Calvinism is Not Merely a Soteriology

Last Friday I was able to work from home on a number of things that needed to be done. During my lunch hour I began to read and came across an article in which I am sure most have read that read my blog – yet I had never. There are often times those who claim to be Calvinist that miss the total essence in understanding what Calvinism is truly about. One may believe in total depravity, or unconditional election, but is Calvinism only the Doctrines of Grace? Is Calvinism only dealing with 5-points? Or is there something more to Calvinism than just Soteriology? The late professor at Princeton Theological Seminary B.B. Warfield thought so when he writes the following;

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.”

You can read the full article here.

What Can We Learn From the Law?

What does the Law Teach?

Calvinism In the Sphere of Philosophy

Written by Francis Beattie,

Philosophy is reflection, the thinking consideration of things. It is the search for causes, the inquiry after reasons. Each age has its own peculiar philosophical tendency. The pendulum of speculation swings from one system to another through the ages. It may be safely said that the tendency of the noblest philosophical thinking of the day is toward a unitary system. This means a system with a single principle by which all things are to be explained. Hence the drift in modern thought toward some type of monism is natural. In the past, this tendency has appeared in materialism, which seeks to explain all things from the atom and physical force; and in pantheism, which holds to an impersonal first principle of all existence. But in our own day a nobler trend appears in connection with modern thought. This tendency is toward a spiritual and ethical monism, which explains all things from the postulate of a personal God. The universe is to be construed in terms of personal spirit. This may be termed theistic monism or monistic theism, which gives a place alike for the personality of the infinite and for the dependent and derived reality of finite things. The reality of the source of all being must be one, and that one reality is the personal God. From him, in some way, all things come; on him, in some relation, all things depend; and for his glory, in the end, all things are. The very best types of modern thought which to-day hold the attention of philosophical minds tend distinctly in this direction. The intense interest concerning theistic speculations in many thoughtful circles fully confirms this statement.

This tendency is in harmony with the fundamental principles of generic Calvinism. According to this system, God is the one source of all finite things. From him, and for him, all things have their being and meaning. In harmony with theistic monism, God is the alone source of all being. He alone is independent and self-existent. His omnipotent agency lies at the root of all that comes to pass in the universe. His will, guided by infinite intelligence, directed according to absolute righteousness, and moved by boundless love, is the supreme fact in Calvinism. This may be regarded as the sovereignty of God in the sphere of philosophy.

In modern philosophic thought thus viewed there are at least three particulars in which Calvinism is in accord with it. These particulars may be denoted by the terms, unity, immanence, and finality.

It is evident that the idea of unity in modern philosophy has its counterpart in Calvinism. If modern thought demands a unitary and rational spiritual principle to explain the universe, Calvinism provides this in its doctrine of God and his decrees or eternal purpose. Neïther materialism nor pantheism meet the requirements of philosophy or theology, for the one denies spirit and the other personality. And dualism is also defective, for it announces two eternal principles, which entirely oppose and exclude each other. Of all types of theology Calvinism best meets the demand of modern thought for unity. Calvinism, therefore, and monistic theism have a natural affinity with each other. The one gives the principle of unity in the realm of philosophy, and the other a similar principle in the sphere of theology. Both agree in holding to the absoluteness of this unitary postulate, and both give to all finite things their proper dependent reality.

The term immanence is one much used by modern thought; and sometimes, perhaps, it may be pushed too far at the present day. Yet what is sound and true in the meaning of this term is a great gain for philosophy. It expresses the intimate relation subsisting between God and the world, between the unitary principle of theistic monism and the multiplicity of finite things in the universe. Two generations ago, a form of dualism in philosophy and of deism in theology prevailed. By this view God was removed far from his works, and seldom, if ever, came in contact with them. But now it is firmly held, by the best types of modern thought, that God is immanent in some sense, while also transcendent, in his relations with the universe. This means that his relation to his works is inward and abiding, and not merely external. He is always in contact with his works, and hence does not come merely occasionally into vital relations with his creatures. “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” In this way theistic monism avoids pantheism, which denies the transcendence of God, and escapes deism, which ignores his immanence, touching the relation of God to his creatures of every grade.

