Calvin’s Sound Theology — Scripture Paradigm
Randall Zachman makes a great point in highlighting Calvin’s understanding of the relationship between Biblical exegesis/interpretation and “Sound theology”/dogma:
. . . The Institutes and the commentaries are intended by Calvin to open access to Scripture for future pastors, whereas the catechism and the weekly sermons are meant to open access to Scripture for members of the 
congregation. For Calvin, the proper understanding of Scripture depends on familiarity both with the summary of the rudiments of doctrine and with Scripture itself. Those who lack this kind of training, even though they are expert in the Hebrew language, will inevitably misunderstand Scripture. “But it generally happens with men who are not exercised in the Scripture, nor imbued with sound theology, although well acquainted with the Hebrew language, yet hallucinate and fall into mistakes even in first rudiments.” [Calvin's Comm. on Ps. 73:26] As a teacher and preacher, Calvin sought to exercise his students in Scripture and imbue them with sound theology; . . . [brackets mine] (Randall C. Zachman, “John Calvin As Teacher, Pastor, And Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought,” 108)
This is what dawned on me somewhere between Bible College and Seminary. When I went to Bible College I was full of the idealism that I was going to learn the Biblical languages (so I minored in NT Greek), and thus be able to thoroughly understand and interpret the concepts and doctrine of Scripture (on that basis alone). What I began to realize, as I did syntactical analysis, is that even knowing the “languages,” I still had to make interpretive decisions (even in doing translation work — from the Greek to English). So I went on to seminary and did a Masters thesis which was an “exegetical/language” based thesis (on I Corinthians) — although my passage was really inspired by Martin Luther’s theology of the cross — and I took further language classes (like Hebrew and Greek); but this time it was alongside historical theology (not just systematic like in the undergrad). Anyway, what I’m getting at, and what has led me down the path I’ve been on now since seminary, is the point Zachman is highlighting on Calvin’s thinking. That is that just knowing the Biblical languages isn’t enough. Every Biblical exegete operates and moves within a theological milieu or system; and this “system” is going to impact the way that particular exegete makes his/her interpretative decisions as they approach the text of Scripture (it’s just how it is). So what motivates me is to engage the implications, the “inner logic” of Scripture (e.g. deal with the underlying theological framework that the Scripture writers and Apostles assume in their largely occasional writings) so that I am aware of what is informing my “interpretive decisions” as I approach the text. I think this is what Calvin was on about, and I think it’s something we all need to be mindful of as we endeavor to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, working through the dogmatic concepts implied by the text and Christ’s life is not just a negative concern (my point above: e.g. “so that I am aware of what is informing my ‘interpretive decision’”), but there is a very positive side to doing the “inner logic” stuff too. And that is that we become aware of the implied intentions of the particular writers and Holy Spirit as we engage the text of Scripture. In short, we become quickly aware that the canon of Scripture has a very Trinitarian/cruciformed-christoformed shape to it. The grammar and syntax of the text is really only intended to be in service to this undeniable and great reality: Jesus Christ!
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; . . . ” ~John 5.39 (NASBU)
Martin Luther, the theo-blogger
Here is Heiko Oberman describing Martin Luther’s view of himself as an ‘instrument of God’:
. . . Luther, too, saw himself as an intrument, but of a totally differenty type [in contrast to Erasmus]. It was not intelligence or determination that was shaping the course of his career; God was driving him on and sweeping him along. He had no illusions about his abilities. Others had superior talents and education, and Erasmus, the great humanist so feared by Aleander, far surpassed Luther in the art of oratory and knowledge of languages. Luther lacked an air of cool superiority when dealing with people who did not share his views; he flared up and lost his temper. Even his writings were undisciplined; it was not only his early works which he would have preferred disappear from circulation. He recommended that the Holy Scriptures, not his works, should be read; and if anything else was to be consulted, then rather the Loci communes. Melanchthon’s concise work on Evangelical doctrine first published in 1521. [brackets mine] (Heiko Oberman, “Luther: Man Between God And The Devil,” 210)
I think Luther would’ve made a great theo-blogger 
. . .
