The Theology of John Calvin

http://www.markers.com/ink/bbwcalvin2.htm ^ | Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921)

[drstevej]

There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Above everything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His son Jesus Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit whom He has sent, as our veritable Saviour. To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit.

[drstevej]

BB Warfield on Calvin Ping

[drstevej]

A well written and insightful summary of Calvinism for your consideration and response.

Have a Blessed Easter as we worship the One who came to seek and save the lost. To Him alone be glory!

[Wrigley]

Thanks for the ping.

[jude24]

Now... why didn't you think to ping me to this? ;-)

[ultima ratio]

A beautifully written essay, but one with which Catholics would disagree. The problem as I see it is that to leave out the concept of human cooperation in God's salvific act, we eliminate the notion of free will. If salvation were to be so exclusively God's doing, even apart from any freely given choosing by ourselves, then damnation would be all God's doing as well. The suffering souls in Hell would have had no part at all in their own choice of evil over good. This is repulsive to us on the face of it. It would be impossible to believe in God as a benign Being, given such a notion.

This theologian says, "There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism." But "auto-soterism" is a pejorative term that does not adequately describe what is actually going on; cooperation or participation does not limit God's salvific act. If someone is drowning, he can still cooperate with the lifeguard's saving action by not resisting and rejecting the lifeguard's help. In a very loose sense, we say he's saving himself by doing so; but more truly it is the lifeguard alone who is saving him. That's how the Catholic sees it.

Happy Easter to you and your family!

[P-Marlowe]

To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit.

And how does that differ from Arminianism?

[drstevej]

My apologies Jude 24. Will do better in the future!

[jude24]

Arminianism would claim that a man must still cooperate with God to be saved, whereas Calvinism claims that God will make that man cooperate.

(Wouldn't you agree, Steve?)

[P-Marlowe]

But that's not what the statement says. the statement was that Jesus Christ came to save, not to assist people in saving themselves.

I don't believe that Arminians believe that they save themselves. It is the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross that saves. It is the Holy Spirit's working on the person that brings them to salvation.

But no thinking Arminian thinks that they save themselves. The statement of Warfield applies to Arminians as well as Calvinists. Warfield makes that statement (and Dr Steve emphasized it) apparently to set Calvinism apart from other theological systems. The problem is that those sentiments are not exclusive to Calvinism.

[drstevej]

***Arminianism would claim that a man must still cooperate with God to be saved, whereas Calvinism claims that God will make that man cooperate. ***

Yep, I would agree. BTW, this is the same point Ultima makes in his reply. Arminianism and Catholicism share a semi-Pelagian heritage. Calvinism draws for Augustine.

[P-Marlowe]

If you want to hitch your wagon to Augustine, I can show you that he was no saint.

I prefer to hitch my wagon to Jesus.

[drstevej]

***But no thinking Arminian thinks that they save themselves.***

True. But they do believe they are the deciding factor and apart from their initiation of faith, salvation will not occur.

Warfiled rightly points to irresistible grace as the central tenet of Calvinism.

[drstevej]

***If you want to hitch your wagon to Augustine, I can show you that he was no saint.***

I started to say Calvin follows Augustine who follws Jesus ans Paul, but I was trrying to be nice. :-)

***I prefer to hitch my wagon to Jesus.***

My wagon was hitched to Jesus by the Holy Spirit. :0)

[jude24]

Warfiled rightly points to irresistible grace as the central tenet of Calvinism.

I think this is definately the case. It wasn't my own stumbling block (I recoiled in horror at the idea of "limited atonement," and the whole system came crashing down. Whoever named it that should be shot; "particular redemption" or "definate atonement" is much better.)

What I find fascinating is I know 2 people who believe in "limited atonement" as I've explained to them, but reject "irresistible grace." I find that intriguing; that's not where I choked on Calvinism.

[Polycarp]

damnation would be all God's doing as well. The suffering souls in Hell would have had no part at all in their own choice of evil over good. This is repulsive to us on the face of it. It would be impossible to believe in God as a benign Being, given such a notion.

Good summary, UR. Not much more I can add to it.

Jesus dispelled the pagan notion of "fate" and the fear that flows from it, and Calvin reintroduced it with his double predestination.

I find his ideas to be...well...sinister, definitely paganistic, possibly satanic, but certainly not Christian.

Sorry to be blunt, Steve, but you invited comments.

[P-Marlowe]

My wagon was hitched to Jesus by the Holy Spirit. :0)

But did YOU ask the Holy Spirit to hitch your wagon, or did the Holy Spirit hitch it while you were sleeping?

And if YOU didn't ask for forgivenenss, how did you receive it? Is not asking for forgiveness, a prerequisite to its being granted?

[P-Marlowe]

Jesus dispelled the pagan notion of "fate" and the fear that flows from it,

How did Jesus dispel that notion? Were the Jews under some pagan notion of "fate"? Explain.

[drstevej]

***I find his ideas to be...well...sinister, definitely paganistic, possibly satanic, but certainly not Christian.***

Hey, I can handle the bluntness without whacking the abuse button & whining to the mods like the followers of the peepstone prophet.

All people apart from Christ are spiritually dead (not sick or weak). Dead folk don't grab the lifeline.

Here's a quiz for you. WHO WROTE THIS ???

Idle and a fool in God's wisdom, I was misled by an unorthodox error at a time when I was still pursuing philosophical studies. Sometimes I went to listen to the theologians discussing this matter [of grace and free will], and the school of Pelagius seemed to me nearest the truth... In this philosophical faculty I seldom heard a reference to grace, except for some ambiguous remarks. What I heard day in and day out was that we are masters of our own free acts, that ours is the choice to act well or badly, to have virtues or sins, and much more along this line... But every time I listened to the Epistle reading in church and heard how Paul magnified grace and belittled free will--as in the case in Romans 9, "It is obviously not a question of human will and effort, but of divine mercy," and its many parallels--grace displeased me, ungrateful as I was... However, even before I transferred to the faculty of theology, the text mentioned came to me as a beam of grace and, captured by a vision of the truth, it seemed I saw from afar how the grace of God precedes all good works... That is why I express my gratitude to Him who has given me this grace as a gift.

[drstevej]

WHO WROTE THIS ???


Answer: Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349)