For the life of me! I have no idea how every single person who reads here has not become an Evangelical Calvinist by now. I mean with stuff like this:
God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.” ~T. F. Torrance, “The Mediation of Christ”, 94.
How can you click away and pretend like you didn’t just read that? I continue to be amazed at folks who stay on the same old tired path of either trodding down the classic Calvinist or Arminian trail. As if this is the only alternative. The Lord had you find your way over here for a reason; it’s about time that you repent and become an Evangelical Calvinist. Once you do you’ll never look back!
I absolutely love that quote for Torrance! It leaves me awe of God our Savior, and His love for us! π
I meant “from” Torrance….Guess I was a little excited as I was typing my response! π
I just don’t know a dang thing about Evangelical Calvinism. I like the quote though…
I think the problem for me is not the first part of the quote (I love it) but this,
“He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.β
To me it is a bit unclear. If you damn yourself to hell, how are you bound to christ, which then means ( I presume) you would benefit from that relationship. How can you be bound to christ and be in hell, it seems contradictory. Unless you believe in universal salvation.
I would love to be a E.C. but I think 1. I haven’t had my questions cleared up
2. I don’t understand the big story which it is telling. which leads to
3. I get lost in the details and nuances of what E.C. is teaching.
Bobby, maybe a post on the large narrative of E.C. would be helpful. Maybe huge strokes and key details would help me convert. Peace, K.
Hi Bobby! I like the close!
I’m there, but I still look back (and around and under and inside and…). I think it is ingrained in my personallity to “forever” backcheck myself.
Bobby,
I hate to tell you this, but Torrance’s statement moves right in line with the EO, in fact you could say that it is a first step to Orthodoxy! People choose hell in spite of the grace of God, so in essence the the fallen human will is stronger than God’s love and grace? Well not for the real Calvin, or Luther or really the best of the Reformers. Yeah, remember them old guys? π
I am not really a full Federal Calvinist, but I am I think a Pauline and Biblical one! π
Chris,
cool π !
Ryan,
We have a book coming out this next winter sometime. I’ll be emailing you soon.
Kenny,
Alright, I’ll spend some time and write a post like that; be on the look out. The bound to Christ and hell part would be noting how Christ is firstborn from the dead and supreme over all creation (like in Col 1); coupled with the idea that the incarnation necessitates that he assumed sinful humanity (all) II Cor 5:21.
Fr Robert,
No, it’s not EO. But certainly there are overtures in that direction since TFT actually had a “Reformed” doctrine of Theosis in his theology (see my friend’s book “Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance” by Myk Habets). As far as the will being stronger than God’s love; no, instead understanding the causal why on that would be considered a non-starter for ‘EC’ just like in scripture — we don’t know why Adam and Eve sinned in the first place (scripture never says, only if one first posits a decretal God can we speculate about an answer to that, but that’s not “Biblical” so ‘EC’ chooses to live with a dialectic tension at that point).
And the reason ‘EC’ is not Arminian or some such is because it has a totally different doctrine of God than Arminian, it has a totally different methodology, and it has God choosing for all humanity in Christ such as regular Calvinism does etc.
Bobby,
To my mind anyway, the Scripture itself posits a sovereign-decretal God! I am an “Augustinian”.. and a Pauline Calvinist! Say, maybe I should start a new theology…’Pauline Calvinism’? The only problem is, it is simply already Biblical! π
Sorry Bobby, this has always been my rub…the EC is indeed more Arminian than Calvinist! (In my mind at least) π
Fr Robert,
To me its a sovereign-loving God! You could start a new theology called ‘Augustinian Calvinism’ (vs. Pauline) . . . oh wait π !
Fr Robert,
You’ll have to explain how you think EC is more Arminian given the stipulations I previously cited; i.e. what makes EC much different than Arminianism based upon its own inner-constraints-and methodology.
Btw, Augustine, I’m afraid is much different than his Thomist post-Reformed orthodox appropriation (see the theology of Richard Sibbes and “The Spiritual Brethren” Calvinists).