As Clear As It Gets . . . Extent of the Atonement
The Bible says:
For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; . . . ~II Corinthians 5:14
How much more clear does it get? How in the world passages like this can be construed through the typical sufficient/efficient dialectic so often forwarded by our “friends,” actually boggles my mind. There is no qualification needed, this passage is as clear as it gets; Jesus died for all (lets not engage in JW “translation” or exegesis and place parenthesis next our “pet-passages” [i.e. all the elect, or something].
Richard Muller and T. F. Torrance Head to Head: Some Distinctions Between Westminster Calvinism and Evangelical Calvinism
Here is Richard Muller’s basic thesis in regards to the budding and flowering of Reformed theology:
. . . By the death of Calvin, all of these founders of the Reformed tradition had produced their major writings and had prepared their churches for the next generation — having argued the basic doctrinal positions of the Reformed faith, whether in their larger more systematic works or in the major confessional documents produced under their auspices. Orthodoxy would elaborate, refine, draw out conclusions and, in addition, make more explicit the rootage of Protestantism in the Christian tradition, but it would alter the basic doctrinal position of the Reformed churches but little: most of the presuppositions and premises of Protestant theology were enunciated during this period, but system as such was not fully developed nor had theology yet received a full Protestant treatment as an academic discipline. (Richard A. Muller, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725)
Now, many, if not most of you are probably shrugging your shoulders and saying: “who cares, what’s this guy talking about?” That’s understandable. Let me try and make Muller’s “thesis” significant for you. Muller argues that there is continuity between the early Reformers all the way through to its fullest flowering in the later chatechisms and confessions (like Westminster, Dordt, etc.); as if Reformed orthodoxy (what we know as “Calvinism” today) is this monolithic machine that is shaped by its only real representation as presented in its “Westminster” (or TULIP) style. What this does in regards to the trajectory of Evangelical Calvinism is to immediately excise it from being considered truly Reformed or orthodox. The reason this is, is that all of the early confessions (Scots, Gallican, Belgic, Heidelberg, and Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England [see Muller "PRRD," 59]), according to Muller’s thesis, must be read through what he has deemed “orthodox” (within the Reformed tradition). Evangelical Calvinists look to the Scots Confession and Heidelberg as more or less her touchstones; yet Muller would have us read these confessions through the prism provided by Westminsterism, thus marginalizing any conceptual or methodological divergence that might be present in these early and distinct confessions.
You’re still shrugging your shoulders , I understand; this is a rather technical point that needs to be fleshed out further. Nevertheless, what we all should be cognizant of is that Evangelical Calvinism, taking many of her cues from the Scots Confession, has a trajectory that is at odds with Westminster Calvinism; this is not by coincidence. EC’rs have a different approach and emphasis relative to her doctrine of God (thus relative to all subsequent doctrine, like: ‘salvation’). She emphasizes, like the Scots Confession, a Trinitarian concept of God (very relational and dynamic understanding which departs from the God of Westminsterism who is the ‘Unmoved Mover’ Law-Giver who only interacts with His creation through a prior set of absolute decrees). T. F. Torrance makes this point clear in his comment on John Knox’s Scot’s Confession:
