thing! π On the single will of God and how this relates to election and reprobation see section 5 'Reprobation: The Great Accident'of my essay.TFT, I think, is clear that in Christ we find God's yes – election of all, and God's no, condemnation of all in sin. Those who respond to God do so by divine grace and election, and in so doing they realise their election. Those who don't are a mystery. But it is not OUR faith that is determiantive but always God's grace. The yes and no of God are not symmetrical though, in Barth or TFT. Thus TFT and Barth hold to a sort of supralapsarianism on the one hnd – for the elect, and to an infralapsarianism on the other (for the reprobate?). In reality theirs cuts beneath both accounts and offers a Christological correction. In practice – or functionally – how is this different from an Infra view coupled with a 'hypothetical universalism' – it probably looks exactly the same. But, and this is key, how we understand God, his electing, his will, and our salvation is radically different and this affects how we preach the Gospel. Does this still retain some form of determinism? Yes it does in TFT I beleive, and I think this is unavoidable in any Reformed soteriology where the emphasis falls on God's sovereignty. But in this view the determinism is severally muted and soft and Christologically conditioned so it still follows the Gospel and not some logico-system. But when the Gospel is put into a logical sequence – an ordo salutis – something is gained (clarity) and something is lost (mystery). Reporobation is thus Christologically grounded in God's omniscience and mercy and love. Knowing that God has forgiven sinners he justly condemns them in their unbelief – the cross thus becomes a stumbling block. Now, do I fully understand all this? No. Do I have all this workled out with crystal clarity? No. Am I still trying to work it out, be biblical and consistent and coherent? Yes indeed. So help π
Myk,It's been awhile, now, since I read that whole essay through; I've just printed it out, so I'll be rereading it tonight.You know what I've been doing with Barth/TFT's understanding is relegating the whole of who responds positively and negatively to the Gospel as mystery; but, I actually see how this has become a coping device for me. Wanting to affirm Barth's view (let alone TFT), and at the same time avoid the universalitic implications that so many (even of my fellow theobloggers) have opted for with Barth's logic.I really appreciate this, Myk; this exercise is very helpful. To me, more than the issue of "who's saved," "who's not" (while very important), takes second seat to an accurate, and "Evangelical," Doctrine of God. I like what you've communicated here. This is the kind of stuff that I wanted to get to — for myself — and hopefully this is helpful for anyone else reading (Mike, Will, et al). There are certain "bullets" that I've been needing to bite; and this interchange is helping me to do that. I still need to process this a little further, read your essay again; and maybe I'll be able to provide a little "help." So far you've been the one providing all the help, so thanks, Myk!
There is a lot of good stuff here. So in a nut shell, the reprobate reject the giver of the gift and therefore reject the gift and thus condemn themselves? Because all men are totally depraved, God elected some to respond to Godβs irresistible grace. Mike
That's pretty much it, Mike.So in a sense there really isn't alot of difference at this level from the Calvinism you're used to. Of course the other difference is how the extent of the atonement is framed . . . it is genuinely "universal;" but of course only the "elect in Christ" will respond positively. Okay, this presents some tension, at least for me, because looking at this analytically, we pretty much end up with a "hypothetical universalism." This is what I need to process further . . . but I'm afraid this is the "end" of the logic.What is different is our Doctrine of God, and strict adherence to the God of the Decrees. Instead of having salvation shaped by "Decrees;" the Evangelical Calvinist has salvation shaped by "God's life in Christ."Maybe Myk will have some more time to offer response.
Yeah that is pretty much it as I understand it – but I too am open to instruction. But a key differnece is that in EC all people are forgiven – that is the Good News! You are forgiven in Christ. We still require to be united to Christ by the Spirit, and if we refuse that then we experience the cross as judgment and not salvation. However, due to total depravity, God must take the initiative in salvation – which he has done in Christ once and for all. Now TFT if I remember rightly rejects irresistable grace – I accept it. By his grace God unites the elect to Christ by the Spirit – hence there is a carnal union and a spiritual union for the elect. In my opinion, if we reject irresistable grace then faith does become the cause of our salvation and we have a synergism that amouns to semi-Pelagianism. At this point we become Arminians or Easter Orthodox, but certainly not Reformed/Calvinists. TFT often goes to the story of Zacchaeus to illustrate this point – Jesus invites himself to Zacchaeus' house for lunch – he takes the initiative and he leads Zacchaeus to salvation, even though Zacchaeus certainly exercises his will in the process and puts himself into a position (up a tree!) where he can see the Saviour. But it is Christ who moves him from an anonymously interested spectator to a recipient of God's grace. Nice! The next fundamental step in this discussion is to get our heads around the *vicarious* humanity of Jesus Christ. When we get a handle on that then we can see how Jesus is both God's yes and no, the elect man and the reprobate, and all humanity finds their being in him.
