**This is a post I wrote quite some time ago for my other blog, I thought I would repost it here — I realize there are things and characterizations in this post that some of you disagree with, but I still hold that there is a distinguishable difference between ‘Federal Calvinism’ and ‘Evangelical Calvinism’ (which is akin to ‘Scottish Theology’) . . . and that this difference, no less, flows from a distinct doctrine of God (the Federal understanding being Thomistic, the Evangelical, Scotist)**
I have been reading a book by T. F. Torrance called Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell, and it has been quite elucidating. How many of you realized that Scotland, and many of her theologians offered a Reformation trajectory much different from that offered, later on, by what we today know as “Reformed doctrine” articulated at Dort and in the Westminster Catechisms? In other words one of the touchstones that we have inherited as “Reformed Dogma” is the TULIP and its emphasis upon God’s decrees and logico/causal relationships (like William Perkins’ Golden Chaine represents). I.e. the emphasis upon God as the unmoved mover who has decreed all of salvation history in time and space; one of these decrees being that God elected some in eternity past, and subsequently died for only these “special” people (e.g. limited atonement). Without going into too much detail, this abstract notion of God’s nature as the divine despot who decrees all of reality in a syllogistic style; was challenged by some of Scotland’s “Evangelical” “Reformed” theologians. One of these theologians was named Jonathan Fraser of Brae (1638-1698), Torrance describes Fraser’s thought on the topic of “assurance of salvation” and the “extent of the atonement” as he summarizes one of Fraser’s books:
. . . His great book, Justifying Faith, has two main parts. 1) The main part is devoted to the ground of faith in which it is shown that it is not faith itself that justifies us but Christ in whom we have faith. The ultimate grounds of believing are ‘the Attributes of God, his Power, and Faith, Fulness and Wisdom’, but ‘the immediate grounds of believing are the gracious promises in the Gospel: But my Belief of the Truth of the Promises is founded on Christ’s Faith, Fulness, the Bottom and Pillar of all Divine Faith [“Justifying Faith 2”, p. 3]. Of particular significance here is the correlation of our faith with the faith of God and the faith of Christ—human faith derives from, rests on, and is undergirded by divine faithfulness. Great stress was laid from the outset, by Fraser, on ‘Christ’s all Sufficiency’, in that ‘He is able to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him [“Justifying Faith,” p. 11]’. (2) The second and longer part of Fraser’s work is called an ‘Appendix’ devoted to the object of Christ’s death. In it he shows that Christ died for all people, and not for a limited number as it was claimed in the so-called ‘covenant of redemption’ made between the Son and the Father. He rejected the distinction between a covenant of grace and a covenant of redemption [“Justifying Faith”, p. 170]—the former, as he said again and again, is absolute in its nature and universal in its extent. Throughout his book Fraser differed at crucial points sharply with Samuel Rutherford and James Durham, as also with William Twisse the Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, not to mention the puritan divine John Owen. But reference is made to several others like William Fenner in connection with their support for the biblical teaching that Christ died for all men. This had to do sometimes with a subtle form of Pelagianism in their understanding of faith. “It is an Error oftentimes in our Faith, that it is not built purely and only on the Grace of Christ, but we seek secretly other Props, and so to set some other thing on Christ’s room, and this is as it is derogatory to Christ, and evidence of Distrust in him [“Justifying Faith”, p. 295]’. (T. F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology,” 184-85)
Here we have an example of what a Reformed theologian looked like, who thought outside the constraints imposed upon scripture by Westminster. Interestingly, many today would not consider this kind of thinking “Reformed,” but this would be circular wouldn’t it? Since one would have to assume that Westminster is the ‘historic’ standard of what being Reformed actually entails, in order to deny that people like Brae and many others also represented the variegated mainstream of the burgeoning “Reformed Tradition”—I digress.
Let me highlight a few points that Brae offers in opposition to Westminster Calvinism—that is if they aren’t apparent enough—1) notice the emphasis that Brae places on Christ as the “objective” basis of salvation. This gets into issues of ontology, union with Christ, and faith as an immediate reciprocating response” from Christ and to Christ as humanity is brought into union with Him through the incarnation. 2) This leads to the the far reaching extent of the atonement, in line with scripture (I think), Brae holds to a universal atonement (objectively), thus Christ can be called the Savior of all men; and the offer of salvation genuinely made to all people.
This is all contrary to the salvation framework provided by Westminster. For Westminster assurance came from reflecting upon ‘my good works’ (Perseverance of the saints), and then reflexively (after looking at my ‘behavior’) by faith I can find assurance that I am one of those elect for whom Christ died. This is the kind of theology that Brae was writhing against, this is what he calls “Pelagianism,” since in this construct, methodologically, man is driven to self before he gets to Christ; in other words, the decree gets in the way of Christ. Not only that, but we also end up with a rather “Nestorian” outlook, relative to election, since the incarnation was not representative of all humanity but only for the “elect”—which is problematic.