. . . In this Reformation theology of John Knox and his colleagues there took place a radical shift from the medieval set of mind, away from an abstract theology of logically ordered propositions to a lively dynamic theology, addressed not primarily to the salvation of the individual soul, but to the nation as a whole. It involved a radical change in the doctrine of God. This is very evident in the first article of the Confession on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: ‘ane onlie God . . . ane in substance, and zit distinct in thre personnis, the Father, the Sone, and the holie Gost’. Thus in the Scots Confession as in John Knox’s Genevan Liturgy, the doctrine of the Trinity is not added on to a prior conception of God — there is no other content but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There was no separation here between the doctrine of the One God (De Deo Uno), and the doctrine of the triune God (De Deo Trino), which had become Roman orthodoxy through the definitive formalisation of Thomas Aquinas. . . . (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell,” 3-4)
This should help illustrate what I am asserting above. Muller (as my last post on Richard Muller’s Thesis of Continuity demonstrates) wants to say that ALL of Reformed theology, from its very early beginning, was shaped by 
a philosophical/conceptual commitment to Thomism (see quote above from TF Torrance: ‘formalisation of Thomas Aquinas’). But to this, or to Muller, we would have to say a resounding Nein (No)! His casting of Reformed theology is too revisionist on this point; as the reality and substance of ‘Evangelical Calvinism’ demonstrates, there was at least one other strain of development under the rubric of Calvin’s trajectory. Reformed theology, as Muller rightly communicates, is a complex animal; yet, Muller fails to appreciate how complex — indeed, how expansive this tradition truly is. It encompasses a broad swath of theological development that is not easily fitted to one strain of development; as Muller would lead us to believe. He fails to recognize, fundamentally, that there is more than one stream that makes up what we call “Calvinism” (or the ‘Reformed tradition’). Muller is looking down one tributary assuming that it is actually the river; what he misses, because of the noise encountered by his ‘tributary’ is that just a few ‘clicks’ over there is another tributary that actually makes up the actual river known as the “Reformed tradition.” If only Muller, and those who follow him, could take a plane flight over the geography of “Reformed Valley;” they could then finally see that in fact there are at least two tributaries that feed into the Reformed river — which has shaped the “Reformed Valley” full of a rich, lush tapestry of picturesque hills woven together not just with TULIPs, but a whole array of fruit bearing harvest ripe for the picking. (sorry for this little digression and analogy, but it gets at what I’m talking about in regards to the failure of the revisionism of Reformed history provided by the so-called ‘Reformed-orthodox’)
The Straight Up Theological Implications:
- Evangelical Calvinism has a different view of God, than Classic Calvinists and Arminians.
- Evangelical Calvinism is part of a rich tapestry and history known as the Reformed Tradition.
- Soteriologically, Evangelical Calvinism believes that the atonement is expansive; in other words, she believes that Jesus died for all people (objectively).
- Evangelical Calvinism is able to look at anyone they see, and know that God loved[s] them, thus He died for them, thus we can proclaim this as truth for them.
- Evangelical Calvinism doesn’t approach theology as if we’re in math class or logic 101 (or even 501).
- Evangelical Calvinism believes that God is love, not first the Law-giver.
- Evangelical Calvinism believes that God has one will, not two wills like our counter-parts in the “Westminster style.”
- And more . . .
Ah, just shrug your shoulders . . .
Happiness is Being Cancer Free
A quick update. We went to the doctor today to find out the results of my CT scan (which is post-chemo 3 mos.) — we were very nervous — PRAISE THE LORD!!!, it is gone . . . I am “cancer-free!!!” The doctor told us “congratulations,” and that he didn’t expect that we should have any problems in the future (my next CT is scheduled for 4 mos.). I just wanted to say thank you to you all; thank you for the prayers, and support of just knowing that you’re out there! Love you all, God bless . . .