Just a few thoughts.First of all, I agree with Barth-Torrance on election, but I have some concerns about ancillary matters. I'm skeptical about the "Greek determinism" charge. This too easily gives the impression that Reformed scholasticism was more invested in metaphysical precision than biblical precision. But I think the evidence is quite the opposite. The Reformed arguments were exegetical through and through, and thus the response must be exegetical. It is not enough to display the logic of the homoousian, as Torrance does, but we must also give a compelling account of Romans 9. Torrance is working with broad conceptual schemes and labels, as he loves to do (it's a British thing), but I don't think a lot of exegetes will be too impressed. Imagine bringing Torrance's argument to Douglas Moo, and what would Moo say? Probably, "where's the exegesis?" or such.Also, this Barthian position, insofar as it explicitly rejects dogmatic universalism (as Torrance did), needs to revisit the Arminian position as a close bedfellow. After all, the Remonstrants were making a lot of the same complaints that Barth and Torrance were making. Perhaps "evangelical Calvinism" is as much a refashioning of Arminianism as it is of Calvinism. The "impossible possibility" of reprobation is just Barth's way of affirming free will as a condition for salvation. The difference is that Barth rejected that any subjective criteria could have any power over-against God's freedom in grace. Arminians, however, are generally more inclined to specify such criteria — lack of faith, continuing sin, etc. But if we reject determinism (TULIP) while also rejecting dogmatic universalism, it is not easy to avoid a consideration of such subjective means. For those who think Barth-Torrance's approach is too dodgy, with excessive rhetorical flourish, will invariably find the Arminian categories a welcome relief, but at the cost of semi-Pelagianism.
Hey Myk,I agree with you on the *vicarious* humanity of Jesus Christ. TFT's book Incarnation is an excellent resource for giving insight on this exciting reality.I am not really an advocate for "irresistable grace," at least in its privitive framing. This is where I want to put English Calvinism, or the The Spiritual Brethren (per Janice Knight's designation, Richard Sibbes being one of its primary exemplars) into conversation with Scottish Theology and Evangelical Calvinism. As I note in my intro to this blog I have also been influenced deeply by what my former prof and mentor Ron Frost has labeled Affective Theology — in many ways it mirrors the Scottish Theology of folks like Jonathan Fraser of Brea and Campbell — it is non-Federal in its orientation. I see these two developments as complementary to each other. Anyway I say that I reject "irresistable grace" if it is framed in its classical (tulIp) form. Thomas'/scholasticism bleeds all the way through into the sin/grace symmetry. Thus if we view sin as privatio we will view grace as a "quality" (non-personal) or as a "created-grace" that God gives the elect (placed in the accidents) through which they can cooperate and thus appropriate salvation. Instead if sin is viewed as concupiscence (a la Augustine post-Pelagius debate), grace will be seen in personal/relational terms so that the Holy Spirit becomes the "person" (Grace – donum) who spreads (Rom 5:5) the love of Christ upon the elect's heart through which they "respond" out of Christ's love (vs. cooperate). So in this frame the elect will respond/reciprocate in God's grace; but not "cooperate" (i.e. Thomas' or "habituate") with God's grace.Let me repost something here (my next post), it is a post where I quote Frost's dissertation; and he will help elucidate this further.
