I was just thinking, it’s not like me to not post on why I reject TULIP theology; and yet, I haven’t really posted any kind of provocative post in that vein for quite awhile — it’s like I’m almost going soft or something π .
Let me just re-affirm for those of you whom may be starting to think that Bobby is in fact going soft on popular TULIP soteriology; I AM NOT! I still think the TULIP presents serious and terrible consequences for anyone who internalizes it, and understands its theological implications. One of my primary pastoral concerns about the TULIP, is that it fosters an introspective navel-gazing spirituality (historically known as experimental predestinarianism). This is the practice wherein a totally depraved, unconditionally Β elected person seeks to verify that he/she has actually beenΒ limitedly atoned for, and thus a recipient of irressitable grace by discerning through their good works that they indeed are a persevering saint. If they reach a certain threshold, and sense that indeed they have met their perceived good works quota; then they can finally rest assured that they are of those who have truly believed, and have the assurance that they didn’t just receive a temporary faith, but a real and saving faith (practical syllogism). This is one of the main reasons, pastorally, that I believe that TULIP Calvinism is a blight on Christian theology. I know too many thinking, introspective Christians — who aren’t cock-sure types about their election — who have suffered psychological woes over the problem that this TULIP (and the Arminian FACTS) system has created. In fact, the fact that folks were having these psychological woes over this issue, because of the classical theistic paradigm, made me pause for a long time and take a good look at the heritage that this TULIP theology has handed to us. The reality is clear, there are pastoral problems, because there are dogmatic problems. TULIP theology suffers from a radically wrong doctrine of God, and since all subsequent theology flows from a respective doctrine of God; TULIP soteriology and thus spirituality is also heteropraxic. This is why I still reject the Flower. What about you, do you still like the smell of the tulip?
Here’s how a Purtian layman named Humphrey Mills felt once he found release from the TULIP theology taught to him by TULIP theologian par exellence, William Perkins (he found this release through the teaching of the Puritan, Richard Sibbes who taught a non-TULIP soteriology known as “Free Grace” or “Affective Theology”):
I was for three years together wounded for sins, and under a sense of my corruptions, which were many; and I followed sermons, pursuing the means, and was constant in duties and doing: looking for Heaven that way. And then I was so precise for outward formalities, that I censured all to be reprobates, that wore their hair anything long, and not short above the ears; or that wore great ruffs, and gorgets, or fashions, and follies. But yet I was distracted in my mind, wounded in conscience, and wept often and bitterly, and prayed earnestly, but yet had no comfort, till I heard that sweet saint . . . Doctor Sibbs, by whose means and ministry I was brought to peace and joy in my spirit. His sweet soul-melting Gospel-sermons won my heart and refreshed me much, for by him I saw and had muchof God and was confident in Christ, and could overlook the world . . . My heart held firm and resolved and my desires all heaven-ward. (Ron Frost. Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason, eds., βThe Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics,β Frost is quoting from: John Rogers, Ohel or Bethshemesh, A Tabernacle for the Sun (London, n.p., 1653)
Caveat: To be very clear, I’m not attacking good Calvinist or Arminian people; I know there are sincere Christ loving people who are genuinely committed to TULIP Calvinism. In fact, my motivation and passion for this,Β is because I love these people, and I want to jolt them out of the slumberous spirituality that TULIP Calvinism leads someone into. Obviously, I’m very convinced that there is something really wrong with TULIP Calvinism; I think it fails on exegetical grounds as well as dogmatic/theological grounds, and thus impinges on people’s daily walks with Jesus Christ! TULIP Calvinism is much too popular in America for my liking, its over-communicated and under-communicated — just the fact that it’s communicated at all is a problem. My hope with posts like this, as snarky and punky as it is; is intended to provoke and pick a fight with anyone who endorses TULIP Calvinism. I want to fight over your doctrine of God and your subsequent view of salvation; I think it’s wacky, and (seriously) has real life consequences for folks that are not good (yet, it’s not the “consequences of belief” that shape my beef with TULIP Calvinism, it is TULIP Calvinism itself that is problematic). One more point: I am obviously not a pluralist or normative relativist (which qualifies my type of “Evangelicalism” π ); I actually believe that there is a more right view and a more wrong view, guess which side of those that I think I am on π ? I’m convinced of something, are you . . . ? [yet, I don’t also think I have it all figured out either]
Bobby,
This has got to be one of the best βin a nut shellβ arguments (rant?) I’ve read. I especially love the caveat. π
Bobby-
Love it! I love your posts and definitely count your blog as one of my favs. Not many in the Reformed world in the States right now think outside of the Young, Restless, and Reformed mold, so I count you as a comrade in arms against those who are narrowly defining Reformed theology and offering to the masses as the only way to be Reformed.
