The Theology of John Calvin

The subject of this address is the theology of John Calvin and I shall ask leave to take this subject rather broadly, that is to say, to attempt not so much to describe the personal peculiarities of John Calvin as a theologian, as to indicate in broad outlines the determining characteristics of the theology which he taught. I wish to speak, in other words, about Calvinism, that great system of religious thought which bears John Calvin's name, and which also--although of course he was not its author, but only one of its chief exponents--bears indelibly impressed upon it the marks of his formative hand and of his systematizing genius. Of all the teachers who have wrought into it their minds and hearts since its revival in that tremendous religious upheaval we call the Reformation, this system of thought owes most perhaps to John Calvin and has therefore justly borne since then his name. And of all the services which Calvin has rendered to humanity--and they are neither few nor small--the greatest was undoubtedly his gift to it afresh of this system of religious thought, quickened into new life by the forces of his genius, and it is therefore just that he should be most widely remembered by it. When we are seeking to probe to the heart of Calvinism, we are exploring also most thoroughly the heart of John Calvin. Calvinism is his greatest and most significant monument, and he who adequately understands it will best understand him.

It was about a hundred years ago that Max Gobel first set the scholars at work upon the attempt clearly to formulate the formative principle of Calvinism. A long line of distinguished thinkers have exhausted themselves in the task without attaining, we must confess, altogether consistent results. The great difficulty has been that the formative and distinctive principles of Calvinism have been confused, and men have busied themselves rather in indicating the points of difference by which Calvinism is distinguished from other theological tendencies than in seeking out the germinal principle of which it itself is the unfolding.

The particular theological tendency with which Calvinism has been contrasted in such discussions is, as was natural, the sister system of Lutheranism, with which it divided the heritage of the Reformation. Now undoubtedly somewhat different spirits do inform Calvinism and Lutheranism. And equally undoubtedly, the disunguishing spirit of Calvinism is due to its formative principle and is not to be accounted for by extraneous circumstances of origin or antecedents, such as for example, the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the superior humanistic culture of its first teachers, or their tendency to intellectualism or to radicalism. But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.

In the first place, the doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, it is only its logical implication. It is not the root from which Calvinism springs, it is one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. And so little is it the peculiarity of Calvinism, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement--which was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of religion, so from the doctrinal point of view a great revival of Augustinianism. There was, accordingly, no difference among the Reformers on this point; Luther and Melanchthon and the compromizing Butzer were no less zealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of this doctrine; and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who paused, even in his first preliminary statement of the elements of the Protestant faith, to give it formal assertion and elaboration.

Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of; instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God's activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question, "What shall I do to be saved?" and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, "Whence this faith by which I am justified?" And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, "From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.

If thus the formative principle of Calvinism is not to be identified with the points of difference which it has developed with its sister type of Protestantism, Lutheranism, much less can it be identified with those heads of doctrine--severally or in sum--which have been singled out by its own rebellious daughter, Arminianism, as its specially vunerable points. The "five points of Calvinism," we have no doubt learned to call them, and not without justice. They are, each and every one of them, essential elements in the Calvinistic system, the denial of which in any of their essential details is logically the rejection of the entirety of Calvinism; and in their sum they provide what is far from being a bad epitome of the Calvinistic system. The sovereignty of the election of God, the substitutive definiteness of the atonement of Christ, the inability of the sinful will to good, the creative energy of the saving grace of the Spirit, the safety of the redeemed soul in the keeping of its Redeemer,--are not these the distinctive teachings of Calvinism, as precious to every Calvinist's heart as they are necessary to the integrity of the system? Selected as the objects of the Arminian assault, these "five-points" have been reaffirmed, therefore, with the constancy of profound conviction by the whole Calvinistic world. It is well however to bear in mind that they owe their prominence in our minds to the Arminian debate, and however well fitted they may prove in point of fact to stand as a fair epitome of Cavinistic doctrine, they are historically at least only the Calvinistic obverse of "the five points of Arminianism." And certainly they can put in no claim, either severally or in sum, to announce the formative principle of Calvinism, whose outworking in the several departments of doctrine they rather are--though of course they may surely and directly conduct us back to that formative principle, as the only root out of which just this body of doctrine could grow. Clearly at the root of the stock which bears these branches must lie a most profound sense of God and an equally profound sense of the relation in which the creature stands to God, whether conceived merely as creature or, more specifically as sinful creature. It is the vision of God and His Majesty, in a word, which lies at the foundation of the entirety of Calvinistic thinking.