“Restoring Honor” the 8/28 Project,” an ‘American Tale’
**I am reposting the following in light of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally he held this last Saturday (8-28) in Washington D.C. I am a Patriot, I am thankful to be an American; I love to understand and study our American Heritage — it is intriguing and informative. Nevertheless, there is a myth, and that myth is that America was through and through a Christian Nation in her origin; and that what America’s hope is is to return 
to our “Christian beginnings” and then all will be better. Now, following “Nationalism” and this myth makes sense for someone like Glenn Beck who is LDS/Mormon, and who believes that America is indeed the promised land; or this myth might make sense for those who are of a postmil persuasion (as many of the original “Americans” were — theologically), and hope to establish a golden age of humanity on earth (America representing her city on the hill or “Jerusalem”) thus ushering in the second coming of Christ. But, if we are truly Christ followers, I believe that our hope is in a Person — Jesus Christ — not in a “Land.” The problem is is that we’re in Babylon, not the “promised land;” we’re looking forward to the telos of all creation being realized at the second coming of Christ, in the New Jerusalem. I understand Beck’s misunderstanding, and I understand the postmiller’s wrongly placed emphasis; in fact I understand the desire for there to be a “Golden Age” wherein we can finally find peace and rest. Indeed, these are all great hopes, and desires; but they are misplaced if we think that we can hearken back to an earlier golden age, and try and resurrect something that really never was. This is all misplaced if we think part of our “heritage” was this great time of individual freedom and liberty; in fact this is part of the problem — Individualism that is! Individualism starts with “each man as the measure,” and then works from there; indeed, this is much more of a “Cartesian” way to conceive of man than a Biblical or Christological or Trinitarian way. Individualism makes sense, and fits in perfect with the LDS understanding of humanity; since each “man” is an “individual god” — with no real concept of the Trinity in mind (oneness shaped by threeness and threeness shaped by oneness — or the one and the many). Anyway, I’ve ranted long enough; read the rest of this post, and see what you think. I think Glenn Beck’s intentions are noble and “honorable,” but in the end they are misplaced.
__________________________
Often times, most times, America, and her origins, are claimed to be Christian . . . thus our self-proclaimed Christian Nation status. While it is true that our nation was originally to be a haven of refuge for “religious freedom,” and many of our founding Fathers were “Christians” (well some); it is not necessarily the case that the Christian ideals that were brought to the Americas were actually that Christian, conceptually. Scholars: Noll, Hatch, and Marsden certainly don’t think so; and they express their doubt very well in their book The Search for Christian America. Here is a summary of the first piece of their thesis in developing their argument:
1) We feel that a careful study of the facts of history shows that early America does not deserve to be considered uniquely, distinctly or even predominately Christian, if we mean by the word “Christian” a state of society reflecting the ideals presented in Scripture. There is no lost golden age to which American Christians may return. In addition, a careful study of history will also show that evangelicals themselves were often partly to blame for the spread of secularism in contemporary American life. . . . (Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, “The Search For Christian America,” 17)
This is hard teaching, who can hear it? Does this bother you, these kinds of probing points? To clarify, these historians are not arguing that America does not have any “religious past,” note: . . . [I]n making our case, we do not want to contend that Christian values have been absent from American history. . . . Their presence, we agree, justifies a picture of the United States as a singularly religious country (p. 18). The key language, is “religious,” they will continue to argue that America does indeed have rich “Christian heritage;” but unfortunately what passed as uniquely Christian, was in fact, Christianity baptized in “Natural Theology,” and rationalist Enlightenment principles. Here is an example of what I am talking about, found in the Declaration of Independence:
. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . (full text here)
Notice the language of “self-evident,” this is Enlightenment Natural Theology, which starts with Nature/Creation as the methodological entry point for discussing spiritual things. In other words, and very simply, natural theology starts with man and works out/up from there. This is just one example of how our countries’ founding was not necessarily Christian. Here are some more penetrating questions offered by these historians, on what criteria should be used to determine if indeed America’s founding, heritage, and origin should be labeled Christian:
One set of questions has to do with how much Christian action is required to make a whole society Christian. Another way of stating the same issue is to pose it negatively—how much evil can a society display before we disqualify it as a Christian society? These kinds of questions are pertinent for all of early American history. When we look at the Puritans of the 1600s, do we emphasize only their sincere desire to establish Christian colonies, and their manifest desire to live by the rule of Scripture? Or do we focus rather on the stealing of Indian lands, and their habit of displacing and murdering these Indians wherever it was convenient? Roger Williams, one of the Puritans himself, asked these very questions and came to much the same conclusion as we have more than 300 years later. Again, do we place more emphasis on the Massachusetts Puritans’ desire to worship God freely in the new world or their persecution (and, in four cases, execution) of Quakers who also wished to be free to worship God in Massachusetts? (Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, “The Search For Christian America,” 17)
Some tough, penetrating questions. How would you answer these? Are we a “Christian Nation?” And if you think so, or not, why?
