**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.
Soooo…how does a thought process like this fit into the categories and issues above, especially as relates to the differing views on the extent of the atonement?
Hi Ali,If the atonement is framed ontologically and not forensically — which is how EC understands it — then divine calculus never enters the equation. The claims of overpayment, payment in vain, etc. are non-starters in the ontological understanding. Sin is seen as a relational problem, not primarily a legal one (which that component is there); and Jesus takes care of that with His Father by recreating/redeeming/resurrecting a Holy people unto Himself.Does that help?
Hi Bobby,Sin is seen as a relational problem, not primarily a legal one….That statement in particular helps. However, even if there were no legal aspect (I recognise that you say there is), a purely relational problem also incurs "levels" of punishment, and as such the question of justice or injustice as relates to degree of punishment remains.I mean, as broken relationships go, there are actions that an offended party is more or less offended by, and broken relationships that require more or less to repair. So, I think we can rephrase the "overpayment" question in relational terms, and while the answer may not take on the urgency of the legal question, it is still begging.In essence, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not convinced that Federal and Evangelical Calvinism are different so much as complimentary perspectives though each with their own weaknesses. Having said that, I think you are pointing out the weaknesses of Federal Calvinism well.
Ali,Thanks.Let me just say that Fed and Evan are fundamentally different; at a fundamental level ;-). EC starts with a doctrine of God that is Scotist in orientation (that sees God as love); Fed starts with a doctrine of God that sees Him as the singular cause (God as substance from whence the persons subsist). This distinction, all by itself, has drastic consequences on all other conceptions — including esp. conceptions of salvation.On the extent of the atonement. The difference is that EC genuinely believes, it must because of the inner logic of the Incarnation, that Jesus died for all humanity (because he became human and His "becoming" is part and parcel or you could say IS the atonement). Federal C. genuinely believes that Jesus did not die for all humanity, but only for the elect; which really gives us a Nestorian christology. So I would beg to differ with you, kindly though, that EC and FC compliment. There is quite a bit to all of this :-). I'll keep trying to explain, at least what EC is about. If you can get your hands on TF Torrance's "Scottish Theology" you'll really have a handle on what EC is all about.
When I read "Fed" and "Evan", my first thought was, "Who are Fred and Evan?" You'll be glad to hear that I got it figured out. :)I am completely happy to accept that I don't know enough about either theology, but from what you've said, I see difference, but I don't see necessary contradiction (though perhaps that suprises you). I'll keep reading.
Hi Bobby and Ali!Ali you said You'll be glad to know I figured that out.You are too funny! there is a kindred spirit! some one like myself who isn't afraid to laugh at himself along with others. You've blessed me with laughter. Bobby, I see a plain difference. "Fred" according to Sproul Et Al has an overarching telos of God glorifying Himself seemingly at any cost. This feels to me too much like Sally Fields seeking another OSCAR. "Praise me". This greatly denigrates God IMO. JESUS, Lord-Creator, humbled Himself to diapers in a cattle stall, and beaten ugly and naked on the cross, why? just to get glory? Nay!Evan says that sin is a relational issue, and (I'm reading into) since "God is Love" He became a man to provide a way for all men.As men come clothed in Christ, they will come to love Father, Son and Holy Spirit (relationship). "Glory to God in the Highest" is a natural out pouring of adoration from the redeemed in time for eternity.This is right and the righteousness of God my Savior.Thank You
HiI found your comments very helpful and will try to save up for βScottish Theologyβ β as a Scot I was gobsmacked by the cost! I am from a conservative Calvinist background and have recently stumbled across Torrance. I find the emphasis on the personal rather than forensic stimulating and challenging. It seems to give greater significance to the incarnation soteriologically [beyond imputation] and has implications that seem to bounce off every aspect of theology.I am fairly new to this and although I understand that there are different fundamental epistemological standpoints in play I still cannot see why the ontological approach excludes a forensic aspect. I have just constructed a blog with the express purpose of dialogue between old stick in the mud Calvinists like myself and anyone with a more Torrance/Barth framework.I have called it βSparring with Calvin, TF Torrance and the Church Fathersβ. You can find it at:http://engagingtftorrance.blogspot.com/I need all the help and encouragement I can get!
Great, nice to meet, Donald!I wouldn't want to say that the ontological view of atonement excludes forensic, at all (neither does Torrance). I like to think of it as the "FRAME" wherein the forensic finds its shape. Usually its just the forensic (but this then only focuses on behavioral issues, and not the real issues of a depraved heart — so ontological cf II Cor 3).I look forward to checking out your blog; and yes "Scottish Theology" is ridiculously expensive (my lib had it, thankfully). Look forward to more interaction, and I'll check out your blog.Ali,Funny ;-), Fred and Evan, I didn't even think of that when I wrote that. I can prove the difference to you; just wait until I get some Feds over here again (you must have missed the past engagements), you'll see the difference very quickly (they do ;-).Duane,I think you're onto something :-).
Hi Bobby,I don't doubt the difference, I just doubt the incompatibility. I'm happy to be shown that my doubts are due to ignorance.(By the way, why are two of the last three books recommended to me by Evangelical Calvinists prohibitively expensive? That's why I actually hope that the people I'm talking with can explain things without me needing to go bankrupt!)
Ali,Let me ask you this, then — to press you a little — on what basis do you doubt their incompability?I don't know why the publishers do that; why don't you write them and complain :-).
Hey Bobby,The basis on which I doubt their incompatibility is that in what you have said so far (or perhaps what I have read so far) I see no necessary incompatibility. For instance, beginning with God as love on the one hand or singular cause on the other does not, in my understanding, have to lead to inconsistency. Nor do I see the extent of the atonement as necessarily being at odds in what you say (in fact there are many who identify with what you may call Federal Calvinism who nuance or even reject the 'L' of TULIP. Are they being inconsistent? Maybe, but it's because they are trying to make sense of the Biblical record as well, not just follow the logic of it all. Of course, you have been brief, so as I learn more I may change my view, but even with more information, I have found that theological positions tend to have more in common and be more compatible than at first glance, and a little adjustment (not complete upheval) here or there makes all the difference.Very vague, yes, but I'll leave it there. I note you have addressed differences again in the post above. I'll have a read when I can.
Ali,Your kind of stubborn guy, huh ;-).Federals are Thomists, in general; EC's are Scotists, in general. Read the history of these two approaches, and you'll see the fundamental difference I speak of. There is no compability whatsoever. Feds follow the 'via negativa' methodology, EC's follow the 'via positiva'; again no compatibility. There are many more examples, Ali; EC's follow folks like TF Torrance, Feds follow folks like Richard Muller — that is a huge difference. Feds ground their approach to God in decrees (abstract principles); EC's ground it immediately in God's life. Maybe I'll convince you yet, Ali. If there was no difference, I would sack this blog.
Hi Bobby,Yeah, I'm stubborn, but in this instance I just haven't been convinced, due, no doubt, to my lack of knowledge. From what you'd told me, the difference between the two was one speaking of God as King and the other speaking of God as Father: I'm sure you can appreciate that while there are differences, neither of these are incompatible.I've had a quick look on Wikipedia re. Thomism and Scotism (it is Christmas Eve, so it wasn't a thorough one!) and I can see why you emphasise the differences. However, the historical arguments notwithstanding, I am a firm believer 1) that no theological system is completely correct, 2) that differences are usually matters of mis-emphasis rather than contradiction when the Bible is the primary source and 3) that Biblical truth usually manages to incorporate what we see as incompatible into itself as compatible – we usually just haven't seen it yet (surely you've had that experience where you couldn't see how two things go together and then later figure it out).Now, I don't doubt the differences between Evan and Fred, and nor do I doubt that contradictions can be found, but in the same way Arminianism and Calvinism (Fed) have both been used of God to disciple and mature people in their knowledge of him due, I believe, to the biblical truth found in both systems (though inadequately expressed), I would not be at all surprised if Evan and Fred views of the divine are merely two different reflections of the same God.But, clearly, whether Fred and Evan are ultimately compatible or not, you are wanting to point out the differences, so go for it.I'm still learning.
