When I started this blog (it was just supposed to be a secondary blog for me) my intention was to basically pick fights with classic/Westminster Calvinists through posting provocative posts that challenged their sense of identity and theological posture (out of fun, really). I actually think I more than acheived 
that goal right from the get go. In fact I had guys from all over the world challenging me; a PhD from the Sorbonne in France; a professor from Yale Divinity; theoblog Calvinist apologists; you’re everday TULIP’rs et al. It turned out to be everything I could have hoped for, and more π !
But you know, after all of that, and these so many years since I started all that (officially with this blog, actually this blog originally started out on blogger back in about 2008, I think — but even before I started “The Evangelical Calvinist,” most of my previous blogs all had about the same tone — I would often challenge classic Calvinists, but prior to me coming to Evangelical Calvinism, I would do that through the “Affective Theology” that I learned in seminary from Ron Frost); I have lost the zeal to argue with TULIP guys/gals (that’s not to say I won’t). There really is no reason for it at this point. That’s not to say that the concepts of classic Calvinism aren’t errant anymore π , it’s just to say that I don’t feel the same motivation to “provoke” or “pick fights” like I used to. I honestly don’t think much of what I’ve said has made a dent for most classic Calvinists. In fact I would venture to say that if anything much of what I’ve communicated here has pushed many classic Calvinists further into their “classicism.” Ironically, I think Evangelical Calvinism is hard to understand, it appears to be more abstract than regular Calvinism; for most, apparently. And I find this really strange, since classic Calvinism reaches deeply into the philosophical realm with its decrees, primary and secondary causes, Unmoved Movers, etc. I digress.
All this to say: I think I will be changing my tone in regards to how I approach classic Calvinists and Arminians. In the future if I critique their position, I will attempt to do so with more dispassionate scholarly acumen; so as to appear “critical” and somewhat distanciated from the “personal” aspects of it. My style of blogging (like this post even) is to have an idea float through my head, sit down, and blog about it (just all off the top — usually). In the future, if I post something that critiques classic Calvinism; I will try to frame it with more thought, and try to do so in a way that isn’t looking forΒ a fight. None of this is to say that I agree with either classic Calvinism or Arminianism; I don’t! It’s just to say that my tone with this stuff will hopefully be changing. But you know what — and I’m sure you are picking up some of the skepticism in my voice — I don’t think that even if I frame my posts and critiques differently that that will change the response from those who are classic Calvinists. Anyway, we’ll see what happens . . .
Very interesting that you came to this conclusion regarding picking fights with classical Calvinists. I have come to a similar conclusion. My main area of interaction with them is on Facebook, yet the quality of the conversations is very uneven and not satisfying. No one’s mind is changed and I don’t have the sense that much enlightenment has occurred.
I have found your critique of classical Calvinism to be helpful as well as your critique of the common methodological approaches of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
I am considering starting a blog to focus more on theological issues, including some of the specifics of Torrance’s emphases and some Barthian issues as well as others. Right now it would probably be a few weeks before I could start anything.
Just in the last few days I thought an interesting long term project would be to compare various aspects of election in Calvin, Arminius and the Scottish Calvinists, including Torrance and Barth. I really consider Arminius to be a Reformed theologian in spite of what Dordt said. I would add to that the work on corporate election from Abasciano, Klein and others.
In any event keep bringing forth the Evangelical Calvinist perspective, I am finding it very helpful.
Hey Jon,
Yeah, after awhile it’s not as much fun as it once was. And more than that, it really is a serious issue (which is what really motivates me)! I followed one of your convos on FB on this issue (there was a female interlocutor who seemed to be bugged by you π ).
I’m glad you’ve found my critique helpful; that’s good to know!
That would be great if you started a blog, Jon! Let me know when you do.
Yeah, that would be an interesting project (to compare various strains of election). To me this is the greatest critique available toward the classic position from an EC (and Barthian) approach. I believe that the classic approach subordinates God’s life in Christ to the absolute decrees (including election) so that who God is is no longer free, but subordinated to the decrees and thus creation (or God’s life is shaped by the absolutum decretum). And this is something that most classics don’t ever seem to want to grasp or take seriously from Barth & co. and/or us EC’rs!
I guess more than one person has been bugged by me. LOL.
At the FB level everyone is pretty locked in to what their church or pastor or tradition teaches them. More serious work is done on blogs and then hopefully for some in books or journals.
