John Owen's Argument for Limited Atonement (Syllogism)

Either Christ died for:
1. All of the sins of all people
2. Some of the sins of all people
3. All of the sins of some people

However,

1. If Christ underwent punishment for all of the sins of all people, then no one will be in Hell.
2. Some people will be in Hell.
Therefore 3. Christ did not undergo punishment for all of the sins of all people.

1. If Christ underwent punishment for only some of the sins of all people, then all people will be in Hell.
2. Not all people will be in Hell.
Therefore 3. Christ did not undergo punishment for some of the sins of all people.

1. If some people will not be in Hell, then Christ underwent punishment for all of the sins of some people.
2. Some people will not be in Hell.
Therefore 3. Christ underwent punishment for all of the sins of some people.

Owen anticipates a response:
1. Christ underwent punishment for all sins
2. Unbelief is a sin
Therefore 3. Christ underwent punishment for the sin of unbelief

The Poster Boys of Campus Calvinism Are Back In Town

As I was preparing for the move to Jackson, MS, I started digging through old boxes from my days of attending college with Josh Walker.  Low and behold, look at what I found from our campus newspaper!

Four of the four men in the image would eventually attend Reformed Theological Seminary - and I will be there in exactly one week, God-willing.

Something Arminians Say, and Calvinists Would Never Say

James White, in an article for Patheos, points out that Roger Olson's argument against Calvinism is not primarily exegetical, but rather, that he judges God to be a "moral monster" if, in fact, Calvinists are right. White quotes this paragraph by Olson:

One day, at the end of a class session on Calvinism's doctrine of God's sovereignty, a student asked me a question I had put off considering. He asked: "If it was revealed to you in a way you couldn't question or deny that the true God actually is as Calvinism says and rules as Calvinism affirms, would you still worship him?" I knew the only possible answer without a moment's thought, even though I knew it would shock many people. I said no, that I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster. Of course, I realize Calvinists do not think their view of God's sovereignty makes him a moral monster, but I can only conclude they have not thought it through to its logical conclusion or even taken sufficiently seriously the things they say about God and evil and innocent suffering in the world.

Here is the question - if you are an Arminian (or one of those who refuse to self-identify but who really don't believe in divine election): have you ever heard a Calvinist say in a conversation with you, "If your view of God is right, then I can't worship that God. Your God is evil, sadistic, twisted, horrible, and He isn't worthy of my worship"? Have you ever read anything like this in books by Calvinists?

Let me answer for you - in the whole breadth of conversation and books by Calvinists, I have never heard anything even remotely like this from any Calvinist. It shows, on the part of Olson and those who agree with him, an impiety in one's approach to knowing God. Whereas the Calvinist is unwilling to stand in moral judgment over God deciding whether this or that divine attribute is to their approval, the dissenter (lets call him Arminian for lack of a better term) is often free in offering condemnation of God if He does not measure up.

Some Arminian (pardon the label) reader may see all of this as evidence for the horrible blasphemy Calvinists are at risk of if they are wrong. However, consider that the Calvinist is unwilling to accuse God of wrongdoing. Which position would you rather find yourself in:

1) Holding an honest belief that the Bible teaches election, realizing that, if you are wrong, you taught a wrong view of human/divine freedom. In either case, you have affirmed God's goodness, justice, and holiness.

or 2) Holding an honest belief that the Bible does not teach election, realizing that, if you are wrong, then you taught a wrong view of human/divine freedom. If you are wrong, then you have accused God of wrongdoing - even evil - and have spoken in a way that can only be described as blasphemous and impious.

If the Calvinist is wrong, then he must change his views of divine/human freedom. If the Olsonian Arminian is wrong, then he needs to repent of blasphemy and holding himself as a standard above God.

This Just In: Everybody's Christian!

I've made a decision. It's a big one (and it's also sarcastic, so don't take it too seriously). Everyone who claims to be a Christian is now a Christian. As long as you use the specific word "Christian," and say that Jesus is important to you, you're in. At least that's what some would like us to think.

A few weeks ago, Rachel Held Evans lamented that she shouldn't have to keep defending her Christian credentials just because she has liberal theological tendencies.

But the problem is that after ten years, I’m getting tired of trying to convince fellow Christians that I am, in fact, a Christian, even though I may vote a little differently than they vote, interpret the Bible differently than they interpret it, engage with science a little differently than they engage with it, and understand sovereignty and choice a little differently than they understand those things.

And I think a lot of other young evangelicals are growing weary of those arguments too. We’re ready to rebuild in communities where a commitment to love and follow Jesus Christ is enough common ground from which to start.

Once again, she laments:

I haven’t lost hope in the future of evangelicalism, but I’ve lost the desire to fight for my place in it. I’m tired of trying to convince other Christians that I am a Christian.

There is a need on the part of Bell's supporters to - not defend themselves - but to remove the need to defend themselves. Rachel Held Evans is understandably tired - exhausted at the thought that she might need to "contend for the faith," as she sees it. Fellow critics like John MacArthur can't possibly be making it easier for her. In his more recent blog posts, MacArthur has been arguing quite vigorously that Bell is not a fellow sheep, but rather, a wolf within the fold.