This aspect of modern thought also finds its counterpart in generic Calvinism. God is in all things, and through all things, and over all things. His purpose and his power are constantly expressed in the progress and processes of the universe. Thus Calvinism avoids the abyss of pantheism and escapes the mechanism of deism. It puts God into such relations with his creatures that he may fittingly execute his decrees in the works of creation and providence. Thus there is no event in the universe wherein God’s presence and potency, directly or indirectly exercised, are not to be found. This is Calvinism, where God is in all, through all, and over all. Here, again, the kinship between Calvinism and modern thought is evident.

The term finality is one much used by modern thought, although what it means is not entirely new. It denotes end, or purpose, or design, or goal; and modern thought, in its better aspects in philosophy, is more and more bringing out the view that the universe exists for a purpose. The cosmos has some end. It is ever more and more clearly seen that the universe is not a chaos of separate, independent things, but a cosmos of related, interdependent things. It is consequently rational at its root, and intelligible, and thereby capable of being construed by intelligence. Only on this ground is science itself possible. The universe is moving on toward some definite goal. Even Herbert Spencer, with his idea of the rhythmic movement of the universe in great cycles, is an unwilling witness to this conclusion; and philosophic evolution, if ever clearly proved to be true, will but further confirm the conclusion that the universe is moving on toward some distant and lofty goal. As in human history there is the rational as well as the natural bond of connection, so in the cosmos there is the rational bond binding it together also. There are plan and purpose in the cosmos, and movement in it toward their realization. There is something other than the cosmos, and above it yet in it, which regulates its onward progress toward its end. This is finality as seen in the universe. The cosmos has a meaning and an end.

With no type of theology does this so well agree as with the Calvinistic. God’s eternal purpose, which has reference to his glory, is the final end of the whole cosmos, and his comprehensive plan determines the history of the entire universe. Thus this profound feature of modern thought is in full accord with Calvinism in its essential principles. Immanence provides the basis for the attainment of this end, in the execution of the decrees.

We may therefore safely conclude that in the realm of philosophy Calvinism is not out of date, but quite up to the times. The facts of unity, of immanence, and of finality, all are profound aspects of modern thought with which Calvinism has the fullest sympathy, and for which it may have a ready welcome.

Calvinism and Modern Thought: In the Sphere of History

Francis Beattie writes,

Historical research in modern times has made wonderful advances. It is no longer a matter of mere annals and statistics. It has acquired a distinct method of its own, which is well known as the historical method, and which has also been carried into many other spheres of inquiry. The historian is no longer content to recite mere story and tradition, but seeks accuracy by getting, so far as possible, at the original sources of information. With scrupulous care he seeks to separate fact from myth, event from opinion, and to ascertain the actual reality of the things with which he deals. In doing so he now relies much upon the sources of information found in the inscriptions on the monuments and cylinders which are now being unearthed in those lands where the nations of antiquity once flourished; and he also seeks to read, with conscientious care, the old documents which tell of the doings of men in the days that are gone. Thus archæology becomes the handmaid of history, and the historian now seeks to trace all human institutions to their original sources in the dim vista of the past.

Above all, modern historical methods have sought to go below the surface of the incidents described, and to get behind the scenes, to mingle with the individual actors in the drama of the ages, in order to discover and trace out the inner connections and inherent relations of the events which have transpired in the past. This is what is rightly called the philosophy of history, and in many respects the true interest and real value of history lie in this direction. By this means it is shown that the events of history are not isolated happenings, but are intimately related to each other. It thus appears that there seems to be a logical order and rational connection between all that has ever happened among men. We often use the phrase, “the logic of events,” and little think how much it means. It may be going too far to say, with the Hegelian school, that history is the concrete expression of the forms of reason, and that all historical incidents must be construed in accordance with the logical categories. Still, modern historical method is more and more recognizing the profoundly important fact that there is a rational factor in all history, and that one increasing purpose seems to run through the ages. The events of history are not grains of sand lying scattered upon the shore of time, but vital germs making up the historic life of the human race.

