Happy and somber Good Friday! I have only changed my theme to black for today, and for obvious reasons. I realize it’s not easy to read, but it’s intended, of course, to capture the type of day this day represents for us Christians (and for the world, even though they don’t know it yet). It will go back to an easy to read white background tomorrow. I also see the new comments I have received, and look forward to responding to those hopefully tomorrow.
Let me know if this new font is too small, and thus hard to read. Thank you.
A housekeeping note: most likely, unless I post a re-post, my forthcoming posts for the foreseeable future will be shorter than normal. I am still going through some heavy spiritual battle, that is also producing heavy mental anguish, and so that has been affecting my output here, as well as in other areas of life. For that I would appreciate continued prayer, that the Lord would see fit to release me from this current struggle, and provide that type of “new day” for me in Him. Anyway, that’s what you can expect for the near future. Shorter posts that attempt to present some sort of summative theme on a particular issue relating to theology or biblical interpretation. I hope to be back full steam sooner than later, but as always, I’ve gotta keep feeding the blog; indeed, it is part of keeping me sane.
Calvinism continues to be of issue, particularly at the popular Church level. I haven’t posted as much on this issue over the last few years, it seems. It hasn’t been intentional. My blogging is typically shaped by my reading, and since much of my reading time has been consumed by Barth’s Church Dogmatics my blogging has reflected that (and of course the 
various other readings I am doing concurrent with that). It isn’t that I don’t find these matters of import, or interesting, it is just that in certain respects I have so exhausted myself on the various themes that are present in the Calvinist discourse, that my motivation levels have dried up a bit. In other words, I think, for me, the issue is rather clear: classical Calvinism (and Arminianism) both operate from Thomist and/or more broadly, substance metaphysics, such that once that is understood it simply becomes a matter of whether or not someone is willing to submit to that as the most proximate way to explicate the teachings of Holy Scripture, or not. I do not think substance metaphysics of an ostensible ‘classical theistic’ sort does the type of heavy lifting that Scripture’s reality in Jesus Christ requires, and so I have jettisoned that for what I take to be the more proximate way (and when I say “jettisoned” that is only for rhetorical purposes; I never was committed to substance metaphysics, but only uncritically lived under its implications insofar that that had conditioned the theological world I had inhabited as a normal North American evangelical for so many years).
It is no secret that here at the Athanasian Reformed (aka Evangelical Calvinist) blog I work in the After Barth tradition. But of course, then, I also work, more broadly in the After Athanasius, After Luther, After Calvin, After Sibbes, After T.F. Torrance mood as well. Suffice it to say, in the main, I am committed to what TF Torrance calls an ‘onto-relational’ [metaphysic], or what for Barth turns out to be his Trinitarian and Christ concentrated actualism. This approach works well with a ‘narratival’ approach to Holy Scripture wherein the contours of Scripture’s reality in Jesus Christ are at the fore. I won’t attempt to unpack all of that here, but suffice it to say that, I think, as an Athanasian Reformed I am better situated to take the Protestant ‘Scripture Principle’ with a greater gravitas than are the supposed owners of that principle, namely: the classical Calvinist. This is to say, as an Athanasian Reformed, because of “my metaphysics,” as those are kerygmatically (evangelically) conditioned, I can better allow Scripture’s positive disclosure to determine the way I think theologically, thus avoiding the speculative and discursive substance metaphysics that both classical Calvinist and Arminian readings of Holy Scripture are funded by.
This post is just a statement of where I am at currently. I have greater concern with theological loci that will impinge and implicate themes present within classical Calvinism, but those do not necessarily dominate the work I am attempting to do currently. I think what the theologian comes to realize after a while is that certain histories of theological interpretation have a shelf-life. That is to say, you can run their courses, in the history, and its contemporaneous iterations, and realize that there is an ad infinitum nature to the discourse itself. That is to say, it is rather evident of where the theologic of the TULIP, or conversely, the Remonstrants leads. That isn’t to say engagement with the themes present in these discourses is insignificant, but it is to say that much of it remains only because of new audiences. That is, and this is simply a matter of education, there are always new Christians coming into the fold (praise the risen Christ!), and as such they will eventually be (hopefully!) confronted with deeper theological matters. For these folks, the proverbial can-o-worms is opened, and often, on the Protestant side, they are dumped into the middle of a fray that has been ongoing for literally millennia in the Church of Jesus Christ—except of course this discourse (of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility etc.) takes on a particularly Protestant coloring for the evangelical, as they have most often been received from the 16th and 17th century Post Reformed orthodox developments. Nonetheless, this new crop of Christians (and that is relative, because oft times Christians can be in the Church for decades before they ever start to potentially think deeply on things, if they ever do) enter a polemical situation that, indeed, has the ad infinitum character to it that was noted previously. For me personally I enjoy alerting people to the fact that there are other, better ways to think about Protestant and Reformed theology, ways that elide this typical binary between the Calvinists and Arminians, respectively. But the work of unfolding that for people can become tedious at points. Thankfully I feel like I’ve already done a lot of that donkeywork here at the blog, and via our two edited books on Evangelical Calvinism.