Don’t get me wrong, I am thankful to be an American, and am thankful for the “freedoms” we have in this country; but I don’t think it does anyone any good, especially for “people of the Truth,” to pretend like we had a Christian nation in the past; and continue to have one today (although I think most would agree that we definitely don’t live in a Christian Nation today). This takes us full circle, then, what is a “Christian Nation,” to begin with?
Oh yeah, you all need to read this book at some point!
The Scope of the Blog
I am going to expand the scope of this blog; while its primary focus will still be to deal with issues oriented around Evangelical Calvinism and Calvinism in general, I am going to also use the blog here to discuss whatever else comes to mind (like on various theological/Biblical points, cultural issues, etc.). So be on the look out for new posts.
PS. I just had my CT scan today, to check to see if I’m cancer-free; please pray for peace today, and rejoicing tomorrow as we find out the results!
Richard Muller’s Thesis of continuity
I have often, often, often made the assertion — to my Classic Calvinist Brethren — that the informing philosophical grid that underlies their exegetical and systematic work is Aristotelian (or Thomist) in orientation. This reality neither speaks against or for the validity of the articulations found within the stream of ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ — obviously, I think in the end “Aristotle” hybrids Christian theology instead of serves it; to the chagrin, again of my “CC” counterparts. Just to add more weight to my assertion (the one on Aristotelianism), let me quote THE prominent scholar for the CC camp; prof. Richard Muller:
. . . The development of Protestant system, therefore, resulted in a theology that was neither the theology of the Reformers nor the theology of the medieval scholastics. Just as the continuity of Christian Aristotelianism is characteristic of the historical path of Western philosophy from the thirteenth through the seventeenth centuries, so the continuity of a dialectical and argumentative scholastic method is a feature of both Catholic and Protestant theological system during the same period. The impact of the Reformation on this development must not be minimized by a view of Protestant scholasticism as a departure from or distortion of the theology of the Reformation, as if continuity with the Reformation can be identified only in cases of simple duplication of its theology. Instead, the impact of the Reformation must be considered in terms of the massive reworking of system as undertaken gradually by post-Reformation Protestants. (Richard A Muller, “Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725 [second edition],” 52)
There is no argument, historically, that Reformed orthodoxy (and its various instantiations/hybrids) has taken shape through the categories and emphases brought to bear by Aristotle’s framework. But even more interesting, per this quote, is Muller’s insistence that there is indeed continuity between the magesterial Reformers; and her codifiers in the period of post-Reformation development. Prior to this quote, Muller has been outlining the criteria that should be used to establish continuity relative to the whole of Protestant Reformed dogma; in a nutshell his basic premise is that the “criteria” is really one of conceptual continuity, but not methodological (although I’ve read elsewhere where he seems to even say that there was also methodological continuity vis-a’-vis the ‘Ramist method’). You know what, as I read Muller (besides some of his apparent contradictions), I can applaud his points herein. But, and this is my primary critique of Muller’s thesis, he, in an ad hoc fashion delimits particular confessions and persons — relative to his “criteria” — in order to establish a rather monolithic version of what constitutes ‘Reformed orthodoxy’ relative to her confessions and articulations. In other words, he seems selective in the “streams” that he emphasizes in order to sustain his points on continuity.
Evangelical Calvinism, in part, seeks to expand on the players and confessions which should be included toward understanding the development of “Reformed orthodoxy.” For example, Muller, as I’ve read and understood him, thus far, fails to acknowledge the differences between how “Calvinism” developed in England versus Scotland. He misses the opportunity to develop the themes and emphases developed under the Calvinian rubric by someone like John Knox and his successors. My hunch, is that the reason Muller ignores this stream is because it does not easily fit into what he believes to be the magesterial fruition of dogma — viz. the Westminster ‘conclusion’. Thus the rift, sectarian too, which has obtained between those who follow Muller and Westminster; and those who don’t (at least in qualified ways).
