Calvinism

Uneasy ‘Calvinist’

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Branded

I feel no little uneasiness when labeled a Calvinist.  It is not that the description is unfitting.  Nor is it because I have any disaffection for Calvin. Quite the contrary.  My reservation is that there is much baggage that accompanies that label – baggage assigned by those who reject the tenants of the Faith associated with this particular theological system; and baggage freely toted by some who proudly – and sometimes obnoxiously – wear the label.  So, while happy to be identified as belonging in the Calvinist camp, I tend to agree with theologian Douglas Wilson who says that whoever coined the phrase “Calvinist” is a “marketing chucklehead”.  Wilson says he prefers to simply be called “Christian”.  Me too.

I am gladdened, though, that I do not need to carry my ill-ease alone; nor do I need to craft a defense or explanation of my (clearly Calvinistic) convictions.  It has already been marvelously expressed, by no less a stalwart of the Faith than Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  In his autobiography, The Early Years, Spurgeon wrote:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel . . . unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called.’

Well said.

Elect or Elite?

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

A few years ago, soon after coming to Bristol, I was asked by a godly woman in our church: “What does it mean to be Reformed?”

She had been talking with someone from another church who had snidely claimed that their church did not associate with our church because we were not Reformed enough.

What arrogance!

My response to the inquiring woman was that we were not a TR church (Thoroughly Reformed), but we want to be a HR church (Humbly Reformed).  What’s the difference? Not substance.  Attitude.

Elliot Grudem offers a wonderful encouragement to cultivate an HR attitude, in an article from the Acts 29 Network blog: Elect or Elite? Why Arrogance Has No Place in Reformed Theology. Below is an edited version of Grudem’s message.  To read the original, or to hear the audio message delivered at an Acts 29 Bootcamp, click the link.

***

Keller, Calvin, Predestination – BINGO!

When I was in seminary, my friends and I would occasionally play bingo during the classes: what we’d do is write the names of people in our class in the bingo squares, and if that person spoke in class, you got that square – and if you got all the squares in a row then you got ‘bingo.’ We’d always make sure we filled our squares with a couple of ringers that we knew we could get to talk by tipping off their hot-button issues. So if you needed the ringer’s name, you’d ask a questions like, “can someone please tell me what this has to do with homeschooling?” and you knew that individual would ask the next question – and – BINGO!

We do something similar in Reformed circles.  We have our key names and key phrases that fill our “bingo board” in our minds. And if people mention Keller and Calvin, and “the gospel” two or three times, if they say “predestination” then we think they’re orthodox.

And if they miss those things – the key phrases and names that make up what we think it means to be Reformed – then we say they’re not Reformed, they’re not “gospel-centered,” they’re not orthodox, regardless of what they have really said.

Are We Elect or Elite?

We can rely on our theology too much, thinking that our theological precision is the key to our church’s growth rather than the Holy Spirit. We can fall into phrase-righteousness or name-righteousness thinking that a sermon is heretical if it sounds more like it came from the book of James than from one of Paul’s epistles. We can begin to think that the reason our church is small is because we’re right. And we’re the only one in town that’s truly preaching the truth. We can become theological snobs believing that we and our two or three heroes have a corner on right theology. Or that the Holy Spirit stopped speaking to the church on May 27, 1564 – the day that Calvin died.

We have a word for people like that, don’t we? The word is proud.

But unfortunately in our circles we tend to see this type of pride, especially among those who have just discovered the truths of the Reformed tradition.  It doesn’t take much to move from elect to elite.

But it shouldn’t be that way.

What Does it mean to be Humbly Reformed?

To be Reformed one does have to hold to a Reformed soteriology.  But if we’re not talking Reformed Bingo phrase-dropping, what do we mean by that?

J.I. Packer sums it up: “To Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners.”

Packer is saying that salvation is entirely of the Lord, and sinners have nothing to do with their salvation. That God saves you out of his own good pleasure as an act of his delight. Sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all. Every step is an act of grace. Salvation is entirely an act of God.

What room does this gospel of grace leave you to boast? What room does it leave you for self-promotion? What need do you have to prove yourself to God and others? If what Paul writes is true, you have none.

If you really understand this gospel, this message that “God saves sinners,” and really understand Reformed soteriology, then you should be known for your humility, not your pride. You know that everything you have is a gift of grace.

And the Answer Is…

John Frame is the Chuck Norris of Systematic Theology, and he also is one of the nicest people you’ll ever meet. Once I heard him ask a question of a man when I was with him during a mock ordination exam. I don’t remember what Frame’s question was but the student took a long time before giving a faltering answer. And Frame laughed and said “that is the best answer I have ever heard in any type of theology exam.”

What was the student’s answer to the question? “I don’t know.”

When’s the last time you answered a question like that? Are you really that good? Are there secret things that belong to the Lord? Or is it, like, the Lord and you? How long has it been since you answered a question with ‘I don’t know’?

***

By the way, when I was in seminary my friend David Zavadil and I also played BINGO during classes.  We became somewhat infamous for it.  I guess our tradition lived on… and spread.

Resurging Calvinism

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

Jonathan Dodson, of Acts 29 Network, has posted a great synopsis of beliefs in an article titled: The Message of Resurging Calvinsm.  This falls into the category of: I Wish I’d Written That –  it so simply and concisely summarizes what I have been teaching at Walnut Hill Church.

Dodson clearly describes 5 areas of important Faith distinctives:

  1. Gospel vs. Religion
  2. Us vs. Them
  3. Big vs. Small
  4. Conservative vs. Liberal
  5. Suburban & Urban

In this post there are some references to the New Calvinism. In some respects this label seems a bit of a misnomer since, it seems to me, it is really a just a great expression of healthy Calvinism… But I don’t want to be nit-picky.

Calvinist When Calvinism Wasn’t Cool

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment
comet-mcnaught

To paraphrase Barbara Mandrell, “I was a Calvinst when Calvinism wasn’t cool.”   Historically Calvinism had a long day of being cool.  Then it was cool no more.  Now from all appearances it is cool once again.

This resurgence of Reformed Spirituality is not new news.  Christianity Today, among others, has been talking about it for several years now. But I was not aware that this trend was so apparent that even the non-religious cultural obsevers were aware.  But this week Time Magazine publically recognized that Calvinism  is COOL.  Published under the section: 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now, The New Calvinism ranks third. (Just behind  Jobs the New Asset and Recycling the Suburbs.)

I’m pretty sure that the editor of this piece doesn’t get the message behind Calvinism.  And while rightly attributing to Piper, Driscoll, and Mohler some of the influence toward growing popularity, I am disappointed that they neglected to mention the Presbyterian Church in America and Reformed University Fellowship.

Nevertheless, the article is worth reading.

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 2

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

 

by Douglas Wilson

I had thought of a question during the week which I thought would bring our conversation back to some evangelical “basics.” My sessions with Pastor Spencer were unsettling and fascinating both; on the one hand I was attracted by his approach to the Scriptures, but on the other I was concerned about the danger of “too much theology” getting in the way of basic Christianity. After we had settled in our chairs, I presented my concern.  

“Why should Christians discuss the sorts of doctrines we have been discussing? Shouldn’t we just stick to the gospel? Sinful men need to be told that they must be born again, and here we sit, week after week, splitting theological hairs.”  

Pastor Spencer chuckled. “To be sure, sinful men need to be told that they must be born again. What would you say if one of them asked you what on earth that meant?”  

I stared at him. “Isn’t that obvious? It means that men must become Christians.”  

Pastor Spencer took a sip of his coffee. “How does one do that?”  

I thought for a moment. “Well, the person must repent of his sins, and must put his faith in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for sinners.”  

Pastor Spenser smiled. “Very good–so far. Most Christians would leave the cross out of it altogether–they would say something like `ask Jesus into your heart,’ or `make a commitment to Christ.’ Now what happens after he repents and believes?”  

“He is born again.”  

“Now are you aware that this order–`Repent, believe, and then you will be born again’–is not in the Bible?  

I was actually aware of no such thing, so I shook my head. “What do you mean?”  

“How do you know that the biblical order is not, `You must be born again, in order to repent and believe?’”  

I think my mouth was hanging open. I had never heard anything like this before.  

“You mean that the new birth is first?”  

Pastor Spencer nodded.  

“In the order you have assumed, man makes a choice, and then he is born again. But the Bible places the choice regarding the new birth in God’s hands, not man’s.”  

“Where?” I asked.  

“There are three basic arguments from Scripture for this. The first is how the Spirit’s work is described; the second is the nature of birth; and the third would be express statements of Scripture to this effect.  

I nodded. “OK, let’s start with the first.”  

He had me turn to John 3:7-8, and I read. “Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” I looked up.  

Pastor Spencer said, “Would you agree that it is fairly common for Christians to evangelize by telling people how to be born again?”  

“Certainly. Isn’t that what evangelism is?”  

“No. Evangelism is preaching the death of Christ for sinners, and the necessity of repentance and belief. Telling people how to be born again is like telling people how to understand where the wind comes from, and where it is going. The new birth is mysterious – it is the work of the Spirit of God, not the work of man.”  

“So you are saying that the new birth cannot be controlled by men.”  

“Yes. I am saying that the wind blows where He pleases.”  

“What must men do then?”  

“They must repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”  

“So repentance and belief are what the man contributes?”  

“In a way. It is the man who repents and believes, but the Spirit has made that repentance and belief possible by giving the sinner a new heart through regeneration. So, for example, repentance is described as something men do (Acts 26:20), but it is also seen as a gift from God (2 Tim. 2:25). In contrast, the new birth is never described as anything done by man. It is always shown as the imperial work of God.”  

“You mentioned the nature of birth. What did you mean by that?”  

“Jesus taught that the new birth is necessary. From this, many have falsely concluded that it is a command to be obeyed by us. But `be born’ is a passive verb, not active. `Repent’ and `believe’ are active.”  

“What does that mean?”  

“It means that those who are born again are recipients. A birth is not something one volunteers for; it is something that happens to him.”  

“Can you illustrate?”  

“Sure. I was in the Navy for four years, and I am a Spencer. I joined the Navy (voluntarily) and my family (not voluntarily). When Jesus compared the start of the Christian life to a birth, which type of `joining’ did He have in mind?”  

“The second, I guess,” I said reluctantly.  

“And which type of joining is presented in most modern evangelism?”  

“The first.” I didn’t know why I felt so miserable.  

“Exactly. One of the major problems we have in the church today is the result of well-meaning but unbiblical recruiters, instead of biblical evangelists. We have even fallen to the point where we have borrowed, on a large scale, techniques of recruitment from the world.”  

“How would you summarize this point about the verb `be born’?”  

“By saying that if the new birth is what many describe it to be, there is no way to express in the language of birth what is happening. Birth would be an extremely clumsy metaphor for what is happening. How does one birth himself?”  

I turned to the next point. “You said that there were several verses that make your point about the new birth.”  

Pastor Spencer nodded. “Turn to James 1:18. Why don’t you read it out loud?”  

“Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures.”  

“Notice it does not say, `Of our own will He brought us forth by the word of truth. . . .”  

“Where is the other passage you had in mind?”  

“John 1:12-13.”  

I turned the pages slowly, thinking hard.  

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”  

I looked at Pastor Spencer. “Do you believe there are no legitimate questions about what you are saying?”  

He laughed. “I would have to be an insufferable coxcomb to say something like that. Someone could say, for example, that some passive verbs can be obeyed by us–`be filled with the Spirit’–and he could point out that God gives the right to become His children to those who received Him because they received Him. But of course I believe such objections, while valid, can still be answered.”  

“There is one thing I still don’t understand,” I said. “I began by asking whether or not we are splitting theological hairs in our discussions. What practical difference does this all make? I mean, an average non-Christian isn’t going to know whether the man preaching to him believes what you are saying or not. So why bother with it? Why don’t we just preach the gospel?”  

“To say that the non-Christian could not tell the difference is not to say there is no difference.”  

“What does that mean?”  

“Does this make any difference to the evangelist? How he prays, prepares, preaches?”  

“What difference could it make?”  

“The two preachers have a completely different understanding of their respective tasks. The one believes himself to be going to the sick, supplied by God with the proper medicine, and his task is to persuade the patients to take the medicine. The other man is going, like Ezekiel, to preach in a graveyard.”  

“Ezekiel?”  

“The Lord told him to prophesy to a valley full of dry bones. I dare say that Ezekiel did so with the full knowledge that if something were to happen it would have to be the result of the Spirit’s work. It certainly would not be because of anything Ezekiel did in his own power.”  

“But all evangelists know that God must empower them. . . .”  

“Yes, but to do what? The one seeks to raise consciousness, while the other seeks to raise the dead. All godly evangelists seek to be dependent upon God in the performance of their task; but their respective theologies will determine their understanding of that task. Believe me, I have preached the gospel both ways, and I know the difference it makes.”  

I scratched my chin thoughtfully. “So you are saying that Calvinism will result in powerful evangelism..”  

“No. And please don’t call it Calvinism.”  

I laughed. “I can’t talk about it without words. What do you want me to call it?”  

“Well, we are talking about the new birth. Let’s call it the new birth.”  

“OK, OK. Why did you say `No’?”  

“There have been many Christians with an accurate understanding of the gospel who have done little or nothing with it. There have been others who, like Apollos, have done a lot with a deficient understanding.”  

“So this means. . . .”  

“It means that if a man is empowered by the Spirit of God, more use will be made of him if he has an accurate understanding of the new birth.” Pastor Spencer grinned. “People who compare George Whitefield with John Wesley are being, shall we say, unscientific? The real question is whether Wesley would have been more powerful had he understood this, and whether Whitefield would have been less powerful had he not. And these questions cannot be answered through historical study; half of the comparison you must make didn’t happen. Consequently we are driven to the Scriptures to settle the matter.”  

“Right,” I said, “Back to the Scriptures.”

****

This post is Part 2 in a series of 6. It originally appeared as part of a series in Credenda Agenda.

 

Easy Chairs & Hard Words – Part 1

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment
by Douglas Wilson
We join a conservation in progress; it is between a young theological questioner who grew up in a typical Evangelical church, and an older pastor from a more historical theological tradition.
*****

I stirred nervously in my seat, and cleared my throat. I was not at all sure I wanted to ask the next question, but I also realized I had to. “You have already told me you have no desire to be called a Calvinist.”

“That is correct,” Pastor Spenser nodded.

“Is this a concern over party labels, or is there any theological area where you disagree with the Calvinists?”

“How do you mean?”

“Well, I was talking with someone at my home church, and he told me something that horrified me. He said that Calvinists believe in something they call limited atonement. They think that Jesus only died for Christians, and not for all men.”

Pastor Spenser laughed, and then said, “I’ll answer your question, if you promise to hear me out.”

I had a sinking feeling that this meant he did believe it, but I nodded my head anyway.

“First, all orthodox Christians believe in a limited atonement. Every Christian who believes that there is an eternal Hell limits the atonement. One group limits its power or effectiveness, and the other limits its extent. But both limit the atonement.”  I nodded, so he went on.

“Secondly, I don’t know who came up with the phrase ‘Limited Atonement‘ to describe this position. He may have been a theological genius, but when it comes to public relations, he must have been a chucklehead.”

“In what way?” I asked.

“One fellow says he believes in a limited atonement, and another says he believes in an unlimited atonement. Which one appears to be doing justice to the Scriptures?”

“The second one, of course.”

Pastor Spenser smiled. “Of course. God so loved the world; Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; One died for all, and so forth.”

I nodded again, wondering where on earth he was going.

“Now suppose we hear the same two fellows, but this time the language is changed. The first says now that he believes in a definite atonement, and the second affirms his belief in an indefinite atonement. Who sounds more biblical now?”

“Well, now the first sounds more biblical.”

“Of course. Christ laid down His life for the sheep; Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it; and He gave Himself up, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed. When He went to the cross, Christ had a definite end in view – for a definite group of people.”

“It seems to me that when it is put the first way it shows that the Arminians do justice to the universality of the redemption, and when it is put the second way, it shows that Reformed Christians do justice to the efficient purpose of the redemption. Both sides have their verses.”

“But both sides, if they believe that the whole Bible is from God, must affirm both types of verses.”

“How can you do that? If you believe in a definite atonement, how can you square that with some of the universal passages you quoted earlier?”

“One of the reasons I object so strongly to terms like limited atonement is that it does nothing but reinforce a theological caricature that many have in their minds. I believe that Jesus purchased a definite number of people when He died. I have no reason to believe that that number was a small one. He came into the world to save the world, and He will be content with nothing less than a saved world.”

“Do you believe that there will be more people saved than lost?”

“Certainly. It says in 1 John 2:2 that “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”

“Wait a minute,” I said. “That just means that every person can be forgiven for their sins if they come to Christ.”

“But that is not what it says. It says that Christ was the propitiation for the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s wrath is turned aside from the whole world.”

I sat silently for a moment, and Pastor Spenser went on.

“Notice how the verse does not read. It doesn’t say that He is the propitiation for our sins, because we believed, and not only for ours, but He is a potential propitiation for the whole world, if only they believe, but of course we know they won’t.”

I laughed. “Well, I agree it doesn’t say that.”

“See, the difficulty with verses like this, from the Arminian standpoint, is that they prove too much.”

“What do you mean by that?”

“The Bible teaches that Christ’s death is powerful to save. This power comes through in many of the universal passages. The Arminian position wants the universality of the passage, but not the efficacy of it. In other words, there is no potential propitiation in 1 John 2:2. It is actual. Real. In the cross of Christ, the wrath of God has been turned aside from the world.”

“Does this present any Calvinists with a problem?”

“It surely does. When the Bible speaks of all men, or the world, there is no grammatical reason in Greek to refer it to each and every man. But at the same time, I believe it is impossible to refer such wonderful universal statements to a tiny snippet of humanity.”

“I don’t understand you.”

“Suppose you went to a football game at your school, and the attendance was spectacular. Would you be lying if you said that the whole student body was there, when in fact Jones was in his room sick?”

I laughed. “No.”

“But suppose you said the whole student body was there, when it was just you and Jones. Would there be a problem now?”

“Certainly.”

“Because. . . ?”

“Because in the first instance my language would not be at all misleading, while in the second instance it would be.”

“Correct. Those who believe what the Bible says about election, but who believe the elect to be few in number, have the same problem. They are confronted with glorious texts about a saved world, and they turn them into texts about a saved church, comprised of the few that will be saved. Of course, their theological opponents turn glorious texts about a saved world into texts about a world which could be saved, but probably won’t be.”

“So if we continue in this vein, we will no longer be talking about the atonement, but rather eschatology?”

“Well, yes. Although biblical eschatology is based on this understanding of the atonement, it would take us off track at the present. Some future discussion perhaps? It should suffice to say that the Bible teaches us about an atonement that is efficacious and definite on the one hand, and universal on the other. All those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ died for the world.”

“And you are saying that this is different than saying Christ died for each and every person.”

“Yes. The problem people have with this comes from assuming that both sides of this dispute mean the same thing by for.”

“What do you mean?”

“Given that not all men are saved, contrast these two statements: 1) Christ died for each and every man; 2) Christ died for His people. The word for has a completely different meaning in each of these sentences. In the first, it means that Christ died in order to provide an opportunity of salvation to each and every man. In the second, it means He died to secure the salvation of His people. So the debate is not about the extent of the atonement so much as it is about the nature of the atonement.”

“Can you illustrate what you mean?”

“Sure. Suppose you have a philanthropist giving away money. He walks down the street handing out $100 bills. It is easy to assume (falsely) that the one position says he gives $100 to everybody, while the other side maintains he will give money to only some of the people. In this scenario, the debate is about the extent of generosity, and whether or not the philanthropist is being stingy. But on this understanding, both sides agree that the gift is the same (money), while the generosity varies.”

“OK,” I said. “What is the debate about?”

“In the first view, the philanthropist is not giving out $100 bills. He is giving out tickets to an awards ceremony, where every person attending will be given $100, if they decide to show up. He is giving away an opportunity to get $100. This contrasts with the other view which has the philanthropist out in the street, stuffing the money into pockets. He is not giving away opportunity; he is giving away money. So now the debate is over the nature of the gift. Is the gift money, or an opportunity to receive money?”

I thought for a moment. “So in the area of salvation, you are saying that Christ did not die to give men the opportunity of redemption, if they believe, but that He died to redeem men.”

“You’ve got it.”

“Well, I think I understand it anyway. But you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t accept what you are saying right off. This is going to take some hard thinking and Bible study.”

“That is exactly what it takes. And don’t rush it. Don’t agree to anything until you see it in the Scriptures. Which does the Bible teach? Redemption, or an opportunity to be redeemed?”

****

This post is Part 1 in a series of 6. It originally appeared as a series in Credenda Agenda.