It might be surmised that Brae was a universalist (that all humanity will be saved), but he was not. Instead he believed that all humanity who believed would be saved on the basis of Christ’s universal salvation—being a direct corollary of the incarnation (and its universal extent and representation). A Westminster Calvinist would say, but wait, if Christ died for all, then all will be saved. But Fraser would respond that that is only true if you are straightjacketed by the rigid logico-causal system that has shaped the articulation and thought process of Westminster/Federal Calvinism. In other words, Fraser’s Calvinism (and he was a Calvinist) had “scriptural evangelical tension” in it—something that Westminster Calvinism just can’t live with.
I am happy to say that I am Reformed in the “Evangelical way” represented by Fraser. In fact I think Fraser, and others, are the kind of fellows that Karl Barth picked up on in his thinking on soteriology. If not, the similarity is quite shocking.
BobbyWhat would you say is the popular definition of "evangelical?"What would you say is your definition of evangelical? And I am curious, does ones view of scripture play into whether one is evangelical or not. Your phrase "scriptural evangelical tension" is resonates with my very soul (because it allow/demands that scripture have the last word on itself), yet, to some I bet will be taken as quite provocative or even inflammatory.Will
Do you consider assurance and perseverance to be the same thing? Do you think Federal Calvinists don't evangelize to all people? They do. We can't know what is in a person's heart, let alone what is potentially in a person's heart. This is quite a canard of Federal Calvinism you've latched on to. To say Christ's death was effective for the elect alone is not to say it wasn't sufficient for all.
A good book for the basics of Reformed Theology:Concise Theology by J. I. Packer. Packer's intro to Witsius' Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man is also a classic for beginners and advanced alike, pithy and to the point. It is available on the web. Google the key words above.Graduate to Berkhof's Systematic Theology. It's reputation for being dry and, as some strangely put it, boring, it undeserved. It is a rather special and helpful work in not only getting understanding of the doctrines of Reformed Theology but in getting context and history of those doctrines as well. You write many things that are simply untrue about Federal, Reformed Theology. Also, when you get into deep waters such as referencing the Covenant of Redemption in a particularly Sottish historical context you drown. The way Scottish Reformed theologians tended to see the relationship between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace was unique, but it most certainly didn't mean they didn't see a Covenant of Redemption. It's actually too involved for a blog. One has to get understanding of what one is critiquing, especially if one is intent on teaching the world (in this case the world of Reformed Theology) that what it has always thought is wrong.One thing about Reformed theologians, Mr. Grow, is: they are impressive simply because they say what the Bible says. And all the criticisms and attacks and so on have been hashed out to infinity. You make 8 or 9 statements on one blog post that any first year Reformed apologist hears from Arminians and Roman Catholics every day and has countered already probably hundreds of times.You start your post: "I was reading a book…" You were reading a book critical of Reformed Theology. Read sound introductions to Reformed Theology written by Reformed theologians. This will put Mr. Torrence into perspective.
Puritan,I'm aware of the efficient/sufficient anecdote; I don't buy it, because I don't buy the christology that flows from.No, I don't consider assurance and perseverance to be the same thing.No, I know what Federalists say about Evangelism, but in the end its disingenuous from my perspective. Again this is tied up in my christology and thus view of election.Will,That's a big question, I'll have to answer that by way of a post. Although, here I am simply defining it around the Gospel itself; i.e. that God's life encompasses all life, in Christ . . . He is supremed over both the dead and the living.So I'm not really appealing to the, for example, Evangelical Theological Societies' definition; per se — at least in this context.
Puritan,Have you ever read Richard Muller. I'm not so keen on what "Reformed" theologians "say" they believe; but what in fact is underneath their assertions. You keep pointing me to prescriptive works; these all speak a priori out of a certain metaphysic — which you are completley, apparently, are ignorant of (i.e. you say: One thing about Reformed theologians, Mr. Grow, is: they are impressive simply because they say what the Bible says.), that's why you can say things like that . . . you can't see the informing philosophical construct for the scriptures themselves.The contention is, is that Scottish Theology is not a monolith either. Certainly, Federal/Westminster theology took over most of the Reformed in Scotland as well. So what TFT is referring to as Scottish theology is its non-Federal version (its original form as conceived by Knox, see his doctrine of God in the Scots' Confession). This is the same thing, which you also are naive to, I've been pointing out with Janice Knight's designation — i.e. the distinction between The Spiritual Brethren and The Intellectual Fathers — gets at. The non-Federal and Federal developments of Calvinism in England. Your problem, Puritan, is that you continue to read things that tickle your Puritan ears. You're apparently clueless to the deeper informing voices of your own tradition. And thus you naively say things you know not what you speak.