The exact formulation of the formative principle of Calvinism, as I have said, has taxed the acumen of a long line of distinguished thinkers. Many modes of stating it have been proposed. Perhaps after all, however, its simplest statement is the best. It lies then, let me repeat, in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the poignant realization which inevitably accompanies this apprehension, of the relation sustained to God by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand, with a sense of his own unworthiness to stand in God's sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner, and on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who receives sinners. He who believes in God without reserve and is determined that God shall be God to him, in all his thinking, feeling, willing--in the entire compass of his life activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual--throughout all his individual, social, religious relations--is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist.

If we wish to reduce this statement to a more formal theoretical form, we may say perhaps, that Calvinism in its fundamental idea implies three things. In it, (i) objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; (ii) subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; (iii) soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability. Theism comes to its rights only in a teleological view of the universe, which recognizes in the whole course of events the orderly working out of the plan of God, whose will is consequently conceived as the ultimate cause of all things. The religious relation attains its purity only when an attitude of absolute dependence on God is not merely assumed, as in the act, say, of prayer, but is sustained through all the activities of life, intellectual, emotional, executive. And evangelical religion reaches its full manifestation and its stable form only when the sinful soul rests in humble, self-emptying trust purely on the God of grace as the immediate and sole source of all the efficiency which enters into its salvation. From these things shine out upon us the formative principle of Calvinism. The Calvinist is the man who sees God behind all phenomena, and in all that occurs recognizes the hand of God, working out His will; who makes the attitude of the soul to God in prayer the permanent attitude in all its life activities; and who casts himself on the grace of God alone, excluding every trace of dependence on self from the whole work of his salvation.

I think it important to insist here that Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, evangelical faith, but the perfect expression of these things. The difference between it and other forms of theism, religion, evangelicalism, is a difference not of kind but of degree. There are not many kinds of theism, religion, evangelicalism, each with its own special characteristics, among which men are at liberty to choose, as may suit their individual tastes. There is but one kind of theism, religion, evangelicalism, and if there are several constructions laying claim to these names they differ from one another, not as correlative species of a more inclusive genus, but only as more or less good or bad specimens of the same thing differ from one another.

Calvinism comes forward simply as pure theism, religion, evangelicalism, as over against less pure theism, religion, evangelicalism. It does not take its position then by the side of other types of these things; it takes its place over them, as what they too ought to be. It has no difficulty thus, in recognizing the theistic character of all truly theistic thought, the religious note in all really religious manifestations, the evangelical quality of all actual evangelical faith. It refuses to be set antagonistically over against these where they really exist in any degree. It claims them in every instance of their emergence as its own, and seeks only to give them their due place in thought and life. Whoever believes in God, whoever recognizes his dependence on God, whoever hears in his heart the echo of the Soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession--by whatever name he may call himself; by whatever logical puzzles his understanding may be confused--Calvinism recognizes such as its own, and as only requiring to give full validity to those fundamental principles which underlie and give its body to all true religion to become explicitly a Calvinist.