Do you plan on extending this series to include some more doctrinal reflections? Such as what parts you find particular trouble with?
The spirit testifies with our spirits that we are children of God – and five pointers!! This is always the ultimate criteria for us five pointers Bobby. It is so weird that you never have been in the five point fold (even if you have claimed to) for you to keep missing that most of the 5 pointers that went to my OPC congregation spoke on this as the ultimate confidence they had for their Salvation. They surly weren’t looking into the plus minus calculus of their daily actions to be assured of being elect. That might have been fashionable with the Colonial Puritans 300 yrs ago but We 5 pointers have progressed past your tired worn references to Historical theology, it’s unbreakable Logic which is chained to the theology of substance, and long dead thinkers. There are 5 pointers who aren’t in the theology of substance camp and speak more from the theology of relationship which takes into account a Trinitarian relational basis for election. Just because your 5 pointers used to chain their ideas to the substance philosophy of the time doesn’t mean that they still do. Plus, you said you have exegetical reasons for rejecting the flower – this I would like to see, since I have been reading this Blog for about a year Now and while your Historical theology is Great the exegetical content is the weak point, in my opinion. I don’t think you can really maintain anymore, than the 5 pointers, that you have the text on your side unless you prove it. So lets see that great exegetical ability of yours destroy the flower that has given so much fragrance and beauty to the world of Christian theology.
A corpse flower by any other name would smell as putrid.
By what criterion did God choose some for glory and some for destruction from the foundation of the world? We all agree, not works. Blue eyes?
poverty? Did he just cast lots? Was my mother elect to reprobation or salvation? How about my granddaughters? Were they decided on by lot as well?
Was Judas and if one, why not many? If one was, god is just as guilty as if many were. We cannot escape God and his will for his creation. If God wills it that settles it. This should smell like the fragrance of death for those who are disposed to smell death and for those disposed to smell life – life.
Bobby – Like Duane, I just don’t get the idea of election. Growing up I naively believed He died for everyone and it wasn’t till later that I learned about Calvinism and, after much study and sleepless nights, realized I probably wasn’t going to understand it and had to accept it as a “mystery.” But it was hard to get too excited about a God Who could really overlook (some of) those who were made in His image. I’m not on board with all of Arminianism and don’t understand Molinism, so I’ve basically relegated soteriology to the category of “things too difficult for me” (Ps. 131:1 NASB) and quit trying to figure it out. But I still like tulips! Eric
I have tried to perceive how the TULIP could actually be theo-logical and scriptural. I concluded that, for the doctrine to be considered scriptural, Determinism must be presupposed in my reading and that grace and faith must be synonymous. Theologically, God’s determinate will must be opposed to His desire and action (schizophrenia). In addition I must also accept the concepts of the βcondemned electβ and the creation of a new creature apart from Christ. Fortunately I don’t have to do this all at once, only when my apology warrants. π
Oh, and I can no longer sing, “Just as I Am”. He just can’t save me just as I am. π
Hi Bobby. You probably recall I fist limped in here as a TULIP casualty. The weight of trying to determine whether I am genuinely progressing and producing enough fruit was really getting heavy. The effect on my mental and emotional state was not so different than if I held to an “I can lose my salvation if I’m not careful to walk the tightrope of perfect-progressive-sanctification” view. Always looking at “me” and fearing that I’d never make it.
Having the EC perspective redirect my eyes from whether “I” am chosen to consideration and appreciation for what Christ has done in my stead has helped a lot.
It’s not that I have a huge problem with the points that are outlined concerning election etc. (with the possible exception of “limited atonement”)… But there is something disturbing about the abbreviation of the Calvinist view into such a neat and tidy package–In my case, it left a lot of room for “what if’s” that were not readily answered by the outline itself.
