Fide-o Search

Loading...

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Calvinism Debate Prior to John Calvin

Many people do not realize that Calvinism as a system of theology did not begin with John Calvin. In fact John Calvin during his lifetime was never as important of a leader during the Reformation as Martin Luther was. Calvin wasn't as outspoken as Luther, or as controversial. It was not until years later that Calvin became the point-man of Reformed Theology. Calvin's popularity was due mostly to his his extensive writings, especially "The Institutes of Christian Religion", and his more Biblical teaching of the Ordinances compared to Martin Luther. Also, Reformed theology in Western Europe was called Calvinism because many European reformers from countries like Scotland and France studied under John Calvin in Geneva and identified their theology more with Calvin than Luther or Augustine.

The doctrines that constitute Calvinism are sometimes called "Paulinism" because of the Apostle Paul's extensive writings on soteriology. Some of us just call it "the Gospel". Indeed, these are Biblical doctrines that were affirmed centuries prior to John Calvin (c.1509-c.1564). The Church Fathers, Polemicists, and Apologists of the first few centuries of church history were primarily concerned with clarifying the Christian doctrines concerning the person of Christ and the essence of the Trinity. But in the Fourth Century the theological debate of the Christian world significantly shifted to soteriology. This is the origins of a system of theology that would one day become known as Calvinism.


Here is a sample of what we may call the pre-Calvin Calvinism debate.

Pelagius (370-435)

Pelagius believed that Adam was born morally neutral and could either sin or not. When Adam did sin it did not affect his will, but only changed his destiny. Pelagius believes that all people are born morally neutral just like Adam and could hypothetically never sin. Pelagius did not believe in the curse of sin or the doctrine of “original sin.” Pelagius is known for saying, “If I ought, I can.” Pelagius also said, “All therefore have a free will to sin or not to sin… everyone has it within the power of his own will to do anything or not to do it. Our victory over sin and Satan proceeds not from the help which God affords but is owing to our own free will.”

Concerning Grace: Pelagius believed that God gave man grace to make the right choices.
Concerning the Sinlessness of Christ: He believe that Jesus along with a few other Old Testament people proved that a man can live without ever sinning.
Concerning Election: God chooses man only because He foresaw that man would choose God.
Concerning Salvation: Man can choose to sin and change his destiny thus losing his salvation.


Augustine (354-430)

Augustine believed that all men except for Jesus (because of the Virgin Birth) have inherited the curse sin, the propensity to sin, and the guilt of sin from Adam through Traducianism based on Romans 5:12. Augustine believed that Adam’s free will was changed after the Fall. Before the Fall, Adam was able not to sin; after the Fall, Adam was unable not to sin. Furthermore, all men as sinners add Actual Sin to their Original Sin. Augustine believed that man could only be saved by the sovereign grace of God regenerating a man’s spirit and giving him the faith to believe and repent. Augustine said, “Give what Thou commandest and command what Thou wilt.”

Concerning Man’s Will: Unregenerate man cannot do anything righteous or godly; he is spiritually dead towards God. Man can only sin and sin more; even man’s good deeds are tainted with sinful motives. Man cannot merit good from God.
Concerning Election: Based on His sovereign, gracious will, God chose only some sinners to be saved, not based on foreseen faith or works.
Concerning Salvation: Regeneration, justification, and perseverance are dependent on God and are irreversible, and lead to a life of holiness (not perfection).


Semi-Pelagianism (360-435)

John Cassian tried to modify Pelagius’ doctrines by teaching that man was not born with the guilt of Adam but with a tendency to sin. This became known as Semi-Pelagianism. It was condemned at the synods of Orange and Valence (529).

Concerning Man’s Will: Man’s will is neither good or evil.
Concerning Salvation: Man did not inherit Adam’s guilt. But Man is not innocent and cannot save himself, but needs God’s grace. Man can initiate salvation by asking God for grace and God will give it to him.