Bobby,
It is not really my task to go against the EC, but I think if theological Christians look at it deeply and long enough, they will see that is not really “Calvinist”! I say this theologically, for the EC is a heavy theological construct. And speaking in a friendly, but certain manner, I don’t think the EC will catch the average evangelical Christian. Its just too top heavy! Of course some of this is my opinion. π
Richard Sibbes is hardly known, even within modern Calvinism. And I say this sadly really!
We all have our opinions. Of course that’s why we have a book coming out. And I would suggest that the only reason “regular Calvinism” isn’t considered “top-heavy” is because its had a lot of time to create its own sub-culture and conditions (or lot’s of propaganda).
Richard Sibbes is unfortunately only known through Mark Dever’s PhD diss on him vs. my mentor’s diss on him which identifies Sibbes as a primary leader of a non-Federal (anti-Westminster) strand of Calvinism.
Bobby,
I think you can see that I am moving away from a overt Federal and even Creedal Calvinism, for a Biblical, or what I call ‘Pauline’ Calvinism. But, GOD must certainly be GOD, and note Luther is even here also! (Sadly old Dr. Luther gets left out too often!) π
Fr Robert,
You often refer to your position as ‘Biblical’, but that is question begging; what Christian doesn’t think their respective view is ‘Biblical’?
I think that EC is top heavy for us, because “we” are doing the lifting. In traditional Calvinism, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Beza did the heavy lifting, and the one reared in that tradition accepts that God is the unmoved mover (defined in the traditional sense), and He could not create a stone that He could not (would not?)lift. Feds don’t have to justify their position, they simply point to it (e.g. total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc.)and smile. It’s the path of least resistence.
For me, the path of least resistence is EC, because I can not lift the burden of a loving creator, who sovereignly chose me by his grace, while plausibly consigning my brother to hell, not because my brother is more worthy of hell than am I, but because, because, because, … oh that is the Feds point of mystery: Why one and not the other? It is also a path of lesser resistance v. arminianism, because I know that no man can will himself worthy to any degree in the least way.
That is not to say, Fr Robert, that you and others as studied as yourself have not done some difficult study to come to your conclusions. But I can see in some of your points the presuppositions driving your conclusions. You write [under EC] “the fallen human will is stronger than Godβs love and grace?” I would answer no, but the love of God loves everyone without partiallity, just as Proverbs demands, so that everyone must be treated equitably. Then God has provided an ability for every man to finally reject his Savior, or else everyone is saved.
I only KNOW that GOD CAN NOT love and forgive one person and hate and condemn another without equal justification. That would be sin, and God can not sin. If I’m saved by the Grace of God, and a retired KGB agent in Russia is lost, and neither of us is more worthy of our “election”, then there has to be something that justifies the Lord’s choosing (poor choice of words, but I hope it gets the point across). π
Duane,
I would place the Biblical Doctrine of God in Scripture Revelation rather than mere logic. As Romans 9, and Romans 9 is connected to Romans 10 and 11. God answers to no human logical construct, certainly! Note Romans 11:33-36.
Hi Bobby,
I have not read Thomas Torrance’s works but I think this quote is superb. I am a neo-Anabaptist and ex Calvinist but am asking myself these questions. Is a compassionate Calvinism possible? Can one reject the decreetal theology of the Westminster Confession and remain a Calvinist? Can one reject Calvin’s view of penal subsitution with its retributive punishment and still be a Calvinist? Can one reject just war theory held to by Augustine, Calvin and others and be a Calvinist pacifist?
My previous Calvinism was based on conservative interpretations of the Westminster Confession and I have since moved strongly away from Calvinism. However, I recently discovered your blog and think I may need to read a Torrance view of Calvinism and maybe work towards a compassionate Calvinist neo-Anabaptism, if this is possible?
I wondered if you could do some blog posts in the future on these topics, if you haven’t already. I recently did a post on Is a compassionate Calvinism possible? I was doubtful, but a presbyterian pastor made a response which causes me to think that it may be possible and your quote from Torrance adds further confirmation. However, I need to do some more serious reading of your form of Calvinsim. May I have permisssion to use your above quote on Torrance on my blog with due reference to your blog?
