Here is something taken from my EC Themes that I wanted to reiterate. I am planning on blogging through a central book for Evangelical Calvinism (in fact it is where the language of Evangelical Calvinism comes from); that is Thomas F. Torrance’s Scottish Theology. And the quote in this post from Torrance comes from said book. I have taken some heat from fellow Calvinists for trying to draw a hard and fast distinction between Calvinisms like I do in this post (following TFT’s lead). That is because many Calvinists have bought into Richard Muller’s thesis, in toto, that Calvinism in its finished form comes to fruition in the Westminster Standards. I do not follow Muller on this reading of things (that’s not to say I don’t think Muller has nothing good to say, I do … to a degree). Here is the body of the post:
Here is a quote from T. F. Torrance, from the preface of his book Scottish Theology. This really captures the distinction and nuance that I am trying to make through this blog for the uninitiated (thus far). That indeed there is a rift between what has been called Federal Calvinism (or what I’ve been calling “Classic”), and Evangelical Calvinism (or “Scottish Theology”). TFT is introducing his book, and giving some of the rationale for writing it.
In Chapter One on John Knox and the Scottish Reformation, I have offered a general account of the deep doctrinal change that took place, but in the succeeding chapters I have tried to focus on the main issues that arose as a result of the adherence of the Church of Scotland to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Following upon the teaching of the great Reformers there developed what is known as ‘federal theology’, in which the place John Calvin gave to the biblical conception of the covenant was radically altered through being schematised to a framework of law and grace governed by a severely contractual notion of covenant, with a stress upon a primitive ‘covenant of works’, resulting in a change in the Reformed understanding of ‘covenant of grace’. This was what Protestant scholastics called ‘a two-winged’, and not ‘a one-winged’ covenant, which my brother James has called a bilateral and a unilateral conception of the Covenant. The former carries with it legal stipulations which have to be fulfilled in order for it to take effect, while the latter derives from the infinite love of God, and is freely proclaimed to all mankind in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was the imposition of a rigidly logicalised federal system of thought upon Reformed theology that gave rise to many of the problems which have afflicted Scottish theology, and thereby made central doctrines of predestination, the limited or unlimited range of the atoning death of Christ, the problem of assurance, and the nature of what was called ‘the Gospel-offer’ to sinners. This meant that relatively little attention after the middle of the seventeenth century was given to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and to a trinitarian understanding of redemption and worship. Basic to this change was the conception of the nature and character of God. It is in relation to that issue that one must understand the divisions which have kept troubling the Kirk [church] after its hard-line commitment to the so-called ‘orthodox Calvinism’ of the Westminster Standards, and the damaging effect that had upon the understanding of the World of God and the message of the Gospel. . . . (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology,” x-xi)
This encapsulates the motivation for the blog here; my desire is to alert folks to the reality that TF is speaking to. Here TFT highlights the development of a tradition of Calvinism that is particular to Scotland; but, also want to note that this phenomenon was not unique to the Scots. This kind of development was also, contemporaneously, at play in England as well; Janice Knight has identified this branch of development within Calvinism, as The Spiritual Brethren (as opposed to The Intellectual Fathers — the Westminster Divines).
Calvinists of today, need to know, that they aren’t the only Calvinist ‘orthodoxy’ around; that history is not on their side, per se. Even more importantly, beyond history, I really do not believe that scripture is on their side — by and large.
Anyway, I hope this quote gives you more insight on where many of my cues have been and are coming from. I also hope that if you are into ‘federal theology’ that this will at least make you pause.
Nice to see you starting this series of posts on Scottish Theology. Looking forward to the series. Maybe I will read the book through in line with your posts. That would be a good way to focus on it.
Jon,
That would be great if you read along. I think its time for me to work through that book again (4th time π ). Plus I am still supposed to provide a review for it (T&T Clark sent me a review copy). My review will be an extended version π .
Beautiful. A Calvinism even a Lutheran can love. (Albeit a Barthian Lutheran…) Reminds me a great deal of Luther’s conflict against the Latin theology in favor of a more classical patristic synthesis.
Muller is quite useful — for what he’s useful for. I’ve never had quite such an appreciation of the founding American Reformed influences as he brings to light. And yet these are not “Calvinism” as though summative of it.
I look forward to following along with you down this line — I need more TFT in my life. π
Bobby:
It’s interesting you’re pointing out this distinction regarding different understandings of “covenant.” I’ve become increasingly struck over the last year or two at how fundamentally divergent the Westminster “covenants” are from the actual covenants that are there in the Bible.
The historical significance and redemptive weight of the biblical covenants are watered down somewhat when they are subsumed into a single “Covenant of Grace” that papers over important differences between them. And of course there are huge eschatological and ecclesiological implications that arise out of one’s understanding of covenants.
Is this what lies at the distinction between scholasticism and the “Scottish theology” you espouse? And what implications does this have for other areas of theology?
@Matt,
It is always good to have a Barthian-Lutheran around; it keeps us Evangelical Calvinists honest π . We agree on Muller and American Calvinism.
And I couldn’t agree more with you on your last point π !
