Toast's Theological & Philosophical Meditations & Musings

Based on a few conversations had and articles read over the last few days, I feel obliged to get this off my chest.

To start with, let’s define some terms.

• Doctrine of Grace: Sola Gratia. Not the so-called “five points of Calvinism.
• Calvinism: Reformed theology. Doctrine as preached by Calvin, as preached by Paul, as held sound and biblical. Not the so-called “five points of Calvinism”. Not the doctrine preached by John Piper, or by Paul Washer, or by most of the so-called “Neo-Calvinists”.

As you may have guessed from the above, I am not a fan of certain popular theologians. Actually, I decided by the end of the foreword to Desiring God by John Piper that he seemed to be somewhat off in his attitude, and the more I’ve looked into his preaching the more sure I am. That said, much as I would like to pick on pastor Piper in this posting, I shall refrain and instead discuss more important points. In the proccess, I shall be quoting in some length from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, as translated by mr Henry Beveridge.

In an effort to be brief, but to point out the most simple and glaring problems with the modern definition of “Calvinism” as meeting simpyl five so-called “doctrines of grace”, we shall look briefly at a few key area of the doctrine so well espoused by Calvin and lifted directly from scripture – those of grace, the Christian life, the sacrementology of the new covenant, and eschatology. Areas with which the supposed resurgence in Calvinism are as we shall see in sore contention.

Calvin’s views of grace where simple and to the point: grace is granted to us by God despite our deserving it. We’re granted grace by faith alone. So far so in agreement, but here’s the rub: predestination. A doctrine which is held in such high regard by the likes of John Piper (a man who goes so far in his opinion of the Lord’s sovreignty as to suggest that God did ordain sin) was one which in Calvin’s institutes consists chiefly of a few lines in the shortest chapter of the book, and which was not even included in the original draft! Indeed, a word of warning comes from Calvin himself as to putting too much emphasis on predestination, when he states that the doctrine is “attended with considerable difficulty [and] is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored.”

Many “neo-calvinists”, both elders and lay-members of the church, have informed me of the importance of repentance in the context of a full turning from sin and choosing to repress it, aiming towards a sinless life. Very noble. However, in Chapter III of his institutes, Calvin seems to take a very different viewpoint;

When it is said that God purifies his Church, so as to be “holy and without blemish,” (Eph. 5: 26, 27Eph. 5: 26, 27
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
26 He did this to dedicate the church to God by his word, after making it clean by washing it in water, ²⁷ in order to present the church to himself in all its beauty — pure and faultless, without spot or wrinkle or any other imperfection.

WP-Bible plugin,) that he promises this cleansing by means of baptism, and performs it in his elect, I understand that reference is made to the guilt rather than to the matter of sin. In regenerating his people God indeed accomplishes this much for them; he destroys the dominion of sin, by supplying the agency of the Spirit, which enables them to come off victorious from the contest. Sin, however, though it ceases to reign, ceases not to dwell in them. Accordingly, though we say that the old man is crucified, and the law of sin is abolished in the children of God, (Rom. 6: 6Rom. 6: 6
English: Good News Bible (UK) - GNB-UK
6 And we know that our old being has been put to death with Christ on his cross, in order that the power of the sinful self might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin.

WP-Bible plugin,) the remains of sin survive, not to have dominion, but to humble them under a consciousness of their infirmity

Sin survives in us, but our sins are ignored by almighty God! How can we try to pretend that although it is not our master, sin is still our constant companion? Can we ignore that we are saved not because we supress that companion, but in spite of the fact that we fail to? Sin exists in us to keep us humble, not to allow us to express pride that we can cover up its worst excesses.

And it is from this standpoint that the Christian life is best examined. In chapter VII of his institutes, a summary of the Christian life, Calvin states that

The rule which permits us not to go astray in the study of righteousness, requires two things–viz. that man, abandoning his own will, devote himself entirely to the service of God; whence it follows, that we must seek not our own things, but the things of God.

This is just the basic summary of a doctrine of self-denial, of forsaking earthly delights in exchange for surrendering one’s life to God. Why? Because in doing so we concentrate on the importance of the life to come, and we allow the Lord to use us in the way that is most beneficial in his plans thereto. Whereas John Piper chooses to interpret verses of 1 Timothy as advocating “using money in a way that will grant us the greatest and longest gain”, in his commentaries Calvin translates that those of us who the Lord has bestowed with earthly riches are obliged to use them for the good of others. Whilst both men agree that in doing so we are “storing up riches for ourselves in the hereafter”, so to speak, the difference is a subtle but important one: that of intent. Whilst Piper goes on to speak of the persuing of heavenly riches through the use of riches towards generosity, such an idea would have been abhorrent to Calvin, a man who would have rightly seen such an attitude as selfish and incorrect: good works should not be in the pursuit of an end, but in the obeying of God’s command to love all men as onesself, and to place God at the heart of one’s life. Setting one’s purpose on the next life may be the correct aim of the Christian life, but it is still a life of self-denial for the sake of obeying almighty God, not for the sake of enjoying him.

Of course a large part of the Christian life is that of sacrementology, and one in which the neo-Calvinists most disagree with Calvin.

The sacrements are more than mere symbols. Calvin goes to great lengths to define the sacrements, but his brief definition should be enough for most of us to comprehend;

First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which, in meaning, differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation.

The sarcements are, in other words, the visible symbols of the covenant. As Calvin puts it, they are seals to confirm the promise and symbols of great importance in confirming God’s presense in the church. The spirit is with us as the sacrements are taken, and their importance to the church should not be dismissed.

There are two sacrements: the sacrement of pedobaptism and the sacrement of the Lord’s supper. Whilst most of us in a “reformed” denomination will agree on the Lord’s supper, it is pedobaptism that has caused some of the greatest arguments in the church, and the area on which the vast majority of “Neo-Calvinists” depart entirely from scripture.

This is not an essay arguing in favour of pedobaptism. If I wanted to I could go on at great lengths on the Calvinist view of baptism, but at over 1300 words already I worry that I may be getting to a point of causing boredom and apathy. However the Calvinist view of baptism does need to be stated as important: as part of the covenant with Christ, the children of believers are nominally covered. Baptism of children is a seal of the covenant, stated by Paul as to be exactly identical and analogous to circumcision. To emphasise the importance in the church today, baptised children are noncomminicant members of the church. They’re a part of the church community, they will grow up as part of the community and grow into an understanding of what their baptism means and the importance of their faith. The cradle roll is put into a prominant position in the church so that we can pray for those infant members. Christ tells us that to enter the kingdom of heaven we must become like a little child, and who better to set the example of how we should do so than little children? It’s a loss of communication with the youngest members of our congregations which can lead to the greatest misunderstandings and loss of clarity of scripture.

Finally, we need to briefly touch on eschatology. I’m not an expert on the matter by any means, so it will indeed be very brief: Calvin was an amillenialist. Whilst historic premillenialism can also be argued to fit in with scripture, Calvin’s writing are incompatible with other eschatologies, from John McArthur’s dispensationalism to John Piper’s post-tribulation premillenialism with a gathering of ethnic Israel somewhere in the middle (I’m not exactly sure how that differs from dispensationalism, mind).

In concluding, Calvinism is the sum of its parts. Parts that are deeply rooted in the scriptures that Calvin masterfully wrote down in his only way exactly as they where preached many centuries before. Calvinism is not some easy doctrine that can be mashed into any old theology, and Calvinism is definitely not what is today called Calvinism. Following Calvin’s 500th birthday last week, that’s something that seems to have been forgotten by so many. Would Calvin really be happy with his legacy?