Donald McKim offers a nice summary of the kind of attitude and posture Evangelical Calvinism wants to approach the rest of the “Reformed tradition” with, as well as Christendom at large; he says:
The Reformed faith impels persons to confess their faith as part of the ecumenical church, the whole people of God. The movement here is first from what Christians believe to what Reformed Christians believe. Reformed churches are a portion of the full household of faith. As such, Reformed theology and Reformed faith are open to hearing, dialoguing with, and learning from other theological viewpoints and Christian communions. Though some Reformed bodies have tended to become more narrow and almost assume that their formulations are the only means of expressing God’s truth, this impulse runs counter to the genuine heartbeat of Reformed faith. Reformed faith is open to God’s Spirit, who may encounter us at any time in any place. Reformed Christians should see and listen to other voices since perhaps through them an essential theological insight will be given. (Donald K. McKim, “Introducing the Reformed Faith,” 7-8)
This sums up quite nicely the attitude that Evangelical Calvinism holds towards other “traditions” within Chrisendom as a whole. This does not mean that we don’t believe that we have the best expression of what it entails (at a “contour level”) to think “Christianly,” but that we don’t believe that this also means that we have to take a sectarian attitude towards those who disagree with us; in fact, more positively, ‘EC’ holds that we can most certainly learn and even be corrected by other “interpretive traditions” within Christianity (esp. from our Protestant brethren).
Clearly, I personally do not agree with everyone and everything (of course not), but in all honesty I think that none of this stuff should actually cause us to “divide” relative to “fellowship” one with the other! Also, to be clear, when I speak for “EC,” it should be understood that I speak for myself (on this blog). “EC” encompasses more than one point of view (on the periphery) — i.e. some are more Barthian, Torrancean, Calvinian, etc. — I just want folks to understand that “EC” is more like a banner, and while there are certain fundamentals that would hold “EC’rs” together; there are also things that we might disagree on amongst ourselves, but not to any kind of “breaking point,” relative to what it means to be “EC.” Clear 
? . . .
Bobby,
It’s “biblicisim” with a little scholasticism for me! My renewed reading and study this past week has been “dispensational”. Re-reading myself Ryrie’s revised & expanded ‘Dispensationalism’. The Church is closer, much closer to the Lord’s Coming than ever before! But also, the Church is under more apostasy than it has also ever seen! 2 Timothy is very ripe! With Jude and 2 Peter. And I am really a pastor-teacher, over being the modern type theolog. 🙂
Too often the church has lost the battle in the struggle to maintain unity in the midst of diversity and avoid sectarianism.
It is the Holy Spirit who baptizes us into the Body of Christ. We are often too ready to surgically remove those He has not removed.
@Fr Robert,
Yep, I know where you are coming from. That’s funny on the dispy thing, because I was just thinking the opposite; how frustrated I was that I have been dispy for so long . . . until I recently repented 😉 . The plus of having my background though, is that I still see the place for ethnic Israel at some level; where some don’t or can’t.
@Jon,
Agreed. Sectarianism is a sin that the LORD cannot nor will be happy with!
@Bobby,
Yes right now “dispy” is not seen as scholastic stuff. (2 Pet.2:2) Thankfully we get to “repent” often! 😉
And I love “theology” too, but theology that is removed from the biblical text, is just not real theology! I saw this problem thankfully many years ago, but it always needs to be checked. We must all make this appraisal, and often!
In some sense, “dispensationalism” is not a full “theology”, as much as a biblical hermeneutic. But of course there is good and bad “dispensationalism”, as there is good and bad “Calvinism”. One can be something Calvinist and dispensational, at least this is my biblical appraisal.
@Fr Robert,
Of course there are all kinds of presuppositions informing how anyone of is understand what “biblical” means. And in fact, I believe that if we are unaware of the “theology” we bring to the Text, then often when people say “biblical” that they mean “their Bible” vs. someone else’s “Bible” or in reality, Theology. In other words, I see an inseparable relationship between the outer reality of Scripture’s assertions, and the way we as interpreters understand its inner reality (Theo-logic). The old “clarity” stuff really (inner/outer).
I think, yes, that within dispy, Calvinism, etc. self-referentially one can be good or bad. Then there is the question, though, outside of those systems themselves (the critical question) of whether the system, hermeneutic etc. is viable or not? And of course that comes back to a bigger methodological question.
@Bobby,
We cannot of course psychoanalyse ourselves, but only look at the “biblical” text! But one thing is certain to my mind at least, GOD is a Zionist! And theology (so-called) must be Judeo-Christian! 🙂
I would say its possible to be critical w/o psychoanalytical; and so my point turned on the former rather than the latter. Otherwise there’s really no place for us to “check” whether what one another is saying is actually “biblical.”