Bobby,
This is one place where I could not agree with you more! π As far as I am capable of understanding, this is definitely “the truth”! π
This topic never grows old, does it? Ever since I’ve been blogging (and I haven’t always been an EC, but I’ve never claimed to be or have been a 5 point Calvinist . . . I came to the “Reformed faith” through Karl Barth, actually — I was somewhat disposed to it through what some have called “Affective Theology” . . . but I never fully could accept Affective Theology either . . . so Barth/Torrance helped me out there π ) just mentioning the TULIP in a post has always produced the most feedback and discussion/debate; I doubt this reality will ever change!
@Kc,
Thank you, although you shouldn’t encourage me in my rants; it may only cause me to do more π . I do agree with you on the schizophrenia or really, bi-polarism that having two-wills in God produces; it gives us a God Behind the Back of Jesus (or the nominalist “absolute” and “ordained” wills of God), and rips asunder the persons of the God-head — good eye, Kc!
@Randy,
I’m glad you’re around, you can help me out with Kenny π . Seriously, it’s good and rare to actually find folks, I agree, who are relatively young, but not restless and not “neo-Reformed” or some such (per DeYoung and crew). I have done a bunch of posts in the past that have developed this quite a bit, but I do think it would be helpful just to work through some of this stuff again (on the TULIP). In fact maybe I’ll do just that; work through the TULIP one point at a time, and rework it in a way that fits into the Evangelical Calvinist mold (a little reification). What are you going to be researching for your PhD?
@Kenny,
I’ve never ever claimed to be a 5 point Calvinist, just to be really clear about that. I’ve never ever been able to accept limited atonement (until, that is, I came to think of it in EC ‘Christ-conditioned’ ways . . . i.e. making the atonement “Limited” and “Particular” in Christ, personally). You often make these assertions about the 5pointers moving beyond substance metaphysics etc., but I consider this to be a red herring, and even to create a straw man for me to try and hit. Maybe you have somehow been able to figure out how to “move beyond” the old paths, conceptually; but that’s not what I see or hear being communicated by almost all of the popular folk like Piper, MacArthur, TGC, Young and the Restless, et al (and remember I’m talking about TULIP holders, whether they be Covenant or not, popular or academic alike). You need to shift the burden to me better, though. Who are those 5 pointers who have moved beyond their history somehow? Michael Horton (nope!), Scott Clark (of the Heidelblog and colleague of Horton at WTS california, nope!), Richard Muller (nope!), White Horse Inn (nope!), Piper (nope!), Sproul (nope!), MacArthur (nope!), Carl Trueman (nope!), Robert Letham (nope!). Richard Gaffin and William B. Evans are emphasizing a more Calvinian “union with Christ” theology, so they would be innovaters, but then all the aforementioned would distance themselves from this kind of stuff because its not rigidly 5point theology enough (I know that Scott Clark does not like Gaffin’s stuff, and I also know that Evans’ would be considered edgy for his stuff); in fact these two Gaf/Ev would be much closer to “EC” than TULIP Calvinism. There are plenty of others like J. Todd Billings, Suzanne MacDonald, Mark Garcia, et al who are more prone towards a trad Calvinism but are also close to “EC” because of their emphasis on a Calvinian “union with Christ” theology (which personalises things, or sees them Trinitarianly and not attached to a “substance/classical theist” God).
But really, I’m not talking about these academics who are on the sliding scale somewhere; I’m referring to those who are really popular (like Piper, Young and Restless, and even the WHI Horton et al). They aren’t moving beyond their history, in fact they are trying to repristinate the “history” for contemporary Calvinists and Christians. Your burden, Kenny, since you seem to be a real exception to TULIP (TEACHERS), is to explain how “you” have moved beyond these folks.
As far as exegesis, I may try to do more of that in the future. But exegesis on a blog is very hard to do very well, and it might not be time well spent. Most exegetical stuff in the past (remember I’ve been blogging for 6 yrs, long before you started reading me, Kenny) gets hardly any readers (in my experience); and that is because if it is done right, it is highly detailed and grammatically/syntactically rigorous — to the point that its not suited for blogger’s attention spans. So I have a hard time being motivated to do exegesis for the blog. To me, the issues though are the theology behind the exegesis (I’m not saying exegesis cannot stand on its own, per se); because the reality is, is that I could lift up a whole slough of “Universal atonement” type passages (II Cor 5.14, I Tim 4.10, I Jn 2.2, Jn 3.16, Heb. 2.10ff, Col. 1.15ff, etc etc.), and you or any other TULIP’r would have your canned qualifications for those passages, and I already know what those are and don’t buy them (and its because of the theology behind those canned responses, so why not cut to the chase and deal with the theology?).