Shalom,
John Arthur
Hi John,
I’ve done a lot of posts that deal directly with your questions. Somebody who might fit in even more with your disposition is a friend of mine named Randy Boswell; you can check out his blog here: http://randyboswell.wordpress.com
I’ll find some links to posts that I’ve done, and paste them here; just give me a chance. Thanks. Yes, certainly, use the quote, I’d be happy if you did! I’ll respond more to you later, gotta run at the moment . . .
Thanks for the reply Fr. Robert.
I’m way too tired to respond to the comment about logic. Just to say that logic is not my basis, but a basal visceral repulsion of favoritism, or inequity. I wrote those thoughts in my blog here: http://foreknownelect.blogspot.com/
More importantly, in the last entry there, “Fresh Air From Romans” I find nothing in Romans that electionists find so conclusive. It’s all about national Israel and opening the Gospel up to the gentiles, and faith v. works.
Back to the favoritism point, I find the idea of a God who would treat people inequitably, repugnant. Certainly any god who is almighty can create any people he wishes, and treat them any way he wishes, and they have no “right” to answer him back. But all things being equal (all people are equally guilty before god) I would prefer a god that would righteously condemn all of US together to suffer eternal hell fire, or else righteously pardon all of us equally, than to have a god who would pick favorites like your average playground bully, only this bully would bring his friends to play in his pool, and those whom he rejected, he would send to eternal hellfire, to crackle and sizzle forever. To me, this is as deep an immorallity as any I have heard from any but the most base religion. “Have ye a conscience now?”
Hey Duane,
I didn’t even know you had that blog, I’ll have to add that to my blogroll π !
Hi Bobby! I thought you knew about that one. It was one of those intensive back check moments – “ok, I’ve always been against this, maybe I’m wrong. What are these guys seeing in Romans, etc?”
Good night!
Duane,
We must always grapple with the Text and Scripture, and note Rom. 9:14-18. Surely Romans 9 teaches both national and personal salvation! Btw, note in Romans 9:8, that the “children of the flesh”, Abrabam’s other children by Hagar, etc. were simply not chosen to receive the national promises. Paul then moves on into the essence of the sovereign grace of God, verses 21-24, etc.
Duane,
Of course it will depend on the hermeneutical assumptions that you bring to Rom 9 that will then shape many of one’s interpretive decisions.
Right! Abraham’s other children were not chosen to be part of Israel. How could they? Israel came from Isaac, by definition not “other children”.
Irrelevant anyhow. Surely you are not saying that one has to be a son of Isaac to be saved? Then what exactly are you saying?
Ok Yeah! Potter’s vessel. I’ve heard parents say (or yell) “I BROUGHT YOU INTO THIS WORLD. I CAN TAKE YOU OUT OF IT!” Do you believe that is true?
Father Robert, do you honestly believe that there is an essential analogy between a lump of clay that can be reduced to dust or heated to utter destruction, without so much as a hint of displeasure from the lump of clay, and a human soul, which from the day he or she is born, is born to trouble and anguish, from which he or she is powerless to free themselves? Is there a comparison between that lump of clay in an eternal lake of fire, and a human soul?
Now, if you read the context of what God is choosing, He is choosing a vessel to honor and a vessel to dishonor. Nothing of hellfire and brimstone. Of National Israel taken out of the way, until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled. Any discussion of God’s choosing for personal salvation, you will find is attended with belief v. unbelieve. They sought God’s grace but they could not find it. Why? because they sought it through the obedience of the law. But Abraham found the grace of GOd by faith. As it is written “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him as righteousness.” They obtained righteousness by faith.
http://foreknownelect.blogspot.com/2009/11/fresh-air-from-romans.html
Oh! One other thing…. I’ve heard the argument before, claims to be anti-arminian: A man can not obligate God in any way by his own actions. I never felt like [i] was obligating God by trusting Him. BUT God can and does obligate Himself. God who can not lie swears (His Word Is oath) that he who believes in Him will have everlasting life. Son obligates Himself to His Father, to save all who trust in Him. Father obligates Himself to His Son, and so on. If you (Aristotle) change the argument craftily enough you may win, in the temporal. Certainly for you Father Robert and I, it is not about winning an argument. I put it simply as possible: My conscience (my God given sense of right and wrong) boils at the thought of a god who would think no more of his creatures than to create them to be eternal sentient beings, and then take the majority of them (or even if it was a small minority, like a lotto) and have some saved and loved by god by a roll of the heavenly dice, and others not just anihilated, but boiled in their own flesh for eternity.
