Posted on

Calvinism’s Unassuring Assurance

I’m monitoring several Calvinist blog sites and continue, sadly, to note how Calvinism simply and clearly does NOT put Jesus at the center. Note the discussion by Even May about assurance of salvation. Note how he talks about salvation and assurance of salvation, but…no Jesus! How tragic.

Link: Triablogue.

It is sufficient that I believe I’m saved, and that I have adequate grounds for so believing. Or, to recast this in negative terms, it’s sufficient that I have no good grounds for doubting my salvation.

Posted on

A Limited Gospel: The Error of Calvinism

On the night of Christ’s birth the angel said, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people.” Contrast this Biblical truth with what James White has to say about the Gospel. According to this “Reformed Baptist” theological cruise host and pundit,  if Christ would have died for all, that would have tied God’s hands and left him no way to show forth all his attributes. Actually, if Christ died for all it puts a big old kink in the Calvinist system. And therein lies the problem. In White’s system, the angels should have said, “Fear not, well, unless you are worried about not being among the elect, in that case, be afraid, be very afraid, for behold I bring you, well, actually, maybe not you, but good news for some, and great joy for some, that will be for some people.” This is not the Gospel of Jesus, but it is the “Gospel” of Calvinists like White. That is to say, no Gospel at all. Here is what White has to say. The poor guy can’t distinguish universal atonement from universal salvation.

Secondly, He will save a particular people. He will not save every single person on the planet. Yes, He could have, had that been the choice of the Triune God. But universal salvation would have left God with no choices, no demonstration of the breadth of His attributes. His grace would have been a given, hence, not free, not sovereign. Instead, He saves His people from their sins. He is Savior. A given, you may think? Not in today’s theological landscape. Few truly believe it anymore, to be honest. Source.

Posted on

Why Calvinism is So Wrong

A number of folks have asked me for a more in-depth presentation on the errors of Calvinism. I would refer all interested in a thorough-going critique of Calvinism to purchase and read the three-volume systematic theology by Dr. Francis Pieper titled Christian Dogmatics. Interestingly, when this work was published it was the second volume that was printed first. The second volume in the series deals with The Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Quite telling that a Lutheran dogmatician would want his work on Christ released before any of the other traditional categories of theology. I’m providing several quotes from the work of Dr. Pieper to help clarify why Calvinism is so wrong.

Here is a discussion of Calvinism’s error regarding Christ.

Here is a discussion of Calvinism’s error regarding universal grace.

Posted on

A Sane Voice in What Seemed a Pretty Wacky Calvinist Reformed World

I’ve just made a new Blogosphre friend, Michael Spencer, of both Internet Monk and the Boar’s Head Tavern. He helped me understand that Dispensationalist Fundamentalist so-called “Reformed Baptists” attack-dogs like James White and others like him do not represent Reformed theology or Calvinism. I find this a relief, to say the least. Here is what Michael had to say over at Boar’s Head Tavern about my post on Calvinism.

Link: Boar’s Head Tavern.

Paul McCain on Calvinism

Paul McCain- Lutheran Blogger and recently in a fracas with Hays and White- posts his concerns with Calvinism: The Calvinist doesn’t have Jesus at the center of his “system.” It’s a serious charge.

While I wouldn’t write Paul’s essay exactly as he has, I think no one will be surprised that I sympathize with much of what Paul is saying and feeling, and it is part of why I no longer call myself a Calvinist. There is an issue here- an issue that even my Calvinistic friends in the BHT have to deal with. How many footnotes have to be inserted in our “Calvinism” to keep Jesus Christ- rather than some theological point in the mysterious nature of God- as the center point of our faith? If you choose to live in the “house of Calvinism” these days, how much time do you have to spend explaining that you aren’t like the people burning heretics in the back yard?

It’s a particularly good point to be made as we approach Christmas. I call myself a Christian Humanist because I meet God not in a theology text’s discussion of the attributes of the Divine Being, but in the point-in-time, historical, human person of divine infant in Bethlehem, fulfiller of all God’s promises made in God’s auto-biographical story of Israel and revealer of the God who is wholly other. Nothing is more admirable about Luther than his commitment to the quest to make Christianity a meditation on Christ Incarnate, Christ Crucified and Christ Reigning.

In my opinion, what McCain has experienced and read in some quarters of the Reformed blogosphere is the outworking of theological hubris that puts the theology of the adherent in far too prominent a place. It runs the constant danger of not being a confession of simple faith in Christ alone. In some versions, it seems to be the gospel of presenting a commitment to a system, some of which goes beyond the “revealed God” of the incarnation to the “mysterious counsels of God” deduced by the theologian’s ruminations.

What I would say to McCain is that his experience of internet Calvinism can be very deceptive. The Barney Fife’s make a lot of noise while they are nipping everything in the bud. The Tim Keller’s and the Michael Horton’s don’t spend their time gutting bloggers for trophy. When you calmly survey the entire reformed web, and don’t give too much place to the camp that sees dispensational independent Baptist fundamentalism as the only proper heirs to Reformed Theology, you will see a more balanced- and Christ centered- picture.

Internet Calvinists themselves know this. The lines in the PCA are clearly there to see, as well as many other places. Many Calvinists (see Founders.org for instance) are warmly Christ-centered, and put theology in its proper, helpful, but not central, place in the Church’s life.

Posted on

Where’s Jesus? An Expression of Concern to my Calvinist Friends

While I like, and respect, most of the Calvinists I’ve been privileged to get to know in various ways, I have profound disagreements and very serious reservations with Calvinism. I hope that is a distinction not lost on anyone. I regard Calvinism not as part of the church’s reformation, but as actually contributing toward its deformation. And here is why I believe this. This is a collection of several blog posts.

