Thomist Tacos for the Soul

Roger Overton at the A-Team blog has an interesting post on Mark Driscoll's Unlimited/Limited view of the atonement (whatever that means). While I haven't heard all of Driscoll's material on the subject matter it reminded me of a similar approach taken by Eric Svendsen who is the Founder and Director of New Testament Research Ministries and a Tutor in New Testament at Greenwich School of Theology, U.K. He has some great posts in studies on the New Testament but when it comes to the T.U.L.I.P he differs with the Reformed view by saying:

In the Calvinistic acronym T.U.L.I.P. (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints), I fully affirm T.U.I.P., reject the L., and replace it with . . . well, to be honest, I haven’t yet found a good letter that would tie the acronym together. But the long and short of it is, I believe Limited atonement is widely held by Calvinists because it is perceived to be the natural theological outworking of the other four points, not because there is some explicit teaching about it in Scripture. In other words, unlike all the other points of Calvinism, I don’t think Limited atonement can be supported exegetically. In fact, I think it contradicts the exegesis of those texts that actually do speak to the matter of the extent of the atonement.

So how do I arrive at 4.5 Calvinism?

With that said, in evaluating Driscoll's similar stance on Limited Atonement, one thing that aroused my curiosity was Roger's assessment that:

Driscoll goes further: “Therefore, Modified Calvinists like the Mars Hill elders do not believe anything different than Arminians; we simply believe what they believe and more.” In other words, he believes Christ atonement for all and particularly for the elect. Such a view, apart from not making any sense, is not the Reformed view. Unlimited Limited and Limited Atonement, contra Driscoll, are diametrically opposed when properly understood. His position may be equally, or perhaps better, identified as Modified Arminianism.

My question to him was the following:

Could it be said that just because the L in the reformed version of T.U.L.I.P is modified it doesn't have to mean that it is de facto a modified Arminianism but maybe a modified Calvinism. This could attributed to an accidental vs. substantial change in the L in T.U.L.I.P; for if it were a substantial change then it would cease to be Calvinism and be something else. Rather, since it's only a modification of the L then it should be appropriately categorized under the rubric of Calvinism proper.

Roger responds:

I think in the context of atonement alone, referring to Driscoll's position as modified Arminianism is accurate. However, if we look at the big picture, as you're doing, I'd agree that it is more of a modified Calvinism. As he states in the audio, he holds the other main points; he argues for predestination and election. But even his use of "modified Calvinism" is a way of saying he's breaking off from the traditional Reformed view. 

Which I think it would be still called Calvinism, wouldn't it?  I could be nitpickin (as they say in TX) here but the issue that I subconsciously was having an argument with is the fact that many of the strong reformed Calvinist declare that any of the slightest modifications to the T.U.L.I.P will make you a ….let me see…where is that list…..oh yeah, a:

• Arminian
• Calvinian
• Remonstrant (or Remonster)
• Neo-Cals
• Sublapsarianist

Oh yeah, and Thomists.

Anyways, Roger did a good job of laying out the issues he says does not make Mark Driscoll a reformed Calvinist. Take some time and head over there to see the interesting post and the responses to it. Oh, and BTW, I would like to add that one reason I am not an arminian is that it doesn't have a cute acronym like T.U.L.I.P.