Calvinism is born, we perceive, of the sense of God. God fills the whole horizon of the Calvinist's feeling and thought. One of the consequences which flow from this is the high supernaturalism which informs at once his religious consciousness and his doctrinal construction. Calvinism indeed would not be badly defined as the tendency which is determined to do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first so in the second creation. The strength and purity of its apprehension of the supernatural Fact (which is God) removes all embarrassment from it in the presence of the supernatural act (which is miracle). In everything which enters into the process of the recovery of sinful man to good and to God, it is impelled by the force of its first principle to assign the initiative to God. A supernatural revelation in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of the revelation in a supernaturally given Book, in which God gives His revelation permanence and extension ,--such things are to the Calvinist matters of course. And above all things, he can but insist with the utmost strenuousness on the immediate supernaturalness of the actual work of redemption; this of course, in its impetration. It is no strain to his faith to believe in a supernatural Redeemer, breaking His way to earth through a Virgin's womb, bursting the bonds of death and returning to His Father's side to share the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Nor can he doubt that this supernaturally purchased redemption is applied to the soul in an equally supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Thus it comes about that monergistic regeneration--"irresistible grace," "effectual calling," our older theologians called it,--becomes the hinge of the Calvinistic soteriology, and lies much more deeply imbedded in the system than many a doctrine more closely connected with it in the popular mind. Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestination itself consists to the Calvinist largely in the safeguard it affords to the immediate supernaturalness of salvation. What lies at the heart of his soteriology is absolute exclusion of creaturely efficiency in the induction of the saving process, that the pure grace of God in salvation may be magnified. Only so could he express his sense of men's complete dependence as sinners on the free mercy of a saving God; or extrude the evil leaven of synergism, by which God is robbed of His glory and man is encouraged to attribute to some power, some act, some initiative of his own, his participation in that salvation which in reality has come to him from pure grace.

There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Above everything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His son Jesus Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit whom He has sent, as our veritable Saviour. To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit. This is the root of the Calvinistic soteriology, and it is because this deep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness of indebtedness for all that enters into salvation to the free grace of God is the root of its soteriology, that election becomes to Calvinism the cor cordis of the Gospel. He who knows that it is God who has chosen him, and not he who has chosen God, and that he owes every step and stage of his salvation to the working out of this choice of God, would be an ingrate indeed if he gave not the whole glory of his salvation to the inexplicable election of the Divine love.

Calvinism however, is not merely a soteriology. Deep as its interest is in salvation, it cannot escape the question--"Why should God thus intervene in the lives of sinners to rescue them from the consequences of their sin?" And it cannot miss the answer--"Because it is to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus it cannot pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation with a complete world-view in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. If all things are from God, so to Calvinism all things are also unto God, and to it God will be all in all. It is born of the reflection in the heart of man of the glory of a God who will not give His honour to another, and draws its life from constant gaze upon this great image. And let us not fail punctually to note, that "it is the only system in which the whole order of the world is thus brought into a rational unity with the doctrine of grace, and in which the glorification of God is carried out with absolute completeness." Therefore the future of Christianity--as its past has done--lies in its hands. For, it is certainly.true, as has been said by a profound thinker of our own time, that "it is only with such a universal conception of God, established in a living way, that we can face with hope of complete conquest all the spiritual dangers and terrors of our times." "It, however," as the same thinker continues, "is deep enough and large enough and divine enough, rightly understood, to confront them and do battle with them all in vindication of the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the world, and of the Justice and Love of the divine Personality."

This is the system of doctrine to the elaboration and defence of which John Calvin gave all his powers nearly four hundred years ago. And it is chiefly because he gave all his powers to commending to us this system of doctrine, that we are here today to thank God for giving to the world the man who has given to the world this precious gift.

Actually that IS fair. All men are given an honest opportunity to escape the penalty for sin. What could be more fair than that?

You miss the point . God foreknows they will not repent and believe but He creates them anyway

Is that fair ? He creates them in spite of the fact He KNOWS they will never choose Christ. So He is electing them to eternal punishment by making them

In your philosophy no man is given an honest opportunity to escape the penalty for sin. God picks and chooses randomly or arbitrarily who will or will not escape. That is not fair.

In your belief God allows them a change to choose Him that He knows they will never take and that they will all go to hell ..Why would a "fair God" forseeing their election to repobation create them only for the flames of hell?