I come from an Arminian background and have not really thought through how EC compares to Arminian theology in the important areas. I attended a Christian Church bible college -cessationist, Restoration Movement group. But I quickly found myself at odds with them when I started speaking in tongues and attending charismatic meetings. But it was a professor at this school that first turned me on to Torrance. I started reading a little of his work, but got stymied by Theological Science. Loved his essays in Theology in Reconstruction and Theology in Reconciliation. I also first read Barth at that school.
Then I went to an Assembly of God bible college and during that time read Mediation of Christ and Reality and Evangelical Theology. The concept of Evangelical Calvinism was not known to me then, but only recently since finding your blog. As I have studied on my own I have come to understand that I can’t agree with TULIP so my appreciation for Calvin per se has been mixed. But I also find that the Arminian concept of prevenient grace to be less than satisfying. Of course both men were courageous scholars and I respect them for their work.
So now I am revisiting a number of things and hoping to work my way through the morass into more clarity.
You said it seems many find EC to be “hard to understand, it appears to be more abstract than regular Calvinism; for most, apparently.” I wonder if this is because of the necessity of understanding the vicarious nature of Christ’s work. Whenever I talk to people about Christ’s vicarious life, faith, obedience, death, atonement, resurrection etc. they only tend to follow so far before they want to bring it back to them and what they have to do. – repent, exercise faith, obey God, etc. Of course we do these things, but to first understand the vicarious obedience of the Son seems to deny us our proper place of obedience. For many Christians this sounds like a foreign concept. Has that been your experience as well?
Jon,
Thanks for sharing more of your background. I always like to know where folks are coming from in their own personal development.
I do think that the vicarious point is rather hard to grasp. I also think that the reason that 5 point Calv is “easier” to understand is because it appeals to some straightforward intuitive categories that resonate more easily for people. Then also our whole theological culture in America has been conditioned by this kind of thinking so there are massive resources and culture to promote it. I think there is more to be said about the vicarious humanity of Christ, and how our humanity relates to that (which Jason Goroncy and Myk Habets in our book provide really good development on).
TFT obviously highly appreciated Calvin and constructively appropriates his insights; esp. Calvin’s thinking on the unio mystica (mystical union). And of course that’s how EC appropriates Calvin, constructively. Have you ever read TFT’s “Scottish Theology?” That book would make what EC is all about really clear for you! I will be doing a review on that book within a week, hopefully.
Keep at it, Jon!
Thanks, Bobby. I noticed a local library has Scottish Theology available so I was thinking I could get started on it.
Looking forward to your review.
Very much looking forward to when your book comes out.
I might add that I find the vicarious role of Christ as the second Adam and the faithful one in our stead as a more biblically satisfying understanding of how our own faith is related to God in response to the gospel than the typical monergistic model currently taught by the popular Reformed teachers – Sproul, Piper, etc.
Perhaps that would be a good blog post. How the vicarious faith and response of Jesus Christ works out for us and opens up for us a faith response as an more biblical understanding of the human response as opposed to the current monergism/synergism debate frames it. You may have already blogged on that. If so let me know.
Bobby,
It is good to use the blog for theological thinking and hopefully dialogue, but in the end, we all must live and walk in our so-called “theology”. And here simply we always must seek “Biblical” and hopefully “Spiritual” change. True Biblical and even systematic theology, hopefully therein, must always be a humbling task! But, we simply and most profoudly must also acknowledge that the CHURCH and culture is in certain apostasy! So any so-called Christian theology that does not see this is also sadly deficient!
@Jon,
It would be great if you could get your hands on Scottish Theology! Yes, I obviously believe vicariousness is much better than the normal alternatives. I think it sidesteps the whole constraints that typify the approach that folks like Sproul, Piper et al operate from. Yes, that would be a good blog post. I do have some posts on vicariousness (just check out my category “Vicarious”). There are a lot of things that would be good to post, but of course there is always the time issue; that’s why I blog more than I write papers π . I’ll try to post something along the lines you mention . . . that would be very good!
@Fr Robert,
What are you implying on the apostasy point? Are you suggesting that any innovation today in theology (that doesn’t jive with a perceived point in theological development from the past [i.e. as the gold standard]) might represent apostasy. Just because there is apostasy doesn’t mean everyone is in it just in an absolute necessary way. You’re not saying that though, right?
