From what you know of me, or what you know of “Evangelical Calvinism;” would you say that I am “Reformed?”
I’m not going to define “Reformed,” I’ll leave that to you. I would really like to know what you think on this; be completely honest and open with 
me (be nice though π ). Maybe you consider yourself truly Reformed, or maybe you consider yourself truly Arminian, or maybe somewhere in between; so I would like to know where you would place me, maybe you think “EC” is actually more Arminian. Tell me what you think, and also tell me where you line up; I want you commit to something too (it’s much too easy to critique and not commit . . . you know what I mean?).
Of course, part of answering this question will depend upon how you/we define “Reformed;” that’s why I’m not going to define that for you (from my perspective), there is more than one way to skin that cat (well, for some).
This is one of those posts where I’m inviting all you lurkers to “un-lurk;” let your hair down, kick back, and come out of the closet π (so to speak).
PS. I just get this feeling that I have quite a few lurkers who either: (a) are totally confused about what EC actually entails, (b) are totally clear on what EC entails and believe that it is sub-par “Calvinism” (to be nice), (c) are up in the air on what EC and Reformed theology is in the first place, or (d) you fill in the blank . . .
PPS. This is not a trick post, I don’t have a theological hammer I’m waiting to swing; I’m sincerely interested in what you think about “EC”, and where it fits in the matrix of “Reformed” theology (or not).
Hi Bobby!
I ‘ve asked this question before within myself, but I think the answer is easy except from the perspective of the classic cals.
Definitionally, reformed is Sola Christe, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, SDG. For me, my belief is each of these boiled down to it’s barest elements. Not Faith, with some works alloyed in for show, not Christ alone, with some help from me, Not grace alone driven by a decree.
I’ll never be able to say “God saved me because I gave my life to Him”.
My life is His alright. Because He purchased it. I only believed it, and that because He drew me to Him.
Let me try a logical approach to your question…
You’ve made distinction between Arminian theology and Reformed theology therefore you’ve implied a modern definition of βReformedβ (Arminius was a Reformed Dutch theologian after all). Modern Reformed theologians are all Federal Calvinist (Okay, by all I don’t really mean all) who believe there is no distinction between Calvinism and Christianity. You don’t believe that Christianity and Calvinism are synonymous therefore you are not Reformed in the βchosenβ sense. π
If we were in Europe, your Torrance approach is considered as easily within the Reformed pale. But, ecclesiastically, you are not Reformed; you are free church. So, in the European context, that would make you a free church theologian, not a Reformed theologian. In the American context, the ecclesiology doesn’t really matter, as long as the soteriology is Reformed. Yet, “Reformed” in American evangelical circles is limited to Old Princeton’s federal theology. Only mainline Protestants in America would consider the Forsyth-Barth-Torrance trajectory to be Reformed (and conservative!). So, since you are an American and an evangelical, you are not Reformed in the American evangelical context, nor are you Reformed in the European context. If it makes you feel any better, I think you’re Reformed. π
By the way, I wouldn’t go as far as kc: Calvinists in America don’t believe that “Christianity and Calvinism are synonymous.” They just believe, enthusiastically to be sure, that Calvinism is Christianity at its doctrinally purest and consistent, which should be the goal of every theology. I don’t know any Calvinists who would say that, e.g., Ben Witherington or N. T. Wright are not Christians.
I like Bavinick’s comment on the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed:
The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God.
[…] The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the “wherefore” of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the “that” and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. (Reformed Dogmatics 1:177)
By that standard I’d say you’re closer to the Reformed than the Lutheran at least. I sense that Reformed desire for unity, ‘wherefore’, and ‘the idea’ as much in your writing as in NT Wright and John Owen. But that is more of a ‘sense’ than a considered opinion. But I don’t think you’re Arminian – although I think Arminians are Reformed anyway, as they are working in the same categories.
I don’t think I’m really qualified to put you in a box, but just like sharing that quote at every opportunity and thought I ought to give it at least some commentary!