Gottschalk (804-869)

Gottschalk was a German monk. He said, “Before the worlds and before whatever God did from the beginning, He foreordained to the Kingdom whom He willed and He foreordained to death whom He willed; that those whom have been foreordained to death cannot be saved, and those who have been foreordained to the Kingdom cannot perish; that God does not wish all men to be saved, but only those who are saved… and that after the first man fell by free will, no one can employ free will for doing good but only for doing evil.” Gottschalk believed that foreordination precedes everything else in the decrees of God, including foreknowledge.


Therefore, we understand with just these few examples that the essential doctrines of Calvinism were being significantly debated since the Fourth Century. And that goes without mentioning Savonarola, John Wycliffe, John Hus, Philip Melanchthon, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Peter Vermigli, Heinrich Bullinger, the Anabaptists, and many others. So to be a Calvinist is to believe the Gospel as it has been preached throughout church history by true orthodox Christians. It is not some theology that one man came up with one day. But it is the doctrines of salvation as they have been preached since Paul wrote the Book of Romans. John Calvin just eloquently systematized the theology that it may be studied thoroughly and taught accurately. But if you are uncomfortable with the term "Calvinist" let me suggest a few synonyms that you may wish to identify with: Reformed Theology, Reformed Baptist, and Sovereign Grace Baptist. Either way, those who reject the Doctrines of Grace may still hate you... but Jesus did warn us of that.

23 Spoke Up:

Jeremy Weaver said...

Awesome post! That is the most concise and clear treatments of clavinism in history as I have see 'heretofore'.

Alan said...

> It is not some theology that one man came up with one day.
> But it is the doctrines of salvation as they have been
> preached since Paul wrote the Book of Romans.

It is interesting to read the precursors to Calvinism. It is not all that surprising that the Catholic church embraced some of the more calvinistic points of view. Of course Calvinists should not take too much comfort in that, because we all know that the Catholic church embraced quite a few false teachings. It could be said that the existence of prominent men who thought differently, and expressed their opposition, is equally significant.

A couple of questions...

1)In John Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 2:21, he wrote:

"By saying that having forsaken the commandment delivered unto them, they returned to their own pollutions, he intimates first, how inexcusable they were; and secondly, he reminds us that the doctrine of a holy and virtuous life, though common to all and indiscriminately belonging to all, is yet peculiarly taught to those whom God favors with the light of his gospel. But he declares that they who make themselves slaves again to the pollutions of the world fall away from the gospel. The faithful also do indeed sin; but as they allow not dominion to sin, they do not fall away from the grace of God, nor do they renounce the profession of sound doctrine which they have once embraced. For they are not to be deemed conquered, while they strenuously resist the flesh and its lusts."

Note this sentence in the above: "But he declares that they who make themselves slaves again to the pollutions of the world fall away from the gospel." So John Calvin apparently did not deny the possibility of falling away. Was he a "Calvinist" by your definition?

2) Paul wrote in Gal 5:19-21 that factions are one of the works of the flesh, and that those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of God. To divide the Christian world into Calvinists and non-Calvinists appears to be creating a faction. If an understanding and belief in Calvinism is not essential to salvation, why would we want to create such a division?

Alan

Johnathan said...

Well done Fido-guys! I find that almost all Southern Baptist folks I talk with have no idea what Calvinism is and yet have great disdain for it any way. I hope many will check out your series.

Question for you...do you have any idea how the "discussion" between Mohler and Patterson came to be?

Dave Bussard said...

Can anyone direct me to a web site that shows not just the work of the early church fathers, but categorizes each topic/doctrine, and shows what each church father wrote concerning that topic?

Dave B

Mike said...

>If an understanding and belief in Calvinism is not essential to salvation, why would we want to create such a division?

Alan,

First I would like to say that most "Calvinists" do not seek to cause division but to accurately proclaim the whole counsel of God.

Second, I would like to offer two answers to your question.

