Here is how Dr Myk Habets sketched what being an Evangelical Calvinist might entail:

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. Drtrecht 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 o 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 rater 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 Scriptre 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 slavation but not the only one and understands that upon this metaphore Paul et al were able to incorporate the otehr metaphors – war, realtionships, moral, etc. EC’s would do the same today.

I think this is a very helpful start, what do you think about this list?

**I am planning on writing a post on the extent of the atonement and election this weekend, time has been tight**