On Judas. Per my EC commitments, I would say that he was indeed one of the “elect” in Christ; but that he, because of his love of the darkness rather than the light, chose himself rather than Christ (so is the inscrutable nature of sin). And this is a perfect example of how TULIP exegesis works, it takes a story or passage of Scripture like this; it sees what happened with Judas, picks up on the language of Jesus choosing him for perdition, and automatically assumes that this choosing is self-same with the Stoic-deterministic-logico-causal-deductivist metaphysic that is completely foreign to the categories of Scripture. Why does this language of “choosing Judas for perdition” have to be metaphysical or determinist-causal in orientation, per the context; why can’t it simply be referring to what happened to Judas? He killed himself, he lived out his perdition right in front of our proverbial faces. And these are the circles we will talk in, to no end, if and when I try to do exegesis “for you.” I’ve spent hrs and hrs in the past trying to do this “exegetical” stuff in the “sphere” over these very issues, and it’s simply a dead end (because of the a priori theological commitments that we bring to the exegesis, so why not talk about that? . . . that seems more fruitful).
@Heather,
I know, and thank you for commenting. You are the very kind of real life people who have been affected by TULIP theology in the negative; the kind of people that I know personally too, and the kind of people who I want to provide a voice for. I’m glad that you have seen the error of TULIP theology, and that this is helping you to live a more joyous Christian walk with Jesus on a day to day basis!! And I of course agree with you on the nice and tidy scholastic packaging that produces TULIP theology; that’s why “EC” is appealing to me too, it allows for their to be “real” tensions in the theology itself — it’s “dialectic” (to use a big word) in this sense, and that makes sense given the ineffable nature and dynamic/relational nature of the God we worship and speak of. Keep on, keepin’ on, Heather! π
@Eric,
You could always become “EC,” I don’t think all of this has to be as “mysterious” or a “throwing-up-our-hands” situation. If we see Election/Reprobation, God’s Yes/No grounded in and conditioned by Christ Himself; then I think all the usual problems and dualisms associated with this melt away. At least it has for me π !
@Brian,
I know, I’ll take it π ! At least this we can agree on π !!
@Duane,
Well, you know how I think about your questions, right?
Fine response Bobby, But what about the simple fact that I believe in all five points and believe in the witness of the spirit testifying with my spirit that I am in fact elect. I noticed you didn’t respond to that main claim. The pastoral concern seemed to be the thrust of your post. And I thought it was, while well meaning, might be a shoe that doesn’t always fit us 5 pointers. I think it might fit a context 300 years removed from our modern relational ethos.
I know you will name us as people who have to fall into certain paths of thought, and I know you really believe, we naive 5 pointers don’t understand the theological underpinnings to our 5 point scheme and should be enlightened, which you have taken the burden to free, but again my claim is this is false. I gave you one scripture which in my experience is the foundation for assurance and you passed over it without a mention on your way to name drop (which is fine, but I don’t doubt your past reading and interaction with this thought in all it’s stripes), name dropping never has impressed me as you know from our exchanges in the past.
What i like is novelty, personal adjustment and belief, eclectic strands, a little of this and a little of that, a symphony which has been written by the BELIEVER – this is in fact, where we are at in the postmodern context and to argue for your scheme is to impose the same imperialistic, dominant narrative the 5 pointers are doing. But before you dismiss this as a wiggling out of answer, I will say I think I can come to something like a 5 point position without what you say it is tied to and I can affirm my election based in the union with the Triune God from all eternity because the spirit tells my spirit this is true. Historical Schemes aside, all the affirmations of the 5 point position can be ripped out of it’s historical context and reapplied to my situation which then the spirit is would say are true. You can’t argue against this, since the subjective criterion is the ULTIMATE STANDARD for something being true FOR THAT PERSON. If you say no no this is wrong you can only say this, based on your scheme -it’s all really a huge circle theoretically.
