THEOLOGICAL STUDIES
Calvinism/Presbyterianism
INTRODUCTION
The last of the great movements in the Reformation center around John Calvin, French/Swiss Reformer who operated primarily out of Geneva, Switzerland. So much of what He did was based upon the work of Luther and other reformers before him. His training in the law profession equipped him to be the great logician of the Reformation. He will start with a premise and take it to its logical conclusion.
Now this approach is both good and commendable, and it works AS LONG AS YOU START OFF WITH THE RIGHT PREMISE. If you start out with the wrong premise though, your whole system collapses to the ground even though it is extremely logical.
Although Calvinism started in Geneva, Switzerland, its main base became Scotland. John Knox a pupil of Calvin moved to Scotland and converted most of Scotland to Calvinism. His influence there was so great that he was able to drive the Catholic Queen, Mary Queen of Scots, from her throne into the hands of her cousin Elizabeth I of England who eventually cuts her head off. Traditionally Calvin's influence has been most strongly felt in Presbyterianism, some Bible churches, and in some circles of Southern Baptists.
CALVIN'S VIEW OF PREDESTINATION
The great doctrine usually associated with Calvin is that of Calvinism. Some call it predestination; however, you can believe in predestination without agreeing with Calvin's view of predestination.
Calvin started out with the premise that God is sovereign. Moreover, according to Calvin, God's sovereignty means that God is in control. Therefore, when I see a person who is saved, I must conclude that if God is in control, then God chose that man to be saved. Moreover, if I see a person not saved, then I must conclude that God chose not to save that person. Salvation then flows out of God's complete control of all things and all persons.
The most popular presentation of Calvin's thought is the acrostic TULIP:
THE PRESBYTERY
The next major contribution Calvin gave to the church is that of the presbytery, that is, a board of elders which rules the church. Now the church will freely select who serves on the Board of Elders; once though the elders have been selected, they have complete control over the church. The pastor is mainly the preacher who feeds the church with God's Word. Calvin bases this type of church government upon his interpretation of NT passages which speak of the elders in the church, e.g., Acts 15, 1 Pet. 5, and Titus 1.
A RESPONSE
Calvin's View of Predestination
When dealing with Calvinism, it is so easy to lose the forest for all the trees. We get lost in this verse versus this verse rather than looking at the bigger picture itself. For example, some modern-day Calvinists will point to certain verses to prove that their view of God's sovereignty is right; yet those who reject Calvinism will point to verses which definitely point in the opposite direction. We are then left with the following options: (1) to reject one set of verses and accept another set of verses, (2) interpret one set of verses in light of the other set, thereby destroying what the first set of verses actually means, (3) throw our hands up in despair and refuse to deal with the topic at all, (4) claim that both sets of verses are true and then go ahead and emphasize the set that fits your theology, or (5) try to find a theology which does full justice to all the verses.
When it is all said and done, Calvinism when taken seriously is a direct threat to orthodox Christianity. It claims that God before the creation of the world capriciously chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell even before that person has been able to choose for or against Jesus. Jesus' death on the cross ultimately is not essential; it is only God's tool to remove our sins.
This has terrible ramifications. First, notice that in Calvinism God (the Father) is the one who chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Notice that Jesus is not involved in this operation. Rather Jesus is the one in the Godhead who dies to save us. God is a condemner while Jesus is a Savior.
So what's the big deal? Calvinism unintentionally attacks the unity of the Godhead, the belief that God is one. Why? Because it makes Jesus and God (the Father) polar opposites. Calvinism has God (the Father) doing something that the biblical Jesus would never do. Can you even imagine for a moment that Jesus would ever choose to send a person to hell even before he had a chance to take one breath here on earth? That's totally unthinkable. The biblical Jesus would never do such a thing. Yes, hell is a reality, but people themselves and not God for all practical purposes send themselves there (see John 3:17-20; 12:47-48).
Some find no problem at all in having the Father do some things and Jesus doing other things. There is no problem with that. The problem is that they are having the Father do something that Jesus would NEVER do, like choosing to send somebody to hell even before they had a chance to live. This is a difference in character, not in function. That is NOT the Jesus of the Bible.
Now if you have the Father doing something the Son would never do, you have created a division in the Godhead. For all practical purposes you have created one of 2 scenarios: (1) there are 2 gods and not One, or (2) Jesus is not God. In the Gospel of John the unity of God is based upon the Father and Son being exactly alike: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:8).
