tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29342199185544322992024-03-21T12:23:43.428-07:00The Evangelical Calvinist In Plain Language"The world was made so that Christ might be born...." ~David FergussonBobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-23406199116250434052013-04-12T18:29:00.002-07:002013-04-12T18:29:32.377-07:00God Is Love As The Starting PointIt has been too long since I posted here at EC In Plain Language. Let me remedy that now. This post will be less ordered than others, and more of a reflection upon what has drawn me into the mood of what Myk Habets and I have labeled 'Evangelical Calvinism'.<br />
<br />
What I am afraid of is that I am becoming what I don't want to be. Evangelical Calvinism is identifying a mood within the Reformed tradition that has a full court positive theology to offer. This means that the ultimate end of Evangelical Calvinism is not to find our self identity by what we are against; instead Evangelical Calvinism is about who and what we are for (Christ and His kingdom). I have too often reverted to the Fundamentalist mode of constructing theology from what I am against, or at least so using other expressions of Reformed theology in a way that makes it look like Evangelical Calvinism is nothing more than a negation of whatever that particular expression of Reformed theology is.<br />
<br />
In Evangelical Calvinism edited book Myk and I end the volume with 15 theological theses that state what we are for, theologically. For the most part they are positive in orientation, and only identify where we differ from others in order to provide foil and better context for what we are actually for without demeaning, <i>per se,</i> the theologies that are necessarily at odds with our own stated approach. Here are the Fifteen Theses:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. The Holy Trinity is the absolute ground and grammar of all epistemology, theology, and worship.<br />2. The primacy of God’s triune life is grounded in love, for “God is love.”<br />3. There is one covenant of grace.<br />4. God is primarily covenantal and not contractual in his dealings with humanity.<br />5. Election is christologically conditioned.<br />6. Grace precedes law.<br />7. Assurance is of the essence of faith.<br />8. Evangelical Calvinism endorses a supralapsarian Christology which emphasizes the doctrine of the primacy of Christ.<br />9. Evangelical Calvinism is a form of dialectical theology.<br />10. Evangelical Calvinism places an emphasis upon the doctrine of union with/in Christ whereby all the benefits of Christ are ours.<br />11. Christ lived, died, and rose again for all humanity, thus Evangelical Calvinism affirms a doctrine of universal atonement.<br />12. Universalism is not a corollary of universal redemption and is not constitutive for Evangelical Calvinism.<br />13. There is no legitimate theological concept of double predestination as construed in the tradition of Reformed Scholasticism.<br />14. The atonement is multifaceted and must not be reduced to one culturally conditioned atonement theory but, rather, to a theologically unified but multi-faceted atonement model.<br />15. Evangelical Calvinism is in continuity with the Reformed confessional tradition.</blockquote>
<br />
Now of course each statement as given in the book is provided with elaboration and further development coordinate with each of the statement's sentiment.<br />
<br />
What I want to emphasize through this is that Myk and myself are identifying something has a vibrant life and trajectory of its own. In other words it is a positive approach to thinking theologically and biblically.<br />
<br />
And as far as I am concerned, the first two theses are indeed the most important. God is love.Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-85665265773528293032013-03-11T20:22:00.001-07:002013-03-11T20:22:23.095-07:00Comparing John MacArthur's Salvation with English Puritanism's<a href="http://evangelicalcalvinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/macarthurrmug.gif" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignright size-full wp-image-248" height="175" src="http://evangelicalcalvinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/macarthurrmug.gif" title="macarthurrmug" width="135" /></a>Below I am going to provide two quotes, the first will be from Theodore Dwight Bozeman discussing the emergence and factors that shaped the thinking of the yet to come English Puritans; and the second will be from John MacArthur, and his discussion on the role that changed behavior and moral values have in a genuinely “saved life.” What I am highlighting, and want you all to see, is the striking
correlation of thought and practice that both camps share, relative to emphasizing the importance of outward moral behavior in the “elects” life. Here is Theodore Bozeman discussing the early factors that led to English Puritanism:
<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
"English penitential teaching expressly echoed and bolstered moral priorities. In contrast, again, to Luther, whose penitential teaching stressed the rueful sinner’s attainment of peace through acknowledgment of fault and trust in unconditional pardon, several of the English included a moment of moral renewal. In harmony with Reformed tendencies on the Continent and in unmistakable continuity with historic Catholic doctrine that tied “contrition, by definition, to the intention to amend,” they required an actual change in penitent. For them, a renewal of moral resolve was integral to the penitential experience, and a few included the manifest alteration of behavior. They agreed that moral will or effort cannot merit forgiveness, yet rang variations on the theme that repentance is “an inward . . . sorrow . . . whereunto is also added a . . . desire . . . to frame our life in all points according to the holy will of God expressed in the divine scriptures.” However qualified by reference to the divine initiative and by denial of efficacy to human works, such teaching underscored moral responsibility; it also adumbrated Puritan penitential and preparationist teaching of later decades." [italics mine] (Theodore Dwight Bozeman, “The Precisianist Strain . . . ,” 20-21)</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
It is important to keep in mind that Bozeman is not even discussing actual English Puritanism yet, rather he is highlighting the streams and emphases, present within England just prior to the full-fledged emergence of Puritanism, that actually brought shape and form to the disciplinary “religion” known as Puritanism. Notice the correlation he makes between this kind of Protestantism with Roman Catholic spirituality. . . .
Conversely, John MacArthur sounds very much like this incipient Puritanism described above by Bozeman. You will notice this similarity as MacArthur, like these early penitentialists, emphasizes the function and necessity of moral reformation in the life of the “truly saved” individual; notice:
<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
. . . They’ve been told [Christians in the typical evangelical church in the West] that the only criterion for salvation is knowing and believing some basic facts about Christ. They hear from the beginning that obedience is optional. It follows logically, then, that a person’s one-time profession of faith is more valid than the ongoing testimony of his life-style in determining whether to embrace him as a true-believer. The character of the visible church reveals the detestable consequence of this theology. As a pastor I have rebaptized countless people who once “made a decision,” were baptized, yet experienced no change. They came later to true conversion and sought baptism again as an expression of genuine salvation. [brackets mine] (John MacArthur, “The Gospel According to Jesus,” 17)</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
Striking is it not? Both English Penitentialism (early and full blossomed English Puritanism), and MacArthur’s approach are intended to curb moral laxity, by emphasizing the moral conduct and “performance” of the truly “saved.” As MacArthur underscores, as a good follower of the “English Puritan” (and for that matter Roman Catholic) ethic and spirituality, genuine salvation is only noticeable and discernible <em>via</em> an “. . . an ongoing testimony of his life-style.” Bozeman speaking of the moral laxity within England (in the 16th century and onward) notes how this affected the “Reforming spirit” of that locale, he says: “. . . There the Reformation emerged in a period of deeply felt concern about social order. . . . (Bozeman, 13) This motivation similarly, and unabashedly, motivates MacArthur’s emphasis on performance, duty, and obedience, as he states: “. . . Why should we assume that people who live in an unbroken pattern of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, deceit, and every conceivable kind of flagrant excess are truly born again? . . .” (MacArthur, 16-17) In other words, the remedy for both camps (i.e. between the 16th and 17th cent. and 20th and 21st cent.) is to hang people over hell in order to foster an supposed environment of holiness and moral uprightness, this is by way of EMPHASIS. Both of these camps spoke and speak of <em>solifidian</em> (faith alone), but this is not enough, external moral transformation needs to accompany “faith alone,” otherwise there was never any faith to begin with (i.e. later on we will discuss how this thought came to be tied to concepts like “preparationism” and “temporary faith”).<br />
<br />
All of this is contrary to Martin Luther’s approach, which is to emphasize the need of a changed heart, and the objective Word of God as the motivation and reason for holiness. Luther did not hang people over hell in order to engender holiness of life, and neither did the later <em>antinomists</em> (i.e. Sibbes, Cotton, et al) who we will discuss later. Did Luther think moral transformation was needed within the church, indeed . . . but we do not hybrid the gospel in order to achieve this end (i.e. MacArthur and the Puritans); rather we emphasize the winsome love of Christ disclosed at the cross, grave, and right hand of the throne of the Father as the motivation for purity and holiness. This was Luther’s, Cotton’s, Sibbe’s, and my aim, I hope it is yours.<br />
<br />
I have provided this brief comparison in order to further establish the corollary and continuity between English Puritan salvation themes and motifs, and in this case, John MacArthur’s themes and motifs, relative to articulating the gospel. I am not sure how anyone who has read anything on Puritan spirituality, and its formation, can deny the similarity between that and the outlook that MacArthur (and others like him) is articulating today. At minimum my hope is to expose this, not to smear MacArthur (or others), so that folks who have bought into such teaching can see it for what it is, and realize that this kind of doctrine leads away from an emphasis upon Christ; and focuses upon self (and “my transformed life”). Jesus said it best, “. . . Seek ye first, His kingdom and His righteousness . . . ," in other words, keep your eyes ON HIM!<br />
<br />
<i>**This is a repost that I wrote years ago, way before I was an Evangelical Calvinist, or had ever really even heard of Thomas Torrance.</i>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-92229957387422346902013-03-04T20:53:00.001-08:002013-03-04T20:57:16.049-08:00Doing EC Evangelism in Contrast to the 'Lordship' Style of Ray Comfort<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDesVgmhzF4qgUIB6XcZ0q4E3MKE0x8owRLUGeAMBR4uY_OCXiz0XCHk7aANsZMAs7Vrd_Vvxxhq39BbRz6KsYD3FyWcNew8PsCgdzOFkVX6Gkj8OduBZl58JF99qurO-zcYY_ozM1suA/s1600/raycomfort.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDesVgmhzF4qgUIB6XcZ0q4E3MKE0x8owRLUGeAMBR4uY_OCXiz0XCHk7aANsZMAs7Vrd_Vvxxhq39BbRz6KsYD3FyWcNew8PsCgdzOFkVX6Gkj8OduBZl58JF99qurO-zcYY_ozM1suA/s320/raycomfort.jpg" width="249" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ray Comfort</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
We have a pastor friend, I should say he has been one of my dad's best friends ever since Bible College (for my dad), back in the 70s, and he has pastored a smallish Baptist church in Oregon for close to 30 years now. This friend of my dad's (and he is a friend of mine too :-) apparently has been dealing with a guy who has just recently become a zealous 5 point Calvinist. Apparently this guy who has been a member of this church for over 20 years, and who has been a 5 point Calvinist for many of those years, has just recently gotten a hold of Ray Comfort's (and Kirk Cameron's) evangelistic ministry (<i><a href="http://www.wayofthemaster.com/about_ray.shtml">Way of the Master</a></i>). Ray Comfort has been a street Evangelist (something I have been involved in too, esp. in the past, for many years) for years and years; and he has built his ministry up around the supposition that usage of the "Law" to preach the Gospel is really the best and only way to engage in the proclamation of the Gospel (i.e. so he will use the James passage that says if you have broken one part of the Law you have broken all parts and thus are guilty and need salvation). Well, this guy in this church has really been challenging our friend (the pastor of this church), with a need to engage in this kind and style of ministry; with 5 point Calvinist shape.<br />