So if this is where we are in 2011 in our theory all we have is praxis, which you seemed to want to talk about. But then your straw man was challenged by an actual “5 pointer” who said no we don’t think like that and you retreated back into your names and schemes, names and schemes are not real people living out their CONTRADICTIONARY religious claims. You must deal with the real world, not the nice world of books. So what say you on the fact that I say I am a 5 pointer and a believer in the Spirit testifying for my assurance rather than your straw man of works crazed troubled 5 point calvinist’s. Do you think this is easily dismissed by naming the line up you named. I suggest you just deal with me and my claim.
Bobby,
I actually got accepted to work Webster on a proposal regarding Torrance and the use of the ontological atonement as a possibility in evangelical theology, but Webster gently pushed me in other directions. I am either going to move in one of two directions:
1. The doctrine of Scripture, specifically illumination, and how this relates to theological hermeneutics. I haven’t read much in this area recently, but that was my predominant interest during my masters.
2. More likely, I’ll end up examining various modern theologians’ views of universalism (those who are either explicitly universalist or those who lean heavily that way) from a dogmatic and/or hermeneutical perspective, which means some work on Barth, Moltmann, von Balthasar, possibly Jenson, and the like. It intrigues me how many important modern theologians have moved towards universalism as either a hope or outright view. If, I do go with something along these lines, I may end up being supervised dually by Prof. Tom Greggs whose own dissertation was on Barth, Origen, and Universal Salvation. I actually need to talk to Webster and Greggs about that once I get closer to a decision.
When will you start your work with Habets?
@Kenny,
I thought you were jesting when you brought up the I Jn passage and the 5 points. All I can say to that, that this, again, would be an imposition upon that text — explicitly so, reading the 5 points into that passage. That passage doesn’t say anything about the 5 points. That’s why I didn’t respond to that. As far as subjective experience being the sole mode for determining what is true or not, this cannot be the case — even internal to such logic — there must be something/one extra nos outside of us who is universal for you to be appealing to about your truth being true for you (and thus by implication true for not just you, but for all 5 point TULIP Calvinists). Otherwise we are just operating as soloptic normative relativists, which is why I said that I’m not a normative relativist in the body of my post. On the grounds you are speaking of, per experience, what’s to differentiate your theory of truth from an LDS’ “burning in the bosom?” Kenny you said:
But your whole premise was based on “your” experience (first person singular), and the “subjective.” Now, here, you’ve shifted to “we” and “our” experience (first person plural); which is equivocating, and actually self-refuting per the criteria that you are using to justify “your” personal TULIP theology. I see how you’re trying to argue against my “apparent” straw man, but thus far you haven’t. You’ve only caricatured my position on how I’m construing TULIP theology (and in the post, I was careful [as careful as a rant can be π ] to draw a correlation between the dogma [orthodoxy/heterodoxy] and pastoral [orthopraxy/heteropraxy]). So my intention was to address both. My heart is pastoral, but it is also dogmatic; and I see these two as inseparable (but in some ways) distinct realities.
And like I said in my response, apparently you’re an exception to the kind of TULIP Calvinism I am critiquing; the kind I am critiquing is associated with the kind articulated by all those names I dropped. Btw, I didn’t drop those names to impress you or anyone else, but to establish a list of contemporary teachers who are communicating a repristinated TULIP Calvinism for mass and even popular consumption. If you’re not associated with the “kind” of TULIP theology these teachers are, then you are not the kind of person I am addressing with this post; seriously. You’re an exception. Maybe I’ll do a post someday on the “exceptions”, and then we can talk π further about how you construct your own personalized style of TULIP theology.
Fair enough bobby, I stand corrected on the “I” changing into the “we.” I wasn’t referencing John, but Romans 8:16 as a reference to assurance over works.
The Burning in the chest isn’t bad in itself, since it has a neural cause, all religions have this subjective neural cause which confirms to the believer their path is right for them. I wouldn’t belittle it and use it as a argument against the believers path. I’m not Mormon because I never had the burning in the bosom when the missionaries came to my house and talked with me and my parents when I was a kid, but the Jesus in the texts of the NT has caused me to have many a burning in the deepest part of my being and this is why I follow him – that is God’s honest truth too.
