Category: Church History

The Underappreciated Calvin

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

Loved by many, yet hated by more. John Calvin, the great Reformer, has bequeathed us a schizophrenic legacy.

He is remembered largely for the movement which carries his name: Calvinism. Predestination, cold hard logic, spiritual deadness, fatalists. This is how many view Calvinists today. Sure there are some who earn such descriptors, yet the historical orthodox movement bears greater resemblance to its founder than it does to a hyper-Calvinistic heresy.

Some view Calvin as the dictator of Geneva, yet in truth he was run out of town a time or two. He was a respected pastor, but simply a pastor. The town council condemned Servetus, and Calvin pleaded for the most merciful death available. In this he was a man of his times.

And how did his contemporaries view him? Most definitely not cold and logical. He was later chided as “the most Christian man of his generation”. Benjamin Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, described Calvin as the eminent Biblical theologian of his day (emphasis on “Biblical” rather than “theoretical” or “speculative”).

I could go on, but I would be writing the article I intend for you to read. John Chitty recently highlighted several of Calvin’s positive contributions to today’s church and he also linked to a superb article by Benjamin Warfield on Calvin as a theologian.

Among other things, Warfield points out that Calvin was the first to give a full treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And in fact, when with the Reformers, Calvin dethroned the Church of Rome, he put in its place the Holy Spirit. Let me continue with an excerpt from Warfield’s article:

Previously, men had looked to the Church for all the trustworthy knowledge of God obtainable, and as well for all the communications of grace accessible. Calvin taught them that neither function has been committed to the Church, but God the Holy Spirit has retained both in His own hands and confers both knowledge of God and communion with God on whom He will. The Institutes is, accordingly, just a treatise on the work of God the Holy Spirit in making God savingly known to sinful man, and bringing sinful man into holy communion with God….

Here then is probably Calvin’s greatest contribution to theological development. In his hands, for the first time in the history of the Church, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit comes to its rights. Into the heart of none more than into his did the vision of the glory of God shine, and no one has been more determined than he not to give the glory of God to another….And above everything else he deserves, therefore, the great name of the theologian of the Holy Spirit.

[read the article in its entirety]

Charles Spurgeon and Wine

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Charles Spurgeon was by far the most influential Christian preacher of the last 200 years. And today, Christians of all sorts pay attention to what he thought and said on any given topic. Given the nearly unparalleled length of his written works (almost every sermon recorded for us), and given the length of his ministry, one is apt to find Spurgeon statements that can be construed to support both sides of any given debate!

Wine, it seems is no exception. Among fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals, the prohibitionist movement is alive and well. Many claim not only that abstaining from wine and alcohol is the wisest course of action, but some even claim the Bible only supports a strictly tee-totaler’s view on the subject.

Spurgeon converted to the prohibitionist cause, but apparently never held that wine in Bible times was not fermented–at least the wine Jesus drank.

Doug Kutilek, at Sharper Iron, shared some interesting quotes on this topic recently. Here is an excerpt from the early Spurgeon (1877):

“˜UNFERMENTED wine’ is a non-existent liquid. Mr. Wilson [in his book The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory, by A.M. Wilson (Hamilton, Adams & Co.)] has so fully proved this that it will require considerable hardihood to attempt a reply. The best of it is that he is a teetotalert of more than thirty years’ standing, and has reluctantly been driven “˜to conclude that, so far as the wines of the ancients are concerned, unfermented wine is a myth.’ While total abstainers are content to make no assault upon the cup used at the Lord’s table, they work harmoniously with all who seek the welfare of their fellow men; but when they commence warfare upon that point they usually become more factious than useful: everything is then made subordinate to their one idea, and the peace of the church is disregarded. [Read the whole quote at Sharper Iron]

10 years earlier (1857), Spurgeon had said:

I am no total abstainer. I do not think the cure of England’s drunkenness will come from that quarter. (Pg. 380, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, Lewis Drummond)

By 1887, however, Spurgeon had donned the blue ribbon of the Temperance Movement. It was not just his position change which could cause confusion, but even as an abstainer he acknowledged both sides of the issue, to some extent.

In the book Charles Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, by Lewis Drummond (Kregel, Grand Rapids: 1992) one finds the following contradictory quotes from Spurgeon from his later years:

“I don’t need it for myself, but if it will strengthen and encourage a single soul among the 5,000 that are here, I will put it [a blue ribbon] on.”

