Tag Archives: John Calvin

On the Theological Bogeyman of Calvinism

A few days ago, I posted a quote on my social media feed from the reformer John Calvin. Now, the quote in question said nothing about the doctrines or concepts that are usually associated with that name; actually, it had to with the usefulness of catechism in the transmission of the faith to the next generation. However, within a short amount of time, a recent acquaintance of mine messaged me with concern that if churches saw me posting quotes from this particular figure, then they would not ask me to preach. I am sure his concern was well intended, but since moving back to the Bible Belt five years ago, I have been constantly perplexed by the reactions that Calvin and his teaching seems to provoke.

On another occasion a few years ago, I was interviewing with a church in another state. They had received my resume from a state convention, and so they reached out to set up a virtual interview. After logging on, we exchanged pleasantries and said a word of prayer, but before asking me for my testimony or personal background, the first question they asked right out of the gate was “What do you believe about Calvinism?” Examples like this could be multiplied, but the fact remains that the slightest scent of affinity for John Calvin or for the doctrines known as “Calvinism” often provokes a visceral reaction in most churches in this area. There is a ubiquitous disdain for these concepts, especially in the more rural churches, and to be quite honest, it boggles my mind.

Reasonable disagreement on the question of God’s sovereignty and man’s ability when it comes to our salvation is understandable; this is a debate that has ebbed and flowed for the entire history of the church, but this kind of revulsion is simply beyond the pale. And so, in the space that remains, I would like to suggest four possible reasons for why rural Bible Belt Christians are so put off by so-called “Calvinism”.

First, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding when it comes what so-called “Calvinists” actually believe. Because of this, those beliefs are regularly mischaracterized and misrepresented in ways that no reasonable student of Reformed theology would ever agree with. Accusations that “Calvinists” do not believe in evangelism or that “Calvinism” makes God the author of sin are such tired critiques that they almost need no response. Answers to these questions and many more are readily available from reputable and godly scholars in both printed and electronic forms, but it is easier to label and dismiss someone’s beliefs than to listen and engage the merits of those beliefs. Whether you agree with the concepts or not, if you cannot explain those concepts in ways that their adherents would agree with, then you probably shouldn’t be critiquing them to begin with. As I have suggested in another post, this is how we show grace to those with whom we disagree.

Another reason why Bible Belt Christians harbor such vehement resentment for so-called “Calvinism” is that many rural churches have been hurt by pastors who held these beliefs in an unhealthy, unchristian manor. Time and time again, I have heard stories about how “Calvinism split our church”, and this absolutely saddens my soul. However, I would suggest that the essential cause of the pain had more to do with the character of the pastor in question and less to do with the theological concepts that he espoused. In most cases, “Calvinism” is simply a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. Pastors are called to the highest standards of Christlikeness, and a consistent attitude of combativeness or divisiveness driven by the nagging need to always be right should be a direct and immediate disqualification from pastoral ministry. The glaring absence of Christlikeness coupled with biased preaching that beats its preferred theological hobby horse every week, regardless of what it may be, is a recipe for heartache every time.

A third possible reason for the emotional overreaction to “Calvinism” in the Bible Belt might be linked to the lasting influence of Revivalism in this area. The theological example of men like Billy Graham and Adrian Rogers casts a long shadow over those who were directly influenced by their ministries. These were faithful, godly men whose proclamation of the Gospel led many to faith in Christ. For these Christians, the lasting memories of multi-night revivals with altars filled with throngs of people coming to faith in Christ represent the good ole’ days of the church. Even to this day, there is a deeply felt and inherent longing in many churches to experience those highs once again, and the assumption is that if we just preach the way that they preached, believe the way that they believed, program the way that they programmed, then we can reproduce the same results. Unfortunately, the culture has changed significantly since the heyday of these ministries, and the methods that worked then are unlikely to work in the same way now. However, as they did so well, so also must we proclaim the Gospel boldly and invite people to repent and believe, whatever that may look like.

Lastly, I think a final and more fundamental reason for the vitriolic reaction to so-called “Calvinism” has do with the conflict between the sovereignty of God and the ability of man. Again, my purpose is not answer that age old question, but simply to point out that the exaltation of God’s sovereignty, which is a basic principle in Reformed theology, is a direct affront to our own innate sinful desire to exalt ourselves. The suggestion that there is nothing that I can do to save myself or to turn myself toward God and away from sin apart from His gracious intervention is an insult to my own prideful sense of self. No one wants to admit that they are so deeply corrupted and enslaved to their own sin that they cannot lift themselves up by their own volitional, moral and spiritual effort. Except this is exactly what the Gospel teaches us. Whether we hold to the theology of so-called “Calvinism” or not, we must admit that we cannot, nay will not, save ourselves, even if we were given the opportunity. We are completely and totally dependent upon God to save us from sin and from ourselves, and this He did by sending His Son to die on the cross and rise again. This is what all Christians must believe.

