Typically, in the ‘Classic Calvinist’ framing of the atonement, the ‘ground’ of God’s love for humanity is predicated upon Christ’s legal payment of restitution at the cross. In other words, God is able to love ‘sinners in the hands of an angry God’ because Christ meets the obedience requirements set out in the ‘Covenant of Works’. God’s love for us is contingent upon the legal payment made at the cross in this scenario.
TF Torrance comments on a different approach, in fact an ‘Evangelical Calvinist’ approach, offered by a Scottish theologian named John Davidson. Torrance is commenting on Davidson’s catechism, and upon the ground of God’s love for us:
. . . All through his Catechism Davidson laid the strongest emphasis upon what has taken place in the Person of Christ apart from believers, and never upon the persons of those who believe. This was coupled with his emphasis upon the prevenient love of God, from which salvation flowed, without any suggestion that God had to be placated or appeased in order to love and be gracious toward sinners. (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology,” 54)
The broader discussion here is on Davidson’s understanding of union with Christ, and of course that vicarious relationship that obtains in Christ’s life for us. But beyond that, this illustrates an important point of departure (and I realize some want to see more uniformity between Federal and Scottish or Evangelical Calvinism — but these are the material points), between a Federal Calvinist and an Evangelical Calvinist, so called. In the latter’s case, we see the cross and Christ’s death, therein, as driven or predicated by God’s love for us in Christ; in the former, they see God’s love for us predicated by certain forensic stipulations being met prior to God’s ability to love us [albeit framed decretally or through the decrees].
Let me rephrase, for sake of clarity; The ‘Federal Calvinist’ makes God’s love for ‘elect’ humanity a byproduct of something else being met first, viz. the the penalty for ‘Law-breaking’ — the ‘ground’ of His love is that the requirements of the ‘Law’ are met (thus the ‘Law’ becomes determinative of who God is, instead of God determining who He is). The Evangelical Calvinist says that God in Christ first loved us (in His intratrinitarian life), and that God’s life of love becomes the ‘ground’ for His actions in salvation history. The cross is a demonstration of God’s love, not the predicate (def. of ‘predicate’ is: ” involve as a necessary condition of consequence” def. taken from here) of God’s love. Federal theology says the latter is true, Evangelical Calvinism says the former is. The Apostle Paul agrees with the Evangelical Calvinist on this point:
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. ~Romans 5:8 (NASBU)
This topic actually is illustrative of what differentiates an Evangelical Calvinist approach from the Federal approach — it is the ‘Doctrine of God’. I believe that Federal theology makes God a predicate of creation; and then I also believe that Evangelical Calvinism sees God as He is, the antecedent of creation (He is in Himself, without us . . . cf. Ex. 3:15). Torrance continues to comment on the presupposition of Davidson’s thought vis-a’-vis Federal theology, he says:
It was Davidson’s statement that ‘Faith is ane heartie assurance that our sinnes are freely forgiven us in Christ’, that appeal was to be made again and again in Scottish theology in face of the lack of assurance that came with the change in the doctrine of God brought about by federal theology and the idea that God had to be appeased in order to be gracious to us. With Davidson, however, the assurance of salvation which is identical with faith is ultimately grounded in ‘the tender mercy and grace of God, who loving us when we were his enemies, provyded our salvation to bee wrought onely by his wellbeloved Sonne Jesus Christ, made Man of the Virgine Marie without sinne.’ That is to say, it was from the ultimate love of God the Father in freely giving his Son to be our Mediator, Redeemer and Saviour, that all parts of our salvation are fully accomplished in such a way in Christ that nothing on our part can ‘deface the assurance of our salvation’. . . . [TFT is quoting Davidson’s old Scottish] (Torrance, 54-55).
Here Torrance illustrates the significance that a ‘doctrine of God’ can have upon all kinds of doctrine — especially, of course, salvation — least of which is the atonement. This continues to illustrate a certain distinctiveness between Evangelical Calvinism and Federal Calvinism . . . it orbits around different doctrines of God, and then different understandings of salvation, etc. This is the core issue that shapes and motivates this blog . . . more to come!
