Here’s a good quote on the multi-valence that Calvin has the propensity to provide. In other words, here’s a good point on why those who “claim” Calvin might all have a legitimate connection:
Although the usefulness of the Westminster Confession or Schleiermacher for modern theological work has been debated, it is hard to imagine a Reformed theologian not wanting to honor Calvin as the great thinker of the Protestant Reformation. The challenge for American theology comes into focus when Calvin is invoked as an important predecessor in the theological programs articulated by people as diverse as Joseph 
Haroutunian, William Pauck, Cornelius Van Til, James M. Gustafson, and Serene Jones. Whose Calvin? Which Calvinism? The cynical answer to both questions is: whichever Calvin I need! The more reasoned answer acknowledges that Calvin can and does support a variety of seemingly contradictory claims based on the theories of doctrinal development associated with his thought. That Calvin wrote on nearly every biblical, theological, and ethical topic has given later scholars plenty of opportunities to link their agendas to the Great Reformer. In that sense, in addition to having a wax nose, Calvin also is a mirror that reflects the particular beliefs and agendas of those who claim him for their own. In the twentieth century, Calvin was claimed for and against the inerrancy of scripture, the doctrine of limited atonement, double predestination, the ecumenical movement, democracy, natural theology, women’s ordination, abortion rights, freedom of conscience, and many other things. When “properly understood for our times,” Calvin stood for just about anything. (Quoting from: Stephen D. Crocco in: “John Calvin’s American Legacy,” ed. Thomas J. Davis from his chapter 7, “Whose Calvin, Which Calvinism? John Calvin and the Development of Twentieth-Century American Theology,” p. 168-69)
I began to notice the diversity and depth of Calvin’s theology when I heard Vanhoozer on Wright. Near the end he seems to be trying to have his Calvin Cake and eat it. He wants Sola Gratia and En Christo, Justification and Participation, or, in other words, Christ died for me and I die with Christ.
I’ve noticed that, when you’ve done enough biblical study, you can’t help but hold conflicting views. Theologians call this “holding the tension”, plain folk call it “contradicting yourself”. By this I mean “you are saved by God’s grace alone” and “you belong to God as a slave”. In common parlance: “you can have this car for free” but “you owe me all your money”. Somehow good theologians don’t want to do the either/or and thus remain incoherent to most of society.
Marc,
I think I might have to disagree with your sweeping generalization on Theologians. Knowledge is a proximate thing. And when we’re engaged in the theological science of knowing God; it’s also a provisional and growing thing (so Peter’s “grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ). Like I said in my other comment, theologians are working with a object/subject who is personal; and thus we aren’t doing “divine math,” but speaking about realities that are dynamic (vs. static). Which inevitably will lead to conclusions and moments where things seem to be in a state of paradox (at points) or in dialectical tension (which they are, life is like this in fact).
I don’t understand your point on Vanhoozer and Calvin. What are you saying about having his cake and eating it too (btw, don’t you have to have your cake if you’re planning on eating it? π )?
I agree that knowledge is provisional but I must insist on basic rationality: we can’t contradict ourselves. Light may look like a particle and a wave but it can’t be both if one has location and the other doesn’t. Salvation may look like all from God’s Grace but paid for by Jesus but it can’t be both if we are to talk sense and use words consistently. Much theology works by talking nonsense and then offering complicated redefinitions of words to soften the blow. So, if I understand people like Vanhoozer who accept what Wright says but doesn’t want to deny what the Reformers taught, he tries to have is cake (here it is) and eat it (here isn’t). But Wright is denying some Reformation “truths” and thus to say yes to Wright and Luther on all points is probably to talk nonsense.
Actually what Vanhoozer was doing, as I heard him, was saying there is more to what Wright is trying to say rather than less. And that in fact, Calvin’s unio mystica and points on union with Christ is deeply grounded in Paul’s “in Christ” theology. I.e. So Vanhoozer is obviously aware of something in Calvin’s theology that Wright obviously is unaware of; which is what gave occasion to Vanhoozer’s comments in rejoinder to Wright’s.
I don’t disagree with you that Wright is denying some “Reformation truth,” at which point I disagree with him. But, at the same time he is denying, what appears to me, a misunderstanding of certain “Reformation truth;” and is party to buying into particular and popular caricatures of what in fact represents the multi-valence embedded within Reformation history of ideas. Again, Vanhoozer was trying to enlighten Wright on this; which it seems clear, Wright is unaware of. Further, we “EC’rs” also offer nuance on union with Christ that reaches back beyond Reformation truth and gets into Patristic truth (particularly appeal to Athanasius).
I really don’t understand your point on God’s grace and Jesus’ payment. But, this thread really isn’t the place to get into that. Maybe I’ll post something on salvation that would make that comment more apropos, or you can scan some of my posts to see if that comment might fit better there; and then we can discuss it on a post and thus in a context that will make sense when other readers come along and check out particular posts here π . Or you can always email me.
Forgive me, but the Calvinists I know and have heard, seem to have an unhealthy dogmatic allegiance to the Reformers and you appear place yourself in that school when you say, If Wright denies Reformation truth, I disagree with him. I’m sure you have your reasons but it seems clear to me that Wrights critique of the Reformed understanding of a) works of law, b) God’s righteousness and c) imputation is better informed, more integrated biblically and more coherent Perhaps we need to continue this via email as you suggest. Ping me because you have my email and I don’t have yours. It’s been a pleasure!
Marc,
I disagree with Wright, in general. I’m not your typical “Reformed” kind of guy. And if you want to email me you can find my email my clicking on “About Me” above.
peace.