The ‘Cues’ for Evangelical Calvinism
**I wanted to repost this for some of you who just recently started reading here; and as a refresher for those who haven’t**
Here is a quote from T. F. Torrance, from the preface of his book Scottish Theology. This really captures the distinction and nuance that I am trying to make through this blog for the uninitiated (thus far). That indeed there is a rift between what has been called Federal Calvinism (or what I’ve been calling “Classic”), and Evangelical Calvinism (or “Scottish Theology”). TFT is introducing his book, and giving some of the rationale for writing it.
In Chapter One on John Knox and the Scottish Reformation, I have offered a general account of the deep doctrinal change that took place, but in the succeeding chapters I have tried to focus on the main issues that arose as a result of the adherence of the Church of Scotland to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Following upon the teaching of the great Reformers there developed what is known as ‘federal theology’, in which the place John Calvin gave to the biblical conception of the covenant was radically altered through being schematised to a framework of law and grace governed by a severely contractual notion of covenant, with a stress upon a primitive ‘covenant of works’, resulting in a change in the Reformed understanding of ‘covenant of grace’. This was what Protestant scholastics called ‘a two-winged’, and not ‘a one-winged’ covenant, which my brother James has called a bilateral and a unilateral conception of the Covenant. The former carries with it legal stipulations which have to be fulfilled in order for it to take effect, while the latter derives from the infinite love of God, and is freely proclaimed to all mankind in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was the imposition of a rigidly logicalised federal system of thought upon Reformed theology that gave rise to many of the problems which have afflicted Scottish theology, and thereby made central doctrines of predestination, the limited or unlimited range of the atoning death of Christ, the problem of assurance, and the nature of what was called ‘the Gospel-offer’ to sinners. This meant that relatively little attention after the middle of the seventeenth century was given to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and to a trinitarian understanding of redemption and worship. Basic to this change was the conception of the nature and character of God. It is in relation to that issue that one must understand the divisions which have kept troubling the Kirk [church] after its hard-line commitment to the so-called ‘orthodox Calvinism’ of the Westminster Standards, and the damaging effect that had upon the understanding of the World of God and the message of the Gospel. . . . (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology,” x-xi)
This encapsulates the motivation for the blog here; my desire is to alert folks to the reality that TF is speaking to. Here TFT highlights the development of a tradition of Calvinism that is particular to Scotland; but, also want to note that this phenomenon was not unique to the Scots. This kind of development was also, contemporaneously, at play in England as well; Janice Knight has identified this branch of development within Calvinism, as The Spiritual Brethren (as opposed to The Intellectual Fathers — the Westminster Divines).
Calvinists of today, need to know, that they aren’t the only Calvinist ‘orthodoxy’ around; that history is not on their side, per se. Even more importantly, beyond history, I really do not believe that scripture is on their side — by and large.
Anyway, I hope this quote gives you more insight on where many of my cues have been and are coming from. I also hope that if you are into ‘federal theology’ that this will at least make you pause.
An Evangelical Calvinist in Need of Employment or PhD
I usually don’t like to use this blog for this, but I have quite a few readers here, so I thought I would this once. Thanks to all of your prayers it really looks like we have made it through the cancer ordeal (as much as you can “make it through”); I am scheduled to have a CT scan this next Monday (please pray I’m “clean”), and then I was supposed to head back to work (at Toyota [corporate] Portland, OR) next Wednesday. Unfortunately, and I mean, unfortunately, I just found out today that I have been laid off (along with 25 others) — effective this Friday.
I just want to put this out there for prayer, and also as a notice that I am officially looking for employment. If you know of anything, especially ministry oriented (my background would fit best with pastor of evangelism and Christian education) — also if there are any would be sponsors out there, I would really like to earn a PhD in theology, and be a professor, let me know — please let me know. I can send you my resume or CV upon request. We don’t really understand what the LORD is doing, but we do know He is doing something (and only the best). Thank you all!!!