<br />
So this pastor friend of our's (my dad and myself) has been trying to call me, and has been talking to my dad. My dad has told this friend about our Evangelical Calvinism and our book, and so our friend would like to get some "counsel" from me on how to maybe handle this situation he is currently being faced with in his church (which in a smallish church could threaten to cause some real damage ... I've seen it happen before!). I am not totally sure, yet, what all the exact details are, but I am betting what I just recounted to you is, in general, what is going on. So how might I counsel this pastor friend of our's?<br />
<br />
I think first I will explain how the Bible obviously speaks of God as Love, and Triune; that He is not a God of Law, and that He is not a God who is an 'Angry God hanging sinners over hell if they don't turn, and thus avoid the burn'. In fact, just the opposite. God came for us, in Jesus Christ, because He is a God of love; and salvation isn't a policy that He purchases through charging the 'debit card' of His Son as payment. Instead, salvation is the 'kind' of life that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always known in themselves and for each other; of which God created (and now re-created us in the Son) to participate in for all eternity. In other words, 'eternal life' isn't some<i>THING</i> 'we' get because God bought it, and now can give it to us; instead eternal life, by definition, is God's life, and He has graciously invited us to participate in it through the Son's priestly life for us. So God has chosen to be God with us, thus allowing us to be us with Him for all eternity as participants in His kind of life---i.e. eternal life.<br />
<br />
I think in conversation, I will also discuss some of the background of Calvinism's development, and philosophical foundations; and try to inform this pastor friend how Calvinism is not 'Gospel truth' as his church member, I am sure, uncritically believes it to be. And I think an important place to start for this pastor, with his congregant, will be to talk about who God is (as I just described, a bit); since how we conceive of the Gospel starts there, and nowhere else. His congregant is developing evangelistic methodology based on the symptoms provided by the 'cause' which is his conception and doctrine of God. He needs to critically reconsider how He thinks of God, and then this will reorientate the way he proclaims the good news of Jesus Christ. It will come out something like this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
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.</blockquote>
Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-70085936691241983392013-03-04T13:13:00.000-08:002013-03-04T13:13:15.653-08:00EC Doctrine of ScriptureI as an Evangelical Calvinist hold that Scripture should be understood instrumentally or as 'spectacles' as Calvin held. In other words EC for me believes that Scripture is something that God uses through its human words and contexts, as His ordained Spirit shaped place where he encounters us afresh and anew every time we open, read, and study it.<br />
<br />
Scripture in the classic position is understood from a philosophical vantage point, or to get technical, in the realm of epistemology. Which is to say that it is the place that tells us how we know what we know, but the emphasis of this approach places the onus on us; i.e. how "we" know, and what "we" make of it.<br />
<br />
In contrast to this, I see Scripture in the realm of soteriology, or "salvation", and in particular (along with John Webster) in the realm of sanctification. In this order of things, then, we don't come before scripture (as if we give it its reality by our exegesis etc.); instead God in Christ comes before Scripture, just as He did/does before creation itself (Scripture). This placement keeps things in proper perspective, and it ensures that Scripture is not something that we can manipulate, but it keeps its reality in charge of things, so to speak (i.e. He can contradict our thoughts etc. through His written Word).<br />
<br />
So Scripture is not the ultimate place where God has revealed Himself (which is the classic emphasis); Scripture finds its reality when it bears witness to, and finds its substantial meaning in Jesus Christ; just as the rest of creation. The difference with Scripture (from the rest of creation), is that the Holy Spirit inspired it and illuminates it in a special way, which again finds its orientation in Jesus Christ and in His high priestly humanity for us.Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-91369737900193359442013-03-02T15:01:00.002-08:002013-03-02T15:01:45.939-08:00The General Distinction of Evangelical Calvinism's Conception of God as Love: He is Not Law After AllHere is my opening post at the new and improved 'The Evangelical Calvinist In Plain Language'.<br />
<br />
The way, when in person with someone, that I have tried to describe what Evangelical Calvinism is, is to contrast it with what most people think of Calvinism today (as represented by The Gospel Coalition, or more explicitly by the acronym TULIP or 5 point Calvinism). So that is the way I will engage to flesh that out with you as well.<br />
<br />
In general Evangelical Calvinism emphasizes and starts from the idea that God <i>is </i>love! We know this to be the case because He has revealed that to us in and through His Son, Jesus. One of my (still) favorite Bible verses is:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life." ~John 3:16</blockquote>
<br />
Or,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /> "7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, <b>because God is love</b>. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." ~I John 4:7-12</blockquote>
<br />
So we know that God is a personal God who does what He does because of who He is, He is love. And we, as Evangelical Calvinists, use this belief to shape everything else that we articulate in regard to how we think of the way that God relates to us.<br />
<br />
This means that we do not think that God primarily relates to us through Law, or us keeping the Law (which is the basic underlying premises upon which 5 point Calvinism is based on); we believe that God has always related to us, first, because He simply loves us (because that is who He is). And within that relationship He has provided expectations that He knew we couldn't even uphold; so because He is love, He did that for us too, through Christ (Christ thus has become the end of the Law for all who believe Romans 9:5).<br />
<br />
I would submit that the imagery and reality of marriage is the better way to think of our relationship to God in Christ (that's what the Apostle Paul thought in Ephesians 5, and this is a common theme throughout all of Scripture, especially in Revelation). We don't relate, humanly speaking, to our spouses through a set of codes and laws (even though there are expectations within the relationship); no, ideally, our relationship is based upon love (or self-giveness for the other). I think this is the better metaphor (and reality/our union with Christ) to think of our relationship with God through. Richard Sibbes, a Puritan thought so, as did Martin Luther.<br />
<br />
So in general, then; Evangelical Calvinism holds that God is Love and thus dynamic and personal. This is in contrast to Classical Calvinism's and Arminianism's belief that God relates to us through impersonal decrees and laws.<br />
<br />
Let me know if this post has been accessible and understandable for you.<br />
<br />
<br />Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-80734023358589425392012-08-23T11:34:00.000-07:002012-08-25T18:04:24.598-07:00Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing The Continuing Reformation Of The Church by Myk Habets and Bobby Grow<i>Below is an introduction to our book, the ordering details are hyper-linked below as well. If you do not want to purchase from the publisher (which I would, it's cheaper), then you can always place your order through amazon.com. I am continuing to blog, and continuing to discuss issues surrounding Evangelical Calvinism; but not here, I am blogging at my old wordpress 'EC' blog <b><a href="http://growrag.wordpress.com/">The Evangelical Calvinist</a> </b>(I am sorry about the confusion, but I vow to you all that I am done moving and that I will be forever tied to my wordpress 'EC' blog until the day I quit blogging, I give you my word ... here's the address for that blog <a href="http://growrag.wordpress.com/">http://growrag.wordpress.com</a></i> <i>sorry for the whip-lash you must be experiencing by now</i>.<i> <b></b></i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRjp_LPHdtao7Jb9_VJ18QbV9Uvx1FFHF-jPI9tAHPiuefJF9Nok206Yyf_ZQWytstEIhPky24ZO5KMT7N2N024lpynvx9m4c8iZK8bOTHd93B9RDvGp5gtL0BUk6az__mu98A5zV0ZmE/s1600/ECbookimage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRjp_LPHdtao7Jb9_VJ18QbV9Uvx1FFHF-jPI9tAHPiuefJF9Nok206Yyf_ZQWytstEIhPky24ZO5KMT7N2N024lpynvx9m4c8iZK8bOTHd93B9RDvGp5gtL0BUk6az__mu98A5zV0ZmE/s1600/ECbookimage.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The book is finally here! This represents the collaboration of many contributors spanning from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States; an international effort. Myk Habets originally conceived of this project, and graciously asked me to join him in the editing and authoring of this most awesome volume (if I must say so myself)! Our book presents a mood of Calvinism, that at least for Myk and I can be said to be an mood given birth <i>After Torrance </i>(and then <i>After Calvin, After Barth, </i>so an so forth); and a mood that we hope is catching. The hope is, at least/at most, that Jesus Christ the Son of the Father by the Holy Spirit will be magnified through the effort exerted through the process of birthing this book. He will be most magnified if the readers of our book are pointed beyond themselves to the eternal <i>Word, Jesus Christ! </i>Our book, is not primarily a polemical work against classic Calvinism; but it does implicitly (and at points explicitly) offer a critique of the usual mode of Calvinism, and it does so constructively, by simply reminding her cousin that she indeed has a cousin. Evangelical Calvinism is rooted, methodologically, in <i>Trinitarian Theology </i>through a so called 'Christ-conditioned' shape. And so, by definition, EC emphasizes God as <i>Love </i>in life, and <i>Grace </i>in action. Unlike its classic cousin, EC believes the logic of grace that undergirds her articulation require that ALL humanity is represented (universally) in Jesus Christ; thus we limit the atonement to Jesus' humanity for us (the us being all of humanity who have ever lived). It is this that we think makes 'our' Calvinism, <i>Evangelical </i>or 'Good News'. If you are interested in reading more about Evangelical Calvinism, and how it is fleshed out through the personalities of Myk, myself and our authors; then you need to pick our just released book up and read it ... you will not be disappointed. Here are the ordering details:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><a href="https://wipfandstock.com/store/Evangelical_Calvinism_Essays_Resourcing_the_Continuing_Reformation_of_the_Church">Evangelical Calvinism</a> </b><br />
<a href="https://wipfandstock.com/store/Evangelical_Calvinism_Essays_Resourcing_the_Continuing_Reformation_of_the_Church"><i>Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church</i>.</a><br />
<a href="https://wipfandstock.com/store/Evangelical_Calvinism_Essays_Resourcing_the_Continuing_Reformation_of_the_Church">Edited by Myk Habets and Bobby Grow</a><br />
<br />
<i>(click on the above title to go to the publishers website to order)</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
I wanted to especially, and publically, thank Myk Habets for his leadership on this project; and for allowing me to be a part of it, what a blessing! I also wanted to publically thank each and everyone of our authors, and endorsers; you all made this book what it is.<br />
<br />
[I also want to say thank you to all of you who have pressed me here at the blog, your challenges and encouragement have all made their way into the book ;-) ... so thank you all.] <br />
<br />
Here is the blurb from the back jacket of the book, and then the table of contents:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Blurb:</b> In this exciting volume new
and emerging voices join senior Reformed scholars in presenting a
coherent and impassioned articulation of Calvinism for today’s world.