P.S. Let me also caveat this, by way of anticipation; EC does not deny the forensic/juridical components of what Christ did, instead we see those things driven by His prior life of love. God’s love, His life, is the ground of His actions . . . which again, is why Paul says: demonstrates (which presupposes that His love for us [vicariousness is important here, as Scott is working on] is already there, prior to the cross).
September 28, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Oh Kenneth, kenneth, where are you?
Does Tom T give examples of federal Calvinism who believe what you are saying?
It seems incredible to me that any could, given that Calvin himself is so explicit that God provides atonement because he loves, and not vice versa. Regardless, even if you or Tommy have examples, there is clearly a rich vein of more traditional Calvinism which does not believe this – so I wouldn’t be too keen on your lumping everyone together under “federal Calvinism”. I am sure if you asked any of the traditional Calvinists at the Calvin 500 conference (Lig, Derek Thomas etc) they would all agree that God’s love is the ground of the atonement and not vice versa
Wouldn’t they?
Dave
September 28, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Hi Dave,
Yeah, not just him though (Muller, Knight, Bozeman, Bierma, et al). It’s all throughout Calvinist history. The most immediate, in the context that these quotes are taken from is Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza.
And you’re right in saying that Calvin wouldn’t endorse this. His view on adoption and the unio mystica and meditiation is way more evangelical than the Federalists (like William Perkins and Ames, for example).
I’m sure you’re also right about the trad Calvinists at the 500, I’m sure they would “say” this; but I don’t think their doctrine of God — at least historically — would support their assertion.
I know of at least one person who won the Calvin award, at the 500 this year, who would agree, I think, with what I’ve said here.
Would you consider yourself to be a ‘traditional Calvinist’, Dave?
September 28, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Yes, I would.
So can you give me the Beza quotation please, and where it’s from in his writings? Thanks.
And do you mean that Muller et al are folks who would say that the atonement is the ground of God’s love? Can you give me some examples and references in some of their writings – let’s say Muller as he’s probably the most prolific – but any of the others too, thanks. Are there quotations in Ames or Perkins?
Let me see what they say and then I’ll have a think.
Thanks
D
September 28, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Dave,
I can give you the quote wherein TFT is discussing Beza’s theology. It’ll take me a little longer to dig up a primary quote . . . so you’ll have to wait for that.
Yeah, Muller and others outline the history of development that says God’s love for us is grounded in the atonement.
Just follow Perkins’ Golden Chaine, the logic of it . . . that should suffice. I have other stuff, on Perkins and Ames, for example; but that will have to wait until later, as well (future posts).
Btw, I think a quote here or there is going to need more context, historical, etc. Have you read, Muller, TFT, Knight. I’m just curious about your background on this stuff, a bit, Dave.
September 28, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I’m a Presbyterian pastor and have read some Muller – please can you point me to where he outlines this history of development within the Reformed tradition?
I have read his article ‘Found: One Decretal Theology – No thanks to Theodore Beza’ – so I’ll be very surprised indeed if Muller thinks Beza holds the view Torrance thinks he does. What fun.
Please do send me the Torrance quotation for now at least – and yes, please do follow sometime with some primary source references. Much appreciated.
Dave
September 28, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Great and welcome Pastor, Dave.
On Muller, I just happened upon (just today) a good summary and critique of Muller’s thesis on continuity between Calvin and the Calvinists. It was done by Marin Klauber — you can check that out here — Klauber agrees with Muller, by and large; and I don’t. Oh yeah, a good book on this is Muller’s PhD thesis: Christ and Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology From Calvin to Perkins
Given Muller’s thesis that there is continuity between Calvin and the Calvinists; yeah, I would say you’re right concerning Muller’s agreement with Torrance (or disagreement).
When I get a chance I’ll quote what TFT says on Beza; I’ll do that later tonight (quite late tonight) in this comment thread.
IN Christ,
Bobby
P.S. Dave, I realize the premise of my blog is controversial; but I think, based upon my study, that Evangelical Calvinism has teeth — not just because of the history, but because of the actual theology relative to scripture and Christ’s life.
September 28, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Thanks Bobby
Where in the Klauber piece does he comment on Muller on atonement as the ground of God’s love?
And where does Muller deal with that in Christ and the Decree?
