HEELCATCHER

Calvin’s book, Institutes of the Christian Faith, is one of the most influential theological books ever written. Calvin wrote the first edition of this book in 1536, approximately three years after he came to faith in Jesus Christ. The original book was six chapters long and printed in such a way that it could be carried in a person’s pocket. Its purpose was to summarize the basic teachings of the Bible and Protestantism in a format that people could understand.

Calvin constantly revised and added to this book and, by the time of his death in 1564, it was eighty chapters long and close to 1000 pages. The book’s impact on the Reformation, and subsequent Protestant theology, is practically unparalleled.

I confess that I have not read the whole book. A lot of it is hard to read and tied to Calvin’s times. I have scanned large portions of it and read a Reader’s Digest version of it produced by Hugh Kerr (Calvin’s Institutes: A New Compend).

Much of what I have read I have liked and been impressed with. Calvin was an incredible thinker and theologian. Here are some of the quotes that I highlighted and starred:

…We cannot have a clear and complete knowledge of God unless it is accompanied by a corresponding knowledge of ourselves (I.xv.1).

Here, then, is what God’s truth requires us to seek in examining ourselves: it requires the kind of knowledge that will strip us of all confidence in our own ability, deprive us of all occasion for boasting, and lead us to submission (II.i.2).

For God’s mercy is revealed in Christ to all who seek and wait upon it with true faith. In the precepts of the law, God is but the rewarder of perfect righteousness, which all of us lack, and conversely, the severe judge of evil deeds. But in Christ His face shines, full of grace and gentleness, even upon us poor and unworthy sinners (II.vii.8).

We have in his death the complete fulfillment of salvation, for through it we are reconciled to God, his righteous judgment is satisfied, the curse is removed, and the penalty paid in full (II.xvi.13).

While we teach that faith ought to be certain and assured, we cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt or any assurance that is not assailed by anxiety. …Believers are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief. …He who, struggling with his own weakness, presses toward faith in his moments of anxiety, is already in large part victorious (III.ii.7).

You will never attain true gentleness except by one path: a heart imbued with lowliness and with reverence for others (III.vii.4).

Faith righteousness so differs from works righteousness that when one is established the other has to be overthrown. …So long as any particle of works righteousness remains some occasion for boasting remains with us. Now, if faith excludes all boasting, works righteousness can in no way be associated with faith righteousness (III.xi.13).

Good stuff. And here is another quote I highlighted before Calvin enters into his discussion of predestination and election.

Human curiosity renders the discussion of predestination, already somewhat difficult of itself, very confusing and even dangerous. No restraints can hold it back from wandering in forbidden bypaths and thrusting upward to the heights. If allowed, it will leave no secret to God that it will not search out and unravel. …Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant of something in this matter, wherein there is a certain learned ignorance (III.xxi.1-2).

I think Calvin’s words are right on target in this regard. And essentially that is all I am arguing in the debate between Calvinism-Arminianism. Let’s not be ashamed to admit our ignorance in some areas and let’s not try to unravel every tension between God’s sovereignty and His incomprehensible love toward humanity.

Notice I didn’t put the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. I don’t think the tension lies here. There is only one free will in the universe and that is God. Our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3). God is absolutely sovereign. No question. He can do whatever He wants. I think that is Paul’s primary message in Romans 9. Who are we to tell God how He is supposed to do things?

In that sense, today’s resurgence of Calvinism is a good thing, a good corrective. In a humanistic society, like the Renaissance age (and our own), a good dose of God’s sovereignty has a way of humbling us and reminding us that we are not God, we are not immortal, we are not omniscient, and we can’t even control our own bodies much less the universe.

But I believe that Calvin’s Institutes is deficient in at least one area…God’s love. Yes, Calvin does talk about God’s love. It’s impossible not to. But it is not a predominant theme in his book.

I did a little word study using a pdf of Calvin’s Institutes. The term “righteous” is used 1081x in his book. The term “holy” is used 720x. The term “power” is used 844x. Most of the time in reference to God. The term “love,” however, is used 369x and the majority of those times are in reference to our command to love God and our neighbor not to God’s love toward us. 1 John 4:7-8, Beloved, let us love another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love, is not referenced or quoted one time in his 1000 pages of theology. Not one time. Thus, the simple concept that “God is love” doesn’t get mentioned. Doesn’t that seem just a little unbalanced?