In all of this there is an echo of Calvinism. This system teaches, as no other does, that God is the sovereign Ruler over all the affairs of men, and that he is slowly but surely working out his eternal purposes concerning men in the march of the centuries. He it is who establishes thrones and sets up princes. He it is who removes kings, and allows empires to pass away. He even uses one nation to overthrow another, and to accomplish his far-reaching purposes thereby. Thus Pharaoh, we read, was raised up to show the power of God, and that the name of God might be declared in all the earth (Ex. 9:16; Rom. 9:17). In like manner, Cyrus is called the shepherd of Jehovah, to perform his pleasure, in connection with what he did, under God’s hand, at the time of the restoration of Judah from the great captivity (Is. 44:27, 28). So has it been ever since. The hand of God is seen in all human history. His wisdom, righteousness, and power, appear in it all. His eternal purpose is the rational bond which binds all events together, and his omnipotent agency is the vital power that constitutes the secret of the historic life of the human race. This is Calvinism in one point of view, for it is God’s sovereignty regarded as the key of human history.

But further, this eternal purpose running through all the ages has a moral quality belonging to it. Human history is not merely rational; it is also moral. There is more than a natural philosophy of history; there is also a moral significance about it. There is moral good and moral evil in it. Righteousness and wickedness play a large part on the stage of human history. The drama is often a terrible conflict between these opposing forces. By the great apostasy in paradise the stream of human history was turned into the channel of evil. But the divine purpose of grace has opened up a new channel, and the opposing forces have been dashing against each other ever since. Toward the Incarnation and the Cross all the ages before Christ were steadily moving, so that he appeared among men in the fullness of time. Then from the Cross and the Ascension all the ages since Christ’s day are moving steadily on to the final consummation of all things. It is only from the standpoint of Bethlehem, Calvary, and Olivet, that all history since the advent of Christ can be properly interpreted. In a word, in the moral sphere, the purpose of God in redemption is the key to the understanding of all history. The prophetic element in the Old Testament makes this abundantly plain. It is equally evident in the New Testament, especially in the book of The Revelation. It is only in the light of the problem of sin and redemption, solved by the gracious purpose of God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, that the riddle of human history can be interpreted. And Calvinism, with its comprehensive view of the sovereignty of God and of his eternal redeeming purpose, can say this better than any other system; and we may confidently believe that, as the true philosophy of history is more and more fully unfolded, Calvinism will be found to be abreast of its latest and best results. He who reads history aright may decipher the thoughts of God on every page, and thereby he may trace the pathway of his eternal purpose through the ages.

John Calvin on the Lord’s Supper

“It is not the principal part of a sacrament simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms that he is the bread of life, of which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever—I say, to seal and confirm that promise, and in order to do so, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise was performed and fulfilled in all its parts. For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death. When he called himself the bread of life, he did not take that appellation from the sacrament, as some perversely interpret; but such as he was given to us by the Father, such he exhibited himself when becoming partaker of our human mortality, he made us partakers of his divine immortality; when offering himself in sacrifice, he took our curse upon himself, that he might cover us with his blessing, when by his death he devoured and swallowed up death, when in his resurrection he raised our corruptible flesh, which he had put on, to glory and incorruption.”

Taken from 4.17.4

What Can We Learn From the Law?

From the knowledge of God, furnished by the Law, we learn that God is our Father and Ruler. Righteousness is pleasing, iniquity is an abomination in his sight. Hence, how weak soever we may be, our duty is to cultivate the one, and shun the other.