I don’t know about you, but nothing says to me, “Christmas is near”
more uniquely than the stories that appear in local papers this time of
year about people having their Jesus stolen from their yard manger scenes.
But it set me to thinking. I have to review a lot of Christian books
and other products. I read a lot about them. It’s kind of an
occupational hazard, I guess you could say. Well, it never ceases to
amaze me how often I come away from reviewing a book from a Christian
publisher, be it for adults or children, with the question, “Where’s
Jesus?” Oh, yes, there may be a lot of talk about God and about the
Christian life and all manner of issues, but….where is Jesus? Where
is the actual Gospel? You know the “I delivered to you what I received
as of first importance…the cross, the resurrection, forgiveness of
sins” You know…the Gospel. Where is the Gospel?

And lately I’ve been noticing this as a frequent characteristic of
Calvinist blog sites and theological discussions. Here’s an example of
it from a self-described Calvinist gadfly I’ve come to know. Alan
writes about himself and then concludes…

I am a sinner saved by God’s grace alone. He didn’t save me by
trying somehow to “woo” me by whispering in my ear hoping that I would
cooperate. He saved me when I was spitting in his face. God took my
creaturely rebel heart and sovereignly penetrated my will and performed
the miracle of regeneration by raising me up to spiritual life. It was,
and is, amazing grace. Cheers, Alan

Compare what our friend Alan has to say to how St. Paul talks in
Gal. 2:21. I trust you will notice a striking difference. I’m not
saying we have to mention Jesus with every other word, but….please
let me hear about Jesus, not just about the sovereign will of God. The
lofty grandeur of the God high in the heavens is a wonder indeed. But
that does me no good. No, talk to me of God who lies in the manger, for
me, as a baby. Let me hear more about God who lived perfectly in my
place, who walked this earth, in the same flesh and blood I have. Speak
to me of God who fed the crowds, healed the sick, raised the dead and
calmed the storms. Put my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my
sins on his shoulders, who suffered and bled for me, as the
all-sufficient atoning sacrifice for my sins, and the sins of the whole
world. That’s the God I want to hear about more. You see, God has come
down in the flesh and now to all eternity, He is the only way I know
the Father, no other way. I can ponder the “sovereign will” of the
grand Creator, but I prefer to ponder God in the face of Jesus Christ,
who is, my Lord and my God. Let me hear of Jesus.He is the One who
shows us the Father. Please put Jesus back where He belongs.

In the process of trying to get to the bottom of
Calvinism, I’ve learned that Calvinism is somewhat hard to define, but
there does seem to be fairly universal consensus that the Canons of Dordt are the most commonly held principles of Calvinism…but….then you talk to other Calvinists who point you more toward the Westminster Confession. And then you have the Belgic Confession, and various other attending documents
that go along with Westminster Confession which are apparently of some
authority in various Calvinist churches. Of course, one could try to
fathom a rather complex chart explaining Calvinism’s view of how a person is saved.

I just feel sometimes that I’m trying to pick up
jello with my hands, or herd cats when I try to pin down precisely what
is the Calvinist confession of faith. I wish Calvinists could, like we
Lutherans, point to a single book and say, “Here is our definitive and
authoritative and normative confession of faith.” I appreciate the fact
that Lutheranism, though jello-like in its own unique ways, at least
brings to the table a single book, called The Book of Concord.
No, I’m not saying all Lutherans actually adhere to the Lutheran
Confessions, just as I would not suggest that the Presbyterian Church
USA is a paragon of Calvinist confession. We have our liberals.
Calvinists have their’s. I’m not concerned about either right now.

In my opinion, based on my observation and reading of
Calvinist materials now for many years, and most recently of course my
exchanges with several ardent Calvinists, I am all the more firmly
convinced that Calvinism simply does not put Jesus at the absolute
center of their “system.”

Am I suggesting that Calvinists don’t believe in
Jesus? No. That they don’t love Jesus? No. I’m simply saying that in
the Calvinist system of theology the “warm beating heart” is not to be
found, first and foremost, in Christ Jesus and the love and mercy of
the Gospel, the good news of forgiveness and new life and hope in Him.
For Calvinists it is my opinion that what “centers” them is not the
Gospel, so much as God’s eternal sovereign decrees. Am I saying God is
not sovereign? No. Am I saying God does not act sovereignly toward His
creation? No.

The concern I have with Calvinism is that the fuel
driving is train is not the  dynamite of the Gospel of Jesus, the love
of God, the kindness shown by God to us in Christ, but….in God’s
essence and glory, which Calvinists see most clearly in His
“sovereignty” but not actually in His grace, love and mercy in Christ.
Of course, they protest this assertion. They say, “But that’s what we
mean when we talk about sovereignty.” Well, I say, “Then let’s hear
more about Jesus and the Gospel and God’s life-giving love and kindness
and mercy in Christ.”

I believe that the New Testament clearly indicates
that we can not, and must not, look any farther than Jesus Christ when
we talk about God. All talk of God that drifts free of Christ and Him
crucified leads in a wrong direction. Jesus Christ is the only way we
know God as He wants to be known. We are not to try to peer past, or
around, or above Jesus and try to look into the hidden counsels of God.
And his is precisely where I think Calvinism as a system is highly
problematic.
Is referring to Calvinism as a system unfair? I’m sure it could be so
in some senses, but, as one Calvinist web site puts it succinctly:

Calvinism is the name applied to the system of thought which has come
down to us from John Calvin. He is recognized as the chief exponent of
that system, although he is not the originator of the ideas set forth
in it. The theological views of Calvin, together with those of the
other great leaders of the Protestant Reformation, are known to be a
revival of Augustinianism, which in its turn was only a revival of the
teachings of St. Paul centuries previous. But it was Calvin who, for
modern times, first gave the presentation of these views in systematic
form and with the specific application which since his day has become
known to us as Calvinism.

It
is this “system” that has me worried for my Calvinist brethren, for it
seems to me that this “system” is quite a bit more concerned first with
an articulation of the eternal decrees and hidden counsels of God than
with putting Christ Jesus at the heart and center. Please let me
explain.

Calvinism concerns itself first with God’s glory and
making sure God gets what God deserves: glory. A noble goal! But, is
this truly the New Testament presentation of what is at the heart of
Christianity? It would, to me, seem to be working things from the wrong
direction. We are not given, first, to know and contemplate God in
Himself, but rather as He has chosen finally to reveal Himself to us,
and that He has done through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is not a
“system” this is a Person, the  God-Man, Christ Jesus our Lord.
Beginning with God’s glory is stepping off on the wrong foot.