While God clearly has the authority and power to do whatever he wants, If he were going to be "fair" he would give unto every man an honest opportunity to accept his gift. He wouldn't dangle false hope in their face.

Marlow define mercy and grace for me

There does seem to be an element of Calvinism that suggests that God is so sovereign that no sin can be committed that he did not approve of and actually bring about. It seems by your answer that you do believe that God does leave men to their own choices and that God still has control over the ultimate outcome without directly interveneing each and every time in everyone's choices on everything.

Something like that.

I fully believe in free will to some extent as a 5-point Calvinist-- it's just that I believe our wills need to be synched correctly. I believe that unregenerate man non posse non peccare, while the Christian posse peccare et posse non peccare.

In short, the will of a man isn't inviolate. God works to break down or morph our will to synch it with His plan.

I realize that there are shortcomings in my view: a Calvinist will probably ask me about Pharoah, and how I can lean supralapsarian and yet say what I just said. I don't know for sure that I'm right; I'm just going with my gut on this.

Is that fair ? ?

YES IT IS FAIR!!!!

Its a lot fairer than creating them for the express purpose of roasting them forever in the fires of hell.

The opportunity to escape the fire is frely available to all. That is what is fair.

God is not responsible merely because he knows the outcome. I knew the outcome of the Iraq war before it started, but I am certainly not responsible for it, am I? I didn't cause it.

Does God always get what He wants?

YES.

And that's at the heart of all understanding and the truth you dodge in order to reconcile your Orson Welles concept of God.

If you say God doesn't always get what He wants, if God can be thwarted and vexed, then you are admitting there exists something greater, more powerful than God.

Maybe...man, perhaps?

If God had wanted to, He could have slapped that apple right out of Eve's hands.

But He didn't. And thus began the story of man -- every word, character, scene and stage direction, written by God and dedicated to Him alone.

all men are given an honest opportunity to escape the penalty for sin.

The bushman halfway across the world, living in a grass hut, has the same "opportunity" as you?

That's not honesty. That's liberalism.

That bushman may very well be among the Elect; only God knows. But it seems to me your and my chances are a lot better than his. Just like the fact that my children will probably live into old age and his likely will die of a staph infection or an impacted molar. Do I blame God for that? Do I say He's a callous God? An unfair God?

No, I say "Thank you, God, for my life" and I try to help where I can.

false hope

That's the Arminian canard. If one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and lives a righteous life, that is not false hope. That's an outward indication that you're on the right track. Add that to Christ's promise that His sacrifice would pay for your sins, and you have all the hope in the world.

Its a lot fairer than creating them for the express purpose of roasting them forever in the fires of hell. The opportunity to escape the fire is frely available to all. That is what is fair.

But they are created for the express puirpose of Hells fire marlowe..God already foreknows their decisions and makes them as elet to reprobation

God is not responsible merely because he knows the outcome. I knew the outcome of the Iraq war before it started, but I am certainly not responsible for it, am I? I didn't cause it.

But He made them when in reality he knew there was no change of their salvation

We are still free to choose. God knows how we will choose. We cannot choose any other way than the way that God knows we will choose. But it is still our choice.

I would bet a million bucks nearly every Calvinist here has made those statements in our Arminian days.

But the more we repeated them, the more illogical and convoluted they became. Until finally, we understood that "God's knowing" and "God's willing" and "God's creating" and "God's causing" and "God's permitting" and "God's doing" are ALL THE SAME THING.

There is ONLY the will of God. Or there's no God.

Still no yes or no, huh?

Give me a break, even my 7 year old has the intellectual depth to understand that life's complex issues are entirely too deep for a simple simple yes or no answer! By demanding such an response, you are showing that your theology is built on a foundation of sand, otherwise it would built on a rock that withstands something more complex than the yes or no answer you demand.

He asked me for an answer "in my own words" so I gave it to him. I had pointed him to a post that contained some thoughts by Dave Hunt.

That's right, you pointed me to a your "post" that was 99.6% Dave Hunt's thoughts. I asked for your ideas, you provided a cut and paste answer, something that most college freshmen wouldn't try to lean on as an answer question.

