I found the following chart interesting. This is taken from The Contemporary Calvinist blog, who took it from Jason Robertson’s (Fide-0) wherein he attempts to outline the various strands of “Calvinism.” This is a typical mis-representation, and in fact revision (unconscious) of the history of Calvinism. It totally ignores the categories and trajectory set by Evangelical Calvinism; it pays no attention to the more popular EnglishΒ version of Calvinism that Janice Knight in her book: Orthodoxies in Massachuesetts: Rereading American Puritanism calls The Spiritual Brethren [Richard Sibbes et al.] (vs. The Intellectual Fathers — Perkins, Aames, the ‘Westminsters’, et al.). Take a look at the chart for yourself, and let me know what you think; do you think it is under-representative of the broader swath that we know as Calvinism?:
| Amyraldism “Low” Calvinism |
Infralapsarianism “Moderate” Calvinism |
Supralapsarianism “High” Calvinism |
| Decree to Create Man | Decree to Create Man | Decree Election and Reprobation |
| Decree to Allow Fall | Decree to Allow Fall | Decree to Allow Fall |
| Decree Atonement for all men | Decree Election and Reprobation | Decree Atonement for Elect |
| Decree Election and Reprobation | Decree Atonement for Elect | Decree to Create Man |
You see, this is one of the major problems Evangelical Calvinism is seeking to correct within ‘Calvinisms’ own self-understanding. Some people might wonder why this matters so much; why does it matter if Evangelical Calvinism gets a “place at the table,” so to speak? Why not finally admit that Evangelical Calvinism is really the invention of Thomas Torrance, and a superimposition of certain dogmatic categories that in the end are actually foreign to the actual history of Calvinism, itself? In other words, I would imagine that most “Calvinists” would simply assume that all of this talk here about “EC” is in fact just an invention; in fact, itself, an historical revision. Ultimately, and firstly, the reason this stuff matters is because the “truth matters” (even if itΒ hurts sometimes); and as people of the “truth” we want to make sure that we “shout it from the roof-tops!” But even so, even if we couldn’t ground Evangelical Calvinism within the variegated history of “Calvinism;” what it communicates isΒ of that much more importance. In other words, the thoughts and teachings of “EC” are just Biblically and christocentrically and Trinitarianly and Evangelically faithful; and thus “EC” must be heard! It just so happens, though, that in fact all of these thoughts and doctrines and teachings have a pedigree — a geneology, if you will. These “ideas” didn’t just fall out of thin air, in fact they have “mind[s]” behind them (and not just Torrance’s π ).
Anywho, I thought Jason Robertson’s chart was interesting; in fact, sadly typical, but that’s why I wanted to show it to you — it’s one of the problems.
Bobby, so if you add an EC column, how would it look?
TJ
Tony (you’re either a night owl, or a Brit π ),
It wouldn’t have the “absolute decrees” between God and Man; instead it would have Jesus in their place. That’s the simplest way to answer for now, Tony. I’m heading to be; if you want me to expand on this a little more, let me know, and I’ll try to do that tomorrow (it’s 12:35am PST here in the States, night π ).
PS.:
EC doesn’t think through the cause-effect/deterministic/logico-causality that the “chart” presents us with. We don’t think that theology is another form of “math,” but instead it involves the dynamism of a Trinitarian God and all of the attendant implications that come along with knowing a God and His salvation as such.
Bobby,
I am neither. I live at the bottom of the earth. π
I like what you write in the postscript.
I look forward to a fuller answer in the morrow.
Good night, it’s 5.40pm here in the land of Oz.
Another problem with this chart is the way it tacitly assumes that surpralapsarianism is the pinnacle of Reformed theology. While I agree with this point, Dort established infralapsarian as the “best” position while viewing supralapsarianism as a defective/dangerous position that was nevertheless within the bounds of orthodoxy. Of course, the maker(s) of this chart would have known this had they read Turretin.
Tony,
G’day, then π .
Maybe I shall write a post, my next one, adding the “EC” column to the chart. What the chart helps illustrate, no matter which “level” of Classic Calvinism is followed, is that it collapses God into His creation by becoming subserviant to His decrees. In other words, let’s not forget, God became incarnate, and under the dictates set out by the do called “decrees” He must act (i.e. not freely) in accorde with these predetermined decrees that find their orientation to “creation.” The only way to actually try and salvage such a framework (for the classic Calvinist) is to end up positing a Nestorian like understanding of the relation of God-Man in the hypostatic union of Christ. Of course this undercuts the reality that the homoousion presupposes in the Incarnation; and that is that the humanity of Jesus finds its shape in the eternal logos’ life (the anhypostatic/enhypostatic point). I realize I’ve used some code language here, I’ll flesh it all out in my next post π .
Travis,
Great point, exactly! Turretin is the man and eclenctic theology is his game π .
Hi Bobby,
Why is Turretin the man? Also, surely even an EC would have an ordo salutis, even if only a rudimentary one, or perhaps an historia salutis at least, thus some sort of logical sequencing of events is not only possible but actually necessary, as long as it doesn’t run off into speculative flights of fancy and overstep its place as does Perkins ocular catechism, etc. Right? And if so, then I guess EC could have a column with its committments. Or would EC simply be a sub-set of infralapsarianism and thus the chart is actually a good general summary of a tradition?
Just prodding π
Hey Myk,
Quit prodding π . . . ouch!
Turretin is the man relative to “his system.”
I agree, EC has an ordo salutis; I’ve been trying to think how to sequence it in a “chart” form — any thoughts?
I don’t know about the infra point. I remember bringing that up with you in the past, and there seemed to be some pause on that point. Infra in function (qualified though, since he died for all) but not in fact (given its Christ-conditioned double-election).
Good to hear from you, Myk.
Btw, I should say that the chart is good for what it is. I just think its lacking, and this is understandable.