I realize the last three posts are rather abstract on actually fleshing out this discussion on election. In the next few weeks I will be trying to develop and explain this stuff further; I plan on comparing and contrasting, in more simple terms, the differences between the Classic view of election versus the “Barthian” and “Torrancian” understanding (and to be honest there are differences to be made between Barth and Torrance’s understanding, I am more comfortable with the latter’s approach). Like I said, I will be digging into an essay by Habets; which deals directly with T. F. Torrance’s understanding of election/reprobation (if I had electronic-permission-access I would make that article available to all, I think it is clear and lucid in presenting TFT’s understanding, in ways that would be beneficial for all Christians — not just ones who have the funds to subscribe to academic journals ;-). Anyway, I will be posting portions of it.
I want everybody reading to know that my primary intended audience here are those in the church; thoughtful Christians who may not realize that there are more alternatives than the typical ones offered (e.g. Arminianism or Classic Calvinism — usually this biurfication is it). I want folks to know that it is possible, and necessary — both historically and scripturally — to be a “Calvinist” (i.e. that Westminster is not the only stream allowed to claim that title, historically — unless their into asserting an ad hoc conciliar ecclesiology, so that we have a Protestant Magesterium in place [so much for sola scriptura]) — and “Evangelical.”
On a side-note, I’ve had at least one Classic Calvinist (an informed one) dismiss “Evangelical Calvinism” based upon the pronouncements of the Synod of Dordtrecht; his assumption was that Dordt and Westminster (and other such synods and councils) represent “Orthodox” Protestant Christianity — like I said, ad hoc. Anyway, more to come . . .