Evangelical Calvinism represents a mood within current Reformed
theology. The various contributors are in different ways articulating
that mood, of which their very diversity is a significant element. In
attempting to outline features of an Evangelical Calvinism a number of
the contributors compare and contrast this approach with that of the
Federal Calvinism that is currently dominant in North American Reformed
theology, challenging the assumption that Federal Calvinism is the only
possible expression of orthodox Reformed theology. This book does not,
however, represent the arrival of a “new-Calvinism” or even a
“neo-Calvinism,” if by those terms are meant a novel reading of the
Reformed faith. An Evangelical Calvinism highlights a Calvinistic
tradition that has developed particularly within Scotland, but is not
unique to the Scots. The editors have picked up the baton passed on by
John Calvin, Karl Barth, Thomas Torrance, and others, in order to offer
the family of Reformed theologies a reinvigorated theological and
spiritual ethos. This volume promises to set the agenda for
Reformed-Calvinist discussion for some time to come.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Table of Contents:</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Prologue:</b> Union in Christ: A Declaration for the Church. Andrew Purves and Mark Achtemeier</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Introduction</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">1: <i>Theologia Reformata et Semper Reformanda.</i> Towards a Definition of Evangelical Calvinism. Myk Habets and Bobby Grow</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Part 1:</b> <b>Prolegomena – Historical Theology</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">2: The Phylogeny of Calvin’s Progeny: A Prolusion. Charles Partee</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">3: The Depth Dimension of Scripture: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Calvinism. Adam Nigh</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">4: <i>Analogia Fidei or Analogia Entis</i>: Either Through Christ or Through Nature. Bobby Grow</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">5: The Christology of Vicarious Agency in the Scots Confession According to Karl Barth. Andrew Purves</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Part 2: Systematic Theology</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">6: <i>Pietas, Religio</i>, and the God Who Is. Gannon Murphy</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">7: “There is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ:” Christologically Conditioned Election. Myk Habets</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">8: A Way Forward on the Question of the Transmission of Original Sin. Marcus Johnson</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">9: “The Highest Degree of Importance”: Union with Christ and Soteriology. Marcus Johnson</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">10: <i>“Tha mi a’ toirt fainear dur gearan:”</i> J. McLeod Campbell and P.T. Forsyth on the Extent of Christ’s Vicarious Ministry. Jason Goroncy</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">11: “Suffer the little children to come to
me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Infant Salvation and the
Destiny of the Severely Mentally Disabled. Myk Habets</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Part 3: Applied Theology</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">12: Living as God’s Children: Calvin’s Institutes as Primer for Spiritual Formation. Julie Canlis</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">13: Idolaters at Providential Prayer: Calvin’s Praying Through the Divine Governance. John C McDowell</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">14: Worshiping like a Calvinist: Cruciform Existence. Scott Kirkland</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Part 4</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;">15: Theses on a <i>Theme</i>. Myk Habets and Bobby Grow</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Epilogue:</b> Post Reformation Lament. Myk Habets</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Index</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><b>Bibliography</b></span></blockquote>
<br />
<i>Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!</i>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-65483951523544215952012-08-18T16:23:00.001-07:002012-08-21T12:00:41.509-07:00I am done with blogging ...<strike>I am done with blogging, for at least awhile. I am tired of it, for many reasons. So I just wanted to let any of my readers know about what is going on with my blog. I am not deleting the blog, but I am putting it into "private" mode, so it will effectively be gone. Blessings to all of you, and don't be surprised if you see me back blogging again some day; at the moment I am totally burnt out. I plan on shifting my writing from the blog, and towards putting together papers that I hope to submit to theological journals etc. And you never know, there could be another EC book some day; anything is possible. Peace, Bobby.</strike><br />
<br />
<i><b>PS. But if you still would like to read some of my thoughts then you can do so <a href="http://bobbygrow.tumblr.com/">HERE</a>.</b></i> Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-83158316008708473532012-08-17T14:03:00.003-07:002012-08-17T14:32:40.238-07:00The Gospel Coalition, Resurgence, RE: Train: And The American Evangelical Captivity to Five Point Calvinist Theology<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghCY5WjLyR3uqR91M22DoxqGodgveRnnvSsf7msddpIX8Bd35oh0MGGGovM9BcRcp6tJlLI_D-yk6N7Zjh0TOrUq3LJZLqrB-jtv6Bq7BdNTYNOQ01ODaIf4evgf5Bd1_eOtnUBjWEIEA/s320/the-gospel-coalition-logo.jpg" width="320" /></div>
<br />
The Gospel Coalition is gaining an amazing reach into the Evangelical churches in North America (if not even internationally at some levels). Indeed, even my own local church has been and is being influenced by the reach of TGC (and the "denomination" our church is in [Calvary Chapel] is usually known to be more Arminian in orientation [if indeed Calvary Chapel's have a articulated theological orientation---which in fact they really don't!]). They offer and sponsor video series for church ministries (like on how to be missional or kingdom builders in urban settings), conferences for pastors (and lay folk alike), and now they are (at the least) associated with a "training" program offered to pastors that is said to be at the level of a 'Masters' level course load.<br />
<br />
I understand that most pastors who associate themselves with TGC are certainly well intentioned guys who love Jesus, and want to be up on all of the cutting edge (what is perceived as such) ministry tools and trajectories that they can avail themselves of; I understand that! But from my perspective there is something more insidious going on here (from TGC's side); the fact is, is that what counts as the <i>Gospel </i>for <i>The Gospel Coalition </i>is this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The Plan of God</b>
We believe that from all eternity God determined in grace to save a
great multitude of guilty sinners from every tribe and language and
people and nation, and to this end foreknew them and chose them. We
believe that God justifies and sanctifies those who by grace have faith
in Jesus, and that he will one day glorify them—all to the praise of his
glorious grace. In love God commands and implores all people to repent
and believe, having set his saving love on those he has chosen and
having ordained Christ to be their Redeemer. [taken from <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/confessional/"><i>The Gospel Coalition's </i>'Confessional Statement', point 5</a>]</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
And this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>The Kingdom of God</b>
We believe that those who have been saved by the grace of God through
union with Christ by faith and through regeneration by the Holy Spirit
enter the kingdom of God and delight in the blessings of the new
covenant: the forgiveness of sins, the inward transformation that
awakens a desire to glorify, trust, and obey God, and the prospect of
the glory yet to be revealed. Good works constitute indispensable
evidence of saving grace.... [taken from <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/confessional/"><i>The Gospel Coalition's </i>'Confessional Statement', point 10</a>]</blockquote>
<br />
So what counts as the 'Gospel' for The <i>Gospel </i>Coalition is the same theology that funds the so called 5 points of Calvinism---indeed, it is The 5 POINTS of Calvinism, straight up. The reason that I said, earlier, that I think this is insidious (that is, TGC's mode of operation by framing themselves as simple purveyors of the Gospel, is that they speak and move, often, in cloaked ways; and intentionally so!), is because as I just noted, parenthetically, TGC knows that the theology of 5 point Calvinism in its naked, explicit form is offensive to many Evangelical Christians. So they have crafted a method, language, and a cultural posture that will make what they think counts as the 'Gospel' more acceptable to the masses of Evangelical leadership who finds their many resources (for pastors) appealing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigF0wO15XJ6mk5STTYwqXkTiHnxDyKSqGmxxrbNA_-R93hG9uIOQP__2G03z8grwxEsNiNWRE-M0MijlvsSawka7z_unG6m7FEwxpJPKEz-TSL-LlgxSD0UEJiP_mbGiDpteyVmNo5bHE/s1600/retrain-graphic2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigF0wO15XJ6mk5STTYwqXkTiHnxDyKSqGmxxrbNA_-R93hG9uIOQP__2G03z8grwxEsNiNWRE-M0MijlvsSawka7z_unG6m7FEwxpJPKEz-TSL-LlgxSD0UEJiP_mbGiDpteyVmNo5bHE/s320/retrain-graphic2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I just became aware of another movement that TGC is associated with (directly or indirectly, I am not sure), and it is actually another movement that is sponsoring a training program of which adopts TGC's 'Confessional Statement' as their own. The other movement that is directly associated with TGC is <a href="http://theresurgence.com/authors/mark-driscoll/">Mark Driscoll's <i>Resurgence </i>ministry </a>which is seeking to instill his idiosyncratic mode of doing 'missional' ministry into the body lives of local churches all across America. I have just become aware of this, because one of the pastors from my own church (I just noticed on a social feed) is attending this training program put on by Driscoll's Mars Hill church in Seattle, WA; the training program is called <i>RE: Train. </i>Here is how RE: Train describes what they are about:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Resurgence Training Center (Re:Train) is a one-year, intensive,
cohort-based program designed to train leaders practically and
theologically. The program is designed after popular “executive style”
graduate programs to serve students currently serving in full-time
ministry or for those who do not have time for semester-long courses.