1. Teaching "Calvinism" (election, predestination, foreknowledge, etc.), even though it is not essential to salvation, is necessary because these doctrines are in the Bible. We are to preach the whole counsel of God. There are many doctrines that are not essential to salvation, that are controversial, yet need to be preached and taught whether they cause division or not. For example, church membership, baptism, the Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts, women's role in ministry, and many other doctrines are not essential to salvation. Nevertheless these doctrines are important, and should be taught in love.

2. Teaching "Calvinism" is necessary because of the implications of the "Arminianism." Arminianism taken to its logical end results in a "decision" based evangelism. Bret makes this point, sarcastically, to some degree in his comment on the previous post. If man is simply sick in his sins and needs only to make a decision of his own free will whether or not to believe, then I am constrained to take whatever means necessary to convince him to make a mental assent to a set of facts rather than call for genuine repentance. The doctrines of Arminianism also tend to negate the necessity of prayer in evangelism. If God will not override someone's "free will" and bring them to himself, why pray? Ultimately the decision is up to the person, not God. I guess you could say that an Arminian would pray for wisdom to be able to convey the gospel compellingly, but aside from that, God, for the Arminian is helpless in bringing a sinner to repentance. The doctrines of grace focus us on the necessity of prayer. They also protect us from watering down the gospel and convincing people they are saved because they prayed a prayer, signed a card, walked an aisle, raised their hand, or made a "decision."

In closing let me leave you with a quote from J.C. Ryle:

"For your own soul's sake dare to make up your mind what you believe, and dare to have positive distinct views of truth and error. Never, never be afraid to hold decided doctrinal opinions; and let no fear of man, and no morbid dread of being thought party-spirited, narrow, or controversial, make you rest contented with a bloodless, boneless, tasteless, colourless, lukewarm, undogmatic Christianity." - Holiness pg. 355

Nathan White said...

Alan said: It is not all that surprising that the Catholic church embraced some of the more calvinistic points of view.

Huh? Surely you jest! Calvinism was/is at the heart of the protestant reformation.

Alan said: So John Calvin apparently did not deny the possibility of falling away. Was he a "Calvinist" by your definition?

You misunderstand Calvin here, for as the next sentence says: ‘The faithful also do indeed sin; but as they allow not dominion to sin, they do not fall away from the grace of God…’etc. That is, the fact that they do fall away proves that they were not redeemed in the first place. This falls right in line with 1 John 2: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Regarding number 2: Aren’t you in fact creating a faction for claiming we are the ones creating a faction?

But in all seriousness, ‘factions’ over doctrine are not truly factions. And to use Gal 5 in support of this theory is a horrid abuse of that text. This issue surrounds the true nature of the gospel itself. God help us if we are not free to accurately define the gospel.

SDG

Scott Hill said...

Dave I don't know of one, but if you find one let me know.

Alan said...

Mike,

I am not suggesting that we should refrain from teaching controversial doctrines--just that we should not divide over non-essentials. Paul told Timothy that he should gently instruct those who oppose him, and wait for God to grant them repentance unto life. (a calvinistic idea, for sure). But note that there was to be gentleness and patience. Timothy was not instructed to separate from those people.

Mike wrote:
> Teaching "Calvinism" is necessary because of the implications of the "Arminianism."

FIDE-O has a post on what Calvinism is not. Perhaps there is also a need for a post on what Arminianism is not. Taking Arminianism to its "logical conclusion" may be no more fair than when the other side does the same with Calvinism.

It is my observation that Calvinists are neither ignorant, nor unintelligent, nor undevoted to the scriptures. The same can be said for Arminians. Sometimes one side creates a straw man out of their opponents' beliefs, then tear it down, and fortify their resolve about the disputed issues. That is irrational and unfair. It oversimplifies complex issues.

