 |
| Thomas Aquinas at Jesus' Feet |
That was my response to, Gojira, and you, if you don't like my usual critiques of classic Calvinism. I know that many say we have moved beyond the regular substance metaphysics that underpin classic Calvinism, but in what way? Have we moved onto Barth's 'acutalistic' post-metaphysic (much much better!)? Or maybe TF Torrance's reification of substance metaphysics through what he has called the 'onto-relations' of God's life (wherein the Triune life is given its 'being' as a Subject-in-Being so mutual-indwellment of the other and perichoresis are given pride of place in this construal, which is probably more in the category of ontology V. metaphysics, simpliciter). I don't think classic Calvinistic theology has moved, or has even tried to move beyond the substance metaphysics that supports their theological grammar (just see someone like Richard Muller); in fact, by and large, much of the American Reformed movement (if not its entire Western instantiation) lives in a constant mode of repristination, attempting to revivify the categories of their past into the present. So I don't think my critiques, "framed" as they are, are over-reaching (in general). If this is the mode that classic Calvinism is most often shaped by, then it seems correct to attempt critiques that look at what has served as the framework for Calvinism's development in its history.
"and he just shown up again ;-)"
ReplyDeleteYep, you guessed it, I actually have followed you for quite a long time
Hmmmm....I got two for the price of one! lolololol I don't know which thread to reply to! I really don't want to write this first paragraph, as I don't in any way want to sound like I am being offensive or mean to you. I wish you had asked what I meant by frame,instead of the manner you did. Oh well, that miscommunication was my bad.
When I used the word frame, I actually wasn't meaning it in the way you took it. I could be wrong, but you seem to be treating my use of the word "frame" as somewhat of a philosophical concept. When I used the word frame, I meant it more or less in the way you presented so called "classical" Calvinism. Sometimes (NOT ALL THE TIME) you do it by throwing it in the worst light possible; as you know, that is a ligit use of the word "frame," kinda like stacking the deck in your favor. And that is what made me appreciate them less than say other posts. Your critiques are high philosophy, which means they are over my head. I am certainly not picking a fight by saying that, as I would be just as guilty since I have done that way of "framing" myself.
"Do you support the usage of a metaphysical framework that morphs God into an impersonal Lawgiver instead of a personal Lover (in the Triune sense)?"
I personally do not present God as impersonal, although I would say that the Scriptures do present Him as One who has given Laws and who is also the supreme (if I can use that without having to go into a philosophical spill.....just kidding man! :-))Lover. In reality, the fact that God loves implies the Trinity. So could you explain to me in layman terms why I, as some type of Calvinist at least, shouldn't be able to agree to that? I mean, I do take it that you recognize that God gave laws, and those laws are universal to all peoples? I mean, murder and adultry, to use an example, is wrong for everyone, correct?
Or perhaps I don't know what you mean by "metaphysical frameword" All I can say is that I know what I believe and why I believe it.
"Yet our God, revealed in Jesus Christ, the Son, is Triune, dynamic, and personal."
I totally agree with that.
"In other words, many classic Calvinists assert that there is a disjunction between the God who is in se (ontologically), in himself in eternity (de potentia absoluta); and the God who is revealed in historic-time ad extra (epistemologically), in the economy (de potentia ordinata)."
From the scriptures I can tell you that God is who God is. Whatever Calvinsist wrote that is ten times dumber than me! And that is pretty bad! lolololol
"But this nominalist, split, combined with its classical theistic metaphysic places a rift, a wedge, between who God is in eternity and who God is in historic time"
Totally 100% agreed.
"So you support the classical theistic, classic Calvinist framework?"
Not as it has been presented in the post, nope! As I said before, I have no idea what kind of Calvinist one would tag me as.
"I am presupposing that you do, since you don't like the 'way' I "frame" my critiques"
Then you suppose wrong. :-)
Other than that I really do not know what to say.....
@Gojira,
DeleteWell I'm glad that I misunderstood you, then; it has provided me with an occasion to clarify for folk who don't like the way I critique Calvinism, in general.
The reason I appear to cast Calvinism in a negative light (at its conceptual level, and then towards those, many times at the popular level, who are its most vociferous advocates) is because I actually believe it offers a negative theology and thus destructive spirituality. I actually believe this, Gojira. So yes, my emotions come out, often, when I respond to what I am exposed to in regards to classic Calvinism in Evangelical culture. I really make no apologies for that!
I don't think my writing is actually that philosophical; its really quite theological. But I do understand what you're saying there. I think at some point lay folk need to really dig in and start studying theology at a deeper level. Much of what I am often saying will never be accessible to folk w/o some sort of theological appetite which results in vigorous study and reading. I have considered for years here at the blog[s] ;-) how to distill some of this stuff at a 'lay/popular' level; and I have come to the conclusion that I can't. That is because it actually does require some work (as I just noted) to begin to track and grasp some of the underlying concepts to the theology that is so often taken for granted in its application and appropriation in pastoral exposition and preaching.
I am glad I "presupposed" wrongly, Gojira :-)! Thanks, man.
PS. I think anyone who claims to be a 5-point Calvinist, for example; should do so with much more care than is often evinced. In other words, before somebody says that are fully endorsing this framework (or any system of thought), they should at least spend a little time researching its origins and development prior to their endorsement. I don't see this happening at the popular levels, and so I, at the least want my blog to provide this alternative for them to realize (even if they don't fully understand it immediately) that there is much more to Calvinism, in its history, and the 'Reformed Faith' in general that is different, and even offers critique to 5 point Calvinism. So at the least these potential advocates of 5 point Calvinism should pause and look a little deeper; that's all. And I say the same for myself!
"I really make no apologies for that!"
ReplyDeleteAMEN to that! You shouldn't!
Similiar to the point you were making, my life turned to the better when I left all the John MacArthur's and John Piper's of the world alone, as well as throwing out all the so called "Free Grace" material I had. I honestly don't know which group is worse.
You have actually taught me alot over the years Bobby. I need to thank you for that. I will give you an example: you used to be very critical of systematic theology because of the Aristolian framework it was based on. That wasn't your total argument, but it was what stuck out to me. You argued in favor of Biblical Theology informing systematics due to a better catagory. I had trouble with it at the time, but you know what? You were right!
Another example I have to say right on to was when, way back then, you critiqued imputation. And you know what, you were right! It took my awhile to get that. The Biblical teaching of union with Christ is sooooooooo much sweeter, so much more vibrant, so much more joyful. It fills the mind and the heart! It is sad as the majority of people actually believe that salvation is God "sending His Son so you don't have to go to Hell when you die," or somehow worse "so you can go to Heaven when you die" Sad very sad. Union with Christ is so sweeter.
Anyway, thanks Bobby. Your efforts here are not wasted. No, not at all!
Gojira,
DeleteThank you.
Let me be clear; I am not (nor ever have been, I don't think) critical of systematic theology in general. But instead, I am critical of what has been termed analytic theology. I am interested in Biblical Theology, for sure, but Biblical Theology that is shaped by Theological Exegesis, or Christlogical exegesis. I am glad that has been helpful for you :-).
Union with Christ is such a better way to conceive of what has happened as a result of a Christ centric view of the atonement. Amen, it's all about Jesus!
Thanks for the encouragement, Gojira!