You might say “but don’t you see? We all deserve to be so boiled? We are just blessed because we were saved by grace?”
My response then should be that the Nazi concentration camp collaborator should be thankful that god’s grace is extended to them, because after all, everyone present deserves eternal damnation, so any relief, even at the cost of other human souls, is just god’s grace. For that matter the concentration camp guard who believes in Jesus, may be doing the Lord’s work?
I know, Father Robert that you do not believe this, but I can not grasp the essential difference.
According to what I believe (which does not make it true, only the truth is true) God is fully capable of creating us and re-creating us, so that in the final analyses, we can receive what He has given us – Himself, or we can reject Him and His gift. He has obligated Himself, if not to us, then to His Father, to receive and freely give to all who trust Him. To say “well no can trust Him” makes the offer meaningless, trite and a fools bargain. I Duane Watts will give 10 trillion dollars to the mortal human who flies a space craft to the surface of the sun and returns unharmed by next Tuesday. Silly and pointless eh?
“All who believe in Me…..” Silly? Pointless?
This is a superb quote. I like Torrance precisely for this kind of sayings. But I really don’t understand all the talk about EC. First of all, it’s not the way Torrance himself thought and wrote. He looked for ecumenical chances without obscuring real differences between the various traditions in christianity. And second, why is it so important for you to have a nice new theological ‘box’, called EC. Gives it a certain feeling of certainty? Or of belonging together? I really don’t understand. I like Torrance very much, but I don’t like this EC-thing at all. Do you really think that’s the best way to serve God as a theologian? I can’t imagine…
@AT,
Read TFT’s “Scottish Theology”. I would engage you a little more, but I don’t like doing so with folks who comment anonymously; esp. when you are trying to hold me to some kind of level of perceived accountability in re. to being a theologian. Having said that, it doesn’t seem like you’ve really read much TFT since within the circles TFT is known for being quite rouge and hyper-critical of Federal Calvinism (more than myself, really) — in fact that’s true for both James and Thomas Torrance! The language of Evangelical Calvinism comes from Torrance himself in his book Scottish Theology; he uses it in a very polarizing way, contra Federal Calvinism. My blog is a blog, and thus has sought (esp. in the past) to be provocative and challenge Federal Calvinists (not any different than TFT might do . . . although he would even be harder than me, methinks). This blog is a personal blog, so “EC” isn’t self-same with this blog, per se. Nevertheless “EC” has an identifiable set of contours, it is a constructive work; and not totally dependent upon TFT (I just like TFT, so that’s who I press quite a bit in my “blog” writings). Read my tab on the “EC Book” above. Check out the blurb, we are saying that “EC” is a mood not a movement. And who said I’m not looking for “ecumenical chances,” whatever you mean by that? Remember this is a blog, and thus it seeks to provoke discussion with edges included; it’s a place to think out-loud.
Anyway, if you want to identify yourself, I’ll be happy to talk with you more; I just always find it ironic though when people (like you) try to challenge other people (like me), and remain anonymous (as if I’m supposed to respect an electronic voice . . . I don’t think so)!
Thanks for your reply. First, I don’t know why I remained anonymous. Wasn’t my intention. It should be better now: I properly logged in, so by clicking on AT you can find anything you want.
Second, you make repeatedly the connection between EC and TFT, so don’t be surprised when I’m asking you a couple of questions about it. But alright, I understand you are not EC-in-person. However, I keep wondering what the purpose of the EC-thing is.
Third, I’ve read more of TFT than you supposed. Never mind. Let me ‘translate’ my question, so you may understand me better. You refer to his book ‘Scottish Theology’ and to his brother James Torrance. Does that mean that EC is trying to ‘convert’ federal calvinists and the like? That’s fine with me. But you said, the aim is ‘constructive’, not arguing against… Don’t you think that should have implications for your style, even if this is a blog?
