Here’s how an Evangelical Calvinist preaches the Gospel:
God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. (Myk Habets in “The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as a Case Study,” Irish Theological Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 3-4, 334-354 (2008) Quoting T. F. Torrance, “The Mediation of Christ,” 94)
There are a few things being presupposed by T. F. Torrance here:
- That double predestination is grounded in Christ (that He is both the elect and reprobate), and not referring to us or humanity as the touchstone categories (i.e. we are not the focal point of election or reprobation, Christ is).
- That salvation is “objectively” rooted within the life of God Himself (e.g. He is salvation), so in order to undo God’s choice for us in Christ; one would have to first undo the Incarnation, or in fact undo God’s life in Christ.
- That the “extent of the atonement” is universal, but that redemption (or the appropriation) is not.
- That we shouldn’t think in logical-causal terms; in other words, just because Christ died for all, does not mean that they now must believe or else Christ spilled His blood in vain for these.
- That either the cross represents the source of salvation (in Christ); or in its rejection, it represents the source of judgement for those who reject “their” election in Christ (e.g. instead they are damned and experience “Gospel wrath” because of their unbelief).
- One can believe in “universal atonement” and “double predestination,” and not be either an Arminian (in the first instance), nor a Classical Calvinist (in the last instance).
I would consider myself an “Evangelical Calvinist;” Evangelical in the sense broached by T. F. Torrance, Evangelical in the sense that I truly believe (along with John Calvin and Martin Luther) that Christ died for all humanity (to say less would be to engage in the “Nestorian” heresy — fodder for another post). Much of Torrance’s “Calvinism” takes its cues from the “Scots Confession,” as well as Karl Barth’s understanding of election.
I will, in the near future, be writing more on this topic; until then you should check out some past posts that dovetail directly with the topic at hand:
Universal Atonement, But Not Universal Salvation
The Other Reformed Tradition Versus The Westminster Tradition
If you’re a Calvinist, the “average kind” π , then I think you should at least become aware of the fact that there are other “kinds of Calvinists” out there (myself being one of those). It is important to recognize that Westminster is not the watershed for Calvinism (although it may be for you); and that if you are going to take your Church History and Bible seriously you’ll need to admit that Calvinism (historically) is not a monolithic venture (if you want me to point you to some books that develop what I’m getting at further, let me know).
Good post, Bobby — thanks for this. I probably need to read one or more of the linked articles before I ask this question, but here goes anyway.
Based on point (6), do you regard Evangelical Calvinism to be a mediating position between classical Calvinism and Arminianism? That is, is it attempting to make a christocentric doctrine of election cohere with subjective free will?
I ask because I am a bit tripped up by the (classical, to be sure) distinction between atonement and redemption in point (3). This may be Calvinist, but I don’t think that it is Barthian (not that it needs to be — TFT was certainly not a carbon copy of KB). In fact, I suspect that it is not simply classically Calvinist, but that this move is caught up in the structure of the same Calvinist-Arminian debate that EC in many ways strives to transcend.
The issue lies in a distinction between the (universal) sufficiency of Christ’s death for us — suffering as the elect and the reprobate — and the applicability of that death. The statement above indicates that the former is not enough to get one saved. Christ’s atoning death is the formal or material cause of our salvation, but not the efficient cause. That requires individual appropriation.
“What, then, must I do to be saved?” The classical answer has been, of course, “Believe on [i.e. have faith in] the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” The work of the cross is, indeed, the formal cause of salvation — it makes it possible, but it alone doesn’t make it a reality. And so my salvation depends on Christ and my decision (for the Arminian), or Christ and his gift of faith to me (for the Calvinist). This “and,” I suggest, is the very dynamic that Karl Barth wanted to transcend.
Thank you for the post. It resonates strongly with me in regard to atonement as limited atonement always struck me as an attack on deity and therefore the all-sufficient worth of Christ’s blood to cover all of the sins of man.
In addition to Darren’s comments, I am curious on the Evangelistic Calvinists response to the issues raised in Romans 9. This speaks of more than just the universal atonement and goes into the realm of predestination including the hardening and softening of individuals hearts. This passage is probably the single biggest argument in favor of classical Calvinism. Perhaps you have already address this passage in another article.
