Featured Sovereign Grace as it should be!

Please correct me if I am mistaken on my timeline, but John Calvin died in 1564, James Arminius was born in 1560 and died in 1609. The Synod of Dort was 1618-19 ( 55 years after John Calvin died and about a decade after Arminius). “TULIP” came to represent or summarize the five points of Calvinism as put forth at the Synod of Dort, it’s earliest use being at the start of the 20th Century. Calvin didn't coin "TULIP" (Calvin also did not formulate the doctrines as presented at Dort, or as represented by TULIP).

 

I have met some primitive Baptists who get offended if you call them Calvinists (and I know a couple of Calvinists who get offended if you call a Baptist a Calvinist). As I recall, a Lutheran (Joachim Westphal) introduced the label "Calvinism" as descriptive of differing sacramental views. Labels can get confusing. Frown

Some of the issue is in the development of theology. We do not know, for example, the extent to which John Calvin would have affirmed Limited Atonement (depending on one’s definition of the doctrine) as he did not develop a doctrine detailing the scope of the Atonement. Many assume that he would have been a five point Calvinist (by their definition of the phrase), but many argue that his teachings fall into the category of moderate Calvinism (again, depending on definitions). There are many who were considered fully Calvinists in the 17th century who would be considered moderate Calvinists today.

My point in all of this is that if someone says that they are a Calvinist…well, that actually says very little about what they believe. Most do not mean just the five points (which were a response to the five articles….nothing to build an entire theology upon). TULIP is a bit more specific, but not very helpful anymore. If you were to ask, you would find that Sproul (obviously) is a Calvinist. But so is J.I. Packer and John Piper (and a 7 pointer to boot ). And….if you were to ask….Norman Geisler lays claim to that label (how I don’t know, but he does).

Looking at the development of theologies, and particularly the development of more contemporary theologies (like that of the Reformation), I cannot help but find it a bit presumptuous to assume that understandings are completely uninfluenced by our environment. Paul, for example, did not lean on theology to provide answers for 16th and 17th century questions. His understanding was not influenced by the emerging intellectual movement or a movement away from the dominance of the Catholic Church. Just as the Reformers did not completely agree on doctrine, and just as Calvinism encompasses a wide array of views, I believe that there is at least a reasonable chance that John Calvin did not completely corner the market on divine truth. While we need systems of theologies to make sense of our beliefs, we also need to be aware of the difference between Scripture and theology (we need to take care that we do not lean too hard on that understanding we hold).

And as timely (and ironic) proof of the conclusions I've made on this post, there are two Calvinists validating what I am saying by disagreeing with and disliking this post. Thumbsup

 

I think he puts it that way as a bit of a joke, but what he means is that Calvinism includes double predestination in that God saves out of fallen man a people, but not all people (God chooses both to save and not to save) and the best-of-all-possible worlds in that the world exists for God’s glory so it is the best possible world (taken as a whole) to demonstrate the glory of God.

 

Yes, of course. Those who perish do so outside of God's decree.

To me it seems that Piper is stating a “double predestination” in terms of infralapsarianism, which takes on a different meaning (I believe) than within supralapsarianism. I always viewed election and reprobation as the base decree (insofar as "logical order") within supralapsarianism. I have not really considered Piper's definition, but if taken to mean that God saves a people for Himself out of fallen man and intentionally refrains from saving all men, then I really do not see much room for objection. I don't think that those who are condemned (those Paul calls "vessels of wrath") are unintended consequences of God's plan to elect. But again, that has not been my typical understanding of "double predestination".

 

It is interesting that Calvinism going into the 17th century comprised itself of varying opinion about the scope of the Atonement and yet held together. This is even true earlier with James Arminius as he was not outright rejected as unorthodox (he died a “proper” Calvinist, although his teachings were later rejected).

Reading many comments and commentary today, I think we can see how far Calvinism is shrinking in the minds of some. Statements now ring loud that a lapse in one point is a rejection of the whole. And that one point is constantly at the mercy of another’s subjective definition. It seems that many today like to pretend that Calvinism has always held to the "five points," but in truth they have never agreed completely as a whole on many issues.

For example, Edward Polhill (1622-1694) wrote “But if Christ in no way died for all men, how came the minister’s commission to be so large. They command men to repent that their sins may be blotted out for whom Christ was not made sin? They beseech men to be reconciled to God, but how shall they be reconciled for whom Christ paid no price at all? They call and cry out to men to come to Christ that they may have life, but how can they have life, for who Christ was no surety in his death? If then Christ died for all men, the ministry is a true ministry as to all; but If Christ died only for the elect, what is the ministry as to the rest?...I conclude that Christ died for all men, so far as to found the truth of the ministry towards them.” (Extent of the Gospel Commission and the Death of Christ)

And of course, I realize that a hyper few dislike going back to people like Edward Polhill, John Owen, and Cotton Mather simply because their position can't stand up to history. But the fact remains that Calvinism is a systematic theology and not Scripture itself. It developed, and it did not develop with complete agreement within.

 

I agree with Polhill and appreciate his writings. I also like John Owen (who seemed to appreciate Polhill except for an issue which I can't recall at this moment). But that was not my point. I was arguing neither for or against a general intercession purposed at the Cross. Polhill did teach a special purpose for the elect. But he also taught that Christ died for all men (my point being that not all of Calvinism agrees with Polhill...and others like John Calvin, Cotton Mather, and John Owen...on this issue).

My point is that while all Calvinists affirm that Christ's death was a special intercession for the elect, not all Calvinists agree that on the Cross Christ made a general intercession for all. This was but an example of many possible choices, which I chose for Mather's approval of the author. Calvinism has never existed as one single doctrine and to suggest that Paul was, in fact, a Calvinist is to miss the fact that Calvinism is a theological system and an understanding of Scripture rather than Scripture itself. We need not elevate our understanding to that degree.

This was, IMHO, a strength of Spurgeon. He recognized the finite nature of his own understanding, and while understanding the gospel in a Calvinistic context he also recognized the fingerprint of man woven into the tapestry. The problem comes not when a man believes his theological view to be true (I would not expect us to hold views we believed false) but when a man believes his view is Scripture (that, for example, Paul was a Calvinist instead of Calvinism being an understanding or interpretation of Paul). I believe many have elevated their theology above it's proper place and indeed lean on their own understanding. And many have not and don't.