Calvin seems to focus more on God’s power, righteousness, and holiness than His love. And I think that reflects Calvin’s personality to some degree (see my post on Calvin’s Love Life)…and his times.

I read a biography about Calvin by T.H.L. Parker. It is considered one of the more scholarly accounts of Calvin’s life. Parker summed up Calvin’s life in one sentence: Calvin was a man of order and peace who was born into a world of conflict (345).

The 16th century was a tumultuous time in world history (very much like our own). Almost every category of life was being challenged and changed. And in the midst of this upheaval and uncertainty, Calvin clung to the power and sovereignty of God. Amen and amen! But at the same time, by over-emphasizing one aspect of God’s character, we tend to lessen another aspect of God’s character. And in the case of Calvin, I think he limited and over-rationalized the incomprehensible passion and love of God. ..not just for believers but for all of humanity.

Bottom line, Calvin tried to unravel and explain what he should have left in the realm of mystery and wonder.

In my next post, I plan to look at the doctrine of limited atonement which I believe is at the crux of the discussion of Calvinism.

Okay, this is a strange place to begin but I think it pertains to the debate. I want to look first at John Calvin’s love life. Not that his love life would have made the tabloids of the day. There was no scandal. There were no “Exclusive Photos of Calvin’s Beach Vacation” in the Medieval Inquirer. But Calvin’s love life reveals a lot about who he was as a man.

My premise is simple. A man’s theology is shaped in some degree by who he is. Yes, I know we often claim pure objectivity and strict biblical interpretation but, let’s be honest, we all see things through our own particular personality and experience. This is not relativism (all perspectives are equally valid) but realism (all perspectives are perspectives). Truth is truth. It is what accords with reality. But we each look at truth from a particular angle with a certain personality. Consider the four gospels. All point to Jesus; all see Him in a slightly different way. I believe that God ordained it such so that we would need the entire body of Christ to give us the most balanced and comprehensive view.

Okay, back to Calvin’s love life.

Calvin was not what you would call a “romantic man.” He was an academian to the core. A brilliant man who loved to study. Lived to study. From an early age, he would spend the majority of his time reading and reflecting upon what he read. He rarely entered into any social relationships and even disdained those who spent their time in frivolous social activities.

Even though Calvin’s conversion to Christ (and to Protestantism) was a radical decision in that day and age. He only referred to it one time in a later commentary on the book of Psalms.

I was at first so stubbornly devoted to the superstition of the Papacy that I could only be extracted from such deep mud with difficulty. Then by a sudden conversion God made my heart tame and compliant, although at my age I was already very hardened in these things.

That’s about it. Calvin was not the type of man that you asked to speak on testimony night! He was much more comfortable talking about the theology of salvation than his own personal experience of it. Someone has said, “If Luther was the heart of the Reformation, Calvin was its head.” Someone else has noted:

His [Calvin’s] godly, self-denying life and walk and holy example would often reprove you, and might stir you up to desire for yourself a measure of the same grace; but if you were much tempted and tried, plagued by sin, assailed by Satan, and sometimes almost at your wits’ end, you would rather open your heart to Martin Luther than to John Calvin. He lived for the most part out of the storm and whirlwind of human passions; and therefore had little sympathy with those that have to do business in deep waters. (http://www.gracegems.org/18/p-Calvin.htm)

Perhaps nothing reveals Calvin’s personality better than his search for a wife.

After being chased out of France (for being Protestant) and then Geneva (for being too stringent and unyielding), Calvin found refuge in the city of Strasbourg. There he had the freedom to study and to write which was his heart’s desire. However, while he was there, he began to notice the strong marriages of some of the other Reformers. Though Calvin had no interest in romantic love, he did see the practical value of having a good wife. He decided that it would be in his best interest to be married too. So Calvin did like most men do when they want to get married…he wrote a full job description for his future bride and started taking applications from interested parties. He even put a date on the calendar for his future nuptials. Okay, maybe that’s not the way most men do it. But it sure fit John Calvin.

Several candidates presented themselves. Bachelorette #1 was a wealthy German woman. The extra cash in the bank would help a struggling young theologian. The only problem was that Calvin was French and didn’t speak a lick of German. And bachelorette #1 wasn’t interested in learning French. Time to move on to bachelorette #2. She was French but 15 years older than Calvin…and apparently not the most attractive. Calvin passed on this one too. Bachelorette #3 was a French woman a little younger than Calvin. It seemed like a match but, at the last minute, she backed out. Rumor has it that Calvin gave her tulips instead of roses on Valentine’s Day and she was offended…just kidding.