Consider this explanation of Calvinism’s “beating heart”

The
central thought of Calvinism is, therefore, the great thought of
God. Someone has remarked: Just as the Methodist places in the
foreground the idea of the salvation of sinners, the Baptist the
mystery of regeneration, the Lutheran justification by faith, the
Moravian  the wounds of Christ, the Greek Catholic  the mysticism of
the Holy Spirit, and the Romanist  the catholicity of the church, so
the Calvinist is always placing in the foreground the thought of God.
The Calvinist does not start out with some interest of man; for
example, his conversion or his justification, but has as his informing
thought always: How will God come to His rights! He seeks to realize as
his ruling concept in life the truth of Scripture: Of Him , and
through Him, and to Him are all things. To whom be glory forever.

Here’s an example of what concerns me, from a self-described Calvinist gadfly I’ve come to know. Alan
is an earnest and sincere Christian young man who writes this about himself:

I am a sinner saved by God’s grace alone. He didn’t save me by
trying somehow to “woo” me by whispering in my ear hoping that I would
cooperate. He saved me when I was spitting in his face. God took my
creaturely rebel heart and sovereignly penetrated my will and performed
the miracle of regeneration by raising me up to spiritual life. It was,
and is, amazing grace.

Compare what our Calvinist friend Alan has to say to how St. Paul talks in
Gal. 2:20.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I trust you will notice a striking difference. I’m not
saying we have to mention Jesus with every other word, but….please
let me hear about Jesus, not just about the sovereign will of God. The
lofty grandeur of the God high in the heavens is a wonder indeed. But
that does me no good. No, talk to me of God who lies in the manger, for
me, as a baby. Let me hear more about God who lived perfectly in my
place, who walked this earth, in the same flesh and blood I have. Speak
to me of God who fed the crowds, healed the sick, raised the dead and
calmed the storms. Put my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my
sins on his shoulders, who suffered and bled for me, as the
all-sufficient atoning sacrifice for my sins, and the sins of the whole
world. That’s the God I want to hear about more. You see, God has come
down in the flesh and now to all eternity, He is the only way I know
the Father, no other way. I can ponder the “sovereign will” of the
grand Creator, but I prefer to ponder God in the face of Jesus Christ,
who is, my Lord and my God. Let me hear of Jesus. He is the One who
shows us the Father. Please put Jesus back where He belongs.

The quotations in this post are from an essay based on the book The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, Chapter I, pp. 29-40 (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1939).

It has come clear to me that for Calvinism, starting from the
premise that the chief characteristic of God is his “Sovereignty,” it
makes perfect sense that the Sovereign God would lay down hard and fast
rules and laws for all eternity but then turn right around and order
his people to break them by putting, for example images in the house
constructed for His worship. After all, in their system, this same God
is the one who, despite telling everyone through His Son that He loves
the whole world and that the atoning sacrifice of His Son was for the
sins of the whole world, turns right around and decides to create some
people just so He can send them off to roast in Hell, while others, He
determines to be in Heaven. You don’t really need the atoning sacrifice
of Christ in this system. You see the Sovereign God simply is
Sovereign. That settles it. I’m not really sure what point there was
for Him to send His Son anyway, but I guess that too is just to be
chalked up to the Sovereign God.

And this Sovereign God is also so remote and “other” from His
creation, that we can not possibly suggest that this infinite God is
capable of associating Himself with the finite. In fact, it is an
affront to this Sovereign Other in Calvinistic thinking to suggest that
the actual humanity of a human being is so closely united to Divinity
that He is now truly, actually present in, with and under bread and
wine of the Holy Supper, even as he was in, with and under the assumed
humanity from the God-bearer, the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin.
Jesus is God, in the flesh, in the womb of the Virgin Mother. Christ,
is God, in the flesh, on the cross, crucified, died and buried, risen
again for our salvation.

And so it then is necessary for Calvinists to speak of a “spiritual
presence” of Christ, but in such a way as to avoid at all costs
actually regarding him as truly present where He promised to locate
Himself: under bread and wine, with His actual body and blood, given
from the hand of the pastor, into the mouth of the communicant. His
Glory dwelt between the Seraphim, but it seems for Calvinism, that
can’t be truly said of the Man Jesus Christ, now and into all eternity
as our Ascended Lord and King.

All this has come very clear to me and frankly the way my Calvinist
friends over at Dave and Tim’s place are handling images, is perfectly,
rationally consistent with their theology. Rather than starting in the
Mercy and Grace of God, made flesh in Christ Jesus, Calvinism proceeds
first from speculations about the Sovereign Lord and then works itself
out from there.

In this Advent season, I rejoice in God my Savior, who has blessed
us all through the humble Virgin Mother of God, through whom He took on
human flesh and blood and now, and for all eternity, is united with our
humanity in such a way that truly we look at the man Jesus and say, “My
Lord and My God” and receive the body and blood of this God-Man as the
atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, into our mouths, for
the blessing of both body and soul.

But I find myself concerned when I survey Lutheranism. How many
Lutherans in this country believe that the best way best to reach out
to people is by using methods and techniques that embody and rely on
essential characteristics of Evangelicalism, Non-Denominationalism,
Pentecostalism and the like.

These revialistic measures are reactions to Calvinism! They are not
compatible with Lutheranism. When there is such a rich, warm, glowing
treasure of truth at the hearth on which the fire of Biblical
Lutheranism blazes, why do we feel such a need to run outside and pick
up a few Calvinistic Reformed/Evangelical or Revivalistic sticks to rub
together for light? Do we not realize that American Evangelicalism and
Revivalism is the natural reaction to Calvinism’s dreary
double-predestination and lack of certainty about the presence of
Christ in His Word and Sacraments, its distortion and confusion of Law
and Gospel, its emphasis on the Sovereignty of God at the expense of
the mercy and love of God in Christ?