All in all My only point in this whole exchange is to say, why are you so against the faith of other brothers and sisters who say they are sons and daughters of god based on the Spirit’s testimony. Why won’t you let the classic Calvinists be? If they say they are in love with God, why won’t you believe them. If they say they are loving God and the world and have assurance why can’t you stop fighting them. Why do you want to convince them they are so misguided.
Do really believe they worship a false God? You can’t claim pastoral reasons since I doubt it can even be a reality over such a medium. You’ll say you know people who have been hurt by this theology, but this can be claimed within any belief system including the simplest Christianity and your EC. I just don’t get the axe grinding here. Do you really believe if you sat with Horton and Piper you could tell them to their face after an honest and open talk with them they are worshiping a 16th century false God.
I love what you are doing with your trajectory in theology, but I don’t love the bashing of Good people/ theologians which comes from you and this blog. I know you always say you love these people and want to move them into the right direction, but I think this is wrong way to show love. To say they are worshiping a false God or hurting people is hubris and if you aren’t saying this who cares what they believe, since it isn’t essential, just move on with your research and stop trashing the old school crew, I’m sure you can do a fine piece of Historical Theology without the battle.
@Randy,
Yeah, I knew that you were going to be studying with Webster; what a blessing π ! Adam Nigh is also doing something with TFT and Scripture, I think along the lines of TFT’s hermeneutics; so that sounds like a very similar line to your potential area of study. A study on universalism, esp. nowadays, would also be very interesting and fruitful I would think. Either way, you’re going to have a blessed time I sure!
I’ll start with Myk Habets on the PhD as soon as I get the funds in to start, and I’m not exactly sure when that will be; hopefully before the end of this year. You start at Aberdeen in the Fall, right?
@Kenny,
Yes, Rom 8.16 works just as good as I Jn 3.24.
I’m not against the “simple faith” of any of my brothers and sisters; if you review any and all of my writings on this topic through the years, I have never taken a sectarian stance against any professing Christian (of any “tradition” even Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). My challenge is to the mechanics and theology that produces, IMO, a skewed spirituality.
Yes, I do appeal to some experiential motivation for why I’m so motivated for this topic. I grew up under this faulty system of thought, I do have immediate family members to this day who still struggle with assurance issues because of their proximate relation to the TULIP/Armianian system (God); and at points, in the past, struggled with it myself (because of the system not Scripture, Scripture is what brought me out from under the scour of this system’s force — or the culture that it produced). And beyond this, people like Heather (above) have emailed me over and again telling me that what I am communicating about TULIP resonates with them; and that at one time they too lived “under” this system.
Do I believe that if I sat down with Horton or Piper that I would no longer believe that they worship the God of classical theism? Absolutely not! If what they communicate from pulpit, lectern, and radio studio isn’t what they actually believe, personally; then they have deeper issues that need to be dealt with.
I’m not bashing any person’s, person or intimate faith relationship. Instead, I am attempting to expose where their theological commitments come from; if they think I’m out to lunch (as you seem to think), then that’s fine, I’m not really talking to them, then. Instead, I am identifying an alternative way to think about such things theologically; of course, as foil, I will deal with the popular ethos of our day (in that camp). I am committed to “always reforming,” which to me means we challenge each other to love and good works as we see the day approaching until we are all united in the One faith that we hold so dearly. If I Martin Luther would’ve followed your logic (not that I see myself as Martin Luther π ), we’d both be Roman Catholics. I think there’s room to challenge each other within the fold of the Protestant faith, and in the faith in general. So just be aware then, Kenny, when and if you visit the blog here; know that I will be posting provocative posts just like this one in the days to come. Not with the intention of bashing people, but to provoke discussion and challenge folks. Part of some my style is rhetorical and intentional towards provoking discussion. If you haven’t noticed blogging, as a medium, requires a little flare in order to catch our media minded culture. My style does not presuppose that I’m being disingenuous about this stuff, it’s just that I’m going to be provocative; if you don’t like that, I’m sorry about that, but I won’t be leaving TULIP Calvinists alone (nor Arminians).
1.Do you believe the God of Horton and Piper is a false god?