Students meet physically eight times per academic year; six weekend
courses at regional hubs and two one-week courses at Mars Hill Church in
Ballard. [taken from <a href="http://retrain.org/future-students/new-site-faq/"><i>here</i></a>]</blockquote>
<br />
And they say of their doctrinal commitments, this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The administrators and teachers of Re:Train gladly embrace <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/confessional/">the Gospel Coalition Confessional Statement</a>,
and are members of Mars Hill Church or other like-minded congregations
and institutions. All professors are chosen because of their exceptional
knowledge in their respective field of study and their ability to teach
in a useful and practical way. All professors will be world-class
academicians in well-respected institutions or pastors who have the
appropriate teaching credentials and ministry experience. [from <a href="http://retrain.org/future-students/new-site-faq/"><i>here</i></a>]</blockquote>
<br />
No matter how "good" the intentions of these folk are (and I mean at 'Resurgence' and The Gospel Coalition), they are covertly (in my estimation) conditioning an uncritical Evangelical church in America to believe that the <i>theology </i>that funds the 5 points of Calvinism is actually the <i>Gospel! </i>So all in all, this cultural Christian movement is dangerous; because they know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing so in an under-handed way. Although, I would imagine that many of the attendees at RE: Train know full well what is going on theologically behind RE: Train (and TGC), and they are fine with it. <br />
<br />
All of the above said; I am more than concerned about how many pastors in the American Evangelical church are being taken captive, and in many instances, uncritically, by the theology of <i>The Gospel Coalition </i>and now <i>RE: Train. </i>It is not possible to attend an institution like this (which is explicitly and unabashedly committed to American 5 point Calvinist theology), weed out the bad, and end up with some sort of ecclesiastical (churchly) good. If the root is bad ... well, you know the rest. I am sincerely saddened by the fact that this movement is having such an impact on American Evangelicalism, they are making their move in an intentional fashion by grabbing hold of the pastors from all over America. They know that once they reorient the leadership in American Evangelical churches, then they will also reorient all of these pastor's local flocks.<br />
<br />
In my next post (which will probably be later today), I will break down how those two statements that I shared above from TGC's 'Confessional Statement' are pure unadulterated statements of the TULIP.<br />
<br />
<i>PS. </i>Here is a link that gives a fuller picture of the <a href="http://retrain.org/retrain-vision/"><i>Vision of </i>RE: Train</a>.Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-67714447141393036092012-08-16T12:57:00.000-07:002012-08-16T12:58:35.336-07:005 Point Calvinism Isn't Really The Problem?I recently read from someone who is not an advocate for the theology of 5 Point Calvinism, that they don't ultimately think that this is the real problem (at least for them personally); they seem to be happy to leave this movement (like The Gospel Coalition etc.) in America alone, as long as they keep to themselves and don't make pronouncements against other Christians. I found this sentiment to be intriguing, but also troubling. The troubling aspect with this is that the theology of 5 Point Calvinism is affecting millions of Christians in America, and having drastic consequences on their daily spirituality; and not good ones, I would surmise.<br />
<br />
Or maybe at the end of the day nothing really matters, theology is imperfect (which it is), and thus it will all be sorted out in the end. Just as long as you love Jesus, that's all that really matters ... whatever that's supposed to mean. Forgive my cynicism!Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-50935307544011711622012-08-14T13:15:00.000-07:002012-08-14T13:15:28.160-07:00Blame God and Sin, An 'Asymmetry'<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj34gq-2SCQtT4JIBzE5HV6m7GRBWaJaSMTXsYvxa3l53Ci3wbZwJyBAZUDjPkRNU1-kTgKLSoCBCqsHpI5m9SuPlqTwUeXY6FvNoVBGwlGGJXZ8q5yDXdJdQYaFT5nzn04l75UpyFdWGU/s1600/despair.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj34gq-2SCQtT4JIBzE5HV6m7GRBWaJaSMTXsYvxa3l53Ci3wbZwJyBAZUDjPkRNU1-kTgKLSoCBCqsHpI5m9SuPlqTwUeXY6FvNoVBGwlGGJXZ8q5yDXdJdQYaFT5nzn04l75UpyFdWGU/s1600/despair.jpg" /></a></div>
If you are going to blame anyone, blame God; for eternal life and salvation, that is. As an 'Evangelical Calvinist' my understanding of God's choice, relative to the individual's appropriation of that in and through the vicarious humanity of Christ's choice for us, is this:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Is that a person can only recognize their salvation because they have been made new and chosen by God in Christ. God has chosen 'humanity' exemplified in the incarnation of Christ for us. And so people who are in bondage to their choices which are shaped by a heart that on its own is inward curved and self-loving, are enlivened through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are given a capacity by the Spirit to say Yes to the Father only in and through what has already happened in the humanity of Christ for us. We will never choose God left to our own devices.</li>
<li>The reason that everyone does not choose God instead of themselves can only be attributed to the mystery of evil and sin (because God has chosen all of humanity in the humanity of Christ); NOT GOD (only salvation in Christ can be attributed to Him!). This is what James 1 says:</li>
</ol>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="text Jas-1-13" id="en-NIV-30280"><sup class="versenum">13 </sup>When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;</span> <span class="text Jas-1-14" id="en-NIV-30281"><sup class="versenum">14 </sup>but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.</span> <span class="text Jas-1-15" id="en-NIV-30282"><sup class="versenum">15 </sup>Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.</span><span class="text Jas-1-16" id="en-NIV-30283"><sup class="versenum"> 16 </sup>Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. </span> <span class="text Jas-1-17" id="en-NIV-30284"><sup class="versenum">17 </sup>Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.</span> <span class="text Jas-1-18" id="en-NIV-30285"><sup class="versenum">18 </sup>He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span class="text Jas-1-18" id="en-NIV-30285">And John 3:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="text John-3-16" id="en-NIV-26137"><sup class="versenum">16 </sup>For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. </span> <span class="text John-3-17" id="en-NIV-26138"><sup class="versenum">17 </sup>For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. </span> <span class="text John-3-18" id="en-NIV-26139"><sup class="versenum">18 </sup>Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. </span> <span class="text John-3-19" id="en-NIV-26140"><sup class="versenum">19 </sup>This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. </span> <span class="text John-3-20" id="en-NIV-26141"><sup class="versenum">20 </sup>Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. </span> <span class="text John-3-21" id="en-NIV-26142"><sup class="versenum">21 </sup>But
whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen
plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.</span></blockquote>
<span class="text John-3-21" id="en-NIV-26142"><br /></span>
<span class="text John-3-21" id="en-NIV-26142">So, to speak crudely, we blame God for salvation and His life in Christ for us; and we blame the inexplicable and fleeting reality of evil and sin for unbelief (and this sin is really just an absence of God's 'being', an absence of his life of love ... which is to say, that sin ends up being no-thing, and thus it is irrational to try and understand it or explain it).</span><br />
<br />
<span class="text John-3-21" id="en-NIV-26142">[So there is an obvious asymmetry between these two things]. But it should be clear how this is a 'Calvinist' way of understanding things as well---minus the kind of deterministic/logical-causal reasoning that usually attends both classic Calvinist and Arminian ways. </span><br />
<span class="text John-3-21" id="en-NIV-26142"><br /></span>
<span class="text John-3-21" id="en-NIV-26142"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-66846896537754193562012-08-09T12:09:00.001-07:002012-08-09T12:13:02.417-07:00How Can You Say that Evangelical Calvinism is Different than Evangelical Arminianism?This post is in response to Cal (a commenter here), who has emailed me, and asked how it is that Evangelical Calvinism differentiates itself from Arminianism? It seems that Cal's primary 'delimiter' is the issue of choice and free will, relative to the person's potential capacity to reject or accept the salvation that is theirs in the vicarious humanity of Christ. To begin with, let me attempt to answer Cal's question with a response that I gave to <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/07/evangelical-calvinism/"><i>Roger Olson at his blog</i></a> when he asked a similar thing (my discussion with Olson is in the context of him engaging Myk's and my book <i>Evangelical Calvinism</i>). Here is what I wrote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think the difference is the asymmetry that we would place between so
called “election” and “reprobation.” Since we press a ‘positive
theology’ we emphasize life, the eternal life of Christ as the lens and
ground through which we conceive of humanity (his vicarious humanity).
So it’s not that we don’t see a need for personal response & faith
in order to appropriate the salvation that is the person’s in and
through Christ’s Spirit Anointed humanity; instead, it is that we are
emphasizing that ‘true humanity’ can only be defined in relation to
Christ’s humanity as the ‘original image of God’ (cf. Col. 1:15)—which
flows naturally from our ontological theory of the atonement, or, in
fact, leads to. And so when we think and speak of humanity we only want
to do that in what we have called in the book ‘Christ conditioned’ ways.
The fact that some (and even many and most) reject their humanity (and
salvation) in Christ, again, from our perspective can only be understood
as a ‘surd’ or through the inexplicable nature of sin’s persistence in
the ‘Now’. So we hold, as one of our Theses’ asserts, that all of
humanity (in redemptive history terms), are ‘carnally’ united to Christ,
but not all are united ‘spiritually’ (ultimately). But, again, when we
speak of humanity and salvation, in particular, we stress the idea that
both carnal and spiritual union between God and humanity has occurred in
the vicarious humanity of Christ; and it is through a Spirit created
“unioning” with ‘this’ (Jesus’) humanity that the elect say ‘Yes’. So
the choice for salvation has already been made for all of humanity, in
Christ (from God’s perspective, this is how we understand
‘Pre-destination’ and ‘election’ in Christ); the fact that some reject
this, again, is a surd (or absurd) relative to what God has done in
Christ (‘for us’).</blockquote>
<br />
So the issue has to do with how one conceives of Divine causation, and a certain metaphysics that attends that. We as Evangelical Calvinists (especially Myk and myself) follow Thomas Torrance's rejection of the mechanical, logico-causal and deductive schemata that funds the theology of 5 point Calvinism, for example. So we reframe the discussion in the way that we think the Self-revelation of God does, in Christ; in a Triune, dynamic, personalist, and relational way. We aren't trying to answer the same questions that classic theology does, because we think the questions that shape classic Calvinism and Arminianism are non-starters relative to the faulty starting point they begin from relative to their kind of substance metaphysics.<br />
<br />
Cal's question also wonders about, apparently, the sovereignty of God in salvation. In other words, if God has chosen for all of humanity, per the theologic of the incarnation, and in this choosing he has liberated all of humanity to choose or reject salvation in Christ; then how is this any different than an Arminian conception of prevenient grace? This is the point that we must go back to what I just described as logical-causalism, because we (as Evangelical Calvinists) do hold that God in Christ has chosen for all of humanity; we do believe that when and if someone is 'justified/sanctified' (double grace), spiritually, in Christ, that God has brought about this salvation, subjectively, by the Spirit, in their lives. This gets us back to my response to Roger Olson; we think scripture and Christic faith move and breathe in the realm of emphasizing life, God's life in Christ. And thus we believe that the primary emphasis is LIFE not death, such that reprobation is not an viable aspect---only an accidental one---when we articulate our view of salvation. So we are not really far away, at all, from classic Calvinism, in this sense; in the sense that we believe that scripture and God's Self-revelation in Christ demands that the reason the elect are 'saved' is because of God's choice for them in Christ. We don't think that God's Self-revelation in Christ supplies any kind of ontology or theo-logic for discussing WHY anyone is reprobate [except for the intractable and inexplicable reality of sin cf. John 3:16ff] (and so the asymmetry I noted in my response to Roger). And then this, once again, gets us back to what I was noting in regard to our rejection of logico-causal metaphysics. I realize this will not satisfy folk who are committed to using scholastically informed modes of reasoning (which all of Western theology operates from, in general), and that some will assert that us Evangelical Calvinists aren't playing fair; but it is what it is.<br />
<br />