I suspect there is truth on both sides. If we were to emphasize common ground, and look for ways to reconcile seemingly contradictory concepts, I believe we would find the two views are not entirely incompatible. Our limited human minds struggle to grasp the whole picture. I recognize the elephant's leg, and you see his trunk.

Humility is a good thing. We need to recognize that we are in large part the product of our experiences and environments. We fit every new observation into the framework of what we already "know". It is impossible to be unaffected, to escape all bias. So each of us might be mistaken on a point or two.

Nathan wrote:
> Huh? Surely you jest! Calvinism was/is at the heart of the protestant reformation.

Of course. Selling of indulgences is not a very calvinistic doctrine! OTOH as the original post brilliantly points out, there were some tenents of Calvinism that the Catholics did embrace (original sin for instance). The main point the article was making was that the doctrines of Calvinism were debated (and in some cases supported by the "orthodox" Catholics) centuries before Calvin.

Then Nathan wrote:
> But in all seriousness, ‘factions’ over doctrine are not truly factions. And to use
> Gal 5 in support of this theory is a horrid abuse of that text. This issue surrounds
> the true nature of the gospel itself. God help us if we are not free to accurately
> define the gospel.

When people define a subset of Christianity and separate from those not in the subset, they are creating a faction. The Greek dichostasia in Gal 5:20 means "dissension, division" according to Thayer.

What I am trying to say is that there are some doctrines that are crucial (on which we cannot tolerate disagreement) and some that are not. 1 & 2 John talk about those who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. We are instructed not to have fellowship with such people. OTOH, other doctrines are not matters of salvation. Rom 14 talks about eating meat that may have been sacrificed to an idol, or drinking wine, as examples of a class of teachings on which we should continue to have unabridged fellowship despite differing opinions. The difficult area lies between these extremes. If we believe that one can be saved without accepting the doctrines of Calvinism, then I believe those doctrines must fall in the latter category. And therefore we should not form a division over differences on those doctrines. The only justification for dividing over these doctrines would be if they are essential to salvation.

OTOH, of course each of us must teach the truth as we understand it. We must also recognize that teachers will be judged more strictly. So we should have some fear and humility in how we present controversial positions.

Alan

Nathan White said...

Alan,

The selling of indulgences started the reformation, but the implications behind it (that man can do something external to ‘appropriate’ the grace of God), were the heart of the matter. And ‘decision-based’ theology would have been seen as standing with Rome during that time.

When people define a subset of Christianity and separate from those not in the subset, they are creating a faction.

Not when it is based on doctrine. For even the Catholics call themselves ‘Christian’, so in your view they are correct in labeling Protestantism a faction?

Also, we must be careful not to take one word out of Galatians 5:20 and build a theology around it. Dissension comes in a long list of other fruits of the flesh that are all rooted in hatred, self-seeking, and debauchery. A desire for the truth, essentially the ‘pure milk of the word’ certainly does not fall into this category. But to address your point specifically, can you please explain why Jesus held nothing of this view? Please note the latter half of John chapter 6 (among other passages) where Jesus’ tough doctrine causes everyone but the twelve to abandon Him.

SDG

Jason E. Robertson said...

Alan, one of the great Reformation writings was Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther as a refutation of Diatribe on the Freedom of the Will by Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus was the chief Catholic scholar of the day and was basically a Semi-Pelagian (of which you would agree with more than Luther's doctrines of predestination and election). So you are right, Calvinism was debated, and found to be Biblically correct. In fact, Erasmus even admitted that he was leaning more towards Luther's doctrines the older he got.

Alan said...

I wrote:
>> When people define a subset of Christianity and separate
>> from those not in the subset, they are creating a faction.

and Nathan responded:
> Not when it is based on doctrine.

Depends on the doctrine. If someone denies that Jesus came in the flesh, then yes, separate from them. But if someone thinks it is not ok to drink wine, do not separate from them. What is the difference? Two ways to answer: 1) Only one of the two cases is spelled out in scripture as grounds for separation. 2) One denies the very act that saves us, and the other is merely a misunderstanding of a supporting teaching.

Then Nathan wrote:
> But to address your point specifically, can you please
> explain why Jesus held nothing of this view?

Jesus reached out to the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the teachers of the law, and to the common Jew. Even the twelve did not really understand many doctrines as they should have, but he did not abandon them. The line of division he drew was between those who were willing to make him Lord and those who were not. In John 17 he prayed that we would be brought to complete unity, and that we would all be one so that the world would believe. Given the timing and circumstances of that prayer, that ought to be right at the top of our priority list. It clearly is a priority in the mind of Jesus.

The same idea is repeated in 1 Cor 1, Eph 4, and lots of other places. Being divisive is one of the few offenses which are spelled out in scripture as grounds for withholding fellowship. It is a very serious matter.

Jesus taught that we are not to try to separate the weeds from the wheat, because we would not be very good at it. He said the net would gather both good and bad fish, and it would be up to the angels at the end of the age to separate the good fish from the bad fish. That is not our job. We are not equipped to do it properly.

Alan

Jason E. Robertson said...

Alan, if I understand you correctly, you are proposing that we should not be divisive. But then you talk about seperating (or not) from those who drink alcohol as your illustration, yet this post is about Calvinism and soteriology. That is why I am losing your line of thinking.

Please clarify how this is on subject, because you implied in your original comment that this post is un-Christian because it is divisive (dividing Calvinists and non-Calvinists). Using Galatians 5 as your Biblical proof text you implied that this post is causing factions in the Body of Christ. But in reality, Alan, this series of posts is designed to unite Evangelicals who find that they agree on the Biblical doctrines of soteriology.

And by the way, if you review the last paragraph of yesterday's post you will notice that Calvinist do not believe that one must be a Calvinist in order to be saved. But that does not mean that that person got saved from some other means than that which Calvinism teaches.

Michael Spencer said...

Jason,

Your team has castigated me for my claim that you- i.e. the reformed baptists- claim to be the "Truly Reformed."

Well....

>But if you are uncomfortable with the term "Calvinist" let me suggest a few synonyms that you may wish to identify with: Reformed Theology, Reformed Baptist, and Sovereign Grace Baptist.

From your own mouth and pen. Case closed. Reformed Baptists- Macarthur, White, etc- are the truly reformed and all others are deviant.

I just wanted to get that into the record, because all this garbage I endured for this term "truly reformed" turns out to be nothing but exactly, on the money, what you all believe.

Thanks for clarifying.

Jason E. Robertson said...

Whoa, Michael. Who is "our team"? Because at Fide-O we embraced the TR tag. We saw the humor in it, as well has the historical accuracy of the "Truly Reformed" debate. Maybe some other site gave you grief, but not us... at least not intentionally. In fact, we even used "TR" is a couple of our pictures as a humorous tag.

Michael Spencer said...

Well my memory is failing. Good for you. *tosses dog biscuit* I salute you.

Mike said...

Alan,

You made several goog points earlier. Namely, that humility is a good thing and that there are some doctrines that are "crucial" and others that are not. You also brought up a good point that there is not a post on what an Arminian believes. Maybe Fide-o can help with that. I would disagree, though, that the two views are not incompatible. I think if we were to look at a comparison of the two we would see that they are diametrically opposed.

As to factions, it might help if you would clarify for me what you mean by terms such as factions, division, and subsets. There is a level of fellowship that can be had between Christians who differ on non-"crucial" doctrines. In fact while deployed to Iraq I had wonderful fellowship with Arminians, Calvinists, Independent Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and even a few Charismatics. Although I was able to fellowship with them in most situations, I would however separate myself from them on certain levels. For example, I knew a Master Sergeant whose wife was the Pastor of a church in NC. This man was a beloved brother, but I would not recommend anyone I knew to go to his wife's church. In fact I would try to persuade them to go to a different church in the area. Does that mean that I am devisive? Yes and no. Same goes with the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, the two groups can and should fellowship on some levels, but not necessarily on all levels.