“Next to the preaching of the Gospel, the most necessary thing to be done in England is to induce our people to become abstainers.” (Both quotes, pg. 440, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, Lewis Drummond)

So there you have it. Next time you are debating this topic, cite Spurgeon for support. No matter what side you’re advocating!

For further resources on the alcohol debate, check out my previous articles on wine:

Pictures borrowed from Wikipedia articles on Charles Spurgeon and Wine.

Considering the "Multiple Intentions View" of the Atonement

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

In my last post I introduced the debate on the atonement that Seth McBee is hosting over at Contend Earnestly. Seth calls himself a 6 Point Calvinist, and dubs his view the “Unlimited/Limited Atonement” position. Yet Bruce Ware also calls that same view “4 Point Calvinism”, and I read an article which claims Benjamin Warfield interacted with what we would call “4 Point Calvinism” today, when he took on “Post-Redemptionism”. To confuse matters even more, Eric Svendsen posits a similar view which he calls “4.5 Point Calvinism”. Then there is the historical variety of this position called Amyraldianism, which seems to be specifically what Warfield was opposing.

In light of the confusion of determining whether we are really discussing 4, 4.5, or 6 point Calvinism, and to simplify things somewhat, I’m going to simply go by another name Bruce Ware has for this position: “The Multiple Intentions View”.

Now if someone else can straighten me out on how the various positions listed above differ from each other, by all means make an attempt! But for now, let me update where I’m at in evaluating the “Multiple Intentions View”.

1) I recently read an excellent article by Dr Roger Nicole entitled “John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement“. Nicole explains why it is that both sides of the debate can claim Calvin for support. He makes a good case for Calvin actually supporting limited atonement, and does an excellent job tracing the history of this particular debate surrounding Calvin. Of special note was this quote from Calvin: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

So all that is to say, quoting Calvin one way or another isn’t going to really win the debate. And ultimately Scripture matters much more than the opinion of Calvin or Spurgeon or anyone else.

2) Next, I should point out a convincing exegesis of John 3:16 which does not demand a universal atonement and does not do violence to the term “world”. In this open letter to Dave Hunt, James White gives a good exegesis of the passage (scroll about half-way down and look for the heading “John 3:16”). [So far only John 3:16 has been discussed in the debate at Contend Earnestly.]

3) While I do see how this “multiple intentions view” would be easier to hold to, when it comes to explaining some seemingly universal passages, I have to wonder how different it actually is to the normal limited atonement position anyway.

a) In both systems a bona fide offer of the gospel is made. There is no necessary connection between such an offer and an actual payment/provision for sins having been made. It is enough that God knows who will respond to the offer and has secured the payment for those as part of his intent in Christ’s death.

b) And isn’t it doublespeak to talk of a propitiation and atonement for all, yet actual redemption only for the elect? What does “save the world” in John 3:17 really mean if “world” is “every person”? What kind of saving is a mere potential salvation?

c) Basically, I see no reason to have to hold to a universal atonement for sins in order to legitimately hold to a universal preaching of the gospel to all people.

4) Another problem area concerns the bearing of God’s wrath which Christ accomplished in His death. His death satisfied God’s wrath in a substitutionary way for a certain people. I don’t see how the “multiple intentions view” adequately owns up to a substitutionary idea of the atonement. Is not an intentional substitution for certain, specific people inherent in the idea of substitutionary atonement?

5) Along the lines of point 4 (which someone did email me about to caution me in this debate), I also came across an excellent excerpt from Benjamin Warfield opposing Amyraldianism. That brief post is well worth your time, in considering this debate.

6) I also found the following summary by Bruce Ware to be helpful in explaining and distinguishing the three main positions.

7) Finally I should admit there is much more that can be studied with regard to this position. David of Calvin and Calvinism has compiled tons of info and quotes from various theologians which touch on this topic. Browse his “For Whom Did Christ Die?” category for many pertinent articles. Personally, I want to review my blogging pal Bnonn’s articles on the issue as well [here, here & here]. And I think it would also be worthwhile to explore Eric Svendsen’s posts on his “4.5 Point Calvinism”.

Now if there were just more time for all this reasearch!……

6 Point Calvinism & The Atonement Question

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

Lately, I’ve been struggling to get back to blogging. With the birth of our fourth daughter, 24 days of having company at our house in October, & with pressing issues at work, coupled with studying Biblical Theology at my church Bible institute, & gearing up for teaching through 1 Peter in our new Church small group, I’ve been a little busy! We also just got back from a trip to WI for another cousin’s wedding.