You touched on it bobby. I believe you are reformed – Duane said it well. I am waiting to see how Calvin you are. I am keeping my eyes and ears open as I read book III of the Institutes to see if I detect any soundings of EC coming from the man: for example, Christ as the elect ONE for all of humanity, spiritual/carnal union, etc. I dont have enough knowledge of Calvin to say that you are sub-Calvin, but you are surely reformed essentially.
Willie
Duane,
So are you saying you’re ‘Reformed’? π
Kc,
First, great to hear from you, my brother (I pray that your health has been improving, and that in fact you are “improved” — also just wanted to say thank you to you and Cory for all of the “support” π ).
Yes, in one sense I see exactly what you’re saying; and you’re right Arminianism is very much so apart of the post-Reformed orthodox era, but of course they aren’t considered ‘Reformed’ because of the very reasons you mention that I’m not ‘Reformed’ π . Nevertheless, really, how this is defined is contextual (in some ways). In other ways though, if we simply stick to the principle of the ‘Reformed’ sola scriptura and the idea of “always Reforming” and we place that within the context of the provisional nature of the “Confessions;” then I would say that anyone who follows that ideal actually is living out of what it means to be “Reformed” de jure or in principle (and I would say even “in fact”).
Kevin,
Wet blanket π . I agree with you on the contextual nature of this. I would just urge you (if you haven’t already, but you may have) to check out Barth’s Theology of the Reformed Confessions; his basic argument is what I have highlighted above to Kc. That to be Reformed is to be always reforming relative to the authority of Scripture and in the context of the “Reformed Confessions.” He has made the case, in that book, that really the “Reformed” in America (WTS) are in line with how the “Lutheran’s” Reform[ed]. I.e. that the “Confessions” become a static reality, alongside the Scriptures (in authority) (for the Lutheran’s The Augsburg Confession) . . . this is clearly what the American Reformed are doing with their “Three Forms of Unity” and all of that jazz.
Anyway, I think the case can certainly be made (and I think Barth made a good case for it) that to be “Reformed” is to be consciously situated within the “Confession[al]” context; holding fast to the idea that the Confessions are broken and provisional, always needing correction by the “living Word of God.”
Kevin, do you consider yourself “Reformed”? There’s no doubt in my mind that you are, my “Free church” brother π .
David K,
Bavinck offers an interesting take. I must admit, I like Barth’s rendition here (his The Theology of the Reformed Confessions, which I think you should read . . . you would appreciate it). There definitely is a difference between Calvin and Luther on emphases to salvation (Luther more “faith” and “salvation” driven, Calvin more Doctrine of God and union with Christ driven); but I might want to quibble with Bavinck a bit — although, I think he is responding to his historical situation and where the “Lutheran’s” were in re. to theological development at that point. I still need to read Bavinck (someday π ). But thank you for pronouncing me “Reformed” π .
How would you parse yourself? You’re clearly “Reformed,” insofar as I read you; but are you “Anglican”? What’s your ecclesial orientation?
To all,
Thank you for participating in my “madness,” it’s fun to work through some of this though . . . even in a bloggy kind of way π .
Ah good, it’s Willie again. I can’t think of you as Will, it makes you seem all grown up and everything . . . I don’t like it π (of course that’s why I still like Bobby instead of ‘Bob’).
Willie, you should read Julie Canlis’ book even before you finish the Institutes, that way you’ll be pre-conditioned in the right way, given the right bias, and understand Calvin in EC ways vs. the Westminster ways or something π . Seriously, read the review below this post; that book is really really excellent. The key for EC, the point of heavy dependence is to see Union with Christ and Vicariousness at the core of what good theology is all about. Calvin happens to be right at the core of this very important piece of doctrinal nexus. The really important thing is, though, is if the Apostle Paul sees this as central. I think his ‘in Christ’ theology is right here as well! That’s why I get so excited about this, it is Trinitarian and thus Biblical π .
Willie, you would say that you’re “Reformed,” right?
