Here is Richard Muller’s basic thesis in regards to the budding and flowering of Reformed theology:
. . . By the death of Calvin, all of these founders of the Reformed tradition had produced their major writings and had prepared their churches for the next generation — having argued the basic doctrinal positions of the Reformed faith, whether in their larger more systematic works or in the major confessional documents produced under their auspices. Orthodoxy would elaborate, refine, draw out conclusions and, in addition, make more explicit the rootage of Protestantism in the Christian tradition, but it would alter the basic doctrinal position of the Reformed churches but little: most of the presuppositions and premises of Protestant theology were enunciated during this period, but system as such was not fully developed nor had theology yet received a full Protestant treatment as an academic discipline. (Richard A. Muller, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725)
Now, many, if not most of you are probably shrugging your shoulders and saying: “who cares, what’s this guy talking about?” That’s understandable. Let me try and make Muller’s “thesis” significant for you. Muller argues that there is continuity between the early Reformers all the way through to its fullest flowering in the later chatechisms and confessions (like Westminster, Dordt, etc.); as if Reformed orthodoxy (what we know as “Calvinism” today) is this monolithic machine that is shaped by its only real representation as presented in its “Westminster” (or TULIP) style. What this does in regards to the trajectory of Evangelical Calvinism is to immediately excise it from being considered truly Reformed or orthodox. The reason this is, is that all of the early confessions (Scots, Gallican, Belgic, Heidelberg, and Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England [see Muller “PRRD,” 59]), according to Muller’s thesis, must be read through what he has deemed “orthodox” (within the Reformed tradition). Evangelical Calvinists look to the Scots Confession and Heidelberg as more or less her touchstones; yet Muller would have us read these confessions through the prism provided by Westminsterism, thus marginalizing any conceptual or methodological divergence that might be present in these early and distinct confessions.
You’re still shrugging your shoulders π , I understand; this is a rather technical point that needs to be fleshed out further. Nevertheless, what we all should be cognizant of is that Evangelical Calvinism, taking many of her cues from the Scots Confession, has a trajectory that is at odds with Westminster Calvinism; this is not by coincidence. EC’rs have a different approach and emphasis relative to her doctrine of God (thus relative to all subsequent doctrine, like: ‘salvation’). She emphasizes, like the Scots Confession, a Trinitarian concept of God (very relational and dynamic understanding which departs from the God of Westminsterism who is the ‘Unmoved Mover’ Law-Giver who only interacts with His creation through a prior set of absolute decrees). T. F. Torrance makes this point clear in his comment on John Knox’s Scot’s Confession:
. . . In this Reformation theology of John Knox and his colleagues there took place a radical shift from the medieval set of mind, away from an abstract theology of logically ordered propositions to a lively dynamic theology, addressed not primarily to the salvation of the individual soul, but to the nation as a whole. It involved a radical change in the doctrine of God. This is very evident in the first article of the Confession on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: ‘ane onlie God . . . ane in substance, and zit distinct in thre personnis, the Father, the Sone, and the holie Gost’. Thus in the Scots Confession as in John Knox’s Genevan Liturgy, the doctrine of the Trinity is not added on to a prior conception of God — there is no other content but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There was no separation here between the doctrine of the One God (De Deo Uno), and the doctrine of the triune God (De Deo Trino), which had become Roman orthodoxy through the definitive formalisation of Thomas Aquinas. . . . (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell,” 3-4)
This should help illustrate what I am asserting above. Muller (as my last post on Richard Muller’s Thesis of Continuity demonstrates) wants to say that ALL of Reformed theology, from its very early beginning, was shaped by 
a philosophical/conceptual commitment to Thomism (see quote above from TF Torrance: ‘formalisation of Thomas Aquinas’). But to this, or to Muller, we would have to say a resounding Nein (No)! His casting of Reformed theology is too revisionist on this point; as the reality and substance of ‘Evangelical Calvinism’ demonstrates, there was at least one other strain of development under the rubric of Calvin’s trajectory. Reformed theology, as Muller rightly communicates, is a complex animal; yet, Muller fails to appreciate how complex — indeed, how expansive this tradition truly is. It encompasses a broad swath of theological development that is not easily fitted to one strain of development; as Muller would lead us to believe. He fails to recognize, fundamentally, that there is more than one stream that makes up what we call “Calvinism” (or the ‘Reformed tradition’). Muller is looking down one tributary assuming that it is actually the river; what he misses, because of the noise encountered by his ‘tributary’ is that just a few ‘clicks’ over there is another tributary that actually makes up the actual river known as the “Reformed tradition.” If only Muller, and those who follow him, could take a plane flight over the geography of “Reformed Valley;” they could then finally see that in fact there are at least two tributaries that feed into the Reformed river — which has shaped the “Reformed Valley” full of a rich, lush tapestry of picturesque hills woven together not just with TULIPs, but a whole array of fruit bearing harvest ripe for the picking. (sorry for this little digression and analogy, but it gets at what I’m talking about in regards to the failure of the revisionism of Reformed history provided by the so-called ‘Reformed-orthodox’)
The Straight Up Theological Implications:
- Evangelical Calvinism has a different view of God, than Classic Calvinists and Arminians.