Taken from 2.8.2,

“It is now easy to understand the doctrine of the law—viz. that God, as our Creator, is entitled to be regarded by us as a Father and Master, and should, accordingly, receive from us fear, love, reverence, and glory; nay, that we are not our own, to follow whatever course passion dictates, but are bound to obey him implicitly, and to acquiesce entirely in his good pleasure. Again, the Law teaches, that justice and rectitude are a delight, injustice an abomination to him, and, therefore, as we would not with impious ingratitude revolt from our Maker, our whole life must be spent in the cultivation of righteousness. For if we manifest becoming reverence only when we prefer his will to our own, it follows, that the only legitimate service to him is the practice of justice, purity, and holiness. Nor can we plead as an excuse, that we want the power, and, like debtors, whose means are exhausted, are unable to pay. We cannot be permitted to measure the glory of God by our ability; whatever we may be, he ever remains like himself, the friend of righteousness, the enemy of unrighteousness, and whatever his demands from us may be, as he can only require what is right, we are necessarily under a natural obligation to obey. Our inability to do so is our own fault. If lust, in which sin has its dominion, so enthrals us, that we are not free to obey our Father, there is no ground for pleading necessity as a defence, since this evil necessity is within, and must be imputed to ourselves.”

What does the Law Teach to Christians?

What is the Sum of True Wisdom?

Wisdom, the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment, but where does one find his or her’s wisdom in a day and age that seems to claim so many truths. John Calvin helps break down how the evil of man can still yet be used for the good things of God and how God uses that to lead His people to find Him.

“Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us (see Calvin on John 4:10), that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.”

Taken from the Institutes 1.1.1.

Regenration Takes Repentance

It is proper to consider what the dreadful iniquity is which is not to be pardoned. The definition which Augustine somewhere gives—viz. that it is obstinate perverseness, with distrust of pardon, continued till death,—scarcely agrees with the words of Christ, that it shall not be forgiven in this world. For either this is said in vain, or it may be committed in this world. But if Augustine’s definition is correct, the sin is not committed unless persisted in till death. Others say, that the sin against the Holy Spirit consists in envying the grace conferred upon a brother; but I know not on what it is founded. Here, however, let us give the true definition, which, when once it is established by sound evidence, will easily of itself overturn all the others. I say therefore that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting. For Christ, in explanation of what he had said, immediately adds, “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,” (Mt. 12:31). And Matthew uses the term spirit of blasphemy for blasphemy against the Spirit. How can any one insult the Son, without at the same time attacking the Spirit? In this way. Those who in ignorance assail the unknown truth of God, and yet are so disposed that they would be unwilling to extinguish the truth of God when manifested to them, or utter one word against him whom they knew to be the Lord’s Anointed, sin against the Father and the Son. Thus there are many in the present day who have the greatest abhorrence to the doctrine of the Gospel, and yet, if they knew it to be the doctrine of the Gospel, would be prepared to venerate it with their whole heart. But those who are convinced in conscience that what they repudiate and impugn is the word of God, and yet cease not to impugn it, are said to blaspheme against the Spirit, inasmuch as they struggle against the illumination which is the work of the Spirit. Such were some of the Jews, who, when they could not resist the Spirit speaking by Stephen, yet were bent on resisting (Acts 6:10). There can be no doubt that many of them were carried away by zeal for the law; but it appears that there were others who maliciously and impiously raged against God himself, that is, against the doctrine which they knew to be of God. Such, too, were the Pharisees, on whom our Lord denounced woe. To depreciate the power of the Holy Spirit, they defamed him by the name of Beelzebub (Mt. 9:3, 4; 12:24). The spirit of blasphemy, therefore, is, when a man audaciously, and of set purpose, rushes forth to insult his divine name. This Paul intimates when he says, “but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief;” otherwise he had deservedly been held unworthy of the grace of God. If ignorance joined with unbelief made him obtain pardon, it follows, that there is no room for pardon when knowledge is added to unbelief.

Institutes 3.3.22

Do You Like John Calvin?

If you do, be sure to check out the updated blog from Logos called Calvin500 which I’ll be bloggin regularly.

Or you can follow us on Twitter

The Support of Free Will Refuted

Absurd fictions of opponents first refuted, and then certain passages of Scripture explained. Answer by a negative. Confirmation of the answer.

Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavour to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some absurd inferences, by which they endeavour to bring odium upon our doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they oppose it with certain passages of Scripture (infra, sec. 6). Both devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If any one will dispute with God, and endeavour to evade his judgment, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil.^D43 For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says (Serm. 81, in Cantica), that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.