If we’re looking for examples of misguided argumentation in the soteriology debate previously introduced, we need search no deeper than the very names by which these theological positions have been identified. Even on this most basic, easily understood level, straw men are propped up and blown away. Let’s look at the first of two common red herrings that do nothing but distract from the real issues at hand.
I’m afraid for this one we won’t even get through the whole word “Calvinism.” I’m tempted to wonder sometimes if the non-Reformed, when that word is spoken, hear it as “*CALVIN*(!!!)ism.” I can tell you from both my own personal experience and in the reading I’ve done on the subject, almost invariably one of the first shots fired into the Calvinist line is some variation of this rebuke: “The Calvinist is bound to err because he follows the teachings of a man rather than the teachings of the Bible.” On occasion I Corinthians 1:12 (“...every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ”) or I Corinthians 3:4-6, similarly, is called in for backup. I remember reading an older gentleman’s answer to a question regarding his understanding of the Calvinistic position on his theological question-and-answer type web site some time ago. He led into his reply with this sentence (as best I can remember it): “We first need to understand that Calvinists are not so much disciples of Jesus Christ as they are disciples of John Calvin.” To be fair I should mention that, although it doesn’t seem to happen as frequently–perhaps because those who hold to what we nowadays call “Arminianism” often aren’t actually all that familiar with the specific teachings of Arminius himself–Calvinists have been known to make the same accusation. Those who wouldn’t consider themselves fully aligned with either of these positions might feel justified in charging both sides with this idolatrous act of substituting a man’s teachings for God’s Word. It’s a serious charge indeed, but I don’t believe it holds up under scrutiny.
First off, we’ve had almost 2000 years of church history since the close of the biblical canon. In that time, God has blessed His church with many, many godly men who have searched, studied, and expounded the Scriptures to aid His children in their own understanding of His Word. It only stands to reason that those men who have been able to communicate to others what they’ve learned with exceptional clarity and force of reason would be remembered for their contributions. In the case of Calvinism, although I personally wouldn’t have voted in favour of naming a whole “system” of soteriology after him, I see it as simply a case of Calvin being a very well-known and respected expositor of the Bible’s revelation regarding predestination, election, salvation, and related doctrines. Those who agreed with him on the issues he was quite well known for examining were branded with his name, and it apparently stuck.
This is not to say that I (or perhaps any Calvinist) agree with everything Calvin taught. Though I’m well aware it would be nothing more than baseless arrogance and blissful ignorance to compare my own knowledge of Scripture or powers of discernment to his, I’m nonetheless convinced that some of his teachings were not in accordance with the Word of God. We all know he was fallible and fell into the same sins and errors that we often do. I’ve never heard of a single Calvinist who views Calvin’s Institutes, commentaries, or sermons as divinely inspired, or who refers to the French reformer as the “Apostle Jean.” Honoring him as “the great Reformer” is a far cry from venerating him as the “Patron Saint of Doctrinal Clarity.”
Next, lest the name “Calvinism” lead some to believe that he has been the most preeminent among only a handful of men of God in church history to teach this doctrine, allow me to set the record straight. For those who feel inclined to brand us as followers of men, there is no need to begin or end with Calvin. “Augustinian” is an earlier label indicating one who holds to virtually the same core beliefs, at least as far as soteriology goes. For those who wish to go on, we could be fairly called (in no particular or chronological order) “Wycliffites,” “Tyndalians,” “Lutherans” (although I realize this one would create some confusion!), “Knoxists,” “Bunyanians,” “Henryans,” “Gillites,” “M’Cheynians,” “Owenists,” “Edwardsians,” “Spurgeonists,” “Wattsians,” Topladyans,” “Whitefieldians,” “Pinkites,” “Lloyd-Jonesists,” MacArthurans,” “Sproulists,” or “Piperites” (to pick only a few other well-known fellows), for each of these men held to and taught doctrines that are today called Calvinistic. Also interesting to note, the majority of the translators of the King James or Authorized Version of the Bible held to Calvinism. Obviously the “Westminster divines” were Calvinists, but it may surprise some to learn that the writers of the 1644 and 1689 Baptist Confessions of Faith, the first major Baptist confessions, held to Calvinism as well. Although I suspect the majority of today’s professing Christians reject Reformed theology, historically in the Christian church, most of the well-respected leaders and teachers–men whose words and works have stood the test of time, as is proven by the recognizability of the names mentioned above–held to it as simple, biblical theology.
This is, of course, the same way today’s Calvinist should be looking at those same beliefs–not primarily as the theology of Calvin or Spurgeon, but the truth as revealed in Scripture (my wife and I, when we’ve come across passages in the Bible that speak of God exercising His sovereignty over mankind, have jokingly remarked, “[Isaiah/Jeremiah/Ezekiel/David/Peter/Take-Your-Pick-Of-Biblical-Author] was a Calvinist! Who knew?!”). I wonder if the non-Reformed sometimes forget that when the Calvinist speaks of “being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will,” he’s not quoting Calvin; he’s quoting the apostle Paul (Ephesians 1:11). When he affirms the “immutability of [God’s] council,” he’s citing Hebrews 6:17, not Augustine. When these concepts or “Calvinistic catchphrases” come up in discussion, those who would bristle at the words would do well to consider the words’ original source before they try to either refute them or divert the discussion into more “agreeable” territory.
As an aside: obviously, there are many believers who don’t consider themselves either Calvinists or Arminians (and as mentioned, may be for that reason all the more tempted to level the “disciples of men” charge at the other two groups), and they aren’t without well-known proponents of their position–in the modern age at least. To site only a few examples, author Dave Hunt (What Love Is This?) had in his last years taken it upon himself to wage war on Reformed doctrine, while also rejecting identification with Arminianism. Some, such as Dr. Norman Geisler (the self-proclaimed “Moderate Calvinist” and author of Chosen But Free), claim to hold to some points on one side or the other, while rejecting the rest. Though I see their positions as blatantly inconsistent, there are “Four-point Calvinists” (who typically reject limited atonement), and “Four-point Arminians” (who usually reject the possibility of losing one’s salvation). In his own time, A.W. Tozer wrote enough in praise and criticism of both doctrinal positions to make it clear he didn’t see either one as completely heretical or orthodox. I feel it’s only fair to include, as much as I feel I understand them, the arguments of those who hold to this “middle of the road” doctrinal stand as we look at the beliefs in question. It would sure simplify things if these folks were known collectively as “Tozerites” or had some similar designation, but I suppose such “man-follower” labeling would be likely to cause unnecessary offence. On the bright side, however, those who would balk at such a designation would perhaps find themselves better enabled to sympathize with Calvinists who don’t appreciate being accused of idolatry when they’re simply in agreement with elements of a man’s understanding of the Bible.
In short, although there is nothing to be ashamed of in being accurately labeled for the sake of quick identification, let’s quickly and quietly get past the shorthand names and on to interpreting the relevant biblical passages and examining the related arguments. If Calvin’s theology in this area is found to be biblical, it frankly shouldn’t matter if we’re found to be “following” him. The Scriptural truth of the matter should be the only thing any of us are gunning for here.
No comments:
Post a Comment