As well as the Beza material, I’m now trying to collate evidence for your statement above: “Muller and others outline the history of development that says God’s love for us is grounded in the atonement”
Perhaps I have misunderstood you? But I have been taking you to say that this is a view which Muller either holds himself or which he shows is there in the Reformed tradition – and so I’m just looking for evidence. I would think that it’s part of his argument, surely, that such a view is NOT part of the Reformed tradition. It’s certainly part of his argument to say that Beza is not the big bad wolf wrecking good old Jean Calvin’s theology, as so many suppose.
Dave
September 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I thought you were asking about Muller, in general; so the essay from Klauber does not comment on this point anywhere.
Muller deals with this, in general; as he outlines the development of post-Ref. theology. As he discusses predestination and God; as he discusses the function of the decrees per the mediatorship of Christ; as we see the placement of the cov. of works and grace grounded in the a bilateral contract between God and man (per the Federalism of Oliveanus, for example). This is the thesis that, I think, Muller anachronistically places back upon Calvin, Knox, et al.
For the most part, Dave, all I can do is suggest things here; engage in some reductios, and hopefully provoke folks like you to do the donkey-work yourself.
True, Muller is saying what you say of Beza. Is Beza’s doctrine of God Thomist or Scotist? Depending on your answer to that question, you will agree with Muller or disagree on Beza, for example.
Have you read Muller or TFT or Barth on any of these issues? I know you said, Muller, but briefly.
September 29, 2009 at 8:37 am
Hi Bobby
Well it seems to me then here that what you’re actually saying is that Muller’s FRAMEWORK means he is saying that the atonement is the ground of God’s love, but that he doesn’t actually explicitly say that anywhere? In which case the onus is still on you to prove that Muller’s conception MEANS that the atonement is the ground of love. I cannot see this in what I have read of him.
In short: you have done a post saying that traditional Calvinism says that the atonement is the ground of God’s love and so far you haven’t been able to show me anyone saying this.
Dave
September 29, 2009 at 8:48 am
Dave,
Do you really think anyone would actually ‘say’ this — I don’t think so. Instead, this involves thinking constructively (or deconstructively, whatever the case may be); taking a look at the theologic; and then making conclusions from there.
Sure, the onus is on me — but it equally is on you; because thus far all you’ve said is that Muller’s Calvinism doesn’t say or imply what I (actually TFT) said it does. So its my assertion + TFT’s vs. your counterassertion. The thing is, is that TFT is a very credible source (he is a ‘Reformed theologian’) — just as credible (I think more, given the veracity of his theological program) as Muller.
I can’t help it if you can’t see the implications of your own theological paradigm; but I’ll continue to try and make it clearer for you via posts. Stay tuned . . .
September 29, 2009 at 2:24 am
Ok, thanks, will stay tuned
It’s not quite the same thing, saying that all I’ve said is on Muller etc – I didn’t do a post saying this: “The ‘Federal Calvinist’ makes God’s love for ‘elect’ humanity a byproduct of something else being met first, viz. the the penalty for ‘Law-breaking’ — the ‘ground’ of His love is that the requirements of the ‘Law’ are met (thus the ’Law’ becomes determinative of who God is, instead of God determining who He is). ”
All I’m saying is: I haven’t read a federal Calvinist who either says this or whose theologic entails this. To think it does is to misunderstand their theologic. And so all I’m saying is please show me how/where a federal Calvinist says this or has theologic which entails it. Give me quotations so I can see what I think of them.
If no explicit evidence for your claims I think we’re done here.
Best
Dave
Dave
September 29, 2009 at 2:44 am
Dave,
As a Presbyterian pastor can you explain to me the basis of the Cov. of Works and Cov. of Grace?
September 29, 2009 at 2:55 am
What do you mean by basis?
And can you explain why you think their existence in Reformed theology means that the atonement is the ground of God’s love – is that what you’re implying? Or have we moved on to something else?
I’m not sure why you can’t just give me quotations for your original view?
Dave
September 29, 2009 at 3:04 am
Yeah, Dave,
I’m working on a post right now.
Forget it, you don’t need to explain the “Covenants” to me; I wanted you to underscore their conditional and forensic nature — “their contractual nature.” But I’m getting to that in the post I’m writing right now.