Bobby,
I would somewhat agree, but we simply must not be caught hard in any “theological” or historical position that does not surrender itself to the Biblical Text! What the Church of God desperately needs at this time in history, is men and women.. and just people of the Bible! Our faithfulness is alone here in ‘Spirit & Truth’! (Note, 2 Cor. chapters 10 & 11 here)..Here is both divine authentication, and Paul’s godly jealousy!
We must be pastor’s & teachers, and just God’s people, for God spiritual effect! The loss of spirituality in theology (so-called) is just very real!
*for God’s
Fr Robert,
I agree with you, in general, there is all too often a disconnect between Theology and a genuine Christian spirituality. It’s easy to see how that can happen.
Bobby,
And that certainly happens on both sides of the issue. But in general, I don’t see those that are truly biblically seeking, as bound-up by hard theology, etc. To be honest, this is my concern with the EC, will it become, or does it tend toward an overt theological top? I hope you can see my point?
Fr Robert,
That would be my concern too, with EC. No, our approach, one of our Theses in the book, is that we are happy to live with the tension of Scripture’s witness (dialectic, but not in a Barthian sense). We don’t want to fill in the “gaps” per se with our theologizing where we engage in a logico-deductive system of engagement. I think you think we are more Barthian than we are. I think our book should put that to rest quickly. My blog here just reflects where “I” am at, often, in my personal reading. Actually I think that our approach is better suited to let the Bible be the Bible vs. an overt scholasticism Reformed.
Bobby,
You are perhaps right about that, I have not seen Torrance really without seeing Barth. Really he just seems to be a more refined Barth to me. But then I must confess his theology is also just too scientific for me also. Though I have always liked TFT’s book: The Trinitarian Faith especially. But yes, in the end I fear that today people are following not the Bible, but the “theology” of Barth, and now Torrance his student. This is my concern anyway.
Fr Robert,
I think there are different aspects to TFT’s theology. He’s definitely got his scientific stuff (methodology) etc., but then he’s got his doctrine of God and salvation stuff and Calvin stuff. I don’t think we have to follow TFT down every line to appreciate him. I haven’t even read a lot of his science stuff (just his Theological Science and Ground and Grammar).
Bobby,
Perhaps that is my problem, I have read too much of TFT, and I just don’t get him totally? He is way beyond me, and certainly most theolog’s I think. But he lived in the world and time of theology also. But that world has kinda passed in a practical and even cultural way also, sadly. But did it affect the Church? is my issue also. We need biblical theology!
I have been exposed to some of the contemporary dialogue of science and theology and here is where Torrance is greatly needed. There is a very active group of theologians and philosophers reworking many categories on epistemology, causality, relationality and divine action. Unfortunately, many have turned to panentheism and process theology in order to find categories and models that they can work with.
Torrance’s work on science and theology offers avenues of pursuit that seek to maintain faithfulness to the revelation through scripture and take into account the changing shifts in understanding in a post-Einsteinian world. His essays in Transformation and Convergence are useful here.
For a current overview of where much of the effort is headed see F. Leron Shults introduction to a recent book on this.
http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5244D.pdf
@Jon,
I agree with you about TFT’s method. Yet, of course, TFT also believe in macro-evolution; which I do not. Nevertheless, I am in real agreement with his methodology and Theological Science.
I’ll have to check out Shults, I used to check out his blog but he seems to have quit.
Fr Robert,
I think TFT is a valuable player in this “game” of theology in the modern world. To me he is both old school and new school, which is why I really appreciate him overall.
Shults does some interesting work on these topics in his book, Reforming the Doctrine of God. I heard him lecture on this and found it to be helpful, but I am not as versed in Aristotelian thought as need be to fully appreciate his critique. If you do read it, I would be very interested in your take especially on Part 1 that treats the doctrine of God and a chapter on causality. You might also find the chapter on eschatological ontology to be interesting. I have yet to finish the book as I get lost in the complexity of the historical trajectories. I am not as familiar as I should be with all of it.
He has read Torrance and personally recommended Torrance as a source to me. He also is steeped in Pannenberg and has accepted macro-evolution. Since he moved to Europe for a chair in theology he has focused more on science and the current dialogue. I am concerned about his work in process thought. He has some updates to his blog and a new book coming out.
http://leronshults.typepad.com/my_weblog/
@Jon,
Yes, one more book to add to the reading list 😉 . The fact that he has a chapter on eschatological ontology does make me think he has appropriated Pannenberg in one way or the other, since that’s Pann.’s thingy. I’ve noticed his emphasis on scientific stuff through the titles of some of his books. At one point I was considering applying for a PhD at his school when they were offering two full ride scholarships plus a salary of a substantial amount to be a Teaching Fellow while working on the PhD. I didn’t follow through with that. Thanks for the heads up, I’ll have to start checking out his blog again.