Willie,
You should also see Charles Partee’s book: The Theology of John Calvin, in it he provides 4 main ways that Calvin has been read. He holds to reading Calvin’s theology through the lens of Calvin’s union with Christ theology as the core and framework through which Calvin thinks and moves and has his being π . He also provides overwhelming textual evidence (from the Institutes) on how Calvin’s theology is deeply rooted in “union theology”.
Also Mark Garcia (who I would not say is “EC” he pastors an Orthodox Pres church) did his diss out of Edinburgh on Calvin’s Union Theology; he offers a comment on Calvin in this re. (this quote is taken from his published diss. entitled: “Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology” [2008]) — he is discussing how a couple other Calvin scholars have framed Calvin’s theology here:
I share this with you so that you don’t think that “EC” and what Torrance are saying is made out of some sort of “EC whole cloth” ;-). So read the Institutes, then you’ll have to get your hands on this correspondence between Calvin and Vermigli (1555, referenced in the quote above); you’ll become a believer yet π π .
Bobby,
I’m actually reading Barth’s ‘Theology of the Reformed Confessions’ right now. It’s excellent. In the future, I’ll blog about some choice excerpts from the book.
I usually describe myself as Reformed or Calvinist to other people, if they have any idea what that means. Otherwise, I just say “evangelical.” I always qualify my use of the “Reformed” label, since a lot of people instantly think about TULIP. I’m not entirely opposed to Dort. In fact, I think the Canons of Dort are rather oustanding in many respects: e.g., the problem of leaving the expansion of God’s kingdom to the contingency of human free will. As I’ve mentioned before, Barth is firmly within the Reformed scheme when it comes to omnicausality (the term he uses, and which John Webster uses) and a rejection of Molinism. This aspect of Reformed theology is where I’m in quite a lot of agreement, as long as it is adheres to a synchronic (or non-competitive) double agency of God and man. That was Barth’s view, and it appears to be the view of the 17th century orthodox. So, in this regard, my only real problem with TULIP is the L and rationalist presentations of the U and I. In other words, if we interpret U and I in regard to synchronic agency and replace L with universal atonement, then we’ve got a form of Reformed theology that I am happy to call my own. That’s a good example of working within the Reformed confessional tradition, pushing the boundaries, and not making the confessional standards on par with Scripture.
I do like the label, “free church.” Barth himself was both Reformed and free church in his approach to theology and his view of the church. His understanding of confessional subscription (vis-a-vis Scripture) is virtually identical with a lot of Baptist theologians, including Southern Baptist theologians. The Southern Baptist confessional heritage begins with the London Baptist Confession (17th century), then the Philadelphia Confession (18th century), then the New Hampshire Confession (19th century), and then the Baptist Faith and Message (20th century), now in its third revision (in order to add complementarian gender roles and to affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge). This continual revision of its confessional standards is a very good thing, and something I greatly admire about the SBC. Interestingly, the London and Philly confessions were strongly federal — essentially rewrites of the Westminster Confession — but this Calvinism was then mitigated with the New Hampshire Confession and then the BFM. If you read the BFM, you will see that it still stands within a broadly Reformed confessional tradition. Here is the article on election:
“Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. ”
That’s pure Calvinism, if you ask me. The whole point about how election “comprehends all the means in connection with the end” is classic Reformed qualifications, going back to the Westminster Confession (article 3) and before that. This sort of revision and updating is exactly what the PCA, OPC, URC, etc. need, but I don’t see that happening in my lifetime.
Kevin
I’m glad you’re reading the ‘Reformed Confessions’, I’ll look forward to you quoting a few things from it; I was going to, there are plenty of things to quote, but my time is short these days :-).
Btw, you should copy and paste this comment and make it a post at your site π .