Amidst all of that, the comments around here have been quite busy lately, too! And most of the action has centered on the Calvinism issue, in one respect or another. See this post for an explanation. Part of blogging involves following other blogs, and so I have recently been distracted by a debate on the atonement question at Contend Earnestly (which now has a permanent spot on my blogroll, by the way) and Theology Online.

The question intrigues me as it asks whether Christ’s death on the cross atoned for the sins of all the world, or just the elect. I have had debates on my blog concerning Calvinism’s infamous “limited atonement” point (see this post). And while I do defend Calvinism’s understanding that Christ gave his life for his sheep in a special sense that he did not do for all people equally, yet I have also come to understand that on this particular question there is room for disagreement (see this post & this post).

So as I find myself looking into the question more closely, I don’t know which side to take. The “6 Point Calvinists” (Seth McBee and others) hold to an unlimited expiation, but a limited application of Christ’s atonement. All the sins of all are paid for, but only those who will believe (the elect) will be forgiven. So on the one hand, John 3:16 is taken to refer to Christ dieing for all people, with the goal of saving the world, yet on the other hand John 10:15ff. is understood to refer to Christ’s singular aim to actually save the elect alone. Their view is called the “unlimited/limited” view of the atonement.

If you are a little confused, or if that seems a little odd, join the club. But we should know that there have been various church leaders throughout history who have affirmed this view in one form or another, notably John Calvin, John Davenant, J.C. Ryle, R.L. Dabney, and W.G.T. Shedd.

I want to encourage anyone with time, to follow the debate over at Contend Earnestly. There are some helpful comments over there, and they are posting both views in an honest attempt at a fair and even-handed debate. Here are links to the posts so far: introduction, John 3:16–limited view, John 3:16–unlimited/limited view.

Finally, I’m open to input from the peanut gallery. Please if you know of some good articles on this issue, or if you have a couple of cents worth of input on the topic, feel free to give it here in the comments of this post. Of course, I’d encourage you to join the fray over at Contend Earnestly.

May God help us to learn and appreciate one another more through this, not just to waste time bickering over obscure points of doctrine. May we not lose sight of the glorious truth that Christ died in our place, and may we not forget to worship, even as we study!

Interpreting Augustine: Was He "Reformed"?

~ fundyreformed ~ 8 Comments

augustine_wikipic.jpgA recent post of mine on Augustine spawned a debate concerning Augustine’s views on predestination. Someone asked if I knew what Augustine really believed on grace and free will. He had read a former Reformed Protestant turned Catholic who claimed Augustine actually taught what Catholics affirm. Of course, Calvin and Luther must have been mistaken in their reading of Augustine, then.

I was hesitant to discuss the matter since radical claims made by a single author are often just speculation. Yet my blogging friend John Chitty opened up the standard Catholic encyclopedia and was surprised at what he found. He posted a quote which he says claims Augustine affirmed prescience, that God foresaw all possibilities and elected in such a way as to conform to one set of possibilities which He wanted and simultaneously did not interfere with man’s free will.

I told John I didn’t think that quote exactly asserts that Augustine held to prescience. Upon reading more closely from that Catholic encyclopedia, it is apparent the quote is the Encyclopedia’s not Augustine’s. And they are arguing for a specific interpretation of Augustine. Still though, how could they claim Augustine on this view, if he was so surely Reformed as Protestants would claim?

The Dilemma

I rummaged through several online articles looking for some light on this question. In the introduction to The Cambridge Companion to Augustine (only the intro is available online) I found the following assessment which speaks to our problem.

The next chapter, my “Augustine on free will,” is concerned with Augustine’s struggle to understand the nature of the freedom to be found in the will. There is widespread controversy over this part of Augustine’s thought, so much so that it is sometimes hard to believe the participants in the controversy can be reading the same texts of Augustine’s. I argue that part of the problem stems from the fact that contemporary theories about free will have formed the lenses through which scholars have read Augustine’s texts, and that these theories are inadequate to capture his position…. (emphasis added)

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that Augustine was often writing in response to heresies. His statements on free will directed against the Manichees will look different than those directed against Pelagius. Yet each is a response and so is not his full orbed view, necessarily.

“Extreme” on Predestination

So this explains that we are right to be puzzling over this, but it doesn’t help solve our dilemma. However, it is fairly mainstream to understand Augustine as being extreme in his views on predestination. Consider the following.