Kevin,Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you on the exegesis piece; of course I would imagine that if we brought some of Moo's exegesis to TFT (if he were still alive), he might say: "where's the theology?" But, I do know that TFT was very keen on exegesis as well (NT Greek scholar in his own right). You're right, though, exegesis and developing the dogmatics are both essential pieces within the broader hermeneutical project.To say that the "Reformers" (and I'm assuming that you're referring to the 'post-Reformation' Reformers [Federal]) were exegetical through and through, doesn't seem to address an underlying issue. And that is what kind of theo-logic was in fact informing their "exegetical" decisions? To me this is what is under consideration here, not the fact that exegesis was indeed being done; but in "whose name" (Thomas', Scotus', et al)? This really highlights a serious problem that continues even today. I've seen Arminians and "Calvinists" engage eachother on "exegetical" grounds . . . they talk right past eachother, typically. It's a great scripture exchange, but headway is not made; because, the way I see it, they are speaking out of disparate interpretive traditions (with polemic attitudes, nonetheless).As far as the Barth/TFT, Arminian connection (yours); I would just say — and I know you know this, or you wouldn't be an advocate for Barth/TFT view of election — there is as much difference between Federal Calvinism/Arminianism and "Evangelical Calvinism," as there is between Thomism vs. Scotism on a Doctrine of God. In other words, I don't see any fundamental difference between Scholastic Calvinists and the Remonstrants — I see there "Doctrine of God" springing from the same Thomistic fountain-head; which means that Evangelical Calvinism flows from the Scotist trajectory (Myk has done a great paper on this).I don't know if you've read Myk's comments above; but I think he actually navigates a nice path through fears that might want to frame Evangelical Calvinism akin to Arminianism. Of course, you'll also have to read my comment (the one above this one) to have a full-orbed appreciation of how we should frame "Irresistable Grace" π (hey Myk :-).Boy, this is turning into a fruitful exercise; keep the feedback coming, all!
Great – thanks Bobby. This is your blog and there is no settled definition or evean category for EC yet – so you may be the one to put it on the map which also gives you the right to offer a definition π I look forward to the next post!Hi Kevin, despite Muller's work which has done a lot to show the contunuities between Calvin and Calvinism (Reformed vs post-Reformation Reformed) there is stil an undeniable discontinuity between them. But this argument will continue forever I think. Regarding exegesis – sure, but equally we could ask Moo where is the systematic theology! The peril of specialization I guess. That is not to say the exegetical work doesn't need to be done, and I thinkl that is why Bobby has posted at least one exegetial post and plans others including the 'odd' sermon perhaps (Bobby?). On the Arminian charge – the two traditions are so different and these differneces are so well known I don't really think there is a blurring of the lines here at all.
Myk,Yeah, but if I hadn't come across your article (thanks Travis) I never would've thought of the name "Evangelical Calvinist" (I was calling it Paleo-Evangelical for awhile). It's kind of nice, in some ways, that it's not actually a "settled" system . . . in fact I think, methodologically, it kind of defies such systemization (at least logico-causal kind) — which pedagogically can be a minus, but per its veracity it can be a plus :-).Okay, I'm going to play dense; what 'odd' sermon? I'm afraid this is something I should know about, but it's going over my head.You're really making me think this through, Myk; I'm liking your supralapsarian point for the elect, infra for the reprobate — let me gnaw on that some more.Btw, I do know of how TFT tied Gal 2:20 into his points on Christ's vicarious humanity 'for us'; and how this relates to an 'order of salvation'. Maybe I'll have to post on that at some point too (if only I could get course credit, Prof Myk ;-).
Your right Bobby, this is becoming a great exchange. "Game On" indeed!Keep at it brother.W
Hey W :-).
Bobby, why don't we co-write a book on this then? It could be something of a conversation between two advocates of EC, highlighting the commonalities but also the differenes. Or we could wrestle this stuff through to a consensus and write a manifesto for EC? I started a journal article on this some time back but got sidetracked on other projects, but I am keen to do something lik this and the thought of co-writing something appeals to me as well. I am confident I could get a publisher for it. Or, we could co-edit a multi-author work on the same and invite fellow thinkers to contribute chapters?? Or is that actually what you want to do the PhD on? Conversely, why don't you write a journal article setting out the discussion, or again, we could co-write one for IJST or some such?Perhaps we could email further on that.The 'odd' sermon refers to my Gal 2.20 sermon π Not sure if you are a preacher or not? I am really interested in the Affective stuff you are refering to (new to me). Has Frost (don't know him) published an article on his PhD or does he intend to? Sounds like it would be worthwhile.Also, what denomination or chruch affilliation do you belong to Bobby? Are you paedo-baptist or beleiver's baptism? Blessings,
