I am part of a three-sided discussion on Michael Bird's blog on the thorny issue of 'For whom did Christ die?' My formidible opponents are Ben Witherington and Paul Helm!! Lucky I have got truth on my side ;-)
Last night I was part of a panel discussion on ABC Radio about John Calvin's influence. You can listen in here, when the podcast becomes available.
6 comments:
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your contribution. I'm with you, although I feel the pull of Ben's argument (which is why Arminianism exists).
It's a shame he didn't have space (I presume) to include a brief comment on texts which explicitly speak of election and predestination, and instead went for an exploration of God's love, which felt a bit unconstrained by the Bible.
Also, your links on this post are a bit confusing. It might be worth making it clearer what each link actually points to, otherwise a reader has to mouseover the link and decode the URL.
Michael I thought that was quite well-put. As for the "Amyraldian" label, is that your choice or that of the blog host? It wasn't obvious to me that your statements fitted in any neat way into the historical argument.
Michael Bird wanted the Amyraldian label. I don't like it, because it puts the whole debate in a 17th century context.
Right.
Hi, Michael, It seems your reservations concerning the "Amyraldian" label are sound. I am wondering if your view is even more "John-Calvinistic" than Helm would allow? I would recommend taking a look at a new, small (academic) book just coming out, with a draft form currently available at http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf Chapter 3, pages 19-35, is an easy read and is the heart of the matter--a combination of a rigidly firm emphasis upon particular, unconditional election with seemingly some apparent form of universal provision (in Calvin). It might be of interest to you. Helm, of course, would see matters differently. We all look forward to the discussions among three formidable theologians.
Hi Michael,
Perhaps the term 'Evangelical Calvinist' suits? Myk Habets describes one as able to affirm the following 10 statements:
1. an EC believes in one divine decree (albeit in several parts)
2. is not slavishly committed to Dort or Westminster. ie respects both as Reformed confessions but does not see either as being the definitive standard. Dortrecht was an historical response to an historical situation so the 5 points were never meant to define Calvinism or the Reformed faith in toto, they were simply a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrance, and Westminster, while very good, is couched in its own very specific Puritan context and logic which again is specific to that context and as such does not necessarily translate well into other contexts. The same would go for the other confessions.
3. related to #2, probably likes the Heidelberg Catechism and the Scots Confession more than Dort and Westminster :-)
4. sees no compulsion to work with strictly logico-deductive logic in their systematic theology but prefers to follow the biblical narrative and systematise that (ie I love the way Partee characterises Calvin as biblical over logical in his book on Calvin - I think he is quite right).
5. as a result of #5 an EC has no doctrine of the Divine Decree of Election of humans to Hell but rather holds to a doctrine of Divine reprobation in which he leaves the nonelect to their own choices. ie the double decree is out or at the very least very weak.
6. Structures the ordo salutis (if indeed they have or want one - I do but...) from the basis of union with Christ and not some Divine decree as Beza, Perkins, Williams etc do. Not that this becomes the central dogma or a philosophical centrum but from union with Christ all the blessings and benefits of Christ flow - such as justification, sanctification, glorification, etc.
7. Can genuinely preach the Good News to all that Christ has died for them and their salvation and has forgiven their sins. ie holds to universal atonement, universal forgiveness.
8. Is not a univeralist.
9. can affirm the 5 points of sovereign grace and defend them from Scripture and Reformed hsitory, but would want to nuance limited atonement to what the Reformed divines meant this to signify, not what a system of thought came to make it signify.
10. Sees penal substitution as the central Pauline metaphor for salvation but not the only one and understands that upon this metaphor Paul et al were able to incorporate the other metaphors – war, realtionships, moral, etc. EC's would do the same today.
Taken from this blog: The Evangelical Calvinist
Post a Comment