I would consider myself “Reformed” in the “Barth” sense as well (Free church in particular). And your restructuring of the TULIP is exactly what EC is about; we’re not opposed to the TULIP, but we want to see it framed as Torrance would say in ‘Christ-conditioned’ ways (which is whay your talk on synchronic agency and such would entail). Of course, for EC vicariousness needs to play a pivotal role; how that is fleshed out is important, and not easy. Canlis does a good job describing how Calvin worked this out; and Myk Habets does a good job of how this looks in the context of Torrance’s doctrine of Theosis. I think you fit within or under the umbrella of “EC,” Kevin; there’s room, it’s really a set of contours that have flexibility in the way those contours become concretized within the work of the particular theologian and/or exegete.
I don’t have a problem with WCF, per se; but I think we just need to see it in its own “historical” situation; and realize that it indeed is open to critique and even development (contra WTS type folk).
Oh, on the expansion of the kingdom left to the contingency of free-will; I’m with you. But, of course, this is where vicariousness comes into the picture as, I think, a better way to frame this. Grounding both archtypal and echtypal humanity in Christ’s; and that what it means to be human and contingent can only be worked out within the boundaries set by the humanity of Christ for us. Of course, there is more work that needs to be done on how this looks (which is what I plan on doing once I start working on Torrance’s vicariousness); but I think this serves as a necessary corrective to the WCF — and, according to Canlis, Calvin himself can and should serve as a good corrective to the ‘tradition’ that bears his name. Unfortunately, I think, the wake that has been created by “After Calvin” studies has diminished the unique contribution that Calvin might make to “Reformed” theology. Reading Calvin through a lens that would emphasize his “union with Christ” theology has been demonized to the point that if someone wants to emphasize this about Calvin (w/o careful qualification) that they are immediately guilty by association with those (like the “older scholarship”) like Barth, Torrance[s], Armstrong, etc. in commiting the “central dogma” fallacy. In short, I agree with you; I don’t see any kind of “revision” within the ranks of the OPC, URC, etc. being possible (it would be a miracle if something like that happened).
Kevin,
I meant copy and paste your last comment and make it a post at your site π .
Bobby
Thanks for your generous and very helpful reply. Continuing to read Calvin, ordered my copy of Partee and was Very encouraged by the “correspondence”.
Because I have very little exposure to Calvin, except through his commentaries here and there, I have been waiting to see how much of EC actually finds its source in Calvin. “To me”, (love hearing that phrase in the church), EC has been weighted more towards ET.
I am enjoying my education here.
Much Thanks
Willie
Willie,
What is “ET?” Extra Terrestial? π . . . seriously, what is “ET?”
Sorry :- ]
ETFT
More of Torrance than Calvin.
Hi Bobby,
Thanks for recommending ANOTHER book for me to read… This last year I’ve really struggled to read anything because of various commitments and I hate it! Although once things settle down in the future I look forward to properly reading theology again.
However your recommendations are having an effect. I’m reading Jamie Smith’s letters to a young Calvinist, mainly so I can decide whether to give it to a friend as a Christmas present and I’ve got my friend devouring TFT after I recommended we read Incarnation together, both of those things are in part because of your recommendations. I still haven’t finished Incarnation but my friend’s read it almost twice, and has started Trinitarian Faith.
As for me. It is a bit difficult to say because words mean different things in the States to here. I’d feel most at home in a conservative evangelical Anglican church (a bit like Glen’s church – but difficult to convey the ethos because you don’t have an equivalent in the States as far as I can tell), but I actually attend a Reformed Baptist church because there isn’t such a church in the city of York (in the UK we have to be much less picky and that’s probably a good thing). Anyone in the UK would identify me as a ‘conservative evangelical’ as I’m pretty firmly within that mould although I’m not a fan of the term ‘conservative’ and would rather add ‘Protestant’ instead.
I don’t think I’d specify much further as I’m quite a mix of different influences. I probably am ‘Reformed’ as Calvin, Don Carson and John Piper were formative influences early in my Christian life and I remain in general more sympathetic to Reformed folks than anyone else. However I cannot make up my mind about L, I or P, (suspect they are fruits of trying to walk by sight and not faith) and many Reformed hobby horses are simply not mine. I have heavy Lutheran sympathies too and that is where most of my reading outside of pop evangelicalism has been the last couple of years.