All I am attempting to communicate here is why my blog has taken on the character it has over the last few years. I still think the Calvinist and Arminian debate needs to be addressed and corrected, and I’m happy to help people do that. But mostly, I think the way I can do that is by pointing them to the hundreds of blog posts, and book chapters I have written and edited on the matter. That said, none of this means that I won’t write posts on classical Calvinism, and what I take as the better way away from that. But it is to say that the way I frame many of my posts forthcoming probably won’t explicitly indicate how it is that the way I am communicating, at the time, might reify the various themes (like Christology, Doctrine of God, Theory of Revelation etc.) folks are dealing with as they find themselves, unfortunately!, in the weeds of the classical Calvinist/Arminian (and thus Latin and Augustinian and Thomist) binary/dualism. I am still just as critical of classical Calvinism, and what TF Torrance calls ‘The Latin Heresy.’ But the way I enter into that fray just might not be as overt as once before (which you probably have noticed if you’ve read me for any amount of time).
Solo Christo
I am still here, never fear! Just a lot going on in life, and so my blogging has slacked a bit. I have more in the pipeline, and you can maybe expect a whole slew of them in the days 
to come. I just wanted to assuage any anxiety you might have had about my lack of posting. I wanted to give you a good night of sleep, once more, by knowing that, indeed I am here, and I always will be (haha). One post I’m thinking about writing is on teasing out the implications of the vicarious humanity of Christ, and how a proper understanding of that doctrine militates against any dualist accounts that end up leading humanity to be in competition with God and vice versa. I was reminded of this problem once again as I heard a recent sermon. This problem is pervasive. It is pervasive because I don’t think most pastors, in particular, not to mention theologians (by way of training), are even aware that this is a problem. Augustine has become so ubiquitous in the tradition of the Church, all the way down, particularly in its Western iterations, of course, that his type of soteriological dualism simply just becomes the teaching of Holy Scripture in all its categorical sectors. This is a problem for a variety of reasons, not least of which is how it impinges and shapes someone’s Christian and daily spirituality. I want to write a post that seeks to bring some awareness to this problem, and then some course correction provided by the resources I commonly traffic in as an Athanasian Reformed theologian. Be on the lookout!
I actually do have at least one blog policy: No anonymous comments. Please, if you’re going to comment, which is rarer and rarer these days, let me know who you are by using your real name. I am not interested in engaging with folks who operate under anonymity, unless of course I already know the person, and who they are. This is pretty much the only “fee” I require for engaging at the blog. Thank you 🙂
I used to do these more frequently; especially back in the good ole’ days of blogging, when the blogosphere was actually alive. If you’re a reader of the blog who just lurks here, and even if you don’t just lurk (Richard 😉 ) this is your chance to reveal yourself. I always like to know who is reading here. According to my stats many still are, but you don’t let me know by saying hi. How rude 😉 ! As a heads up I have my comments set to moderate, which means I have to manually approve each comment (which is easy). When you reveal yourself don’t be surprised if you don’t see your comment immediately. Anyway, I look forward to seeing who some of my readers/lurkers are. I’ll see you in the comments. Just say hi, or whatever.
Does anyone have anything they would like me to write about? I’m taking requests for the next 30 minutes?
If you hadn’t noticed I changed the name of the blog from The Evangelical Calvinist to the Athanasian Reformed. I will, of course, always have my two co-edited books with the Evangelical Calvinism nomenclature, but the language itself has 
become too burdensome at this point. The only people who actually come to understand what Evangelical Calvinism entails are those who go really deep, and get enough context on what it means within a Torrancean frame as that is juxtaposed with Federal or Westminster Calvinism. People don’t understand how Evangelical Calvinism doesn’t = Evangelical + Calvinism, even ofttimes after much explanation from me. So, I’m finally switching to the ‘Athanasian Reformed.’ This language captures well where I’m coming from, theologically. It sounds catholic enough, and paleo or ancient enough to signify the orientation of what we called Evangelical Calvinism. Not to mention, but when TF Torrance was asked if he was a Barthian, he responded: ‘No, I’m an Athanasian.’ That also goes into the new name of the blog. TFT (along with Barth) both, as most of you know, have influenced me, and continue to, more than any other theologians in the trad of the church. I am quite happy with the name Athanasian Reformed because it does signify the antique and even Eastern orientation that stands behind the sort of Torrancean Reformed theology I follow. Not to mention, it also recognizes how I am also of the Western church, in regard to the Reformed language. It also helps signify how my sort of Reformed theology is not Augustinian in general, but at the same time still works within the Western Reformed tradition at the same time (which would be more of the Barth orientation, and his engagement with much of the scholastic Reformed tradition in his Church Dogmatics). I just like the name because it accurately reflects, in a broadened and catholic sense, where I am coming from. So, there it is.