When a theological tradition holds out the message that there is
finally no way to know if one is saved, or damned, other than to throw
oneself into the arms of a Sovereign God’s whims, is it any wonder that
the response to this will be emotionalism and revivalism, trying
desperately to work up in the human psyche some assurance of salvation?
When Calvinism holds out empty sacraments that are mere legal
requirements to be obeyed, rather than actual saving actions of a
merciful, loving Christ, present among His people as He has promised to
be, is it any wonder people run from such “Sacraments” and the
“Sovereign God” and throw themselves down at the feet of false prophets
like Joel Osteen and other wolves in sheep’s clothing like him? ?But
why would we Lutherans want to mimic sterile worship spaces, and
revialistic practices? Why would we want to have among us practices and
techniques that mirror revivalism and emotionalism and then expect
anyone to bother much with what Lutheranism is all about? This has
given me much to think about indeed.

Let this point be clear and may God grant it for Jesus sake . . .
The differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, and all those
churches that are spiritual heirs of Zwingli and Calvin, or reactions
against it: Reformed, Presbyterian, Episcopalianism, Methodism,
Baptist, Pentecostal, Non-Denominational, and all the rest – these
differences are every bit as harmful, serious and threatening to the
truth of God’s Word as the differences between Lutheranism and Roman
Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. One person I know suggested that
Roman Catholicism added to God’s Word while the Reformed removed things
from it. Simply affirming an inerrant Bible is no reason to assume that
the theological differences are either relatively minor or of no great
consequence. Affirming an inerrant Bible, which I do, is no guarantee
of fidelity to what the Inerrant Word of God teaches.

Am I with these remarks suggesting that Lutherans are perfect
people? No, quite the opposite. We are poor, miserable sinners who
deserving nothing but God’s temporal and eternal punishment. We daily
sin much and deserve nothing but His wrath and condemnation. We flee
for mercy to our Lord Jesus Christ, seeking and imploring God’s mercy
for His sake. Lutheranism has many failings and faults and
imperfections. Some of my Lutheran friends find these so disturbing
that they think the “escape hatch” is to be found in Eastern Orthodoxy.
But they are just deceiving themselves with the allure of grass that
seems greener on the other side of the ecclesiastical fence.

This blog discussion and debate over images and commandments has
really helped me realize what a stark contrast there is between
Biblical Christianity, and Calvinism and all derivations, or reactions,
to it. To whatever extent Calvinism does teach and cling to the
revealed Gospel in Sacred Scripture, I thank God, but to the extent
that it does not, I, with Luther must say, “They have a different
spirit. They can expect no fellowship from me.” And by this, I mean formal church fellowship, not the fellowship of friendship, but the fellowship of communion in holy things at altar and pulpit.

Calvinism represents not Reformation, but deformation. And I want Reformation.

Posted on

Calvinist Response

Here is a response to my thoughts on Calvinism from a person who apparently identifies himself as Calvinist. I found it interesting. It offers good insight into how some Calvinists think. And it is a good example and verification of how for Calvinism, “sovereignty” is the thing. It’s also an interesting example of what is common among Calvinists, an assumption that they in fact know and understand the theology of Martin Luther. As one wag put it to me recently, “Calvinists really enjoy Lutherans but don’t like it when they start talking too much like Lutherans.” My observation is that many Calvinists read only a very, very little in Martin Luther and then assume they “get him” and so they assume that there must be a vast difference between Martin Luther and classic, confessional Lutheranism. I once again refer my loyal readers to the Book of Concord if they want to know what Lutheranism is.

Paul McCain has tried to collect his thoughts about Calvinism. This article is a great improvement over his hit-pieces.

***QUOTE***

In
the process of trying to get to the bottom of Calvinism, I’ve learned
that Calvinism is somewhat hard to define, but there does seem to be
fairly universal consensus that the Canons of Dordt are the most
commonly held principles of Calvinism…but….then you talk to other
Calvinists who point you more toward the Westminster Confession. And
then you have the Belgic Confession, and various other attending
documents that go along with Westminster Confession which are
apparently of some authority in various Calvinist churches. Of course,
one could try to fathom a rather complex chart explaining Calvinism’s
view of how a person is saved.

I just feel sometimes that I’m
trying to pick up jello with my hands, or herd cats when I try to pin
down precisely what is the Calvinist confession of faith. I wish
Calvinists could, like we Lutherans, point to a single book and say,
“Here is our definitive and authoritative and normative confession of
faith.” I appreciate the fact that Lutheranism, though jello-like in
its own unique ways, at least brings to the table a single book, called
The Book of Concord.

http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2005/12/wheres_jesus_tr.html

***END-QUOTE***

This is all rather odd on several grounds.

i) Dr. McCain seems to have very definite views of what Calvinism stands for when it comes to criticizing Calvinism.

ii)
To compare the variety of Reformed confessions with a single Lutheran
book is deeply misleading, for the Book of Concord is, itself, an
anthology of several different Lutheran credal statements, viz.,
Luther’s Catechisms, the Augsburg Confession, the Articles of
Schmalkalden, and the Formula of Concord.

iii) The reason for
the relative diversity of Reformed confessions has a lot less to do
with doctrinal diversity than with national and linguistic diversity,
reflecting the French, Dutch, and British wings of Calvinism.

The
only doctrinal diversity of note is between the Reformed Baptist
expression of Calvinism, represented in the London Baptist Confession
of Faith, and the more Presbyterian types of Calvinism.

There
is also some difference between Dordt and Westminster over the
assurance of salvation. Westminster is basically a Puritan document,
and reflects Puritan concerns and emphases.

As to Calvinism’s
view of how a person is saved, the question is ambiguous. Is the
question: “How does God save a person?” Or is the question, “What must
a person do to be saved?”

The short answer to the first question
is that those whom the Father chose, the Son redeemed, and those whom
the Son redeemed, the Spirit renews and preserves.

For an answer to the second question, the Westminster Confession defines saving faith thusly:

“By
this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in
the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein…yielding
obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing
the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the
principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting
upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life,
by virtue of the covenant of grace” (WCF 14:2).