Prob not any clearer for you.
“Reformed” is a fluid, provincially defined term. It’s also in the past tense, which to some means “I/we’ve arrived. Period. Done. Finit. Oh, and by the way, YOU aren’t reformed.”
So Steve,
Would you say I’m “Reforming,” then? If I’m not “Reformed,” then what am I? And what if I don’t think those who claim to be “Reformed” today, are actually as “Reformed” as they say they are? Since a hallmark of the “tradition” is as you imply to be “Reforming?”
In the event that you aren’t already aware, you recently got a mention on T-blog:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/11/see-bobby-grow.html
Thought you would want to know.
Passing Through,
Sweet! It’s always a good thing to get noticed by the Triablogue π .
Weren’t those comments Steve quotes, one’s I made to you?
Dave K,
Thank you for sharing where you’re situated, that helps me to know you better. The cultural differences between American and Brits, for example are interesting. I’m really not all that “up” on the UK situation, culturally, so thanks for that insight; that’s really interesting to me.
Well, since you can’t make your mind up on the L, I, P I’m glad you’re here; hopefully EC will help make your mind up for you π .
I like how Kevin lays it out. In Europe, you are Reformed. Jacques Ellul was Reformed, after all. Torrance is Reformed. Calvinistic Baptists in the UK call themselves Reformed Baptists, and Barth was a Baptist, even if his followers seem to be mostly Anglicans and Presbyterians! Just because some people think they are The Reformed (TM), doesn’t mean they have a monopoly on the term. For me, Reformed does not necessarily mean Presbyterian, it means not Roman Catholic, and a committment to the Solas. And I like to see a good semper reformanda in action too.
Yeah, Kevin does a good job! I agree with him. I think folks would definitely disagree with your characterization of Barth as “Baptist.” But hey, I’m all ears, I’m “Baptist” π .
I’ve said it before on me blog, but as well as his book the Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, dating from 1943 lectures, and translated into English by Ernest A Payne, a leading Baptist of that day (and then his firmer views in CD 4.4), there is also his item, The Church: The Living Congregation of the Lord Jesus Christ, in God here and now, translating a 1947 address to the WCC, which gives his ecclesiology as congregational-type, not papal or presbyterian, though definitely Reformed.
JΓΌngel follows him on Baptism, as does Barth’s son Markus whose study helped him, but their Baptism texts have never been translated into English. Apparently Jungel’s book, in German, is twice as big as the English version!
That’s me done for conspiracy theories for this week!
SG,
Do you know what “kind” of church (I could look it up, but I’m lazy π ) that Barth pastored back in the day (where he had his “crisis”)?
OPC Baby!!! That’s Reformed!!! Get your ladies heads covered. Sit through dry boring sermons. Wiggling children forced to sit through the sermon instead of Sunday School. Stand up, sit down, stand up, and sit down. Theologically confess the Westminster and dabble in various strands of European Reformed thought ( while always being suspicious of European Theology after the 17th century). This is Reformed. Bobby, you are not Reformed, and if you went to a OPC Church and said you were Reformed, you would be looked at with that strong Calvinistic suspicion and you would feel “unmembered” (my word). For the Reformed in a local body, the theologically astute confessors of Reformed Ideology aren’t really Reformed, they are just people who read good theology. Being Reformed is not just a theological mental exercise, but a physical manifestation of your person sitting in a boring church with wiggling kids and boring sermons, it’s the stand up and sitting down, and standing up – the horrible music, Oh the misery of Reformed praxis!!!! If you still continue to GO TO A CHURCH LIKE THIS THEN YOU ARE REFORMED.
Safenwil was a standard Reformed church, Heidelberg Catechism, etc.
The warning label in your post is a nice touch. π
Pingback: The Free Church, Calvinism, Karl Barth, Omnicausality, Southern Baptists…all in one post! « After Existentialism, Light