Finally Calvin gave up on the search. But about a year later, he met a young widow (and Anabaptist) named Idelette. They got married and had a good marriage….though Calvin was gone 32 of the first 45 weeks of their marriage on ministry trips. Idelette would die nine years later from poor health. Calvin would never marry again.

The point of all this is not to disparage Calvin’s marriage. By all accounts he was a good, faithful husband. The point is to show how Calvin approached relationships and love. He was not a man prone to deep emotion. He approached marriage like he approached most things…with a practical, orderly mind and a guarded, stoical heart.

Does that have any significance on his approach to theology? I think it does. And I will give a brief overview of Calvin’s Institutes in my next post.

Before posting some thoughts on the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, it seems necessary to do two things. 1) Define the terms. And 2) explain why it matters.

First of all, the definitions.

Calvinism follows after the teachings of John Calvin, a French reformer (1509-64) who played an instrumental role in defining the theology of the Reformation. To be more precise, Calvinism specifically focuses on Calvin’s view of God’s saving of humanity. Many Calvinists, while espousing Calvin’s view of salvation, do not hold to his teachings on infant baptism, the sacraments, the church-state union, or the end times.

Calvin, or more accurately his followers, developed five basic beliefs regarding God’s work in salvation. These five beliefs are commonly presented with the acronym, TULIP.

Total Depravity. All of mankind is totally dead in sin. We are corrupt, depraved, rebellious, and completely unable to save ourselves. We are “spiritual corpses” and only God can save us.

Unconditional Election. Before the creation of the world, before any person was created, God predetermined and selected individuals (the elect) to be saved through His Son, Jesus Christ. This selection was not based on any attribute or foreseen faith response in a person but completely on God’s sovereign will.

Limited Atonement. Since God had already predetermined who would be saved, then Christ’s death on the cross was only for the elect.

Irresistible Grace. When God determines to save a person, He will save them. God powerfully bends a person’s will to His own so that no one is able to resist His saving intent.

Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are truly elect will manifest it by continuing in their faith until the end. Once they are saved, they will always be saved and they will demonstrate it by their works.

The one word description often used of Calvinism is “monergism” which literally means “the work of one.” It means that, when it comes to salvation, God works alone. He saves apart from any cooperation, input, or response of man. In fact, God actually must regenerate a person before that person can exercise any faith in Him. So, in effect, a person must be saved before they can exercise the faith that saves them.

Arminianism originated with Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), a Dutch theologian in the Reformed movement who tried to modify several tenets of Calvinism. While he agreed that man was totally sinful and unable to save Himself, Arminius believed that God’s pre-enabling grace, through the Holy Spirit, brought a person to the point where they could receive or resist God’s gracious offer of salvation. Thus, though God took all the initiative, man still had a role in salvation. This view is sometimes summarized as “synergism” which means “to work together.” God takes the initiative and man responds to His initiative in salvation.

Okay, those are the terms. So why does it matter?

For the most part, it doesn’t. Calvinists, Arminians, and Cal-minians (who leave the two doctrines in tension) generally agree on the major tenets of Christianity. God is holy, righteous, sovereign, and loving. Man is a creation of God but also sinful. He cannot save himself. Jesus, God in the flesh, came into the world to seek and to save the lost. Jesus died on the cross to be our righteous substitute, bearing our sin. He rose again from the dead to show His power over sin, death, and Satan. A person is saved from sin by faith alone in Christ alone.

When these details are left in their simplest form, then there is agreement. When they are defined more closely, particularly in the process of salvation “behind the scenes,” then disagreement begins.

I have generally left the debate alone since my college days. Overall, it hasn’t been a big concern in my ministry or with the people in the churches where I have served. But recently Calvinism is making a resurgence. Time Magazine (March 12, 2009)  even listed it as one of the top ten ideas changing the current world. And for the most part, I am glad. When Christians start thinking theologically, it is always a good thing…especially in today’s shallow culture. But, unfortunately, Calvinism can also bring unhealthy debate and division into a church. I have seen it recently in a church I am familiar with which split over issues related to Reformed doctrine.

So my prayer is that by sharing a few cautions and thoughts in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I can encourage Christians to continue to think deeply about God’s great salvation and also continue to show grace and humility as we seek to comprehend the incomprehensible mind of God.

