Tag: doctrine

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]

We Believe (#12): Christ’s Church and Her Ordinances

~ fundyreformed ~ 8 Comments

Part 12 in a series of Sunday posts celebrating the glorious Truth we believe as Christians. The readings are quoted from the Elder Affirmation of Faith, of my church, Bethlehem Baptist (Pastor John Piper). I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document, and every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

Christ’s Church and Her Ordinances

We believe in the one universal Church, composed of all those, in every time and place, who are chosen in Christ and united to Him through faith by the Spirit in one Body, with Christ Himself as the all-supplying, all-sustaining, all-supreme, and all-authoritative Head. We believe that the ultimate purpose of the Church is to glorify God in the everlasting and ever-increasing gladness of worship.

We believe it is God’s will that the universal Church find expression in local churches in which believers agree together to hear the Word of God proclaimed, to engage in corporate worship, to practice the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to build each other’s faith through the manifold ministries of love, to hold each other accountable in the obedience of faith through Biblical discipline, and to engage in local and world evangelization. The Church is a body in which each member should find a suitable ministry for His gifts; it is the household of God in which the Spirit dwells; it is the pillar and bulwark of God’s truth in a truth-denying world; and it is a city set on a hill so that men may see the light of its good deeds — especially to the poor — and give glory to the Father in heaven.

We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord by which those who have repented and come to faith express their union with Christ in His death and resurrection, by being immersed in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is a sign of belonging to the new people of God, the true Israel, and an emblem of burial and cleansing, signifying death to the old life of unbelief, and purification from the pollution of sin.

We believe that the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of the Lord in which gathered believers eat bread, signifying Christ’s body given for His people, and drink the cup of the Lord, signifying the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. We do this in remembrance of the Lord, and thus proclaim His death until He comes. Those who eat and drink in a worthy manner partake of Christ’s body and blood, not physically, but spiritually, in that, by faith, they are nourished with the benefits He obtained through His death, and thus grow in grace.

We believe that each local church should recognize and affirm the divine calling of spiritually qualified men to give leadership to the church through the role of pastor-elder in the ministry of the Word and prayer. Women are not to fill the role of pastor-elder in the local church, but are encouraged to use their gifts in appropriate roles that edify the body of Christ and spread the gospel.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 12.1 – 12.5. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

We Believe (#10): God’s Work in Faith and Sanctification

~ fundyreformed

Part 10 in a series of Sunday posts celebrating the glorious Truth we believe as Christians. The readings are quoted from the Elder Affirmation of Faith, of my church, Bethlehem Baptist (Pastor John Piper). I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document, and every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

God’s Work in Faith and Sanctification

We believe that justification and sanctification are both brought about by God through faith, but not in the same way. Justification is an act of God’s imputing and reckoning sanctification is an act of God’s imparting and transforming. Thus the function of faith in regard to each is different. In regard to justification, faith is not the channel through which power or transformation flows to the soul of the believer, but rather faith is the occasion of God’s forgiving, acquitting, and reckoning as righteous. But in regard to sanctification, faith is indeed the channel through which divine power and transformation flow to the soul; and the sanctifying work of God through faith does indeed touch the soul and change it into the likeness of Christ.

We believe that the reason justifying faith necessarily sanctifies in this way is fourfold:

First, justifying faith is a persevering, that is, continuing, kind of faith. Even though we are justified at the first instant of saving faith, yet this faith justifies only because it is the kind of faith that will surely persevere. The extension of this faith into the future is, as it were, contained in the first seed of faith, as the oak in the acorn. Thus the moral effects of persevering faith may be rightly described as the effects of justifying faith.

Second, we believe that justifying faith trusts in Christ not only for the gift of imputed righteousness and the forgiveness of sins, but also for the fulfillment of all His promises to us based on that reconciliation. Justifying faith magnifies the finished work of Christ’s atonement, by resting securely in all the promises of God obtained and guaranteed by that all-sufficient work.

Third, we believe that justifying faith embraces Christ in all His roles: Creator, Sustainer, Savior, Teacher, Guide, Comforter, Helper, Friend, Advocate, Protector, and Lord. Justifying faith does not divide Christ, accepting part of Him and rejecting the rest. All of Christ is embraced by justifying faith, even before we are fully aware of, or fully understand, all that He will be for us. As more of Christ is truly revealed to us in His Word, genuine faith recognizes Christ and embraces Him more fully.

Fourth, we believe that this embracing of all of Christ is not a mere intellectual assent, or a mere decision of the will, but is also a heartfelt, Spirit-given (yet imperfect) satisfaction in all that God is for us in Jesus. Therefore, the change of mind and heart that turns from the moral ugliness and danger of sin, and is sometimes called “repentance,” is included in the very nature of saving faith.

We believe that this persevering, future-oriented, Christ-embracing, heart-satisfying faith is life-transforming, and therefore renders intelligible the teaching of the Scripture that final salvation in the age to come depends on the transformation of life, and yet does not contradict justification by faith alone. The faith which alone justifies, cannot remain alone, but works through love.

We believe that this simple, powerful reality of justifying faith is God’s gift which He gives unconditionally in accord with God’s electing love, so that no one can boast in himself, but only give all glory to God for every part of salvation. We believe that the Holy Spirit is the decisive agent in this life-transformation, but that He is supplied to us and works holiness in us though our daily faith in the Son of God whose trustworthiness He loves to glorify.

We believe that the sanctification, which comes by the Spirit through faith, is imperfect and incomplete in this life. Although slavery to sin is broken, and sinful desires are progressively weakened by the power of a superior satisfaction in the glory of Christ, yet there remain remnants of corruption in every heart that give rise to irreconcilable
war, and call for vigilance in the lifelong fight of faith.

We believe that all who are justified will win this fight. They will persevere in faith and never surrender to the enemy of their souls. This perseverance is the promise of the New Covenant, obtained by the blood of Christ, and worked in us by God Himself, yet not so as to diminish, but only to empower and encourage, our vigilance; so that we may say in the end, I have fought the good fight, but it was not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 10.1 – 10.6. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

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!