2. Do you believe the 5 point schematic always leads to a works based proof of assurance?
3.Do you believe 5 point Calvinism is always hurtful “skewed spirituality” to the practice of those who believe in it?
4. I know you know the classic view of God is being done away with Because theologians all over Europe and the US are using “findings” and presuppositions outside of the text of scripture. Be it in process thought and panentheism or scientific theology with deep connections to philosophy of science, lit. crit., or gay and feminist theological starting points, it is all over the map now and to be one of the hammers that want’s to do some work on the classical view as well should be done with a bit of fearfulness.
Reforming is great but what does it mean when we are in such a state as we are in now when for example the atonement has no reference to Leviticus and more reference to modern non-violent “readings” or earlier patristic greek antisemitic conceptions. It just seems we are “reforming” as fast as the world changes it’s products in the supermarket. Which leads me to the question of why, why do we need to reform anymore – it’s not like we found the bones of jesus or the missing end to the Gospel of Mark or that we found the 3 book of corithians or any thing that would seriously cause believers to reform. I think we have reached a place in time where the reformation can stop and the living of the christian life can begin even on theo-bloggs.
@Kenny,
1) I believe the God that they are attempting to articulate is the true God, but I don’t think the apparatus they are using to do that is the best one.
2) Yes. I think methodologically it must. It doesn’t start with, Christ, as a method; it starts with the “totally depraved,” which means, in suit, that’s where our reference point “starts” methodologically.
3) Well, as you’ve noted, it can’t be “always,” but theo-logically or reductio ab absurdum, yes (per the self-referencing consistency of the logic that TULIP assumes).
4) And yet that’s not my impetus or where I’m coming from. Along with TFT and other “moderns” like him, I am trying to point folks back to the ecumenical Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Chalcedonian Trinitarian/Christologically conditioned theology.
5) I agree, Scripture still needs to be the norming norm for all reformation. The thing is though, Kenny, EC (while attuned to some of the Barthian impulses) finds its genesis from within an emerging stream of Calvinist theology in Scotland (one that developed right alongside of what we now know as TULIP Calvinism or whatever). There are many strands in Calvinism’s long variegated history; EC is trying to highlight a “competing” strand with what is considered Calvinism in mostly North America today. And a case has been made, by Janice Knight and others, that the strand that dominates the North American strand today was not dominate in England or Scotland of yesteryear. I am definitely conservative/traditional and I think “classic” still; just not defined by what Calvinism is marketed as today. EC is trying to introduce a new market. There will always be a rub between dogma/practice, I can’t imagine that we will ever arrive, fully, until heaven; that’s not to say we haven’t arrived on certain essentials, but that’s not to say that there still isn’t dynamism associated with that as well. But that’s why I like what we are calling “EC”, it is dialectic and lives with tensions, per, what we believe is provided by Scripture’s witness itself (that’s why I’m neither a hopeful/dogmatic universalist etc. , e.g. I think Scripture says there is eternal tormentuous conscious hell, unfortunately etc etc).
I think it’s healthy for there to be debate amongst certain “types,” Kenny. This is not for all, but for those it is for (debate), I think it can be a good thing to discuss. Btw, I should also note, that this post is really voicing why “I” am not in agreement with TULIP Calvinism; I would like to invite others to join me in my peculiar beliefs, but, obviously, nobody has to (remember, I don’t believe in the “I” irresistable grace, in the TULIP sense . . . only in the EC sense as that is personalised in Jesus Himself π ).
Do you still love me, Kenny π ?
Yeah, I still love you and you know this talk is really secretly about you being a laker fan anyway. But Seriously I get it and what you are trying to do with your project. I guess I just think there are bigger fish to fry than Classic Calvinists in the theological world. maybe your next book could be a dialogue with classic Horton type Calvinists, where you can dialogue on points of disagreement and agreement. peace and Love B.
I would really like to do a book like that! This is the blogosphere though, but I don’t usually like this debate that much anymore; it depends on my mood, you Blazer’s fan (btw, we went to a Blazer’s game about a week ago π ). Peace, my brother!
And still the issue of John 17:12 looms! Though like Calvin, I see the Atonement General (in nature), it surely only saves the elect, and condemns those who would “play” with it, and the Christ who died there! (2 Peter 2:1-3, etc.)