p.s everyone, ecuse my spelling – I write this stuff quickly off the top of my head and thus don't bother speal checking. Perhaps I should, but forgive me π
Myk,Wow, my friend Will has been prodding me to write a book on this stuff for awhile (Hey Will). I would love to co-write a book with you on this; or if other options (like you mention, edit a multi-author work) seem to make sense, I'm open for that too. I must admit, I feel a little intimidated — not quite your equal in scholarship π — but if we were just having an open conversation about EC that would be great! Journal article sounds equally cool! No, I'm not a preacher (I've preached a few times); but not currently employed as one.As far as the Affective stuff: Ron has his PhD from King's College (University of London); unfortunately he hasn't done much writing (he has had an exchange with Muller in the past — in Trinity Journal, I'll get you the links to that exchange). You can get his PhD dissertation upon request from Frost, I think he would really appreciate your feedback — he was once going to have it published, but for some reason didn't. He was a prof of mine in seminary (I TA'd for him for a couple of yrs), but he has since resigned his position from Multnomah. He has a blog, you can get more of his bio and see more of his thinking Here.He also has a chapter on Richard Sibbes in the book: The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics (this chptr is basically a synopsis of his dissertation).And he has written another chptr in the book:Trinitarian SoundingsAnd then here is the link to a post I wrote at my other blog where I have links to Frost's exchange with Muller in the Trinity Journal:Trinitarian SoundingsAs far as my denominational affiliation: I grew up Conservative Baptist, and we are currently attending an "Evangelical" non-denominational "Bible church" — pretty much 'baptistic' in orientation and doctrine.I am credo-baptist (see we can say it Latin too ;-); per the teachings of scripture, as illustrated in the Didache ;-). What are you, Myk? You're Baptist, right (assuming, since you teach at a Baptist Seminary — I'm pretty quick ;-)?I'll be in touch via email. I'm excited about this book prospect!!!P.S. Wot's rong whith ur spleling :-)?
Woops, I gave you two links to Trinitarian Soundings. Here's the link to the Frost/Muller exchange:Frost's/Muller's "Trinity Journal" exchange
Hi Bobby. In light of this conversation you may like to check out the very helpful study by Matthias Gockel on Barth and Schleiermacher on the Doctrine of Election. I think that it may help you to understand Barth's position more clearly. If you're interested, I've a review of Gockel's study in Journal of Reformed Theology 2/2 (2008): 113β30.
Jason,Thank you! I'm always ready to understand anything "more clearly," I'll have to look up that review. Your suggestions and insights are always welcomed.
Btw, Jason,I'm curious, do you think I don't understand Barth's position on election? After these last few yrs, I had thought that I had come to a pretty good understanding. Anyway, just curious.
Jason,Where can I find a copy of your review of Gockel? I don't have access to the Journal of REformed Theology. I am a pastor here in the Philippines, doing my best to undertsand Barth and Torrance and their take on election.Thank you guys for the exchange. I am trying hard to follow. Albeit very slowly.
I really appreciated the posts above. I'd just like to ask simple questions. In sum, you (Myk and Bobby) seem to say here, God has chosen all people in Christ. And God wants to save all people. But some people resist Godβs saving grace. It is a mystery how people can resist it and become reprobates. Then, my questions are: God wants to save all, but all are not saved. Then, should we think that God is not powerful enough to save all people even though God wants it? God is not powerful enough to carry out what he wants to do?
Hi Sanghoon,No, I would just say that we are left in the mystery of sin; not in any kind of flux about God's sovereignty. All we can do is go with is what we know (have revealed). To speculate beyond that is not in our perrogative. I know folks are tempted to bring logical coherence to everything (use deduction); but it just doesn't always work when talking about a dynamic God and His ways (esp. when He hasn't told us everything Deut. 29:29). Scholastic theology tends to dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's"; EC wants to avoid that at a methodological level.In Christ
HI, This is presumably a non-sequiteur, but can someone point out, in relation to . “Christ as Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world.” Why *before* the foundation of the world, I don’t understand! Also, about the sentence before f. note, 22 where Torrance was said to get animated..on predestination and particular *individuals*. I thought predestination was at the level of the individual! I think I must be misunderstanding stuff on these 2 counts at least.
Before the world,
Because that’s what scripture says, and points to the eschatological nature of creation.
For Torrance predestination was about the individual in Christ (anhypostasis). So pre is about God’s choice to choose Himself in Christ before the foundation of the world. Does that help?
Thanks for your reply, Bobby.
That helps.