***QUOTE***

In
my opinion, based on my observation and reading of Calvinist materials
now for many years, and most recently of course my exchanges with
several ardent Calvinists, I am all the more firmly convinced that
Calvinism simply does not put Jesus at the absolute center of their
“system.”

***END-QUOTE***

One of the problems with
framing the debate in terms of what is “central” to Calvinism or
Lutheranism is that this is not a quantifiable criterion. For
“centrality” is just a picturesque metaphor. So when Dr. McCain judges
Calvinism by this figurative imagery, what is the literal frame of
reference? Otherwise, McCain is the one imposing a Jell-O-like standard
of his own.

***QUOTE***

For Calvinists it is my opinion that what “centers” them is not the Gospel, so much as God’s eternal sovereign decrees.

***END-QUOTE***

Once again, we’re left with a metaphor.

And
as far as metaphors go, the atonement is not “centered” in the decree;
rather, the atonement is “grounded” in the decree. This is the “basis”
or “foundation” of the atonement.

***QUOTE***

The concern
I have with Calvinism is that the fuel driving is train is not the
dynamite of the Gospel of Jesus, the love of God, the kindness shown by
God to us in Christ, but….in God’s essence and glory, which
Calvinists see most clearly in His “sovereignty” but not actually in
His grace, love and mercy in Christ.

***END-QUOTE***

i)
Since Jesus is divine, it’s a false dichotomy to drive a wedge between
the glory of God, on the one hand, and faith in Christ, on the other.

ii) It is also a false dichotomy to drive a wedge between God’s sovereignty and God’s grace, love, and mercy in Christ.

In Reformed theology, God’s grace is sovereign grace, his love is sovereign love, and his mercy is sovereign mercy.

iii)
Calvinism doesn’t come to the Bible with either a Christocentric or a
theocentric agenda. If the emphasis falls on one more than the other,
that’s simply an exegetical result of trying to do justice to the
entire witness of Scripture.

***QUOTE***

Well, I say, “Then let’s hear more about Jesus and the Gospel and God’s life-giving love and kindness and mercy in Christ.”

***END-QUOTE***

“More.”
This is another vague predicate. In Hesychasm, you have the “Jesus
prayer.” At a linguistic level, that’s very Christocentric. But is it
the essence of Christian piety?

***QUOTE***

I believe
that the New Testament clearly indicates that we can not, and must not,
look any farther than Jesus Christ when we talk about God. All talk of
God that drifts free of Christ and Him crucified leads in a wrong
direction.

***END-QUOTE***

i) Here we are getting to a key difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism.

ii)
Ironically, it’s McCain who is coming to the table with a preconceived
agenda. This is the canon within a canon that you find in Lutheran
theology, where everything should be artificially shoehorned into a
Christocentric or really Christomonistic direction.

Calvinism,
by contrast, doesn’t feel the need to massage and manipulate and
redistribute the data to that degree. Calvinism has no inner canon. The
entire canon is the functional canon in Calvinism. So Lutheranism is
far more system-bound that Calvinism.

iii) Calvinism sees an
opposing danger. And that is when the work of Christ drift free of the
Trinity. When the work of Christ becomes some impersonal, free-floating
thing which is not coordinated with the work of the Father in election
or the work of the Spirit in renewal and preservation. An autonomous
sufficiency insufficient to save anyone in particular.

***QUOTE***

We are not to try to peer past, or around, or above Jesus and try to look into the hidden counsels of God.

***END-QUOTE***

This
is another malicious misrepresentation of Reformed theology. Where does
Calvinism get the idea of predestination in the first place? From the
Bible. This has nothing to do the prying into the hidden counsels of
God. Rather, it has everything to do with the revelation of the decree.
Predestination is a divine disclosure—not some speculative inference.

***QUOTE***

It
is this “system” that has me worried for my Calvinist brethren, for it
seems to me that this “system” is quite a bit more concerned first with
an articulation of the eternal decrees and hidden counsels of God than
with putting Christ Jesus at the heart and center. Please let me
explain.

Calvinism concerns itself first with God’s glory and
making sure God gets what God deserves: glory. A noble goal! But, is
this truly the New Testament presentation of what is at the heart of
Christianity? It would, to me, seem to be working things from the wrong
direction. We are not given, first, to know and contemplate God in
Himself, but rather as He has chosen finally to reveal Himself to us,
and that He has done through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is not a
“system” this is a Person, the God-Man, Christ Jesus our Lord.
Beginning with God’s glory is stepping off on the wrong foot.

***END-QUOTE***

This
is more of the same. McCain is censoring the word of God. Muzzling the
word of God. Redirecting and reorienting the word of God.

Any
systematic theology is going to reorganize the contents of Scripture.
That’s what’s involved in systematizing the teaching of Scripture. As
such, there’s no one “scriptural” place to begin. There are many
possible starting points. You can use the covenant, or the kingdom of
God, or the Trinity, or, Christ as your structuring principle.

Calvinism
doesn’t concern itself first and foremost with anything except doing
justice to the whole counsel of God. Calvinism doesn’t feel the need to
be more Christian than scripture itself, for you can’t be more
Christian than Scripture itself.

Now, due to its battles with
Arminianism and Catholic synergism, there has been a polemic emphasis
on the sovereignty of God since that is what the opposing positions
oppose—just as, in Lutheranism, you have a polemical emphasis on sola
fide and the law/gospel antithesis.

There’s a Barthian and
functionally Unitarian quality to insisting that we cannot know
anything about God apart from the revelation of God in Christ. The NT
is not all about Jesus. Salvation is Trinitarian.

It does not
honor Christ to peel Jesus away from his Father, or sever him from the
Spirit of Christ. It does not honor Christ to make him die in vain. To
die for the damned.

***QUOTE***

Compare what our Calvinist friend Alan has to say to how St. Paul talks in Gal. 2:20.

***END-QUOTE***

Notice
the reductionistic nature of this appeal. There’s more to the Gospel,
more to St. Paul’s theology, more to NT theology, more to Biblical
theology, than Gal 2:20. Not less, certainly, but certainly more.