- Evangelical Calvinism is part of a rich tapestry and history known as the Reformed Tradition.
- Soteriologically, Evangelical Calvinism believes that the atonement is expansive; in other words, she believes that Jesus died for all people (objectively).
- Evangelical Calvinism is able to look at anyone they see, and know that God loved[s] them, thus He died for them, thus we can proclaim this as truth for them.
- Evangelical Calvinism doesn’t approach theology as if we’re in math class or logic 101 (or even 501).
- Evangelical Calvinism believes that God is love, not first the Law-giver.
- Evangelical Calvinism believes that God has one will, not two wills like our counter-parts in the “Westminster style.”
- And more . . .
Ah, just shrug your shoulders π . . .
Good stuff, Bobby. In my own work on Torrance, however, I’m beginning to wonder more and more whether it is wise to tie our promotion of the “Straight Up Theological Implications” you’ve drawn out above (which are awesome and the reason I love Torrance’s and Barth’s theology) to the historical narratives Torrance so frequently adduces. At least on this side of the pond (the UK), Torrance is not taken very seriously as a historian of theology, though he is respected as a theologian in his own right. I’m wondering whether guys like us really ought to put so much stock in Torrance’s historical argument or if we should just focus on his positive constructive theological proposals which are what we really care about in the end. I think it might have been better if Torrance had allowed himself to admit that what he has to say comes from a particular reading of patristic and Reformed theology that, rather than being the “true” reading, might be a bit creative and slanted to a conceptual framework he finds theologically helpful, but so be it! Let the emphasis fall on the theological merit of his reading, rather than its objective historical accuracy. In our postmodern context we’re all pretty willing to admit that establishing which reading of history is “right” is a tricky and illusive business, so why fight for the objective credibility of Torrance’s reading of history over and against someone like Muller’s? I’d want the fight to take place at the biblical and theological level, not the historical or semantic (who really gets to define “Reformed”?).
Like it Bobby. And good points Adam:
“Iβd want the fight to take place at the biblical and theological level, not the historical or semantic.”
Amen.
Engaging a scholastic whose breadth of historical knowledge is as detailed as Mullers on the finer points of history/definition/distinction feels to me like ‘playing away from home’ to use a sporting analogy.
Scholastics naturally want to debate scholastically – therefore there will be times when simply playing them at their own game means losing. What I really appreciate from the blog here is the positive vision you cast when you say things like this:
“Evangelical Calvinism is able to look at anyone they see, and know that God loved[s] them, thus He died for them, thus we can proclaim this as truth for them.”
Brilliant! Keep it coming π
Adam,
I agree with you; but my section in the book is in the “historical theology” section (as is yours π ). But ultimately you’re right, the substance and merit of EC is found in its conceptual and material substance (thus the “history” can be transcended, if need be).
Yet, Muller makes some basic overstatements (I’m not as impressed by his “credentials” as some) and, really, fallacies (like argument of the beard) in the way he frames his continuity argument — at least I think so. He ultimately tries to say that the continuity between the early, high, and late Reformed theology is methodological (Ramist); and then smuggles the supposed conceptual link in — Thomist — when he thinks no one is looking π . So while I agree that TFT’s strong suit is dogmatics (lets not forget that his PhD diss was “historical” though), I think his general critique of the “Reformed” framing of things still has merit (even if it has to be reframed a bit given developments provided by Muller).
In fact even my quote here from TF, while couched in the “history,” is getting at the dogmatic issues at stake (to your point); but then it is these conceptual or dogmatic points that draw divergence and distinction from Muller’s point. In other words, Muller is supposedly doing just straight/descriptive history; yet the crux of his points seem to be grounded in dogmatic/conceptual/theological ones. In other words, just like with “natural science,” there are always “first order” philosophical/theological commitments shaping the way anyone interprets the “history” — so good point, Adam π !
Glen,
Thank you. That’s ultimately why I like EC too; in the end its totally Biblical and christocentric and rooted in the tradition of missio dei (Mt 28).