Another question: Isn’t YHWH (and/or even Jesus) particularistic rather than universalistic given some Bible verses in which God elects some for salvation and “hardens” others’ hearts?
e.g. YHWH hardened the hearts of Pharaoh and people of Egypt. (Exo. 4:21; 7:3; 14:4, 7; Romans 9:17)
e.g. Romans 11:7-10 “7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8 as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.” 9 And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”
– from these verse, we can see that Israel fail to obtain (salvation) and they are not “the elect (v.7)” but they (Isarel) are now “the others” who “were hardened” (by God). God gave them (the others/the hardened) “a spirit of stupor,” eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear. In short, Paul sees that the cause of Israel’s unbelief which is Paul’s concern and topic in Rom. 9-11 is God’s will to harden them.
e.g. for similar reasons — in order that some may not repent or be forgiven — Jesus speaks in parables. (Matt. 13:13-15; Mark 4:11-12)
Looking at the verses above, I think that the unsaved are not saved because God (and/or Jesus) hardened their hearts and therefore that God/Jesus is particularistic rather than universalstic.
And this “biblical” view of God seem to be contra Barth or EC’s doctrine of God.
I am curious about what EC or Barthians would think about these verses if they don’t ignore them.
Let me shift the burden of proof back. Where in these passages does it say anything about eternal salvation relative to election. Rom 9–11 from my reading has election framed by being instrumental for mediating salvation to the nations through Israel. The hardening has to do with losing place to be instrumental. I.e. now, in the “time of the Gentiles” we are to be instrumental in mediating salvation to the Jews, according to Rom 9–11.
I wonder how you might respond to this reading. I don’t believe in ignoring any scriptures.
Thank you for your question which makes me think further about Rom. 9-11. Thatβs good.
For now, I can raise some questions regarding the reading of Rom 9-11.
1. Doesnβt Pharaoh represent the evil king?
God hardened his heart. This hardening has not to do with eternal damnation? Hardening Pharaohβs heart and throwing him into the Red Sea have not to do with eternal damnation? Especially throwing him and his army into the Red sea is associated with Godβs throwing Satan into the glass-sea (or red fiery lake) in Rev 15 and somewhere else in Rev. also. In this way, Pharaoh represents the evil king and his life and death eschatologically picture the life and eternal death of Satan, when Exodus is read in the light of Revelation.
2. Why does Paul use Pharaohβs example that has much to do with eternal damnation in his discussion of Godβs hardening of Paulβs contemporary Israelites?
3. Doesnβt Calvin read Rom. 9-11 in relation with eternal salvation and damnation, Evangelical Calvinist? (Institute vol. 2, p. 952, 953, 981 [ed. John T. McNeil and Trans. F. L. Battles])
Iβll bring up more if I have more regarding the reading of Rom. 9-11. I feel like I need to think further about your good question.
4. Another question unrelated to Rom. 9-11 but related to the doctrine of God:
How do Barthians or ECs explain some divine acts of judgment in the Bible?
God βkillsβ some people as an act of judgment. In some cases, God does so after hardening oneβs heart (e.g. Pharaoh).
– Korah and his men and their households were swallowed up by the earth because they treated the LORD with contempt. (Num. 16)
– Fire from the LORD βconsumed the 250 men who were offering the incense.β (Num. 16:35)
– Fire from the LORD consumed the two sons of Aaron because they offered unauthorized fire (Num. 10:2).
– God struck down Uzzah and he died when he took hold of the ark of God. (2 Sam 6:6).
– Ananias and Sapphira died instantly when they lied to the Holy Spirit. (Acts 5)
– Those whose name are not found in the book of life will be thrown (by God) into the lake of fire for eternal judgment. (Rev. 20:15)
Are these events of the divine judgment just βinstrumentalβ? Some or all of the above mentioned people get to heaven after death, after the divine act of judgment in their life? Do you think it is possible that all of them go to heaven after death if you say with Barth that it is not impossible that all humanity go to heaven? Then, Godβs judgment on them would not be serious at all but the divine judgment in those passage would be just fake. I am wondering how Barthians or ECs would explain this.
SH,
I’m not a Barthian, per se. Just a short answer, I would want to go with the context of each of the various passages you mention, as determinative (not what Barth or someone else says). I would say Rom 9–11 isn’t referring to election in the justification sense, but in the mediation sense.
As far as how Calvin read Rom 9–11, that’s most likely true; but again, I’m not slavishly bound to anyone person to how I interpret scripture — I hold out that Calvin, Barth, and even Torrance were wrong in certain areas.
You raise alot of examples on the doctrine of God and judgement. I would say that some went to paradise or heaven, some were eternally damned (like your Rev. question), and some went immediately to heaven (like Anninias and Saph.)
EC and Barthianism are not self-same, but there is over-lap to be sure. A good book to read for further understanding on EC is “Scottish Theology” by T F Torrance. I don’t have the time or energy at the moment to try and get into all the details.