***QUOTE***

I
trust you will notice a striking difference. I’m not saying we have to
mention Jesus with every other word, but….please let me hear about
Jesus, not just about the sovereign will of God. The lofty grandeur of
the God high in the heavens is a wonder indeed. But that does me no
good. No, talk to me of God who lies in the manger, for me, as a baby.
Let me hear more about God who lived perfectly in my place, who walked
this earth, in the same flesh and blood I have. Speak to me of God who
fed the crowds, healed the sick, raised the dead and calmed the storms.
Put my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my sins on his
shoulders, who suffered and bled for me, as the all-sufficient atoning
sacrifice for my sins, and the sins of the whole world. That’s the God
I want to hear about more.

***END-QUOTE***

i) This goes
back to McCain’s initial failure to distinguish between two distinct
questions: (a) “How does God save a person?” And (b) “What must a
person do to be saved?”

The Bible answers both questions, and
it’s the sacred duty of a pastor or theologian to preach or teach both
answers—not one to the exclusion of another. We just say whatever the
Bible says. Repeat the teaching of Scripture.

ii) And there
are times when it’s necessary to get into the mechanics of how God
saves a person. For you have heresies and heretics like Pelagius and
Valentinus and Roman Catholicism which give the wrong answer.

***QUOTE***

You see, God has come down in the flesh and now to all eternity, He is the only way I know the Father, no other way.

***END-QUOTE***

This
is pious nonsense. There is no saving knowledge of God apart from faith
in Christ. But Biblical revelation is a revelation of the Trinity.
Christ is not a mask, obscuring or concealing the Father.

***QUOTE***

Put
my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my sins on his shoulders,
who suffered and bled for me, as the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice
for my sins, and the sins of the whole world.

***END-QUOTE***

i) All-sufficient for whom and for what? Sufficient, all by itself, to actually save everyone? McCain doesn’t believe that.

ii)
I’d add, at the risk of kicking over a hornet’s nest, that as a
practical matter, Lutherans like McCain put their faith, not directly
in the Savior, but in the sacraments. They are not looking to Jesus,
but to the wafer and the font. By contrast, Reformed Baptists do trust
in Jesus alone.

Posted on

Where’s Jesus? The Question That Comes to My Mind When Reflecting on Calvinism

Missingjesus_7

In the process of trying to get to the bottom of Calvinism, I’ve learned that Calvinism is somewhat hard to define, but there does seem to be fairly universal consensus that the Canons of Dordt are the most commonly held principles of Calvinism…but….then you talk to other Calvinists who point you more toward the Westminster Confession. And then you have the Belgic Confession, and various other attending documents that go along with Westminster Confession which are apparently of some authority in various Calvinist churches. Of course, one could try to fathom a rather complex chart explaining Calvinism’s view of how a person is saved.

I just feel sometimes that I’m trying to pick up jello with my hands, or herd cats when I try to pin down precisely what is the Calvinist confession of faith. I wish Calvinists could, like we Lutherans, point to a single book and say, “Here is our definitive and authoritative and normative confession of faith.” I appreciate the fact that Lutheranism, though jello-like in its own unique ways, at least brings to the table a single book, called The Book of Concord. No, I’m not saying all Lutherans actually adhere to the Lutheran Confessions, just as I would not suggest that the Presbyterian Church USA is a paragon of Calvinist confession. We have our liberals. Calvinists have their’s. I’m not concerned about either right now.

In my opinion, based on my observation and reading of Calvinist materials now for many years, and most recently of course my exchanges with several ardent Calvinists, I am all the more firmly convinced that Calvinism simply does not put Jesus at the absolute center of their “system.”


Am I suggesting that Calvinists don’t believe in Jesus? No. That they don’t love Jesus? No. I’m simply saying that in the Calvinist system of theology the “warm beating heart” is not to be found, first and foremost, in Christ Jesus and the love and mercy of the Gospel, the good news of forgiveness and new life and hope in Him. For Calvinists it is my opinion that what “centers” them is not the Gospel, so much as God’s eternal sovereign decrees. Am I saying God is not sovereign? No. Am I saying God does not act sovereignly toward His creation? No.

The concern I have with Calvinism is that the fuel driving is train is not the  dynamite of the Gospel of Jesus, the love of God, the kindness shown by God to us in Christ, but….in God’s essence and glory, which Calvinists see most clearly in His “sovereignty” but not actually in His grace, love and mercy in Christ. Of course, they protest this assertion. They say, “But that’s what we mean when we talk about sovereignty.” Well, I say, “Then let’s hear more about Jesus and the Gospel and God’s life-giving love and kindness and mercy in Christ.”

I believe that the New Testament clearly indicates that we can not, and must not, look any farther than Jesus Christ when we talk about God. All talk of God that drifts free of Christ and Him crucified leads in a wrong direction. Jesus Christ is the only way we know God as He wants to be known. We are not to try to peer past, or around, or above Jesus and try to look into the hidden counsels of God. And his is precisely where I think Calvinism as a system is highly problematic.
Is referring to Calvinism as a system unfair? I’m sure it could be so in some senses, but, as one Calvinist web site puts it succinctly:

Calvinism is the name applied to the system of thought which has come
down to us from John Calvin. He is recognized as the chief exponent of
that system, although he is not the originator of the ideas set forth
in it. The theological views of Calvin, together with those of the
other great leaders of the Protestant Reformation, are known to be a
revival of Augustinianism, which in its turn was only a revival of the
teachings of St. Paul centuries previous. But it was Calvin who, for
modern times, first gave the presentation of these views in systematic
form and with the specific application which since his day has become
known to us as Calvinism.

It is this “system” that has me worried for my Calvinist brethren, for it seems to me that this “system” is quite a bit more concerned first with an articulation of the eternal decrees and hidden counsels of God than with putting Christ Jesus at the heart and center. Please let me explain.