Hi Darren,
Great points! Let me respond by pointing you to a couple of other posts. The first one speaks to a distinction that both TF and some Scottish theologians picked up on in re. to the objective/subjective poles of the Incarnation/Atonement implication. It uses the language of carnal and spiritual union. Check it out (it’s short), and then the ensuing comments (Myk’s comments are helpful); here it is:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/?s=carnal+union+spiritual+union
And then of course pivotal to responding to your point on the efficient cause, of course for TF and the Scots that is grounded in the vicarious faith of Christ for us; which we then respond “out of.” You know this from reading TF’s Incarnation and Atonement; but here’s a post dealing with that:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/01/06/some-greek-the-faith-of-christ-in-galatians-220/
I know you already know this. TF ain’t Barth, as you note, and EC isn’t necessarily trying to replicate Barth’s points — more so the Scot’s articulatoin (see TF’s “Scottish Theology”) — nevertheless EC is appreciative of the reframing of predestination/election via Barth, and thus makes no qualms about where he and the Scots/TF overlap. I think Vicariousness, though for TF and the Scots is what “transcends” the typical Arm/Calv categories and debate. Everything is grounded in Christ. The fact that not all are “spiritually united” (vis-a-vis carnal union) with Christ is relegated to the inscrutible nature of “sin” (i.e. we don’t know “why” the Fall happened, and in a sense we can’t explain the “why” of why folks who have been carnally united to Christ don’t “respond” — yet we do know why folks do respond positively, and that is because of the Spirit’s work in their lives). Obviously this is side-stepping the “logico/causal” reasoning of our Arm./Calv. friends.
Hope that helps clarify.
Hi Matthew,
Great question. Before I respond let me have you read this post on EC “Predestination and Election”:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/01/22/evangelical-calvinist-pre-destination-and-election/
This will help provide more background in re. to your question on Rom. 9. The way I look at Rom 9, exegetically, is within the “context” which it is found. I don’t see the “dogmatic” issues of justification/sanctification/glorification being primarily addressed at all; instead I see the issue of “election” (*non-technical*) being addressed in re. to the instrumentality of unfolding God’s plan of salvation in history — viz. Jacob was chosen to mediate salvation to the nations; Esau, like a vessel of wrath, was not. So I don’t see the “eternal” veraties at play here that typical Calv/Arm exegesis views this through (I work through the same lense on a passage like Heb 6 as well).
And given the broader EC understanding of Pred/Election, dogmatically (see the link I provide), both election/reprobation are objectively grounded in Christ “for us.” But we can talk more about this . . . let me know what you think about that other article I link you to as well.
This explains in precise terms what I have come to believe (but cannot quite articulate yet) is taught in Colossians 1, and 2 Cor 5.
It seems that God has reconciled the world to himself, (past tense) so we are to be reconciled (present tense looking to the future) to God.
Thanks for the post.
Craig
Hello!
Just wanted to say that I appreciate your blog. Over the past year or so I have begun re-thinking my positions which were, as you say, those of a “classic calvinist”. Even before that, I held to an Arminian position. Now, I have determined that neither seems to faithfully represent the biblical evidence, and have noticed many of the same things that you talk about.
It seems as if both systems are seeking to ask questions of the bible that the bible itself has no intentions of asking. I also see problems as well with regard to issues involving logico/causal reasoning. I have only just begun to dabble in Barth and Torrance, but am intrigued to see that they seem to have desired to answer the same questions that I am. I hope they have some helpful insights.
By the way, I enjoyed what you said about Rom. 9 briefly above, I have been thinking the same way. Keep up the good work.
Craig,
I’m glad that what you are seeing here, you’re also seein in Scripture π !
Hi Brian,
Welcome and thanks for the comment!
It is good to have someone else reading who appreciates Barth and Torrance; and beyond that, encouraging to find someone else who sees the “Scriptural” holes in “Classic Calvinism.” I’m thankful for the feedback!
I don’t know what you’ve read from TFTorrance, but his “The Mediation of Christ” is great; as well as his two new books: “Incarnation” and “Atonement;” and of course, par for the course is his “Scottish Theology” (very spendy though). Let me know if there is anything in particular you would like to know about Evangelical Calvinism and I would be happy to try and address it further π !