Hey Stefan,
Great to hear from you; it’s been awhile.
I’m curious on your point about their being one covenant for the Westminsters. There are at least two—Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace—if not three (for some even then), the Covenant of Redemption (or Pactum Salutis). If you’re referring to TFT’s point about a single will of God (vs. two wills as Federal Calv has), then I would need more clarification from you on how you think a papering over occurs? Indeed, there are huge implications relative to eschatology/ecclesiology christology etc. One for an Evangelical Calvinist is that we see God’s life as eschatological wherein creation finds her telos or purpose by the in-breaking of God’s life in Christ for us (election). You are probably referring to eschatological schemas though; like amil, premil postmil etc.; right?
Could you clarify what you’re looking for in re. to your question on “the distinction between scholasticism and the “Scottish Theology?” And could you also clarify how you think following a Covenant of Grace and single will in God waters down redemptive history relative to the bib covenants?
Bobby:
As you know, CT holds all the post-Adamic covenants (Noahic, Mosaic, Abrahamic, Davidic, New) to be subsumed under a single “Covenant of Grace,” which smooths over and sometimes obscures distinctions between them. Of course, there are also the Covenants of Works and Redemption. (And note that the Covenant of Works is held to have only been between God and Adam, and abrogated when Adam and Eve committed their transgression.) There is some biblical basis for all the three of these theological covenants, but elevating them above the covenants that are actually there in Scripture and calling the result “covenant theology” is–in my frail and flawed opinion–somewhat misleading.
As for scholasticism versus Scottish theology, perhaps I’m using the wrong nomenclature. What I was referring to is the startling degree to which systematic theologies develop into creatures that go beyond what’s plainly there in Scripture. One may start by exegetic basic theological principles from the Bible, but then through reasoning and deduction, one may arrive at conclusions that are not themselves scriptural, but are eisegetically read back into Scripture. It’s becoming increasingly apparent to me that this is a pervasive tendency–and one to which all Christians may be prone to one degree or another–but is there even among those of us who profess to be “sola scriptura.” There are probably half a dozen secondary doctrines where you or I can see this disconnect taking place.
2nd paragraph correction:
“One may start by exegeting basic theological principles…”
Stefan,
I agree with you that “Covenant Theology,” proper provides an artificial ground for interpreting Scripture; but my thought is because of a flawed doctrine of God. Evangelical Calvinism follows one Covenant of Grace (no Works), but the ground of this Covenant is God’s life of grace for us in Christ (so creation becomes the external concretization of the Covenant, of which God’s life in Christ is the inner reality). This way Scripture and the Covenants take on a proper orientation in their relation to Christ so that we don’t end up logically deducing Covenants from God’s work in creation (separate from the person of God’s life, thus placing a rupture between God’s person and work), where we then end up with an artificial submersion of the biblical covenants with a schema that is not personally rooted in God’s life. I wonder if that makes any sense to you? π
2) I think prolegomena and hermeneutical commitments definitely play a fundamental role in how we discern what “Biblical” is. If someone is seeking, methodologically, to ground all of their bib interpretation “in Christ,” in priniciple; then this will look different from someone who interprets scripture through a soteriological lense (by way of order). The difference in the history could be a comparison of Barth juxtaposed with Calvin. Barth would be christocentric in his interpretation (in principle), and Calvin would be through a soteriological lense (this plays itself out in their variant understandings of election).
But in general I do agree that we want to avoid eisogesis, but again discerning and admitting our prior theological and hermeneutical commitments will go along way in determining whether we are being consistent with the inner-logic that Scripture demands. In other words, reading Scripture is an inescapably theological exercise; its Trinitarian shape (both in the OT and NT) bears witness to that.
Bobby:
You asked, “I wonder if that makes any sense to you?”
Well, I think you have some very good things to say and I want to follow your logic, but to be perfectly honest, it is sometimes difficult because of the language you couch your ideas in. You seem to be saying that your theology posits a single Covenant of Grace, the ground of which is “God’s life of grace for us in Christ,” and which is externally concretized in creation. These are all concepts that need to be unpacked. If I were to take the time and go back through your older blog posts and read them in light of this principle, would that help to unpack these concepts?
And how then do we understand the biblical covenants? How do God’s covenants with and through Abraham, Moses, or Jesus Christ fit in? Are they outworkings of this single Covenant of Grace? Part of the issue yours truly has with CT is its tendency to “spiritualize away” many of the concrete prophetic promises of the OT, and at the same time blur the distinction between the OT economy–covenant communities; obedience to the Law–and God’s gracious provisions in the Gospel. (I know this is a dispensationalist objection, but I’m coming to this from my own studies; and I don’t agree with the doctrine of a pretrib rapture.)
I’ve been a born again Christian for nearly five years now, and under the teaching of a very good church. But as far as online theology is concerned, the more I walk in faith and study the Word, the more I see a disconnect between what’s clearly taught in Scripture, and some of the things that are unquestioningly believed by this or that segment of the neo-Reformed community. (In fact, my main issue is not with CT, but with certain other popular doctrines that are espoused–especially on one blog we’re both familiar with–and the errant attitudes and behaviour that some of these beliefs seem to engender in some folks.) I’m just trying to understand where these ideas are coming from.