I have to reveal my hand before getting too far into the Calvinist-Arminian debate. I am biased. My first exposure to Calvinism left a bad taste in my mouth and it still remains to this day.

I was a freshman in Bible college. 450 miles from home. In a new city. Rooming with a bunch of strangers. Coming to grips with college life, homesickness, and learning to do my own laundry. A few days after unpacking my belongings, an upperclassman in my dorm felt it necessary to introduce me to predestination and God’s eternal decree. “You do know that God separated the righteous from the damned before the world even began.” I had no idea what he was talking about. I was still trying to figure out how to separate whites, colors, and darks.

I grew up Presbyterian but remember nothing about it except being bored to tears in church. I have vague memories of catechism class. The old pastor tried to teach us basic theology. My buddy George thought the whole affair was pretty funny. I was trying to take it serious. At one point I asked the biggest question on my pre-adolescent mind…”where did God come from?” The pastor didn’t have an answer so I tuned out the rest.

Later, however, through the changed life of my older brother, I came to an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I started attending a Baptist church and growing in my faith. I loved church. I enjoyed studying God’s Word. I sensed the Lord calling me into full-time ministry. Off to Bible college I went….eager, excited, naive.

That’s when I met my first evangelist for Calvinism. What else can I say? He turned me off. More than the doctrine itself, I was repelled by the attitude. He savored the chance to drill the young Bible college student with verses that he knew I had no answer for. I wasn’t sure what his purpose was. To convert me, to humiliate me, or to impress me with his knowledge. But whatever his intent, it had the opposite effect in me. I didn’t know what Calvinism was but I was sure I didn’t want to be one.

The next four years of Bible college I spent debating and discussing Calvinism and Arminianism with other budding young theologians in the dorm. While most college students party all night, Bible college students stay up all night arguing over TULIP. (I’ll define that later for those who think we were arguing over flower arrangements.)

Since most of my roommates were Calvinistic, I argued the other side. I ended most conversations saying, “I was predestined to be Arminian so stop fighting God’s eternal decree.” Not the most effective strategy, but it usually ended the conversation and let me go to bed.

So that’s the story behind my inner bias. Of course, I believe we are all biased and slanted to one degree or another. No one approaches a subject, including theology, from a position of total objectivity. Subjective emotion, experience, personality, and giftedness all enter the picture…as well as our self-focused sinful nature.

Only in the Spirit…and from a position of humility and love…can we ever hope to come close to a clearer view of God and His ways. And only in the Spirit can we teach theology to others with the right attitude and motive.

My next post…when I get there…will define the terms. What do I mean by Calvinism? What is Arminianism? That’s probably where I should have started but if you’ve read this far then you are either already familiar with the terms or so bored that you have nothing else better to do than read a blog that you don’t understand.

I am not a Calvinist.

I do not make that statement from a position of antagonism against Calvinism. There are many aspects of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine that I admire, love, and embrace. The strong Calvinist is typically insulated from the heresies of humanism by his emphasis on the absolute sovereignty of God. Thus, it is rare to find a liberal Calvinist who denies the authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, and the identity of Christ. If I had to pick a side in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, I would go with the Calvinist side.

I also do not make that statement from a position of ignorance. I received my doctorate degree from a Reformed seminary. My favorite professor was D.A. Carson. I have heard and studied the Reformed position under the teaching of Reformed teachers. There are no straw men in my arguments against Calvinism. It is a beautiful theological system that explains much of Scripture. I don’t hesitate at all to preach its tenets when it is the best understanding of the text at hand. But, in the final analysis, it is a system that can’t explain all of Scripture. There are some passages that simply push against its walls and keep it from being air tight.

That leads me to my primary concern with Calvinism…and to any overriding system of interpretation be it Arminianism, dispensationalism, charismatic theology, or covenant theology. It is too easy for the system to dictate interpretation rather than vice-versa. That is not to say that all theological systems are created equal. Some seem to gel with the whole counsel of God better than others. But it is to say that there are enough “category busters” in every system to keep us humble. If Bible believing Christians who acknowledge the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and the gospel of grace can differ on an issue, and do so throughout much of church history, then there is a good chance that the truth lies somewhere above our typical horizontal spectrum.

So my hope in the next few weeks is to share a few thoughts on the Calvinist-Arminian debate that may be helpful. And along the way explain why I believe that leaving certain doctrines in tension, particularly this one, is the preferred place to be.