Calvinism concerns itself first with God’s glory and making sure God gets what God deserves: glory. A noble goal! But, is this truly the New Testament presentation of what is at the heart of Christianity? It would, to me, seem to be working things from the wrong direction. We are not given, first, to know and contemplate God in Himself, but rather as He has chosen finally to reveal Himself to us, and that He has done through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is not a “system” this is a Person, the  God-Man, Christ Jesus our Lord. Beginning with God’s glory is stepping off on the wrong foot.

Consider this explanation of Calvinism’s “beating heart”

The central thought of Calvinism is, therefore, the great thought of
God. Someone has remarked: Just as the Methodist places in the
foreground the idea of the salvation of sinners, the Baptist the
mystery of regeneration, the Lutheran justification by faith, the
Moravian  the wounds of Christ, the Greek Catholic  the mysticism of
the Holy Spirit, and the Romanist  the catholicity of the church, so
the Calvinist is always placing in the foreground the thought of God. The Calvinist does not start out with some interest of man; for
example, his conversion or his justification, but has as his informing
thought always: How will God come to His rights! He seeks to realize as
his ruling concept in life the truth of Scripture: Of Him , and
through Him, and to Him are all things. To whom be glory forever.

Here’s an example of what concerns me, from a self-described Calvinist gadfly I’ve come to know. Alan
is an earnest and sincere Christian young man who writes this about himself:

I am a sinner saved by God’s grace alone. He didn’t save me by
trying somehow to “woo” me by whispering in my ear hoping that I would
cooperate. He saved me when I was spitting in his face. God took my
creaturely rebel heart and sovereignly penetrated my will and performed
the miracle of regeneration by raising me up to spiritual life. It was,
and is, amazing grace.

Compare what our Calvinist friend Alan has to say to how St. Paul talks in
Gal. 2:20.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I trust you will notice a striking difference. I’m not
saying we have to mention Jesus with every other word, but….please
let me hear about Jesus, not just about the sovereign will of God. The
lofty grandeur of the God high in the heavens is a wonder indeed. But
that does me no good. No, talk to me of God who lies in the manger, for
me, as a baby. Let me hear more about God who lived perfectly in my
place, who walked this earth, in the same flesh and blood I have. Speak
to me of God who fed the crowds, healed the sick, raised the dead and
calmed the storms. Put my eyes on Jesus, God in the flesh, who took my
sins on his shoulders, who suffered and bled for me, as the
all-sufficient atoning sacrifice for my sins, and the sins of the whole
world. That’s the God I want to hear about more. You see, God has come
down in the flesh and now to all eternity, He is the only way I know
the Father, no other way. I can ponder the “sovereign will” of the
grand Creator, but I prefer to ponder God in the face of Jesus Christ,
who is, my Lord and my God. Let me hear of Jesus. He is the One who
shows us the Father. Please put Jesus back where He belongs.

The quotations in this post are from an essay based on the book The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, Chapter I, pp. 29-40 (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1939).

Posted on

Calvinism’s Faulty Christology

Here is some good material from the great Lutheran dogmatician, Francis Pieper, who puts his finger on the core problem with Calvinism: Christological error. It is interesting to note that when Francis Pieper wrote his magisterial three-volume work of dogmatics, the first volume issued was the volume devoted largely to the doctrine of Christ.  Here is a quote from that volume.

Calvin’s theology, as far as it differs from that of Luther, is dominated largely by rationalistic and philosophical principles, and his sometimes fanatical controversy against the Lutheran doctrine is manifestly inspired by his rationalistic and philosophical principles. Calvin’s doctrine of divine grace, in particular his determination of the extent of divine grace, is so entirely motivated by human speculation that he judges this not by the clear Scripture statements, but by experience (experientia), or the practical result (effectus). Because of his rationalistic viewpoint Calvin perverts all Scripture statements which in unmistakable terms declare God’s universal will of grace, and he designates as fools all theologians who teach universal grace. So also Calvin’s Christology is dominated, just as is that of Zwingli and other Reformed theologians, by the human figment of the incapacity of the human nature for divinity. He calls it folly to say that the humanity of Christ is everywhere united with the Godhead. Above all, he urges the rationalistic axiom that Christ’s human nature can possess only a visible and local presence. He writes: “They [the Lutherans] babble of an invisible presence. It is essential to a real body to have its special form and dimensions and to be contained within some certain space.”464 On the basis of this rationalistic premise he interprets the closed doors (John 20:19) to mean “open doors,” and the miracle of Christ’s vanishing (Luke 24:31) he explains away as if merely the eyes of the disciples had been at fault. On the basis of this rationalistic axiom he also accuses the Lutherans of Eutychianism, indeed of being theologians who are worse than the papists. He writes: “I speak not of the Romanists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at least more modest; but some [the Lutherans] are so carried away with the heat of the contention as to affirm that, on account of the union of the two natures of Christ, wherever His deity is, His flesh, which cannot be separated from it, is there also.”465 Calvin’s theology, therefore, is not basically Biblical, but rationalistically motivated.

It is a pity that such eminent Reformed dogmaticians as Hodge, Shedd, and Boehl, who frequently oppose modern liberalism in an effective manner, reproduce in their Christology the ancient Reformed error with its self-contradiction and its denial of the Scripture truth. In doing this they also succumb to the temptation to misrepresent, in their polemics, the Lutheran doctrine according to its content and [Vol. 2, Page 277] history. In the preceding chapters we frequently referred to Hodge, since his Systematic Theology and his commentaries are widely read in American Lutheran circles. Hodge, as we have seen, represents the old Reformed viewpoint and combats the Lutheran doctrine on the basis of the figment that Christ’s human nature is not capable of the attributes and works of His divine nature. We here note the additional fact that Hodge’s historical remarks on Lutheran Christology are exceedingly unreliable. This fault Krauth criticizes in Shedd, against whom he writes very sharply, though not unfairly: “We cannot refrain from expressing our amazement that the writer of A History of Christian Doctrine466 should give such a definition of so familiar a term” (communicatio idiomatum, which Shedd defines as “the presence of the divine nature of Christ in the sacramental elements”). “We are forced almost to the conclusion—and it is the mildest one we can make for Dr. Shedd—that he has ventured to give a statement of the doctrine of our Formula [of Concord] without having read it with sufficient care to form a correct judgment as to the meaning of its most important terms …. Dr. Shedd … in general seems to stumble from the moment he gets on German ground.”467