Hope this helps, Cal.Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-66303404926977613212012-08-07T12:01:00.002-07:002012-08-07T12:04:46.888-07:00Why Understanding Calvinism MattersSome folk might wonder what the big to do is all about when it comes to the whole discussion this blog is dedicated to; that is, the discussion surrounding Calvinism and Armianism. In fact, I think many Evangelical Christians are so far removed from anything dogmatic or doctrinal, and instead given to 'real life', practical and pragmatic issues, that they simply scratch their heads when they come a cross a blog like mine. I have this experience, personally, quite often; in other words, nowadays when folk ask me about my book (when they find out I have one), and I start to explain it to them, most of the significance is lost on them because they don't have enough context, theologically, to grasp the significance of what we are trying to offer alternatively through the introduction of Evangelical Calvinism.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, to most Evangelical's chagrin, they are induced by the theological categories of Arminianism or Calvinism (in their classic forms) any time they listen to radio preachers, their preacher, and or fellowship with other Christians. The fact that they can't identify the theological categories they are being exposed to on a daily basis (if they indeed inhabit the Evangelical sub-culture) does not also mean that they aren't being exposed; it just means they are ignorant or naive to their exposure. So part of my goal, with a blog like this (and just in my own mode of daily life as a Christian) is to expose people and inform folk to what they are indeed being exposed to theologically. Some people might say, who cares; but the reality is, is that ideas have consequences (even ideas, and especially ideas that are held unconsciously), and so it behooves the Christian person to become aware of the ideas that shape their own theological identity, and then seek to make sure that what they explicitly or implicitly endorse, theologically, actually aligns with scripture and the God who is Self-Revealed in Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, part of the 'Fall' (in the garden with Adam and Eve) entailed the fact that knowing God requires work (and I don't mean a works righteousness salvation, but that even in our salvation, we are called upon to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ; and this presupposes work and toil cf. II Tim. 2:15). Of course, our 'flesh' or sin nature does not like to toil and work, and our culture conditions us to just take it easy. But this is not the ethic and life that God has called us to in Christ Jesus. Our hearts beat from a different city, a city whose foundations are heavenly (not platonically understood of course); and thus we need to be busy about God's mission and work. Part of this busy-ness requires that we cultivate relationship with God in Christ. This cultivation process is commonly known as theology.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, this is why understanding something as nuanced as Arminianism and Calvinism matters. We don't live in a theological vacuum, we live in a Christian world that comes with its own categories of thought and cultural dispositions; we are all impacted by theological ideas, the responsible Christian will try to understand what those are, and then act on cultivating healthy Christian ideas relative to God's Word.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Check out my other blog</i></b>: <a href="http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><b>The Face Of Christ</b></i></span></a>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-17721902247289899272012-07-21T13:43:00.000-07:002012-07-21T13:43:00.823-07:00Our Book is Available At Amazon.comOur book is now available at Amazon.com, click the title below:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Calvinism-Resourcing-Continuing-Reformation/dp/1608998576/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342903163&sr=1-7&keywords=myk+habets"><i>Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church</i></a>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-88768350726276598402012-07-20T11:32:00.000-07:002012-07-20T11:59:00.176-07:00Why I am Not a 5 Point Calvinist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
I am not a so called Five Point Calvinist for various reasons, but one of those reasons, a primary reason, is that the theology behind the acronym TULIP was never intended to be the sum or end all of what Calvinism was to be known for, doctrinally. Myk Habets and I, in <a href="https://wipfandstock.com/store/Evangelical_Calvinism_Essays_Resourcing_the_Continuing_Reformation_of_the_Church"><i>our recently released book,</i></a> have commented on this reality in the introductory chapter of the book:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_6PZFlzl423GbaJp9AljwwDZ3pZWiWO_SaFTY1uKbDxciUx5bCcD1t85GD9B9knsHMQ8e3rOtNLMix6Evw1Ku2iIZAEYGM1y9i6G16hJ24ewY9SsTgJwKQHnoAl2CG7LR4VnxTdiUPKo/s1600/canonsofdort.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_6PZFlzl423GbaJp9AljwwDZ3pZWiWO_SaFTY1uKbDxciUx5bCcD1t85GD9B9knsHMQ8e3rOtNLMix6Evw1Ku2iIZAEYGM1y9i6G16hJ24ewY9SsTgJwKQHnoAl2CG7LR4VnxTdiUPKo/s1600/canonsofdort.png" /></a></div>
Numerous recent attempts at defining the Reformed or Calvinist tradition have been offered. A number of these treatments have tended to present in objective fashion what is, ultimately, only a subjective judgment. Earlier popular works at definition, still in vogue amongst seminary and university students on campuses today, look to the five points of Dort—the so-called “doctrines of grace”—as the essence of what it means to be Reformed.25 Dort, however, as with most if not all of the Reformed confessions, is a localized and contextual document. The Canons of Dort give a detailed and skilled reply to Arminianism; hence “TULIP” represents a response to the Arminian five-point Remonstrance. It was never intended as a sum of Reformed thought. The Canons of Dort are still to be consulted for a Reformed reply to Arminianism, but they should not be thought to represent the sum of our belief. As Muller has written:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In other words, it would be a major error—both historically and doctrinally—if the five points of Calvinism were understood either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism. [Myk Habets and Bobby Grow, eds., <a href="https://wipfandstock.com/store/Evangelical_Calvinism_Essays_Resourcing_the_Continuing_Reformation_of_the_Church"><i>Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church, </i>(Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012)</a>, 9-10.]</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
So even Richard Muller, Calvin and Calvinist scholar renowned, would agree with us, that the five points should not be seen as universally binding for the faithful; instead their regional and occasional nature should be understood as their primary context of meaning. Thus, when we say that we are 'Evangelical Calvinists' we are free to eschew the five points in favor of other emphases that have also developed within the history of the Reformed faith, in general, and Calvinism in particular.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>PS. Make sure to check out my other blog: <a href="http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/"><b>The Face Of Christ</b></a></i><a href="http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/"><b> </b></a></span>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-58012335597534896122012-07-16T00:30:00.000-07:002012-07-16T00:30:55.148-07:00Follow Me, If You Want ...This blog has just become my official "Book Blog," if I have any particular updates about the book itself, or other pertinent things regarding Evangelical Calvinism in particular, then this will be the place to read about that. I will be continuing my blog life over at an older blog of mine renamed to 'The Face Of Christ'. Sorry about the inconvenience to the relatively small readership I have at this blog (which has dwindled to almost nothing, strangely) for making another move, but it is what it is.<br />
<br />
My blog address is: <a href="http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/">http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com</a>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-4576948092047747222012-07-14T00:41:00.000-07:002012-07-14T00:47:03.997-07:00Wright on Dispensationalism and the Nation of Israel in the Theology of the Apostle Paul<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglutC4L62f1bhh4O3tzBBpMpMElrr00BFidHkxSl-VWwQeAp-q81P3PCP3kMYPLUT0MvL_vO_pN6CNydvxamA1A-ZdGSKgCvPr_EQS1FmdENGeusJsAkMRskz8dj4xQazfc1sebYtDZoI/s1600/Jerusalem_Siege_by_Romans_70_AD_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglutC4L62f1bhh4O3tzBBpMpMElrr00BFidHkxSl-VWwQeAp-q81P3PCP3kMYPLUT0MvL_vO_pN6CNydvxamA1A-ZdGSKgCvPr_EQS1FmdENGeusJsAkMRskz8dj4xQazfc1sebYtDZoI/s320/Jerusalem_Siege_by_Romans_70_AD_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jerusalem besieged, 70 A. D.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I thought this was an interesting point made by N. T. Wright in his book <i>Paul: Fresh Perspectives, </i>he is discussing the nation of Israel and how Israel functions in the theology of the Apostle Paul. The point I am lifting from Wright here is a point that illustrates his dismay over <i>North American Dispensational </i>readings of Paul's theology, in particular his conception of the second coming of Christ. Here is what Wright writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[...] For some, alas, the very phrase 'second coming', and even perhaps the word 'eschatology' itself, conjures up visions of the 'rapture' as understood within some branches of (mostly North American) fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity, and as set out, at a popular level, in the 'Left Behind' series of novels by Tim F. Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and the theology, if you can call it that, which those books embody. That scheme of thought, ironically considering its fanatical though bizarre support for the present state of Israel, is actually deeply un-Jewish, collapsing into a dualism in which the present wicked world is left to stew in its own juice while the saints are snatched up to heaven to watch Armageddon from a ringside seat. (p. 145, Nook edition)</blockquote>
<br />
And then he goes on in the next paragraph to develop the Apostle Paul's <i>actual </i>thinking, in contrast to dispensationalism, on such things; he continues to write:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This is massively different from anything we find in Paul [referring to the dispensationalist reading he just mentioned], for all that the central text for the 'rapture' theology is of course I Thessalonians 4.16-17. What we find in Paul at this point is four things, in each of which we see the still-future Jewish eschatology redrawn around the Messiah.... (p. 145, Nook edition)</blockquote>
<br />
He goes on to develop his 'four things', which I don't want to get into at this point. Instead, I simply want to draw attention to the way that N. T. Wright (unsurprisingly) thinks of dispensational theology. I have come to agree with Wright about my former dispensationalism (I am an American Evangelical after all). But what does Wright mean when he writes 'That scheme of thought, ironically considering its fanatical though bizarre support for the present state of Israel, is actually deeply un-Jewish, collapsing into a dualism in which the present wicked world is left to stew in its own juice while the saints are snatched up to heaven to watch Armageddon from a ringside seat'? It is something that I have harped on for quite some time, whenever I write about dispensationalism; that is, this neo-Platonic, hard and fast distinction between Israel and the Church (the Church=for Wright 'the saints snatched up'). It is this distinction that ironically, but not, makes the Church God's saints, and the nation of Israel his Covenant People; such that the latter are judged (even though Jesus already was ... he was the Jew, wasn't he) by God in the 'Great Tribulation' (Daniel's so called 70th Week, or Jacob's Trouble, cf. Jer. 30:7), and the former are the beneficiaries of Christ's death for them on the cross. So we end up with this strange dualism between God's "two people," with the result that one still has to go through a blood letting of unimaginable depth, and the other has been released from such blood letting (the Church) through their Savior, Jesus Christ. My depiction might seem crude, but this is the inevitable conclusion to consistent and honest classical dispensational theology.<br />
<br />
Wright, in the end, is right that dispensational theology offers a bizarre picture of what it means to 'support' the nation of Israel. Their theological framework has abstracted the nation of Israel out from Christ (in this dispensation, anyway ... i.e. the so called "Church Age"), and essentially placed them into a situation that has them facing something akin to a medieval Roman Catholic conception of purgatory; but instead dispensationalists have named it, 'The Great Tribulation', riffing on Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse.<br />
<br />
What say you Dispensationalist?<br />
<br />