Jason E. Robertson said...

Michael, don't forget that great pic at http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2005/12/just-answer-question.html

One Salient Oversight said...

Regarding the definition of Reformed as being "Reformed Theology", "Reformed Baptist", "Sovereign Grace Baptist".

What about things like:
* The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
* Princeton Seminary pre 1930
* The Westminster Confession
* J Gresham Machen, BB Warfield, Charles Hodge

None of these things had anything to do with the Baptist church, but I submit that they have had far more influence in the development of American Calvinism than anything you guys havre mentioned.

Is it because they're NOT Baptists that makes them unacceptable?

Alan said...

> Please clarify how this is on subject, because you implied
> in your original comment that this post is un-Christian
> because it is divisive (dividing Calvinists and non-Calvinists).

I tried earlier to respond to this...not sure if I got moderated out or if something went wrong with the technology. Anyway, that is not what I intended to convey. I have been advocating that we all use a little humility and show a little respect to those who disagree. That doesn't mean you stop believing what you believe, and practicing and teaching that. But if belief in Calvinist interpretation of scripture is not essential to salvation, then we shouldn't divide over it. I think what Mike posted (2:18pm) makes pretty good sense.

The tone of the discussion is an important part of what I am saying. No one should present themselves as the owners of all truth. We are all fallible humans and we might be mistaken about something.

Here's how I reconcile a little Calvinism with a little Arminianism. (Too much of either and things might explode ;->) God created everything and everyone, and determined the exact times and places for each of us. As we live our lives, it "feels like" we have free will. The things that we choose to do are the product of how God made us, what we have experienced and learned (all gifts of God). So on one hand you might conclude that our lives are deterministic, all dictated by choices God made. On the other hand, I believe God gave us choices to make. There are lots of scriptures telling us the difference between good and bad choices, and giving us reasons to make the good choices. In fact that is what most of the Bible is about.

I view mankind as a giant laboratory demonstration by God. He is demonstrating something about good and evil. My role in this is to show how a person like me should serve God, in the face of all the evils and hardships that I may encounter.

God knows the future because he is not constrained by time. Time is a feature of his creation. He created all of time. He can observe any place and any point in time, just like I can touch any point on my desk. So in a sense he caused everything that has happened to happen. But we are still called upon to make choices, and we are accountable to God for making good ones. That seems contradictory to us because we have limited ability to understand God's ways and purposes. But his word says both things.

Calvinists and Arminians both have some difficult passages to deal with. Often both sides twist their difficult scriptures to conform to their preferred solution to the difficulty. Instead everyone should just admit that we don't know it all.

Alan

Jason E. Robertson said...

Oversight, I have no idea what your comment means. I have read it several times to see if you are saying that my post was about "American Calvinism", or were you saying that if people do not wish to say that they are Calvinist that they could call themselves "Princeton Seminary" :)
Or maybe you want me to tell people to join a Presbyterian Church when I prefer the accuracy of the Baptist concerning the Ordinances of the church. But if you don't want to be a Reformed Baptist, notice that I first mentioned just associating yourself with "Reformed Theology". But I guess you prefer me to abandon my convictions :)

Nate B. said...

Jason,

This has been a great series of posts. Keep up the good work.

- Nate
Faith & Practice

Rob said...

Why are we so concerned about "factions"? I posted this last week at Gumm's site.
1 cor 11:18,19 - 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, [3] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

SJ Camp said...

Jason:

Once again... excellent work on the historic accuracy and profitableness of this post. What a great legacy there is in Reformed theology!

I had been reading this last month some of the rich "epistles" from the early church fathers... What a wealth of biblical truth that was contained in their letters which centuries later we can appreciate theologically as "Calvinism."

Thank you brother for your labor in these things!

Campi
2 Cor. 4:5-7