@Bobby,
No, I am not going that far, but I do believe the Church has always had some element of “apostasy”. But now ‘the Apostasy in the Church’ is even greater! Note, 2 Thess. 2: 3 ; 7 / and especially 2 Timothy. chapters 2, 3, & 4!
@Fr Robert,
I’m glad to hear you say that, and I would agree with you! To me the intensification of things fits well with Jesus’ birth pangs analogy (yest I just read through Timothies yesterday).
Wouldn’t we think we were living in fulfillment of Paul’s words if we lived during the rule of any one of these ten worst Pope’s?
http://www.oddee.com/item_96537.aspx
Apostasy started in the church in Paul’s day and has continued since then in varying degrees. Can we really objectively measure when one period is greater or lesser than another? Is that how we know we are in the last days? We have been in the last days since Jesus, haven’t we?
There is also great faithfulness today in the church. Evangelism is very strong around the world. People are being faithful in martyrdom in many countries today. Many young people are sold out for Christ. I think there is much cause for rejoicing in what God is doing in the church at large.
@Jon,
I agree; there has always been wheat and tare in the harvest of Christ. On any schema though there does seem to be an intensification that will take place. But I think that in a relative way, as you note, this should be understood on both “sides” as it were. There will always be the “faithful” remnant. How one discerns who that is becomes the question π . . . and thus the reason for blogs, so they can figure that out π .
And indeed how anyone can miss the modern Nation of Israel now in prophesy is just beyond me! Israel in their Land now is only a partial fulfillment at present, but a most important part. Certainly we know that biblically Christ is Coming back to the land of Israel and right to Jerusalem! (Zech. 14: 4, etc. and Acts 1:11-12) We must pay attention to the biblical covenant and covenants…both for Israel and Gentiles. But right now we are in ‘the times of the Gentiles’. (Lk.21:24 … The “times of the Gentiles” began with the captivity of Judah under Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chr. 36:1-21), since then Jerusalem has been under Gentile power. Note the Dome of the Rock Mosque standing in Jerusalem!
Fr Robert,
I think you should check out Suzanne McDonald’s “Re-imaging Election,” I think you would really appreciate it! Although she works constructively with NT Wright, Barth, Owen, Grenz, Volf, James Torrance and a few others; nevertheless, I think you’d appreciate it (even though its not dispy, although it could easily be fitted into a progressive dispy model).
Bobby,
Back a bit, I saw a friends copy. But, “Election” needs to be simply biblical, though that certainly includes God’s mystery. We must live with those biblical tensions! I must say however, that I am fast moving away from most of N.T. Wright, he is an example of today’s Neo-Orthodox. And well beyond people like Brunner, etc.
Fr Robert,
That’s why I liked her book though, and why I said I think you’d probably appreciate it (inspite of NT Wright et al); I think it is quite “Biblical” in orientation; it gets away from the metaphysical aspects and focuses on the biblical salvation history of representation. The funny thing is, is that I think Brunner typifies what the actual Neo-Orthodox was about (e.g. keeping room for the analogy of being) vs. Barth & co. But that’s a side issue to our discussion here.
Bobby,
Also on a side note, I can remember the so-called Kelly Brethren being very Calvinist, of course they didn’t like the term. I actually remember a ‘Brethren’ elder telling me, that they preached or believed in Calvinism but with Free Grace. And Darby was very Calvinist somewhat, but without limited atonement.
Yes, I am aware of Brunner and Barth’s differences, funny but somehow I would side with Brunner. But Barth is/was certainly the truer dialectic.
Fr Robert,
Yes, I knew Darby was quite Calvinist; and in fact many early dispies were Pressies, interestingly!
Yes, Barth was a real dialectic; of course so am I, but in terms of being satisfied with certain tensions in the Scriptures (vs. scholastic coherence).
Bobby,
I know you won’t agree, but I don’t see Barth’s dialectic much different from a kind of scholasticism, I mean in the end product. It is simply another form of Hegelian type, note “type” logic to me. Whereas “scholasticism” is also seen, somewhat in Jewish Hellenism. But certainly we cannot press this all too hard, but note again Gal. 4:4…”in the fulness of time”, we are all subject to that, i.e. time. It is best to just live within that reality, and the presupposition of Scripture itself.
Fr Robert,
Actually I do agree with you. So I am referring to dialectic, personally, in a more denotative sense vs. Barth’s connotative. This is another reason why I’m not Barth[ian] π .
And when I say “personal” I mean my own belief.