Being an Evangelical Calvinist (as defined), or Athanasian Reformed, entails being positive in approach. That is, we aren’t interested in repristination or mimicry of the past; even as we resource and listen intently to it. As Protestant Christians we are regulated by a slavish commitment to a theology of the Word, and it is through that lens that we engage with the communion of the saints; both in the church militant and triumphant. When you read our literature (primarily in our two books, or here at the blog) the characterization you will see is a constructive ressourcement of people like Athanasius, Calvin, Luther, Barth, Torrance, Nevin et al. For the Evangelical Calvinist the ground of theological fidelity isn’t based in being able to dig up the dead, and simply reiterate them. For the Evangelical Calvinist it is the kerygma, the Gospel reality itself that regulates and conditions the way we receive and listen to the past. For the Evangelical Calvinist ‘orthodoxy’ is always already eschatological, insofar that theology’s reality is in fact Jesus Christ; the One who has come, comes, and is finally coming. So, for example, when we appeal to Calvin, it isn’t simply to re-state what he believed, per se; instead, it is a matter of mining of what he said in fidelity to the Gospel reality. We take this type of ‘reverential teaching’ and allow that to pollinate the rest of our theological endeavor; bringing it into conversation with other pertinent sources of Gospel witnessers that fit with the vision that we as Evangelical Calvinists believe most proximately reflects who God is for the world in Jesus Christ. Karl Barth, with reference to Calvin, gets at these points this way:

Those who simply echo Calvin are not good Calvinists, that is, they are not really taught by Calvin. Being taught by Calvin means entering into dialogue with him, with Calvin as the teacher and ourselves as the students, he speaking, we doing our best to follow him and then—this is the crux of the matter—making our own response to what he says. If that does not happen we might as well be listening to Chinese; the historical Calvin is not present. For that Calvin wants to teach and not just to say something that we will repeat.[1]

You will come across many in the theological world, particularly in the Reformed sectors (but also Lutheran etc.) who are simply satisfied with an attempt at restatement of who they take to be the ‘orthodox’ of the past, and then use that as the canon for measuring every other theological offering in the broader church catholic. This is not the way; Barth is right.

[1] Barth, Theology of John Calvin, 4 cited by Tom Greggs, Dogmatic Ecclesiology: The Priestly Catholicity of the Church: Volume One (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2019), 273.