In the final analysis, whether a person agrees or disagrees with John Calvin and his theology is not the point. We must be willing to listen to and learn from one another “as iron sharpens iron”; we must learn to discuss our differences with grace and understanding. And if we must disagree, then may the content of our disagreement be concerned with the Scriptures and with what they teach us about God and mankind, about sin and salvation, because these are the questions that matter in eternity. As our Lord Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1.15)


On Penal Substitution Theory in the Early Church

church fathers

Recently, I have been reflecting on the penal substitution theory of the atonement as it relates to the significance of Jesus death, both in the thinking of Jesus himself and in the understanding of his first followers. And the conclusion that I came to in both of those posts is that a penal substitution understanding is essential and necessary for a proper understanding of the atonement. The witness of Holy Scripture requires us to conclude that Jesus died for our sin. He took the place we deserved when he was nailed to the cross, and, in his death, he satisfied the just and due penalty for our sin required by a Holy and Righteous God.

This my seem like an injustice to us, that the innocent Son of God was unjustly punished by His Father for the sins of human beings, but simply because our modern sensibilities may view this as distasteful and hard to swallow, we cannot simply dismiss this understanding of the cross as so-called “cosmic child abuse”. Any attempt to bypass the offense of the cross to make it more palatable must ultimately be rejected. It is the very injustice of the cross that makes the Gospel beautiful and powerful, because that injustice was suffered by God himself that we might be reconciled to Him. He himself paid the penalty that He himself required so that we might be saved.

However, if we truly believe that this understanding of the cross is true and necessary, then it would make sense that we would see it throughout the history of the church. In their attempts to disprove this view, some critics of penal substitution suggest that the theory did not exist in the early church. They argue that it first appeared in the late eleventh century in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury, specifically in his work Cur Deus Homo. It was then further developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his work Summa Theologiae, and then crystalized into the doctrine we know today in the 16th century by John Calvin in The Institutes of Christian Religion.

While the contributions of these works to our understanding of the atonement certainly hold great value, these critics question that if a penal substitution theory of the atonement is so central and essential, then why is not represented in the theological tradition before the 11th century. It is further argued that the early church fathers unanimously held to a Christus Victor or ransom theory of the atonement, and that if that’s how the earliest theologians viewed the atonement, then so should we. The problem with this argument, though, is that this it is often more assumed than it is demonstrated.

So, in what follows, rather then examining the views of any specific church father, I would simply like to list some resources that challenge this prevailing understanding of the development of the theology of the atonement.

Books
Jeffery, Steve, et al. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.
McDonald, H.D. The Atonement of the Death of Christ: In Faith, Revelation, and History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985.

Articles
Chatfield, Graeme. “Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Early Church Fathers, the Creeds, and Trinitarian Theology.” The Pacific Journal of Baptist Research 10/1 (May 2015). 3-10.
Vlach, Michael J. “Penal Substitution in Church History.” The Masters Seminary Journal 20/2 (Fall 2009). 199-214.
Williams, Garry J. ” Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Church Fathers.” Evangelical Quarterly 83/3 (Fall 2011). 195-216.

Weblinks
“Historical Reflections on Substitutionary Atonement” posted at FullerStudio.Fuller.edu
“Penal Substitution a Sixteenth-Century Innovation?” posted at ReformationTheology.com, 05.11.12
“No Christus Victor Here – Atonement According to the Apostolic Fathers” posted at HolySpiritActivism.com, 04.07.14
“A Common (But Bad) Reason for Rejecting Penal Substitution” posted at Christianity.com, 07.15.14
“Did Early Christians Believe in Substitutionary Atonement?” posted at TheGospelCoalition.org, 04.03.15
“Penal Substitution as a Theory of Atonement in the Early Church Fathers” posted at OrthodoxChristianTheology.com, 06.03.15
“Penal Substitution in the Church Fathers: Part II” posted at OrthodoxChristianTheology.com, 11.26.15
“10 Things You should Know about Penal Substitution” posted at SamStorms.com, 05.02.16
“Penal Substitution In The Writings Of The Church Fathers” posted at PirateChristian.com,  05.04.16

Now, we certainly do not want read later theological concepts back in to the early church fathers anachronistically, but we may conclude that “an author can be held to teach the penal doctrine if he plainly states that the punishment deserved by sin from God was borne and dealt with by Jesus Christ in his death on the cross.” This means that the early church fathers can be shown to affirm the essential features of a penal substitution view, even if their understanding of that essential truth was not as developed as it would be by later authors. The church fathers were not univocal or unanimous in their support of the Christus Victor view as critics of the penal substitution view claim. They seemingly held a multifaceted understanding of the atonement with no one view overshadowing any others.

And this final observation is quite instructive for Christians today. No one view, no matter how essential, central, and necessary it is, can exhaust the mystery of Jesus’ death on the cross. So, even while affirming the centrality of the penal substitution view, we must not overlook or ignore other possible significances. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is to the Christian faith like a beautiful diamond whose many facets all shine forth the glory of God in our salvation.


Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers