Here is something that must be understood for anyone interested in understanding what Evangelical Calvinism is all about. Just know that the traditional Classical Calvinist and Arminian debates (or at least understandings) will carry on; with nether a concern about how it might be that God, in Christ, actually died and lives for all humanity. I have come to the conclusion that most ‘Classic Calvinists’ are buried away in their sacrosanct ghettos of self-assurance; that anything that passes outside those walls, is just that, “outside those walls.” This topic of enquiry will most definitely be without the regions of Calvinist ghetto central; simply because it starts out with the notion that in fact 
universal atonement was made in Christ. Nevermind the fact that the inner-logic of the Incarnation demands this, never mind that the perscipuity of scripture ‘clarifies’ this with explicit precision; the ‘ghetto-dwellers’ are too engrossed with their regional concerns than with those that might take them without the “city” (which don’t forget it where Christ was crucified cf. Heb. 13 ;-). Anyway, what am I talking about; what’s my drama here all about? It’s about what T. F. Torrance (or a summary of his view by Robert Walker) has to say on the salient points noted above:
. . . There is a third factor which further defines the real presence of God and makes it even more decisive. . . . It is the radically substitutionary nature of salvation in Christ which makes his entry into time even more decisive and eschatological. If Jesus has acted on behalf of all humanity and completed the salvation of all inside his person, then whether they will or not he has made it a fiat accompli and something they are confronted with in his person. If by contrast salvation is simply an offer in his person, then there is a sense in which people can take it or leave it and pass by on the other side. But if Jesus has actually taken the place of each and every single human being before God, and in their place and on their behalf has achieved salvation for them, then they are inseparably involved. The radically substitutionary and representative nature of Jesus’ action for each and every person means that they have been set aside and something has been done in their name. They have been signed up for salvation by the action of God and of man in Christ while they were still enemies. The ground has been taken from under their feet and in the person of Christ they are confronted with their own salvation, inescapably involving them in decision.
It is the fact that Jesus is not only God but God acting as man for humanity, and not only as man but as individual man, achieving salvation for us in the reality and individuality of his person and meeting us individually in personal encounter, that involves us in existential decision and in the eschatological tension between the reality of what-and-who he is for us and what we still are in ourselves. It is the fact that Jesus has done something in our name and in our place for each person individually that means we are inescapably involved in decision as he meets each person individually in personal encounter, in the reality of what he is for us in his love and grace and in his calling us to follow him in faith. (Thomas Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, “Atonement,” lxvi-xvii)
I can just hear the Traditional Calvinist now: “blah, blah, blah,” (with hands over ears). Sorry, this is clearly what scripture teaches; it is clearly what the logic of the incarnation requires. If you reject this then you fall off into christological heresies like: docetism, ebionitism, nestorianism, etc. And you simply reject the reality of scripture which says, “that Christ tasted death for all flesh” (see Heb. 2). Beyond that, you reject passages like Colossians 1:15-20, which says:
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Scripture clearly proclaims that Christ is supreme over both death and life, over all of creation; invisible and visible. If you hold to a view of the atonement that says that Christ only died for the elect (i.e. Limited Atonement, in its classical form); and your understanding of the ‘elect’ is that it is ‘elect’ people, and not first, “elect God-Man in Christ,” then how can you say that Christ is supreme over all things? How can you say that He has reconciled all things to himself through the cross? You can’t!
I hope you’re not a ‘ghetto-dweller’, I hope you’ll take the chance to venture outside your wall and realize the liberating freedom there is when we actually ground everything in the person and work of Christ (even ‘our’ salvation . . . go figure ;-).
AMEN!
I guess, it's scary to be invited outside of the tightly laced confines of any particular logical progression. If one point happens to prove faulty, it often means we have to re-think everything. And it can be terrifying to be out in the middle of the stormy lake saying –"Wait a second I can't walk on water….what am I doing?"The concept of Christ meeting with each person individually really struck at the heart of what I've been noticing lately.Jesus entered into time and space, lived perfection, tasted a horrifying death of separation from His Father, and raised victorious over the curse which sits on us. He fulfilled the Law in His own person so we don't have to be crusehed by it's weight.In His risen and glorified state, He already rules. He's undisputed king over that which He's purchased, yet is still allowing stubborn rebels plenty of opportunity to taste of His goodness and repent.I used to wonder if Arminians had a point about loss of salvation by their proof-texting of Hebrews 2:3 concerning the neglect of our salvation equalling a putting on, then soiling, then tossing aside of it.Still pondering that. But I think the meaning may look more like "Jesus has already made the way of salvation sure (because it's HIM, as reigning Lord and Savior). If we reject that after having been shown the truth, there really isn't any other option." And, I've been wondering whether that is what is meant by "blaspheming against the Spirit", since it is the Spirit that was sent to convict us of our sin and comfort us upon repentance as we continue to hope in Christ.Hope that didn't wander too far off topic. You know that's terribly out of character for me.
Bobby, Love your blogs and your vulnerability. Praying for your healing as well. As a recovering Arminian in transition into Torrance's Trinitarian theological paradigm, it has been challenging to not try to hang on to some of that paradigm. But it's been like trying to sail new places still still tied up at the old dock. I suspect that is the same challenge in transitioning from the side of "Classic" Calvinism. I'm coming to see that both Calvinism and Arminianism are locked into the same forensic-paradigm that defines a larger "ghetto" than just their own individual versions. Trying to create change in either end can be like stepping in between fighting spouses and getting attacked from both sides.If "Classic" Calvinism and Arminianism are seen as the opposite ends of an axis that has a common narrative (forensic theology) then moving forward may be more effectively done by shifting to an entirely new plane and a point of view with a Trinitarian narrative. That mean being attacked from both ends of the old narrative (happens anyway) and dealing with our personal feelings as if we are abandoning home base (even painful comfort zones are comforting).Is it time to shift from "Evangelical Calvinism" to a Trinitarian Theology that values Calvin and launch out into deep waters? Hope you understand the spirit of my question. As one who has tried for a long time to change "the system" I now appreciate that systemic change from inside is extremely difficult, exhausting, and may divert us from what Father, Son and Spirit are up to in stirring our souls and imaginations. BlessingsPaul
Hi Again Bobby & all!Good points Heather and Paul!Bobby, I detect a (probably unintentional)contrast between history and your use of "ghetto":The ghetto of Warsaw in the holocaust imprisoned a people who were all equally guilty before a Holy God, just as those outside the ghetto walls were equally guilty with them. Those outside the walls were oblivious to the injustice, no, EVIL of this maltreatment of the internees, or if they were aware, they were apathetic or too afraid of their god (adolf hitler) to protest.In your illustration, the ghetto is the safe house for the "elect", those outside, are no more personally guilty than those inside, but those inside will not cry out to their god to give the others grace (election) commenserate with that afforded themselves. They will argue "the potter's clay".I detect a comparable apathy. But my GOD will do justice, and I believe, in this "Evangelical Calvinist" theology God in Christ provides salvation for every soul. And…what?I think that where this is then going, is the freed soul clothes himself in the salvation provided, or else rejects God and His Christ and regeneration, sealing his fate.Your Brother,
Duane,I just used the ghetto picture to represent a ghetto; I wasn't really reading too much into it π (the "wall" was the point). And thank you for the prayers, brother! Hope your Christmas went ok. I was praying.Heather,It is scary to engage in what is called distanciation, esp. if we aren't in the "safety" of a bible college or church where it's okay to think w/o 'fear'.As far as the passages you mention, w/o getting to into them, the first principle we want to approach that with is the "analogy of scripture" (or faith). Which is, that we want to interpret "less clear" with the "abundandly clear." We also want to look at texts, like Hebrews (or whatever), intratextually and intertextually — so we want to see it within its own context of meaning and then see how biblically theologically that relates to the "whole of scripture" (how parts relate to whole and whole to the parts). And then most importantly we want to see how all of these contextual parts and themes find their internal patterning and grounding in the person of Jesus Christ. If we do all of these things the Arminian and even classic Calvinist interps. melt away (kind of like I'm hoping my cancer does ;-). So no, "loss of salvation" cannot be in view; that would be like saying that loss of Christ's humanity in the Incarnation is a possibility. At least with Hebrews keep the OT context in mind, and study out the contextual flow and thus meaning so derived (quite a blessing i.e. remember the arguement of the letter, the "New" is better than the "Old", why? Jesus! It's not about proof supporting pet theological points [like it was intended to answer, directly, questions on justification per the demands of a prefabbed construct like ARm. or CC provides).Hope that helps!Paul,Welcome, and thank you for the prayers, I definitely need them (as we all do)! I appreciate what you've shared. Actually I stole the term "Evangelical Calvinist" from TF Torrance in his book "Scottish Theology" and also from Dr Myk Habets in an essay he did on TFT on this very issue. To say EC is another way of saying Trinitarian Theology, TFT saw it this way; and he most definitely interpreted Calvin this way. I'm afraid for some the term "Evangelical" has bad connotations (and for good reason, esp. when it comes to doctrine); but what we are trying to do with this term, along with TFT, is reify it in a way that captures its historic/trinitarian intent (which as you note, Calvin was about).And I think your approach to thinking these through is good! As Heather points out, it is uncomfortable to venture out of our safety zones (even ghettos). That's what EC is challenging "some" folks to do, hopefully (it has me). But like the Levites, once the toes are wet, there is a nice dry path to follow (with rocks and bumps intact ;-). I hope there are more out there like you, Paul. And yes, there is no doubt that Arm. and CC flow from the same metaphysical pool, relative to a doctrine of God (it is Thomist) pure and simple. So we get a God is a divine "law-giver" (not loving Father), who operates with us through decrees (because He must or He become impassible or predicated by His creation). I still hold to God's impassibility, but Trinitarianly/dynamically (or Scotistically) framed. So that the intrarelations between the God-head become the points of contingency in His life; which then overflow to us as an expression of His intra-superabundant love that sheds abroad in our hearts by the Spirit through the Son!Thanks Paul!PS. If any of you have prayer requests, let me know; I feel like a prayer-hog lately, although I have no problem oinking (sorry it's the steiroids talking ;-).IN Christ