Stefan,
I agree, the way I talk is somewhat cloaked sometimes; the only people who would come close to getting what I am saying, in the way I am saying it, are folks who have read Thomas Torrance; I apologize. I will try to be more clear, and directly answer your questions tomorrow.
I am very sensitive to your background, since in many ways it was mine (dispensationalism).
Hi, Bobby:
Actually, I come from an atheist-agnostic background! I’ve never fully embraced dispensationalism…I went through CT first, and even explored NCT, but for the most part have taken a posttrib premill reading of Scripture. Nevertheless, I appreciate the work of folks like, say, Michael Vlach, who do a good job of grounding their eschatology in Scripture.
And to expand on my last comment, I have come to wonder at how certain secondary doctrines–limited atonement or hard cessationism, for example–have become so entrenched to the point of being marks of orthodoxy for some people, and this in spite of the fact that they cannot be derived directly from Scripture but must be deduced indirectly. (Sorry, I know it’s off topic, and I’m opening a whole can of worms here!)
What hermeneutical conditions give rise to such phenomena, and how do they manifest themselves in the way that some of their proponents interact with other Christians? To what degree are they engendered by the scholasticism that gave rise to and flowed out of Westminster (and by extension the LBCF)?
What can be learned from starting over again from the same fundamental principles–the Trinitarian nature of God; the sovereignty of God; the sinfulness of man; the inerrancy, perspecuity, and sufficiency of Scripture–but stripping away the post-Reformational theological accretions?
Stefan,
You hit on many important issues; more than I can address at the moment. Thank you for sharing a bit of your background, that helps provide more context. I will provide brief responses, and then hopefully later hit some of what you are getting at with more depth (I have answered some of these with more depths through various posts in the past, but don’t have the time to link them up here at the moment).
2) I think there is a theo-logic upon which Scripture turns and presupposes. So for example, when Paul closes his second letter to Corinth he leaves us with his so called Trinitarian Benediction. He had to assume certain things, theologically, in order to close the epistle that way; and that is what the inner-logic is all about. This is part of the theologian’s task, to lay bare what is there by supposition on the NT or OT author’s part. This is what has led me to follow more of a theological exegetical approach vs. what has been called the Literal Grammatical Historical (which IMO is a result of logically deducing points and then constructing a schema from that that is superimposed on the text). I think there is a difference between this approach and what I am referring to as theological exegesis in the sense that the latter flows from a different doctrine of God (i.e. it is not Thomist, Aristotelian, Ramist, or scholastic).
3) I think in general, Stefan, following a natural theology gives rise to the “hermeneutical conditions” that you are wondering about. It is basically the result of placing a wedge between God’s being and his works. So that, by method, we read God’s works in creation as accidents of history and thus in static and impersonal ways. Or we understand God’s dealings with creation through impersonal decrees, and thus there is an implicit distinction between how God works in salvation history, revealed in Scripture, and who He is in himself (there is no personal relation). Too much to try and explain here; see my most recent post on Torrance’s rejection of Federal Calvinism, he is getting at some of the points I am here.
4) What can be learned? Evangelical Calvinism π
Bobby:
Thanks for your replies. I’ll keep on reading, and I’ve been doing a fair amount of reading elsewhere as well.
For example, I just found this article by M. James Sawyer–a DTS alumnus–on the post-Englightenment rationalistic epistemology that unspokenly frames so much of modern-day theological discourse.
In spite of our claims of “sola scriptura,” how many steps removed have we become from a genuinely biblical hermeneutic? And how is it that the gap is so unnoticeable to so many intelligent, discerning, godly people? I feel like I’m in the middle of Plato’s cave metaphor!
Stefan,
I’ll have to check out that article when I get a chance. Ironically, I would say that that “rationalist epistemology” has impacted “Evangelical” theology and biblical study more than anyone else!
I’ve come to believe that a “biblical hermeneutic” follows in the paths of the Apostle’s style of exegeting the promises made in the OT in lieu of their fulfillment in the NT. I follow, what I would like to call, a “Christian hermeneutic;” meaning, that methodologically and in principle I start exegesis with Christ as the intensive focal point of all of Scripture (which presupposes a Trinitarian shape). Karl Barth and TF Torrance exemplify this style of hermeneutics in their approach.
But this point you raise about “sola scriptura,” is what I used to always challenge our brethren with at Pyromaniacs; of course they didn’t like that π .
“…a ‘biblical hermeneutic’ follows in the paths of the Apostleβs style of exegeting the promises made in the OT in lieu of their fulfillment in the NT”
That’s exactly what I would affirm as well! (I assume you mean “in light of,” not “in lieu of.” Not to be persnickety, but it makes a significant difference in meaning!)
And on your last paragraph, this has become a major source of my disillusionment. Arguing a point with unwavering dogmatism does not necessarily make it any more biblical!
Stefan,
Yes, in “light;” that’s what you get from me when I’ve had 5 hrs of sleep and a 12.5 hr shift at work π .
I am glad we agree on the last paragraph π .