I hope I made my questions more clear now. You can leave the personal questions in my former comment aside, that’s OK. I can understand that annoyed you somewhat.
Amen Bobby, your arguing for much more than a mood, at least to my mind! π
@AT,
Your name is still not linking to your blog or whatever; just comment under guest, and copy and past your url into the little form thingy below (I do have this thing about anonymous commenters [I realize we’re all somewhat anonymous here in the sphere]), I like to know a little about who I’m interacting with since I’m pretty much an open book myself [at my own choosing of course]).
No, I’m not surprised that you would want to question me about TFT and EC, esp. if I often appeal to TFT and make him an EC par execellence etc. (of course he made up that nomenclature so it seems to follow that it would be associated with him).
I don’t really suppose much at all about how much of TFT you’ve read; as of yet I haven’t a clue to who you are. But based upon your surprise in your initial comment (about me associating EC with TFT); you’ll have to understand why you caused me surprise by not being able to recognize any kind of significant connection between the two — esp. since TFT coined the language in his book “Scottish Theology” and even develops it relative to the various Scots he’s surveying. If Federal Calvinists want to convert to Scottish Theology, or non-Federal Calvinism (or TFT’s “EC”) then may their tribe increase; that’s really not my primary intention. They are more of an rhetorical foil for EC; esp. since what is considered to be Calvinism today is flat and rather monolithic (at least in many parts of America). And yes, “constructive” because we appeal to Calvin, TFT, Barth, and a host of other theologians in the Reformed tradition (most would be considered heretics by post-Reformed orthodox types). So EC, in my mind, is seeking to layer the history of Calvinism; from the history itself, and then constructively relative to the material contours that Myk Habets and I have sketched (in our forthcoming book) that we see associated with what we have appropriated from the lexicon of TFT as EC. So maybe there is a movement and a mood (many of our authors for the book would not agree with all of the Theses that Myk and I have associated with the language of EC . . . that’s why I would say its still a mood, because it basically identifies itself within an ethos that is non-correlative with Federal Calvinism).
This blog has a history. I started this blog (and my thinking) quite some time ago. My blogging style has always been bloggy and provocative; I know it doesn’t fit within the normal parameters that careful nuanced budding theologian types normally find sophisticated enough — but I really don’t care so much.
Let me ask you (and I’d still like to know who you are, so hopefully you can get me a link to your blog or bio page so I can know with whom I’m dealing . . . this actually matters to me); you say in the second comment to me that you’re going to bypass the “personal” stuff. Ironically, your question to me is hyper-personal; you don’t like my blogging style and approach. So how would you approach things if you were trying to communicate what I’m communicating? And like I said, this blog is a work in progress (meaning that I am); so if I could go back and change some things I would. I wouldn’t be quite as brash in my comments contra Muller etc. My tone may change a little. But as far as I can see, EC has identifiable contours of belief, and thus insofar as those contours rebuff those of her Federal cousins it will most likely produce critique and maybe even some heat (hopefully inclusive of light); I don’t have any problems with that though. If I was sin, in general, with this blog; I would delete it, per my style. But to me, I’m not; so I won’t.
I just googled you, and found you at Ben Myer’s blog (your link worked there). Yes, that helps me have a little background to who you are and what some of your motivations might be. In lieu of that, and since I know you background a little, I will say that EC, the way I approach at the blog, is for the “people” not academics, per se (the book will cover that). In other words, I often use “EC” the way I do, in order to differentiate it from the normal Calvinism that most think of when they hear the word “Calvinism” or “Calvinist;” something of a hook, then.
Anyway, great to hear from you; btw, I am surrounded by a cohort of TFT guys (some knew TFT personally, some who were his students, some who have their PhD’s on him, and some even related). And none of them have any problem with associating the language of “EC” with TFT (even conceptually); that’s not to say they would all endorse my blogging style (probably), but that is to say that I feel comfortable about the fact that I think TFT would actually appreciate what Myk and I are trying to do with his language and conceptual matter that he labeled Evangelical Calvinism.
Fr Robert,
We all have our opinions.