Hi guys, yes you are right Adam. Patristic scholars are not enamoured with TFTs reading of the sources, even though he does does a pretty good job he was always too quick to see his own point of view reflected in the patristic well. So yes, let’s not wed our argument to one reading of history (a general lesson of Christianity, right). But that does not mean we can’t use TFT! I think the trajectory of any tradition is always more complicated than anyone in such a tradition thinks. My hunch is that in Reformed through we have he Westminster/Federal line, we have the Scottish/Evangelical line, we have the Zwinglian life (where is that today – Reformed Baptists and the London Confession of Faith? Fiddes, Colwell, Holmes, etc??), and also the Germanic line – with the Heidelberg and the other related confessions. Would that be right? And there are probably more if we add in the South African line today and the Federal Vision etc. Would that be correct? We don’t have to prove all this in our work exhaustively, just show the streams and lines etc. Comment?
Myk,
I agree with you, and this is my point in response to Adam’s great caution to at least show some pause in re. to using TFT too quickly, in some instances.
I think the “lines” (or my lang. tributaries) approach is the correct one here. What we need to do (and in my chptr in particular, I think)is to soundly demonstrate that we in fact do have various streams/lines/trib. in the whole of the “Reformed tradition.” In fact in many ways, this is my whole goal (as I think about my chptr, not having a thesis statement yet π ). I think once this has been clearly established (i.e. the “EC Line”) that this announces our “place at the table” (whether or not the others at the table think so or not . . . because of sectarian or attitudinal concerns).
I think TFT represents a “flowering” of what the Scottish “line” looked[s] like; and that his theological foci are invaluable in this re. Furthermore, in line with Adam’s points, what this thought line helps illustrate (for me) is that whether one is a “historian of theology” or a “historical/dogmatic theologian” (on either side of that pendulum); that person will always have both issues at play (history and theology) in their respective constructive work. I.e. so, my point, while TFT might not be “respected” as an “objective” historian; likewise those historians just might not be as “objective” as theologians either. To me there is a very fine line between descriptive and prescriptive analysis; and what I want to call Muller and some others on is that they haven’t been very careful in this distinction (definitionally) — which colors their “historical interpretation” to one side of the continuum; favoring their “preferred” theological paradigm.
What do you guys think about this point?
Also I should say; while I come off pretty polemic here at the blog, I plan on toning that approach down quite a bit when it comes to my chptr. If there is any polemic are jabs done towards the Muller camp it will be much more irenic and measured (hopefully). Just to let you know, Myk π .
Here I’m just “throwing-up” and “bursting” out my thoughts . . . which is pretty much what a blog is good for (very seminal and naked stuff).
Bobby and Myk,
Yep, I think we’re headed the right direction. I certainly don’t want to claim that TFT is worthless as a historical resource, I just want to be careful to grant to some of his detractors that, yes, his conceptual framework is probably doing more for him in his reading of patristic and Reformation theology than those who want to start with the details of historical observation and work from there, avoiding anachronisticly reading their own position into that historical sources. However, I do think we can make the argument that his way of reading the tradition has Christological justification and biblical precedent, i.e. that he is reading the history of Christian theology the way the apostles read the prophets – as the story of God adapting human understanding to receive knowledge of him by removing their stubbornly bifurcating habits ways of thinking through a painful and complicated historical ordeal mediated in Christ. Or something like that.
Guys:
Which Patristic scholars challenge TFT’s reading of the Fathers?
The E. Orthodox leaders valued TFT. You would expect them to be fussy in their reviews of how TFT read “their” Fathers.
Adam,
Point well taken. Yet, I wonder, amongst his “detractors,” if they aren’t equally as guilty in their “readings.” I’m not so willing to grant that they are as astute as TFT. Yes, when one reads TFT’s “Scottish Theology,” it does sound like his conceptual framework is informing his reading — but then I wonder if it is also actually skewing or morphing those he’s reading (like Jonathan Fraser of Brae) more into “his image” instead of accurately showing their’s. Thus far I haven’t come across anyone else who provides a constructive reading of these characters — the ones found in Scottish Theology — so I’m not sure that TFT is truly misrepresenting (by way of his quotations of these figures he does not seem to be). In fact, the fact that Westminster counted someone like Fraser of Brea as a heretic makes me think that TFT’s reading is quite accurate.
Paul,
I’m not sure which Patristic scholars would discount TFT; maybe Lewis Ayres (indirectly by his own “work”). Myk would be better informed on this (as Adam, given his current address π ).
Pingback: Dear Arminians | New Leaven