You have my original answer, but it seems you are afraid to openly debate it, you are more interested in hiding behind semi-amusing veiled insults and the smug accusation that the rest of us are hiding from you.

I'll say it once more, you have my answer! You have my reply! Again, like the monk said: "HERE I STAND!"

Unless you are willing willing to deny God's omniscience then Arminians also believe that God is creating people whom He absolutely knows have no other possible destiny than damnation.

No, it is you who are denying that a sovereign God can create a creation, and then let that creation be that creation.

He created everything. Set everything in motion. He is in control of all things.

Yet, He is not pulling our strings to make us sin or not sin.

Now that's a big God.

Now this is a fascinating topic! Here we sit trying to understand God! How can a Creator possessing both omniscience and omnipotence give rise to a creation with the ability to exercise "true" free will? An amazing question that is! I don't believe any Biblical passage can answer it. And yet, we learn we have free will and are permitted to exercise it even to the defiance of God -- Adam and Eve are prime examples of that.

I am sometimes poor at putting my thoughts into words, and this is a 'so_real' original, so please bear with me. I submit that a Creator possessing both omniscence and omnipotence can *not* create a being having the ability to exercise "true" free will ... unless ... the Creator purposeful places limits on His own knowledge of His creation. Hypothetically, let's say God (having created and known everything since before time) opted to put man on this Earth and omnipotently curb His own omniscience where man is concerned. Let's also say He implemented certain triggers that would "ping" him and override this self-imposed 'dark curtain': prayer, for example. God says he hears and answers all prayer; therefore prayer must pierce the 'dark curtain'. A lack of prayer might also be most telling to Him. This state of self-imposed limits would last only a finite period of time that only He would have knowledge of.

In this way, an omniscient and omnipotent Creator would be able to enjoy experiencing emotions like curiosity, excitement, anticipation, frustration, and others that could not be experienced in a creation where the entire outcome was known long before its inception. Instead of simply "knowing" from a distance all that Adam experienced in the Garden of Eden, God walked with Adam in the Garden and talked of various things. I imagine that was a lot of fun for both of them. Also, Satan and his band of unholies were jealous of some aspect of the God/man relationship. What was it? Perhaps the angels are not at this time given to perform actions outside of God's knowledge. That would be a huge jealously point, I'd think. Of course, I realize this is all extreme conjecture.

In numerous Bible passages God indicates that we have a choice to make: good or evil. I take Him at face value that there is a real choice to be made (meaning nothing is predetermined), that we are responsible for making the choice, and that we will be perfectly judged according to our choice. Because I take Him at His word, I strive to understand how that could be possible, and this is the best of what I could come up with.

From your posts, it sounds like you all have done some considerable (and impressive) research in this area. What do you think? Is this outrageous speculation, or does it have merit?

Thank you! It would be really interesting to be sure the original Hebrew of that verse could not be equally translated into something like " ... and their iniquities will I not hold against them". If it truly says God will "remember no more", then it might just be that when He cleans a slate, He *really* cleans it. If God is indeed willing and able to purposefully forget something despite His omniscience, it's not too far of a stretch to think He may also be willing and able to purposefully shield Himself (that dark curtain) from some of the affairs of men for period of time -- thereby allowing us all genuine free will.

No, it is you who are denying that a sovereign God can create a creation, and then let that creation be that creation.

Does God foreknow the decisions of all men from before the foundation of the world?

He created everything. Set everything in motion. He is in control of all things.

I do not think you mean that REALLY :>)

Yet, He is not pulling our strings to make us sin or not sin. Now that's a big God. I noticed yopu too chose not to answer the question..so I will ask you again IF God foreknows all the actions of all men without exception before the foundation of the world. He then know who will "choose" Him and who will not.

So if foreknowing all the choices that a man will make God still make men that HE KNOWS will NEVER choose Him..Is He not creating men for the sole purpose of the fire of hell?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.