I can admit that my last post (which I literally wrote in fifteen minutes) was not my greatest, but it wasn’t my worst either. I received the following comment (on that post) from a guy in Viet Nam named 金老师 (Mr. King per google translate). Typically, I would just spam a comment like this, because that’s what it deserves. But in this case my anonymous critic has apparently been reading me for many years (maybe). I wanted to underscore Mr. King’s comment because it represents the sort of rubbish I am uninterested in getting online. But let’s deal with a few of his problems with things I have written, and the way I write (according to him). Before we do that let’s read what Mr. King had to say to me:
“maybe my blog isn’t the one for you. I am political, and so are you. If you cannot admit that, as a Christian, you’re a Docetist. Love you.”
It’s truly inscrutable that with a quote from Torrance on the side panel alongside with your tormented angst with Barth’s personal life you wrote this comment. You probably don’t have time to or even need to know who subscribes to your blog especially one who has followed you for long enough not to toss away perusing it due to your inscrutable rants. Six years old (not interested in checking cuz it doesn’t matter) you made inscrutable rants about Enns (which certainly doesn’t match his views then and especially nowadays) Why continue to follow? Church history is very messy with tons of mud slinging (anathemas) . If you can’t admit this, as a Christian, you are inscrutable. “Love you” (sarcasm cuz lots of folks write this ) I prefer to gain a lot of benefits from your Theological posts even though I might not agree at times. I might be wrong but I seem to recall that you nearly had a life threatening situation which made me anxious that you wouldn’t be able to continue writing. Obviously everyone has a political view including Barth, Moltmann (who differed from Barth ) et al. However, your blog is much more useful than tossing it due to inscrutable rants that might seem to be a foghorn for a particular political view.
Mr. King, apparently, finds my posts on politics to be something of an ‘inscrutable rant.’ They might be inscrutable to him because of a language barrier (clearly his first language is not English); cultural barrier; political barriers; so on and so forth. The point, though, is that Mr. King clearly does not like my politics; and so, he labels anything I write on the subject as an inscrutable rant. Indeed, I realize many of my other readers might agree with Mr. King, in regard to my politics. All I can say, particularly in the current climate, given its unprecedented gravitas is: TOUGH.
But Mr. King was not content to rant me out, he also has been harboring other ills towards some of the things I’ve written; not to mention a particular issue I’ve had to deal with in regard to Barth and Charlotte Von Kirschbaum. 1) He asserts that I have misrepresented Peter Enns on Scripture. My response to that: no I haven’t. My basic premise is that Enns is simply repackaging German higher criticism for young and impressionable 21st century minds; AND HE IS. But I never think about Enns anymore, so this hardly resonates with me. 2) He doesn’t think I understand the messiness of church history. But I do. In fact, if I wagered a guess, I’d say Mr. King stole that sentiment from me, since I frequently refer to the messiness of church history (I typically refer to that in the context of speaking about the relationality that theology is). 3) Mr. King apparently doesn’t like my dry sense of humor. My “love you” reference was intended to inject a sense of levity relative to what I had written just prior. Oh well. 4) On my tormented angst in regard to Barth and Charlotte. I actually don’t feel tormented. Instead, it is a matter of working through a serious moral failure of a theologian I highly respect. Most biblically oriented Christians would grasp that sort of struggle; apparently Mr. King does not share this same sort of biblical orientation. 5) ‘Everyone has a political view.’ Okay, great.
Let me clear about something: this is my blog, and I’ll rant however I want; when I want; about whatever I want. I will write about politics, theology, Mickey Mouse, in whatever style I like. My accountability is to God in Christ alone, not to a single soul online. I have followed that principle ever since I started blogging in 2005. I don’t REALLY know you, and you don’t REALLY know me. So, get what you can from I write, and reject what you want from what I write. I don’t owe you anything, and you don’t owe me anything. The only approval I care about comes from God, and has already come from God in Jesus Christ. Whether you the reader approve of me makes absolutely zero difference to me. If you feel like I’m being too aggressive toward you, my anonymous readers at the moment, that’s not my intention. My intention is to once again clear the air about how I view my blogging. I’m thankful to have people read me, particularly those who appreciate what I have to say in regard to my witness to Jesus Christ. But I will dump you almost immediately if you come at me like Mr. King. We live in a huge world, and I make no pretenses in thinking that this medium has capacity to do anymore than it is actually capable to do. I have made some personal contacts through my blogging over the years, but those are rare. I have a very very small group of people, in real life, who I would allow myself to be accountable to; but there is nobody online who will ever fill that role for me. Ultimately, if my writing (sometimes it is stream of consciousness, because, unless you forgot, this is a blog) irks you, to the point that it clearly has, Mr. King, then don’t read here. If you want to continue to read here (which I can’t stop), then don’t comment. Mr. King is now banned from commenting. In fact, I’m about to completely pull the plug on all commenting, since I rarely get comments. I appreciate Richard Bridgan’s encouraging comments; and then also, when Trevor F. comments. I don’t always need agreeable comments, but I certainly am not open to the sort of gratuitous slop Mr. King flung my way.
Hopefully, if you read here, you’ll continue to benefit from what I write. My blogging has slowed down relative to my past blogging days. But, typically, I hope to always magnify Jesus Christ in what I write. That’s my aim; that’s my theology. Solo Christo