Bobby, would this Ordo Salutis listed below help define Evangelical Calvinism? As opposed to Federal Calvinism, where Christ died only for the elect. 1. God the Father determined, elected, chose those who will become the Bride of Christ (Foreknowledge / Predestination). Why one is chosen is a mystery known only to God.2. Man in himself because of sin became unworthy to become the Bride of Christ (Total Depravity / Spiritually Dead).3. All mankind receives through the Incarnation/Hypostatic Union of Christ, an Open Invitation to become members of the bride of Christ because of his substitutionary death and resurrection. It is only through Christ, one becomes worthy.4. The Holy Spirit brings conviction to all men to respond to this invitation. The elect drawn to Spiritual Union with Christ (Irresistible Grace). None elect reject/forfeit their Invitation and become reprobate.5. God enables the Bride of Christ to have Faith and Repentance. The result is New Birth (Redemption / Justification).6. New Birth leads to instant and progressive Sanctification, and eventual Glorification (preservation of the Bride).
Mike,Let me get to you later this evening, maybe tomorrow, off to work :-).
Mike, that is a good attempt thanks. I think it is to vague to be a formal ordo salutis but it does make some good moves.Puritan, a question for you if I may. Do you subscribe to what is known as 'experimental predestination'? That is, one looks to their good works for assurance of salvation (not exclusively but definitively)? And further, do you think this is the normal Reformed position? Amd if so, do you know where and how this theology developed? If your answer is no to this then what is your theology of assurance and how do you account for the experimental predestinarians? An aberation? Representative of some sub-group within the Reformed? If so, what sub-group – how would you categorise them?
>You keep pointing me to prescriptive works; these all speak a priori out of a certain metaphysic — which you are completley, apparently, are ignorant of (i.e. you say: One thing about Reformed theologians, Mr. Grow, is: they are impressive simply because they say what the Bible says.), that's why you can say things like that . . . you can't see the informing philosophical construct for the scriptures themselves.No, Mr. Grow, Reformed Theology tends to attract Christians who do know why they believe what they believe. It also attracts Christians who engage their Bibles in a complete and dedicated way.To say Reformed theologians are impressive because they say what the Bible says is not a naive or shallow statement. It is actually *rare* for a theologian to *say what the Bible says.*
>I'm not so keen on what "Reformed" theologians "say" they believe; but what in fact is underneath their assertions. This is juvenile. It is in the secular academy and the unbelieving world that you will find such lack of self-awareness and unconscious naivety. Christians tend to be broken in spirit and awakened by the Spirit, to a greater or lesser yet basic degree.
>Puritan, a question for you if I may. Do you subscribe to what is known as 'experimental predestination'? Experimental Calvinism I assume you are referring to. Look, there was a whole industry to make the Puritans look like hand-wringing basket cases, if not some psychologically twisted character from a Dostoevsky novel debating whether to jump off the bridge or not. This makes for good (to some) fiction (and has the bonus of making Christians look bad), but it is not good history. Assurance is a riddle to the unregenerate. The fact is, to the regenerated believer one has one's own life and experience to give one assurance. Before I was like that, I did that, I seemed to enjoy doing that, now I am like this, I don't do that, I don't enjoy doing that anymore. Other things one sees in oneself that are basic and easy to observe are things like one's valuation for Scripture itself. I use to not value it. I use to mock it. Now I actually read it and meditate upon it and yearn to increase my understanding of it and to become 'mighty in the Scriptures.' Another mark of regeneration is love for the brethren. This can seem ironic if you spend a lot of time in debate over doctrinal matters, but once you step out into the world and you recognize a true brother or sister in the faith you feel a real love for them. You and me against the world type of thing because it's usually in such conflict that one becomes aware of another's belief. There are different very plain and obvious marks of regeneration, and the believer is not left in some hall of mirrors to wonder if they indeed have been regenerated by the Word and the Spirit. As for works vis-a-vis assurance… There is this thing called 'legalism.' It is 'off the mark.' There were and are Christians who are off-the-mark in the direction of legalism. Just as there are Christians who are off-the-mark in the direction of antinomianism. Neither ditch defines Reformed Theology. Anyway, we don't define Reformed Theology by what stage of development or lack thereof any given person can find themselves in vis-a-vis the Christian faith. If someone is wringing their hands as to whether they are saved as they are walking to the house of a woman they are having an adulterous affair with we don't define Reformed Theology by that person's actions or situation. Reformed Theology teaches what the Bible teaches, and the Bible teaches that good works are the fruit of justification not the cause, and one's good works can go up in flames (i.e. not be so good as one thinks) and yet that person will not be lost because it is what God does on His end that matters, thank God.
Mike,I would say that we need to ground our ordo in Christ. Which means to see election in Christ.I would simply say that the order is a unilateral movement from God to man in Christ by the Spirit. We respond to what He has done. All are 'elect' carnally (objectively), and some within that realize the 'spiritual' side (subjective) of that election in all its fullness in Christ (Col 2:9,10).That's vague too, this will make for a good post, later :-).