Alright, Ali,Stick around then :-).Merry Christmas, and thank you for your continued prayers!P.S. There are such things as "competing" theological constructs. Arminianism and "Calvinism" really aren't competing at all (they are both Thomist/Ramist in orientation . . . or representatives of classical theism per their common construal of a doctrine of God).
Hey Bobby thank you for your time and your answering in return.It is funny I am overseas in New Zealand right now and one of the people I am staying with had Myk Habets for a lecturer.I am originally from Ohio and I am not sure how much longer I will be here it doesn’t look like too much longer.I was actually going to ask if there is some EC study material that you could recommend to me?I have heard of Torrance and glanced at some of his material and if you aren’t ready to spend the time you can’t read him.I have a dear friend who is also a minister who is a Evangelical Calvinist.From what I have seen is that if you don’t agree with Classic Calvinists and see things the way they do that you are Arminian in your theology.The truth is I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ no matter what their theology is whether Arminian or Federal or Evangelical.I am not a Classic Calvinist nor am I Arminian.What is disturbing to me and is heartbreaking when I hear classic Calvinists say that Calvinism (federal) is the gospel and them being close minded to any other theology than theirs.I have really seen the danger of not having a theology that begins with and is centered in Jesus Christ. How does EC relate and affect evangelism and the commission of Jesus?What are the positive effects of EC? And how can being centered in EC theology propel my ministry as an evangelist and advance the Kingdom of God in the earth in a greater way?For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.-Chris
That is funny, a small world (Myk is a great guy). TF Torrance’s book “Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell” is the best intro to what Evangelical Calvinism is all about (but it’s a spendy book).
No, I see Classic Calvinism and Arminianism as two different sides of the same coin; it is because of their doctrine of God, which is “Thomist” in orientation (this is sometimes called a “Classical Theistic” approach to God). In fact this is the primary differentiation between EC and CC/Arm, viz. doctrine of God. EC follows a Trinitarian (or historically “Scotist” view of God) which emphasizes the relationality and love shaped life of God. It does not place decrees between God and man (not mediated through abstract decrees); but sees an immediacy between God and man in Christ (it is personal). And God’s relation to man is grounded in His life of overflowing life of love within Himself which superabounds towards us in Christ. This is different from CC/Arm which makes God’s contingent upon the Covenant of Works being met (then He is free to love us). There is a minor sketch of some important distinction. This is one thing I want to dispel; there is a false dichotomy presented (historically) between CC and Arm. as if these are the only options — that’s wrong. EC developed in Scotland, alongside what is called “Affective Theology” in England; both contrary to Federal and Arminian Theology, yet still thoroughly ‘Reformed’.
1). EC believes that Jesus genuinely died for all humanity. We don’t see a necessary link logico/causal link between His death and those who ‘will’ be saved as the Federal Calvinist does. So this should effect the way you look at people, that God loved them (everyone now is oriented reconciled to God in Christ) that He died for them; and thus when you preach the Gospel you are able to genuinely offer it to everyone w/o wondering if they are “one of the elect” (Jesus is the elect humanity — thus the implication of the Incarnation).
2). The positive effect of EC is that it is not bound to a series of non-Biblical Covenants that have been imposed upon scripture. Another one is that relationship with God is emphasized; given the emphasis on God’s trinitarian life of love.
3). I think being ‘EC’ can propel your ministry, again, because it is thoroughly grounded in Christ; which means it is ‘Spirit-anointed’ ministry since our ministry flows out of His life in us by the Spirit. So you will evince a real power, the power of God; you won’t be emphasizing an ‘intellectualist’ faith, but a real love-filled faith by and in Christ!
Hope that helps, Chris! I have more posts on here that answer your questions more specifically. But I don’t have the time to dig them all up right now.
In Christ
Oh a few good books from Torrance that are more affordable that deal with your questions further are:
Incarnation and Atonement (two companion voloumes, about $45US total, or you can buy them separately, buy Incarnation first). They are edited by Robert T. Walker (just look up on amazon).
and
The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons
These will give you a broader perspective about some general themes of EC. If you don’t like the language of EC (might be cumbersome at points), I have no problem with calling it “Scottish Theology” (just as far as a distinguishing marker).
hope that helps you.