Even those who most usually agree with his theological standpoint will hardly deny that, while he did much in these writings to vindicate divine truth and to expound the true relations of the divine and human, he also, here as elsewhere, was hurried into extreme expressions as to the absoluteness of divine grace and the extent of human corruption. — 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

Though revering Augustine, many theologians have refused to accept his more extreme statements on grace. — Columbia Encyclopedia

While Augustine’s massive influence on Christian thought has mainly been for the good, his teaching on Predestination has been rightly criticized. Although he has always been regarded as the Doctor of Grace, he developed an obsessive concern with the massa peccati and the massa damnata which led to a Predestinarian pessimism which consigned unbaptized infants and others to eternal perdition. — The Dictionary of Saints (as seen at Answers.com)

While Augustine argued for predestination, he seems not to have held to a rigid double predestination view that John Calvin had. He does speak of the non-elect as “predestined to punishment”, yet this is viewed passively [see the section on double predestination here]. The Philosophy Dictionary (as seen at Answers.com) claims Augustine held to “the predestination of the elect” yet “It was left to Calvinism to add the predestination of the damned”.

Augustine’s Unique Approach

In his excellent article (replete with quotes) “Augustine’s Framing of the Predestination Debate”, Greg Johnson points out that Augustine approached the question of predestination differently than most Reformed people do today.

For some modern Augustinians, the doctrine of election is an outgrowth of theology proper, a necessary corollary to the sovereignty of God. The emphasis with this approach falls on an eternal decree from all eternity determining two vehicles through which God’s glory should be displayed, the elect and the reprobate, the fall being decreed as a means toward this end. Thus the question is framed in light of eternity. For others, the question is framed in light of God’s providential outworking in history, God working all things together for the good of His elect, so as to provide the instrumentality necessary to induce faith. Here the question is framed in light of divine providence. But Augustine takes neither of these approaches. The question of predestination is not primarily one of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Rather, Augustine frames the question of predestination in light of the believers experience of grace in light of man’s fall. When Augustine considers the effects of Adam’s sin upon his posterity, the Christian’s experience of grace becomes the integrating point for Augustine’s doctrine of election. Within Augustine’s affectional theology, predestination explains the believer’s change in affections, the grace to love God being given to one and not to another.

This I’m sure makes it more difficult to understand Augustine’s true position, since he is looking at the problem differently than most moderns.

Free Will yet Fettered Affections

Another hindrance to interpreting Augustine is his distinction between free will and liberty. R.C. Sproul expounds on this point in his helpful book Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will.

At times Augustine seems to deny all freedom to the will of fallen man. In The Enchiridion, for example, he writes: “…when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost.”

How can we square this statement with Augustine’s insistence elsewhere that man always has freedom of the will? Some critics of Augustine think that anyone who attempts to resolve this difficulty is on a fool’s errand. They assert that Augustine simply hardened his position in his later years in light of the Pelagian crisis and contradicted his earlier teaching.

To square the problem let us look at two matters. The first is Augustine’s crucial distinction between free will (liberum arbitrium) and liberty (libertas)…. When he speaks of free will, he means the ability to choose without external constraining.

The sinner sins because he chooses to sin, not because he is forced to sin…. He is in bondage to his own sinful influences. To escape this bondage the sinner must be liberated by the grace of God. For Augustine the sinner is both free and in bondage at the same time, but not in the same sense. He is free to act according to his own desires, but his desires are only evil…. This corruption greatly affects the will, but it does not destroy it as a faculty of choosing. (Willing to Believe, pg. 68)

The Triumph of Grace

With man’s will thus enslaved to his desires, God must triumph through grace. God gives the new desires which free man’s will to trust and believe Christ. Greg Johnson provides a helpful quote by Augustine on this point.

We, however, on our side affirm that the human will is so divinely aided in the pursuit of righteousness, that (in addition to man’s being created with a free will, and in addition to the teaching by which he is instructed how he ought to live) he receives the Holy Ghost, by whom there is formed in his mind a delight in, and a love of, that supreme and unchangeable good which is God.

R.C. Sproul adds this quote which should put the question of whether Augustine is “Reformed” in his beliefs, to rest.

When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. He, therefore, worketh the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling…. For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe…. Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, translated by R.E. Wallis, 1:810-11; quoted in Willing to Believe, pg. 66)

In conclusion, let me stress this is not the definitive answer regarding Augustine. I don’t profess that all of his views are correct on this issue. He may well have held to some form of prescience as he sought to explain and harmonize his views on free will and predestination. Yet he was clearly “Reformed” in his predestination views. I should stress that I do strongly object to many of Augustine’s other positions (for more on that see my previous article). But I am thankful for his influential teaching on predestination. Calvin and Luther would likely say the same.

picture above is Botticelli’s depiction of Augustine from Wikipedia