This applies not only to their character but also to their functions. Jesus claims:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself
Unless it is something He sees the Father doing;
For WHATEVER the Father does,
These things the Son also does in like manner" (John 5:19-20).
Jesus then proceeds to tell us the things that the Father does which He imitates: He gives life to the dead. There is NO mention of choosing to damn people before they ever lived. Moreover, Jesus claims that whatever the Father does, He also does. So if Jesus is not damning people before creation, then the Father is not either. If the Father is damning people before creation, then He and the Son are not one. Then either there are 2 gods (the Father and Jesus) or else Jesus is not God. It's that simple.
Does all of this sound true? If you doubt this, think back to the origins of Unitarianism, the belief that Jesus is a good man but nothing more than a man. Guess where it came from? It emerged from Calvinism. Calvin thought he was being logical with his system. Well, Unitarians took Calvinism to its logical conclusion, a denial of the deity of Christ. Calvin would totally reject such a conclusion; he would be right to do so. However, that is where logic necessarily takes his system.
Before we look at what we believe to be the NT view of predestination, we need to state first our premise. Our premise is that Jesus is the perfect revelation of God. If we want knowledge of God, we must first start with Jesus. Anything we say about God must harmonize with what we know about Him in Jesus. The view espoused below harmonizes with the biblical view of Jesus.
So what third option takes into account all the different verses dealing with God's sovereignty and man's free choice? First, Calvin is right in that God does choose people for salvation. It's just that God chooses ALL persons for salvation. God is not schizophrenic with one plan for this person and a contrary plan for another person. He is One. He has created all mankind with one purpose in mind, to be made in the likeness of God, that is, in the likeness of Jesus (Gen. 1:27; Col. 1:15). Because of His incredible relationship with Jesus, God has chosen to bring others into this same kind of relationship with Him, that of Father/son/daughter. His plan was NOT to create sons on the one hand and horrors on the other. His plan was that ALL participate in this wonderful relationship.
Second, Calvin is right in that God must work in a man's heart before he can be saved: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). Martin Luther was right when he claimed that sin has enslaved our wills and that only God can free them so that they can accept Jesus (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will).
The question then becomes, in whose heart does God work? Whom does God free to accept Him? According to Scriptures it appears that God works universally in the hearts of all mankind. God's plan is universal in scope: "For God so loved the WORLD . . ." (John 3:16); "He desires ALL men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).
But if God chooses all people and works in the hearts of all people to draw them to Him, why aren't all people saved? Simply because whereas He chooses all of us, not all of us choose Him. We have a real relationship going on here. Real relationships involve choice.
Before I got married, I chose to date some girls and chose not to date some girls. Now some of the girls I chose to date did not choose to date me. Some girls who chose to date me I did not choose to date. Choice works both ways. In Calvin's sense of choice, every girl I chose would have had to date me. In the NT sense of choice though, the chosen girls were the girls who reciprocated and chose to date me too. In the NT the elect, the chosen are not only those whom God has chosen but also those who chose God. (In Greek we would call this the "effective" aorist; the action had its desired effect.)
"But " you might say, "I thought that God was in control." Yes, God is in control. In fact, He is in such control that He's even in control of Himself. He doesn't obliterate mankind. He respects our choices. There are terrible consequences when we choose against Him; however, He still honors those choices.
Calvin's View of the Presbytery
As Calvin takes the NT view of predestination and infuses it with content alien to the NT, so he takes the NT view of the presbytery and infuses it with content alien to the NT. Whereas it is true that the NT does speak of the elders, it does not give them the power that Calvin claims they have.
A major passage dealing with the "board of elders" is 1 Pet. 5:1-4. Verse 3 is extremely important in this debate. Peter quite explicitly states: "not yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge but proving to be examples to the flock." The first part of this verse does away with Calvin's view of the elders have absolute authority once they've been elected. They are not lords with absolute authority. What kind of authority do they have? That of influence--"proving to be examples to the flock." Anabaptists got it right whenever they saw that justification by grace through faith places us all on the same level. The only appropriate form of church government then is congregationalism.
Moreover, whereas Calvin splits the offices of the church into the authoritative elder and the pastor, the NT does not do so. A pivotal passage in this debate is Acts 20:17 and 28. In these 3 verses the same minister in the church is called "elder" and "overseer" (bishop) who "pastors" (shepherds) the flock. Unfortunately Calvin basically took some NT words and infused them with content which suited his personality, a very controlling, domineering personality. The same dynamic is operating with the way he interprets predestination. Calvin has made a tremendous impact upon many Christians; unfortunately, it has tended to be primarily negative.