PS. In the end, though, I think Wright unhelpfully ends up offering an ecclesiocentric view of God's people, instead of grounding God's people (the Pauline 'One New Man' cf. Eph. 2.11ff) in God's life in Christ as his new creation in his covenant life of grace. So I think Wright is still in need of some dogmatic reflection, and I am happy to see that he seems to be open to some correction by some of his more recent interaction with Kevin Vanhoozer (esp. in areas having to do with union with Christ theology).Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-72327445000371187522012-07-12T13:27:00.000-07:002012-07-12T13:27:09.560-07:00You Can't Have Jesus Without FaithYou can't simply do historical analysis of the New Testament and expect to come to right conclusions about Jesus. And yet this is where so much of 'Evangelical' scholarship (and Christian scholarship in general) resides. You can't use analogies that start with yourself and work your way to Jesus from there, and expect to find the genuine Jesus; you'll just end up finding the Jesus who looks oh so much like yourself--the Jesus molded in your own image. So the irony of what I just asserted is that I am saying that you can't 'solely' rely on historical Jesus studies and expect to find the true Jesus, and at the same time I am asserting that we must avoid somehow importing our own historical culturally situadedness back onto the face of Jesus. So what's the answer to this dilemma? What get's us beyond this impasse of dualism between studying Jesus through historical empericism and isolated subjectivism? I mean isn't Christianity a religion based in history? Yes. But history by itself does not have the proper traction or orientation to provide humanity--embedded within history--with the proper epistemological antennae needed to penetrate the depths which gives history its right relation to the one who gave us history to begin with. Am I speaking too cryptically for you yet?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFIyhXD_b73tZEgR9oK4vXppYdsCGitPIvvIDtO5zpioa4XLAULK7b_l45kTM47geMebCrIm7-sU1hFIiB3dPnmthwslJYHOifuOZl3XQw143oiCkSIlny6QH6B2gy0oR-ei0uSGzo1MU/s1600/jesusmaryjohn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFIyhXD_b73tZEgR9oK4vXppYdsCGitPIvvIDtO5zpioa4XLAULK7b_l45kTM47geMebCrIm7-sU1hFIiB3dPnmthwslJYHOifuOZl3XQw143oiCkSIlny6QH6B2gy0oR-ei0uSGzo1MU/s320/jesusmaryjohn.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Here Thomas Torrance speaks somewhat less cryptically about how we ought to <i>dogmatically </i>consider the relation between history and revelation through the optic of <i>Faith:</i><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All this means that any christological approach that starts from the man Jesus, from the historical Jesus, and tries to pass over to God, and so to link human nature to God, is utterly impossible. In fact it is essentially a wrong act: for it runs directly counter to God's act of grace which has joined God to humanity in Christ. All Attempts to understand Jesus Christ by starting off with the historical Jesus utterly fail; they are unable to pass over from man to God and moreover to pass man to God in such a way as not to leave man behind all together, and in so doing they deny the humanity of Jesus. Thus though Ebionite christologies all seek to go from the historical Jesus to God, they can make that movement only by denying the humanity of Jesus, that is by cutting off their starting point, and so they reveal themselves as illusion, and the possibility of going from man to God is revealed as likewise illusory.<br />
<i> </i><br />
No, it is quite clear that unless we are to falsify the facts from the very start, we must face with utter and candid honesty the New Testament presentation of Christ to us, not as a purely historical figure, nor as a purely transcendental theophany, but as God and man. Only if we start from that duality in which God himself has already joined God and man, can we think God and humanity together, can we pass from man to God and from God to man, and all the time be strictly scientific in allowing ourselves to be determined by the nature of the object. [Thomas F. Torrance, <i>Incarnation, </i>edited by Robert Walker, 10]</blockquote>
<br />
So Torrance's premise is that what has happened in the incarnation is totally <i>unique, </i>and has only been made accessible through the purview of <i>faith. </i>Not blind faith, but faith that takes it shape as it is given to us through the revelation of God himself in and through the vicarious humanity of Christ for us; the humanity that grounds all of humanity as the image of God (Colossians 1:15)--so faith is the eyes to see and the ears to hear with that Jesus so often challenges his audiences to employ. <br />
<br />
What does this tell us about historical Jesus studies that seek to tell us the truth about Jesus, but then fail to do so through the mode of <i>faith? </i>It tells me that these approaches are trying to find a public square, a common ground through which to substantiate and situate Jesus in such a way that he has respectability amongst the world. Once this respectability has been established, and Jesus rightly reconstructed, then we can attend to the issues of faith (so there is an implicit competition, then, in this scenario, between the Jesus of Faith and History). To be clear, none of this is to reject the usage of historical tools, but it is to call attention to the need that these tools have; the need is to provide for them a prior Christian dogmatic order that will allow those tools to not chisel a Jesus into something he is not (e.g. first a man, then God added on). He is God first, who becomes man; and this is such a unique event that it in itself can only be its own analogy.<br />
<br />
There is more to say about the TF Torrance quote above; especially about the affirmation of creation and humanity that is provided for it through the incarnation of Christ. Maybe another time, or in the comments. Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-18469130523093597732012-07-10T12:55:00.001-07:002012-07-10T13:23:37.054-07:00The Jesus of History & Faith, Conjoined<a data-mce-href="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jesus_icon1.jpg" href="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jesus_icon1.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-4965" data-mce-src="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jesus_icon1.jpg?w=210" height="300" src="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jesus_icon1.jpg?w=210" title="Jesus_Icon1" width="210" /></a>I wanted to address something that dovetails with <a data-mce-href="http://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/revelation-and-history-cornelius-van-tils-critique-of-karl-barth/" href="http://theologyoutofbounds.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/revelation-and-history-cornelius-van-tils-critique-of-karl-barth/">a recent mini-essay that Darren Sumner wrote on Karl Barth's understanding of history and revelation</a>. What I want to do is provide a counter-part post that underscores and articulates Thomas F. Torrance's view on the same subject.
If you read Darren's post alongside this post; what you'll notice is
that both Torrance and Barth share a very similar understanding on the
relationship between how revelation and history work together, and how
the former ultimately must be said to condition the latter; and not <i>vice versa. </i>Here
is TF Torrance, at length (I will highlight the significance of this
relative to the normal ways that Evangelicals and some of the Reformed
use history as the foundation for their view of revelation---which is
really backwards from a genuinely <i>Christian </i>order of things):<br />
<br />
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
The
mystery of Christ is presented to us within history --- that historical
involvement is not an accidental characteristic of the mystery but
essential to it. That is the problem.</div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
Let
us first put it this way, recalling the bi-polarity of our theological
knowledge. If God has become man in the historical Jesus, that is an
historical event that comes under our historical examination so far as
the humanity of Jesus is concerned, but the fact that <i>God </i>became
man is an event that cannot be appreciated by ordinary historical
science, for here we are concerned with more than simply an historical
event, namely, with the act of the eternal God. So far as this event is a
fact of nature it can be observed, and so far as it is historical in
the sense that other natural events are historical, it can be
appreciated as such; but the essential <i>becoming </i>behind it
cannot be directly perceived except by an act of perception appropriate
to the eternal event. That act of perception appropriate to an eternal
act, or divine act, would surely be the pure vision of God, which we do
not have in history. Here on earth and in time we do not see directly,
face to face, but see only in part, as through a glass enigmatically, in
a mystery. We see the eternal or divine act within history, within our
fallen world where historical observation is essential. Faith would be
better described then as the kind of perception appropriate to
perceiving a divine act in history, an eternal act in time. So that
faith is appropriate both to the true perception of historical facts,
and also to the true perception of God's action in history. Nor is it
the way we are given within history to perceive God's acts in history,
and that means that faith is the obedience of our minds to the mystery
of Christ, who is God and man in the historical Jesus. What is clearly
of paramount importance here is the holding together of the historical
and the theological in our relation to Christ.</div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
If
the two are not held together, we have broken up the given unity in
Christ into the historical on the one hand, and the theological on the
other, refracting it into elements which we can no longer put together
again. We then find that we cannot start from the historical and move to
the theological, or from the theological and move to the historical
without distortion, and nor can we rediscover the original unity. We can
only start from the given, where the historical and the theological are
in indissoluble union in Christ. [Thomas F. Torrance, Incarnation, 6-7]</div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
So
there is no analogy for the incarnation. And for Torrance, the
incarnation must be the definitive touchstone for how we start to
conceive of a knowledge of God (the Old Testament then is seen as the <i>pre-incarnation </i>of
God in Christ); and since there is not human analogy for this reality
to be found in the history of history (i.e. God and humanity united in a
single person), the only 'foundation' that can be used to justify our
belief about God must be given its shape and reality through the given
reality of the incarnate Christ---which means, <i>faith</i>.<br />
<br />
This
means that we cannot start with an abstracted history (like a naked
evidentialism) and seek to attach this to the history of Jesus, but the
history we have, in itself, of Christ's revelation is the given reality
itself; there is nothing else that can be determinate of that, other
than the truly and self-determinately free God himself.<br />
<br />
<i>*A repost for those who may have not read this, I once posted this not too long ago at my EC (Wordpress) blog.</i>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-52339821763917755642012-07-09T13:38:00.000-07:002012-07-09T13:39:24.560-07:00Thomas Torrance on Justin Martyr and "Proving Jesus" as Hermeneutic<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/justin-martyr.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-5127" height="300" src="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/justin-martyr.jpg?w=220&h=300" title="justin-martyr" width="220" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Justin Martyr</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Thomas Torrance, in his Theological Science (his theological method, and a title of one of his books), follows what he calls an <i>epistemological inversion; </i>in
short, epistemological inversion is the approach that holds out that an
object or subject (or both as in the case of Christian Theology) acts
upon us (the knowers and inquirers), such that it itself opens up to us
its own reality and structures of thought—this process remains an open
structured event. It is from within this context that we can better
understand Thomas Torrance’s appropriation of someone like Justin
Martyr, and his defense of Christian reality and the Christic event
itself (one and the same). Let’s follow along as Torrance engages
Martyr, this quote will end with Torrance quoting Justin (which is the
piece I really want to get to with this post—<i>viz. </i>Martyr’s “argument”):<br />
<blockquote>
The distinctive feature of this Word is its relation through the Spirit to historical <i>facts </i>and
events. It is when we allow the Scriptures to direct us to these facts
and events that our minds fall under the power of their truth and we are
<i>compelled </i>to believe for they carry in themselves their own
demonstration. This is not, of course, any kind of logical proof, but
the kind of demonstration that arises immediately out of the facts and
events themselves through their self-evidence. This is particularly well
expressed in a fragment of a lost work on the resurrection that has
survived through John of Damascus and attributed to Justin.</blockquote>
<div style="padding-left: 120px; text-align: left;">
[T]he Word of truth is free, and carries
its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to
endure the logical scrutiny for its hearers. But it would be believed of
its own sake, and for the confidence due to him who sends it. Now the
Word of truth is sent from God, wherefore the freedom claimed by the
truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit
that it should be required to produce proof of what is said, since
neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof
is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves, since what
is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is
produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But
nothing is more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he
who requires proof of this, is like one who wishes it demonstrated why
the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those
things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense
itself there is not test beyond itself. As then we bring those things
which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things
they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in
judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer
all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it
judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we
judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the
Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the Truth.
And the Word, being his Son, came to us, having put on flesh revealing
both himself and the Father, giving to us in himself resurrection from
the dead and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ our
Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is himself both the faith and the proof
of himself and of all things. [Thomas F. Torrance, <i>Divine Meaning, </i>95-6; the quote from Justin, <i>De resurrectione, </i>1.1f, from the <i>Sacra Parallela </i>of John of Damascus. E.T. from <i>Ante Nicen</i>e <i>Christian Library, </i>vol. 2, pp. 341ff. This is not generally accepted as Justin's</div>
<div style="padding-left: 120px; text-align: left;">
own work, but like the <i>Cohortatio ad Graecos </i>was at least written under his influence.]</div>
<div style="padding-left: 120px;">
<br /></div>
For all those weary souls who have labored under the Evangelical mantle of ‘Fighting Fundamentalism’ and the <i>Apologetic Faith </i>(as Warfield called it); won’t you join me in commending yourself to a more <i>Christian Way? </i>A
‘Way’ that does not entangle itself in the realm of
rationalist-historicism, that seeks to ‘prove’ Jesus to themselves and
the world. I am sure that it is the other way around … we are in need of
‘proving’. And I think the “Martyr” quote helps us to think in this
order, and not the order of the “world.”Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-65156358418372386612012-07-08T13:04:00.000-07:002012-07-08T13:04:08.993-07:00Too Much Jesus in the Bible?<a data-mce-href="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/saint_irenaeus.jpg" href="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/saint_irenaeus.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-5161" data-mce-src="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/saint_irenaeus.jpg?w=213" height="300" src="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/saint_irenaeus.jpg?w=213" title="saint_irenaeus" width="213" /></a>I would like to expose you all to Thomas Torrance's take on Irenaeus' understanding on what could be called a <em>Christocentric Hermeneutic. </em>As you read Torrance's account of Irenaeus, understand that you are reading Torrance too. Here is Torrance on Irenaeus:<br />
<br />
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
It is, then, to the <em>Incarnation </em>that
Irenaeus turns for the clue to the interpretation of the history of
creation and redemption and therefore for the clue to the interpretation
of the Scriptures. The essential order and connection of things is
embodied in Jesus Christ and it is by reference to him that the economic
ministrations of God in humanity and the historical covenants are to be
understood aright, and therefore the interconnection between the
scriptures of the prophets and the scriptures of the Apostles, 'the
Gospel and the Apostles. Even the Scriptures of the old covenant have to
be read in the light of Christ's advent in the flesh, for his coming
connected the end with the beginning and made the beginning predictive
of the end, thus showing that the faith of the patriarchs and prophets
and ours is <em>one and the same. </em>They sowed the seed, the word about Christ (<em>sermonem de Christo</em>),
but it is in us that the fruit is reaped and received, and only in the
Church is the truth of the things prefigured realised. 'Certain facts
had to be announced beforehand by the fathers in a paternal manner, (<em>paternaliter</em>), and others prefigured by the prophets in a legal manner (<em>l</em><em>egaliter</em>), but others delineated according to the pattern of Christ (<em>deformari secundum formationem Christi</em>) by those who perceived the adoption, for in one God are all things shown forth.' [Thomas F. Torrance, <em>Divine Meaning, </em>122-23]</div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
How
does this strike you? Do you think this is too intense for a
hermeneutic or mode for interpreting Scripture? Is your method of
biblical interpretation this intensively Christ focused? I am really
curious how you all think of this; I obviously highly appreciate this
kind of 'Patristic' method of interpreting and reinterpreting (the OT)
Scripture in light of its fulfillment in Christ. This rubs against the
method of interpretation I learned (by and large) in Bible College and
Seminary; which is the <em>Literal Grammatical Historical </em>method (the kind that leads to and from Dispensationalism).Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-88937170094543330722012-07-07T13:06:00.000-07:002012-07-07T13:06:09.053-07:00Knowledge of God for Thomas TorranceHere is a video I did about 2 years ago (forgive my haircut, this is actually just after I finished my chemo treatments, so my hair is growing back :-). Anyway, I am interacting with Paul Molnar's book <i>Thomas F. Torrance: The Trinitarian Theologian. </i>I think the material covered in this video is apropos towards providing more insight into some of the issues that seem to be arising for Roger Olson as he interacts with our book. Furthermore, the material covered in this video is what I develop further in my personal chapter in our book.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/P6gXlOgDlr8?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
So knowledge of God can only come through knowledge of God as it is Self-revealed and determined to be in Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 1:18). Knowledge of God can only be regulated by his own Self-revelation, and thus other modes for providing grammar and content for knowledge of God cannot be entertained (such as using philosophical categories like appealing to Aristotle etc. appeal to).Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-9088890396673834372012-07-06T11:11:00.000-07:002012-07-06T12:32:15.386-07:00Classical Determinism<a data-mce-href="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/aristotle.jpg" href="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/aristotle.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4103" data-mce-src="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/aristotle.jpg?w=232" height="300" src="http://growrag.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/aristotle.jpg?w=232" title="aristotle" width="232" /></a><i>Over at Roger Olson's blog, and in <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/07/evangelical-calvinism/">his most recent post </a>where he is interacting with our recently released book, one of the issues that has come up </i> – <i>or that is not being appreciated 'yet' </i>– <i>is the Evangelical Calvinist eschewing of logical-causal-deductive determinism. This is somewhat of a fundamental key toward appreciating the distinct offering that we are, under the 'Evangelical Calvinist' nomenclature. True, not all, even of the authors in our book, would necessarily go this far in offering critique of classic determinism (or they might, but just might to it differently); but the following (which is a repost of mine), will illustrate how I, at least, want to proceed in relation to the usual epistemological methods employed by the 'classical' tradition. So the following is in response to what I am perceiving, thus far, as somewhat of a lacuna in the reading of Olson and those commenting <span class="Latn">vis-à-vis an Evangelical Calvinist approach. </span></i><br />
<br />
Here T. F. explains and undoes the usual understanding of how events
in history and causation relate one to the other. He defeats the idea of
causation, appropriated by <i>Classical Theists, </i>in general; and <i>Classical Calvinists & Arminians, </i>in
particular, that there is a necessary relation between the event that
happened, and the events that led to the happening. He makes a
disjunction between <i>Factual event </i>and <i>Necessary event; </i>the former being that which
we understand as an actual happen-stance of the past, and the latter
having to do with the idea that because that happen-stance happened,
that the events that led to its happening also were necessarily
organised in a certain way in order for the the conditions of that event
to be so — as if we, as historians (or scientists, theologians, etc),
can absolutize causes based upon an idea of uniformitarian conception of
<i>Event. </i>Obviously this is a little complicated, and not for the
faint of heart, but I think it important to be grasped in order to
understand what Evangelical Calvinists mean when we say that we eschew
the <i>logico-causal-determinism </i>of ‘classic’ thought.<br />
<br />
Here’s T.
F. Torrance (this whole discussion takes place in the context of TFT
talking about resurrection):<br />
<br />
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<b><i>(a) Interpreting ordinary historical events</i></b></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<i>(i) Freedom and necessity in historical events</i></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
Let
us try to understand this from a merely natural point of view. Think of
a historical happening: in taking place it appears as a free happening.
Once it takes place, it cannot be undone. Throw a stone through that
window and you are engaging in a free act, but once it has taken place,
the act cannot be recalled — we cannot turn it backwards as we can a
film of the event. Thus once an event has taken place, it becomes
‘necessary’ — in the sense that it cannot now be other than it is. At
this point, however, we are liable to suffer from an illusion, for we
tend to think that because it is now necessary fact, it had to happen.
This is the kind of optical illusion we suffer from on the golf course
when our opponent putts a ball from the other end of the green and it
goes right down into the hole — immediately that happens we somehow
think it had to happen from the start, but what we have done in a flash
is to read the final result back all along the line of the ball’s course
into the free act behind it. It is through this kind of illusion or
indeed delusion that some historians think that historical events are to
be interpreted in the same way in which they interpret the events of
natural processes as concatenated or linked together through causal
necessity.</div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<i>The distinction between causal necessity and factual necessity</i></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
But
it is important to distinguish in historical happening between causal
necessity and factual necessity, between causal determination of events
and the fact that once they happen they cannot be otherwise. An
historical event, once it has taken place, is factually necessary for it
cannot now be other than it is, but an historical event comes into
being through a free happening, by means of spontaneous human agencies.
Certainly all historical events are interactions between human agents
and nature, as well as interactions between agents and other agents — so
that there are elements of causal determination in historical happening
that we have to take into account, physical factors relating to the
kind of patterns of space and time in which we live and work. But
historical events are not by any means merely natural physical
processes, for as happenings initiated and bound up with purposeful
agents they embody intention which often conflicts with and triumphs
over the course of events that nature would take on its own.</div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<i></i></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<i>(ii) History is the interweaving of natural processes with human intention</i></div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
It
is this interweaving of natural processes and human agencies, of nature
and rational intention, that gives history its complicated patterns.
The course of events has often quite unforeseen results, for human acts
may fail to achieve what would have been expected or may achieve far
more than would or could have been anticipated. But in our
interpretation of history we must never forget that in the heart of
historical events there is free happening which bears the intention in
which the true significance of history is to be discerned. Thus while we
must appreciate fully the physical factors involved, we must penetrate
into the movement of time in the actual happening in order to understand
the event in the light of the intentionality and spontaneity embedded
in it. The handling of temporal relation has proved very difficult and
elusive in the history of thought, for it has so often been assimilated
to logical relation and so transposed into something very different. The
confusion of temporal with logical connection corresponds here to that
between spontaneity and causal determinism in natural science. We can
see this error recurring, for example, in notions of predestination
where the free <i>prius </i>of the divine grace is converted by the
scholastic mind into logico-causal relation, while the kind of
time-relation with which we operate between natural events is imported
into the movements of divine love and activity. It is a form of the same
mistake that people make in regard to the resurrection, when they think
of its happening only within the logico-causal nexus with which they
operate in classical physics. (Thomas F. Torrance, <i>Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, </i>edited by Robert T. Walker (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2009, 249-50)</div>
<div data-mce-style="padding-left: 30px;" style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
In keeping with Torrance’s usual mode of thinking <i>from </i>the Incarnation & Atonement (here the resurrection being the focus)<i>, </i>he
seeks to excoriate any ideas of logico-causal determinism as the lens
through which profane historians would attempt to interpret the
‘historicity’ and ‘facticity’ of the resurrection itself — Torrance’s
discussion here, is all taking shape within his line of thought
associated with <i>Kata Physin </i>(or according to the nature of the thing, or his more popular method <i>Theological Science). </i>As he deconstructs the <i>post hoc </i>ways
of what might be called ‘natural theology’ (meaning all modes of
intellectual inquiry which make inferences from supposed stable events,
works, physical nature, etc. to their “necessary causes”), by
implication, he also gets at theological constructs (like classic
Calvinism-Arminianism, Neo-Orthodoxy like Brunner’s) that operate with
this same <i>modus operandi.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>The moral</b></i>:
There are unseen, unknown contingencies built into the nature of things
themselves that make it impossible to accurately infer a stable causal
chain of events from the event back to the cause itself. The answer to
this, in relation to knowledge of God, is to see the event and cause
conjoined together in the person-act of Jesus himself. It is from this
vantage point that we then are set up to know God, in Christ, but no
longer as some sort of deterministic causal agent; but instead, as
personal, triune Divine agent who <i>apocalyptically</i> breaks into the contingencies of history re-creating them towards their <i>telos </i>or
created purpose in Christ (cf. Col. 1:13ff) — the resurrection, then,
being the instantiation of this within time-space history.<br />
<br />
<i></i><br />
I
doubt this has cleared much up, but if nothing else it helped me to
write this out for my own process. I also would surmise that it is
because of the nuance of this kind of thought, evinced by TFT, that
Evangelical Calvinism will continue to have problems with making headway
with the <del></del>typical American Christian. It is easy to
understand causal-determinism, because that’s what “we see” in “nature”
all the time (there is an “apparent” coordination between how things
appear to the naked mind’s eye, and how we then assume things in
themselves “must” be — so it is natural to operate with a <i>docetic </i>understanding
of things — but this is not Christian (and when I write 'Christian', I mean by way of what we perceive as 'principled' Trinitarian theological methodology — I am not even coming close to questioning anyone's 'salvation'), nor Evangelical Calvinism — it
is the mode of Classical Calvinism & Arminianism [and I realize this
is hard teaching, who can hear it?]).<br />
<i><br /></i>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-84205698894157580812012-07-06T10:06:00.001-07:002012-07-06T10:06:17.156-07:00Roger Olson Interacts with our BookProfessor Roger Olson has been interacting with our book, recently. You can read his initial impressions <i><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/07/evangelical-calvinism/">here</a>. </i>I will be interested to see what he thinks once he gets to our last chapter, chapter 15; this chapter is the one that Myk and I cowrote and it offers up the most definitive statements of what it means for us (Myk and I in particular) to be so called <i>Evangelical Calvinists. </i><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioGT3pNTAkD3cieoaJrouTGHxUEIujSgpJMTmVduklTKfGhiycd5Wa8w59maAW0xIiAso49c7N3RvU3br-sddpPQglAUHIvXPZXonnPE0yxGnvpsdtC6C7wJu9TLO5TrAGXaYPS99gOEI/s1600/roger-olson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioGT3pNTAkD3cieoaJrouTGHxUEIujSgpJMTmVduklTKfGhiycd5Wa8w59maAW0xIiAso49c7N3RvU3br-sddpPQglAUHIvXPZXonnPE0yxGnvpsdtC6C7wJu9TLO5TrAGXaYPS99gOEI/s1600/roger-olson.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Roger Olson</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
My concern, thus far, as I read Olson's, and some of his commenter's, impressions, is that there still isn't a substantial recognition of the radicality that is involved in our methodology (which is why I think our chapter 15 will be instructive and informative for Olson). It still seems as if Olson & co. (his commenters) are trying to read what we are offering through what Torrance calls logical-causal and deterministic lenses. As if what we are trying to communicate is still working through a mechanical mode of inquiry V. a personal and Trinitarian one.<br />
<br />
We shall have to see if this is finally caught once Olson makes it through the book, we'll see ... :-). Just glad Olson is giving our book a fair read! <i> </i>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-36489758058238279452012-07-04T15:26:00.000-07:002012-07-04T15:26:54.531-07:00Was Karl Barth a 'neo-Orthodox' Theologian? The Third Time ...For anyone who was interested in that question of mine a few posts ago – e.g. whether or not Barth was actually <i>neo-Orthodox </i>– well, another Princeton guy I know (a bit ;-), <a href="http://fireandrose.blogspot.com/"><i>David Congdon</i></a> has offered the lineaments of a really helpful argument for why Barth was not <i>neo-Orthodox </i>[and he also comments on where he sees T.F. Torrance on (or not) spectrum as well]. It gives me hope, relative to my own thinking, that what David iterates jives with my earlier hunch (i.e. that natural theology is definitive for whether or not something can count as neo-Orthodox, or not). Below are the two links to the previous posts on this, and then David's clarifying comment.<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://evangelicalcalvinist.blogspot.com/2012/06/was-karl-barth-really-neo-orthodox.html">1st post</a> & <a href="http://evangelicalcalvinist.blogspot.com/2012/06/was-karl-barth-reall-neo-orthodox.html">2nd post</a></i><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d">Bobby,</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYk66j0x_P1_87fgZOd1YusdpnprZLFFrsbcqtzvU-iYfYAOthhUvW2X5w_eNsJJKVYCCVzlmKw8Uopnty1RCjZNRpBqc0FFAlRjOIBQ_TmRI5zmlmSAEjIYmqcrp3LP5g_OUNOdfkjwI/s1600/naturaltheology.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYk66j0x_P1_87fgZOd1YusdpnprZLFFrsbcqtzvU-iYfYAOthhUvW2X5w_eNsJJKVYCCVzlmKw8Uopnty1RCjZNRpBqc0FFAlRjOIBQ_TmRI5zmlmSAEjIYmqcrp3LP5g_OUNOdfkjwI/s200/naturaltheology.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d">I see you've posted
Travis's comment. It's mostly right, but I would like to specify
matters somewhat further. What neoorthodoxy did was to marshal certain
ideas from Barth (mainly, divine transcendence, revelation as
encounter), abstracted as static, stand-alone propositions, and use them
to buttress the project of Christian orthodoxy within the modern era
(hence the "new"). Neoorthodoxy is fundamentally ideological, in that it
presupposes the validity of something like a Christian orthodox
tradition. Having presupposed this tradition as something to be
preserved and maintained, it then finds in Barth certain concepts that
are useful toward that end. The reason neoorthodoxy is not dialectical
theology is that the latter makes no such presupposition; it is in fact
the total abolition of ecclesiastical presuppositions. Dialectical
theology is a thoroughly destabilizing understanding of the gospel.
Neoorthodoxy is basically a species of natural theology, in that it
takes for granted something stable and given in the world -- in this
case, the church. It is therefore no wonder that Barth and Brunner would
fall out over that issue.</span><br />
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d"></span><br />
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d">For these reasons, I demur from Travis
on two points. First, existentialism as such is not a constitutive
element of neoorthodoxy. It is only existentialism as it is welded to a
certain kind of natural theology, as it was in Brunner's case, but
emphatically not in the case of Bultmann. Second, I cannot help but see
Torrance as operating within the ambit of neoorthodoxy. He did not
engage in natural theology (I agree fully with Travis there), but it
seems to me that he takes for granted a kind of ecclesiological
givenness in the form of the orthodox tradition. That was precisely the
underlying presupposition for his ecumenical work. And, conversely, it
is why Barth cared so little about such ecumenical agreements: not
because he did not believe in the unity of the church, but because such
unity only exists in the person of Christ -- and the person of Christ is
a reality that does not give itself to ecclesiastical and theological
traditions. The saving event of Christ must always be an offense to
those theologies that seek to sustain and prop up the tradition of the
church. Orthodoxy, as Barth insisted, is only ever an eschatological
reality. As such, there is no orthodox faith in history. And therefore
there can be no neoorthodox theology.</span><span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d"> [David Congdon's comment, <a href="http://evangelicalcalvinist.blogspot.com/2012/06/was-karl-barth-really-neo-orthodox.html"><i>here</i></a>]</span><span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d"> </span></blockquote>
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d"><br /></span><br />
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d">To be as radical and 'critically-dialectically-realistic' as Barth, the theologian must endeavor to rub out any inkling of human mastery when it comes to knowledge of God in Christ. This is why Barth is known as a post-metaphysical theologian who works from his <i><a href="http://www.faith-theology.com/2008/10/how-to-read-karl-barth-george.html">actualistic</a> </i>mode of theological endeavor.</span><br />
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d"><br /></span><br />
<span id="bc_0_15b+seedFll8D" kind="d">Thanks, David.</span>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2934219918554432299.post-44770860728419977332012-07-04T12:19:00.000-07:002012-07-04T12:23:09.977-07:00Happy Human Independence/Freedom Day, from Karl BarthSince it is 'Independence Day' here in America, today, I thought I would repost a reflection and response on 'Human Freedom' that I posted at my older EC blog quite a few months ago now. As you will see, these reflections are in response to a brother (in Christ) of mine. Happy 'Freedom Day'!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span class="text John-8-36" id="en-NIV-26418"><span class="woj"><sup class="versenum">36 </sup>So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. ~John 8.36</span></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlmauWAfZK9_uz5CWIuGR4SpZnECedpavkuXxpQ1js_v5zxD_CVRTKyZ3oZM1lGzw2P0MLvHmwcAbyFcxpeAtnknINvp_z_6fH86fRZ7w4Zwn8OOCsNRi0-mxrHAs73gX0RJjqt9yLMmk/s1600/barthamerica.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlmauWAfZK9_uz5CWIuGR4SpZnECedpavkuXxpQ1js_v5zxD_CVRTKyZ3oZM1lGzw2P0MLvHmwcAbyFcxpeAtnknINvp_z_6fH86fRZ7w4Zwn8OOCsNRi0-mxrHAs73gX0RJjqt9yLMmk/s1600/barthamerica.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Silhouette of Barth, Garbed in the 'Colors'</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I am reposting the following because I am working the next couple of
days, and so don’t have the time to develop some things I would like to
in response to the discussion I have been having with Nathan in <i><a href="http://growrag.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/why-freewill-theism-and-arminians-choice-is-theologically-aloof-pace-billings/">this thread</a>. </i>Some
have asked what ‘grace all the way down’ might mean (in the thread and
post I am referencing). Some of you are wondering how I might move
differently than a classic Calvinist or Arminian in framing human action
as grounded in a theological-christological anthropology—thus
ultimately recasting, and somewhat avoiding the usual categories of
working out of ‘the bondage of the will’ dialogue. So in lieu of me
writing an actual post that would articulate how I might proceed; this
post, and maybe one more tomorrow will have to suffice until I can do a
proper (new) one. Somebody might think that some of the language from
Barth sounds like what Billings is critiquing in the Arminian, but it’s
not. Since Barth’s construct grounds what it means to be human,
dogmatically, in the elect humanity of Christ for us. This is the piece
that classic Arminianism (and Calvinism) is missing; i.e. ‘the classic
way’ operates with a competitive view between Divine-human action
vis-á-vis human action <i>simpliciter. </i>Meaning that the classic
approach, does not ground humanity from the humanity of Christ in an
objective gracious way. Instead, it sees humanity as abstracted from the
humanity of Christ in need of union with his humanity which is only
actualised through their cooperation with God in salvation by
habituating in the ‘created grace’ (which becomes the impersonal
intermediary that binds elect or foreknown humanity to Christ’s
humanity). More to be said. Here’s Barth on the vicarious humanity of
Christ as ‘God with us’, which becomes the recreated humanity through
which our humanity elevated to what it means to be human; or free for
God.<br />
<br />
Here is a great statement from Barth on the <i>vicarious humanity of Christ,</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
[T]he
answer is that we ourselves are directly summoned, that we are lifted
up, that we are awakened to our own truest being as life and act, that
we are set in motion by the fact that in that one man God has made
Himself our peacemaker and the giver and gift of our salvation. By it we
are made free fro Him. By it we are put in the place which comes to us
where our salvation (really ours) can come to us from Him (really from
Him). This actualisation of His redemptive will by Himself opens up to
us the one true possibility of our own being. Indeed, what remains to us
of life and activity in the face of this actualisation of His
redemptive will by Himself can only be one thing. This one thing does
not mean the extinguishing of our humanity, but its establishment. It is
not a small thing, but the greatest of all. It is not for us a passive
presence as spectators, but our true and highest activation—the
magnifying of His grace which has its highest and most profound
greatness in the fact that God has made Himself man with us, to make our
cause His own, and as His own to save it from disaster and to carry it
through to success. The genuine being of man as life and activity, the
“We with God,” is to affirm this, to admit that God is right, to be
thankful for it, to accept the promise and the command which it
contains, to exist as the community, and responsibly in the community,
of those who know that this is all that remains to us, but that it does
remain to us and that for all men everything depends upon its coming to
pass. And it is this “We with God” that is meant by the Christian
message in its central “God with us,” when it proclaims that God Himself
has taken our place, that He Himself has made peace between Himself and
us, that by Himself he has accomplished our salvation, I.e., our
participation in His being. [Karl Barth CD IV/I, p. 12]</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
This is the kind of stuff I am looking for. A theological
anthropology, that is Christological; that honors the integrity of
created humanity by giving humanity its place in the recreated humanity
of Jesus Christ for us. It is a participationist humanity that we are
given as a gift, we don’t possess it in ourselves. The giveness of
humanity is where humanity flourishes through its relation in the divine
life (i.e. the proper order) in Christ. This early section in IV/I is
entitled “God with Us.”<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span class="text John-8-36" id="en-NIV-26418"><span class="woj"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span class="text John-8-36" id="en-NIV-26418"><span class="woj"><br /></span></span></div>Bobby Growhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.com0