In his historical remarks on Lutheran Christology Dr. Hodge fares no better. He states not only that Chemnitz teaches “that human nature is not capable of divinity,” but also that hopeless disagreement468 prevails among the Lutheran theologians on the subject of Christology. He writes: “It would require a volume to give the details of the controversies between the different schools of the Lutheran divines.” To prove this alleged discord, he writes: “No less diversity appears in the answer to the question: What is meant by the communication of natures? Sometimes it is said to be a communication of the essence of God to the human nature of Christ; sometimes, a communication of divine attributes; and sometimes it is said to mean nothing more than that the human is made the organ of the divine.”469

As a matter of fact, all Lutheran theologians teach and confess these three truths. All teach that God’s essence was communicated to the human nature of Christ, since Scripture declares that in Christ’s human nature the fullness of the Godhead dwells as in its body and that God’s Son became man, not excluding, but including His divine [Vol. 2, Page 278] nature (Col. 2:9; John 1:14). The assumption of the Reformed that the Son of God became man without His divine nature, all Lutheran teachers declare to be, as indeed it is, a denial of what Scripture teaches in clear and unmistakable words. Again, all Lutheran theologians teach the communication of the divine attributes to the human nature, because, according to Scripture, Christ was given in time, and so according to His human nature, not merely extraordinary finite gifts (dona finita), but also supernatural and truly divine gifts (dona vere divina et infinita). When the Reformed, for instance, interpret the phrase “all power in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18) to mean merely limited power, the Lutheran teachers declare this to be a perversion of the clear Scripture statement. Or, when the Reformed refer the words to Christ’s divine nature, the Lutherans with one accord point out that by this Christ’s eternal deity is denied and the Son of God is changed into an “Arian creature,” since the passage speaks of an omnipotence given to Christ not in eternity, but in time. Finally, all Lutheran teachers, including Luther himself, teach that the communication of divine attributes to the human nature means only that the human nature was made the organ of the divine nature. The Lutherans stress only the reservation that the human nature of Christ is the organ of the Deity in a far different and higher manner than the human nature of Peter was God’s organ when He performed miracles through him. Lutheran teachers take Christ’s human nature to be an organ which is a part of the Person of the Son of God, and so they call it an instrument personally united, active, and co-operative (instrumentum personaliter coniunctum, εὔχρηατον, co-operans). Very emphatically the Lutheran divines also declare it to be a denial of the incarnation of the Son of God when the Reformed aver that Christ performed His divine works according to His human nature in exactly the same way as other miracle workers performed theirs.

It is obvious, therefore, that the disagreement which Hodge charges to the Lutherans in the three points mentioned above belongs to the realm of fiction. As we already pointed out, neither the Lutherans nor the Reformed could essentially disagree among themselves as long as, on the one hand, the Lutherans maintain that the finite in Christ is capable of the infinite, or that the human nature of Christ is capable of divinity, or that neither the flesh is outside the λόγος, nor the λόγος outside the flesh, and the Reformed, on the other hand, in their Christological discussions assert the very opposite, namely, that the finite in Christ is not capable of the infinite, or that the human nature of Christ is not capable of divinity, or that the human nature [Vol. 2, Page 279] cannot be made the organ of the Deity and His attributes, or that the human nature of Christ has none other than a visible and local presence.

So far as the obiections are concerned which Hodge prefers against the Lutherans under the title “Remarks on the Lutheran Doctrine,”470 these, too, lie outside the pale of historical truth. Hodge, for example, says: “The first objection is that the Lutheran doctrine is an attempt to explain the mystery.” This he defines more fully thus: “Not content with admitting the fact that two natures are united in the one Person of Christ, the Lutheran theologians insist on explaining the fact.” But the very opposite of this is true. The Lutheran doctrine that Christ’s human nature through its personal union with the Son of God has not merely nominal, but real communion with the divine nature, its properties and works, is not a dogma which the Lutherans have fabricated and forced upon the personal union, nor one at which they have arrived by rationalistic deductions from the personal union, but it is a doctrine clearly taught in Scripture by express words. On the other hand, the Reformed denial of the communion of the natures and of the communication of the divine attributes and works to the human nature is a direct negation of the statements of Scripture and a rationalistic attempt to explain away the personal union as set forth in Scripture. Hodge’s objections to Lutheran Christology are bound to miss the mark, because they rest on the human figment of the incapacity of the human nature for divinity.

But Hodge, too, fortunately withdraws all his objections to Lutheran Christology when, in the chapter on “The Intrinsic Worth of Christ’s Satisfaction,”471 he defends the expressions “God’s death,” “God’s blood,” “God’s suffering,” and finds the cause for the infinite value of Christ’s merit in what these terms express, just as the Admonitio Neostadiensis holds that the divine nature imparts infinite value to the sufferings of the human nature. Thus both Hodge and the Admonitio Neostadiensis concede what they do not mean to concede, the communion of the natures and their works.

Reformed Christology, therefore, presents both an unchristian and a Christian aspect. In so far as it maintains and applies the rationalistic axiom Finitum non est capax infiniti, it is Unitarian and unchristian. In so far as it becomes inconsistent and, contrary to its basic premise, maintains the personal union and the intrinsic, infinite value of Christ’s suffering and death, it is orthodox and Christian.

[Vol. 2, Page 280]  464 Inst. IV, 17, 29 f.465 Inst. IV, 17, 30.466 Shedd, A History of Christian Doctrine (2 vols.). First edition, New York and Edinburgh, 1865.467 The Conservative Reformation, p. 351 ff.468 Syst. Theol. II, 413.469 Loc. cit. II, 411.470 Loc. cit. II, 413–418.471 Loc. cit. II, 482 ff.Pieper, F. (1999, c1950, c1951, c1953). Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.