When I was examining Eastern Orthodoxy I was especially impressed by their (and the Lutheran, also) critique of the so-called “extra-Calvinisticum.” It means some of the Logos exists outside the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The reasoning behind it is fairly obvious: If we hold that Jesus has a really divine nature, and omnipresence is an attribute of divine nature, then it stands to reason that some part of Jesus will be outside Jesus. The equally obvious critique is that this is Nestorian, since it posits a division in Christ. If we left it at that, it would seem that the Calvinists have a unique problem. What was equally problematic, though, was that many Eastern fathers held to precisely the same view!
So who is right? I’ve gone back and forth on this, and for a while I was a closet-Lutheran on Christology, but I think the truth of the matter is that both sides make equally legitimate points. The reason both can be right–and that I am not contradicting myself when I say that–is that both are holding to substance-metaphysics. Both sides are positing a God behind God. Palamas does this when he makes the divine nature (and divine persons) hide behind the divine energies. Calvin does this, if McCormack’s reading is correct, when he posits the decree to save after the decree to elect: this means that the Logos already has a fully-formed identity before the decree to save and become Incarnate.
What is a tentative response? Let’s remember what the Cappadocians said in their better moments: God’s ousia exists as his divine life, existing as Father, Son, and Spirit. There can be no extra outside the persons because that “extra” is rather the Spirit and the Father.