I've been asking myself a lot of questions after I read Evans' blog entry a few weeks ago, but perhaps the one that seems the most unfair - and at the same time relevant is this one (and it is a bit off topic, but I have to chase this rabbit for a moment): is there something about Arminianism that makes Arminians just more comfortable dancing/flirting with heretical doctrines? I don't mean this glibly or rhetorically. I mean this honestly. But I also mean it very generally, since I can think of many I would call Arminian whom this criticism does not apply to. However, in general, Calvinists tend to fall on the more conservative, old-school side of theological debates. To quote Spurgeon, "Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to vital truth."

But why is it that Bell's defenders themselves see this battle really falling along the old lines of the debate over Calvinism/Arminianism (Evans says it's between the New Calvinists and New Evangelicals, but it's really the same old debate). Read my review of Love Wins. See if I have had any interest in making this about election or predestination in my critique of the book. And yet Rachel Held Evans and many others see the whole debate as - ultimately - falling along the age-old lines of the evangelical debate over election and predestination. How interesting.

Allow me to use Bell as an example of the encroaching problem I see. Bell's only ground in claiming orthodoxy and historical pedigree for his views is words. He uses the same words that the old creeds do, and even that the Bible uses. These are words which he has clearly, blatantly, undeniably redefined from the way that they were previously understood through most of Christian history. His dissenters (including Ben Witherington, who is certainly not a Calvinist) have recognized this, while his supporters appear indifferent as to preserving the use of words. For Bell's supporters to remain supporters (and here I include Richard Mouw - a Calvinist), they must be indifferent as to whether historical words are used consistently from one generation to the next. And many of them are, to be sure. They argue that the meaning of words do change from one generation to the next. Certainly. But if someone bites their thumb at you, you won't be offended until you discover what this Shakespearean gesture actually means. The same is true of Biblical words. Hell sounds very unpleasant until you discover what Rob Bell means by it. Suddenly, it becomes a rosier destination for all of God's enemies.

So here we come back around full circle to Evans' complaint, once again. Look carefully at what she says near the end of the quote:

We’re ready to rebuild in communities where a commitment to love and follow Jesus Christ is enough common ground from which to start.

Now here is where we really must protest against Evans. She has requested that the lines be drawn so broadly that there is now room within the church for any and every cult/group out there. Who could argue that the Branch Dividians loved Jesus? Who can deny that Jehovah's Witnesses love Jesus? Who can deny that Mormons love and follow Jesus? If Evans had her way, they would be in the circle. Or look at it another way. If she wants to draw the circle that broadly, then consider what brought her to that place. The Jesus and Bible of Rob Bell and of the Emergents is so ill-defined that the cults now do have a legitimate place at the table. In opening the door wide enough for her own orthodoxy not to be called into question, she has flung open the doors and is letting the flies and the wolves, in.

Zanchi on Divine Causality

But since God by His providence doth preserve second causes which He useth in governing the world, everyone in her proper nature, yea, and is the mover of them--and of them, some are ordained of their own nature to certain and sure effects, and other some [others] are indefinite--we know and confess that although in respect of God, without whose foreknowledge and will nothing can happen in the world, all things are done necessarily (Matt. 10:29-30). Yet in respect of us, and of the second causes, many things happen and come to pass chanceably [by chance]. For what can be more chanceable [?] and casual, to a carpenter and travailer [traveller ?] than if the ax fall out of his hand and kill the other (Ex. 21:13)? Yet the Lord saith [sayeth] that it is he which killed the travailer [traveller]. And our Lord Jesus died willingly; yet He said, Christ must suffer (Luke 24:46). Herod and Pilate, of their free will, condemned Jesus; yet the apostles say they did nothing but what the hand and counsel of God had decreed to be done (Acts 4:28).

Jerome Zanchi
Confession of the Christian Religion
Chapter 6, Section 5

King and Servant Show 28

Jonathan looks at the gospel truth of the perseverance of the saints; seeing God's eternal nature and Christ's perfect work as the only sure foundation of the believers eternal security

"God Is Love" and Election

There is a question which I hear a lot. I hear it often enough that it deserves some attention. The question is, to state it plainly, about the doctrine of election and the doctrine of God's love. If election is true, then how does God call Himself love when the majority of His creation is going to be separated from Him for all eternity?

The first thing to do when approaching this question is to get the concepts right from the get-go. When most people hear the phrase "God is love," they think to themselves that it means "God loves me." In reality, it is a statement that is rooted in the ontology (the nature) of God's very character. If God is love, then He has always eternally been love; and this love cannot be predicated merely upon the existence of human beings. Otherwise, John would have rooted the concept of God's love in mankind. Rather, the Apostle John says, "God is love." God loves Himself, and has always loved Himself. All of his action reflects a love of and a commitment to His own name, his own glory, his own fame, etc. This relates to the doctrine of divine simplicity in that even God's wrath is loving, because it contains no compromise of Himself. When God is wrathful, he is upholding and loving His own name, His own glory, by punishing those who slight it.

So the idea that God loves Himself does not exclude His showing that love which He already has to humanity. But all deeds and expressions of love which God demonstrates serve this primary purpose: expressing God's self-love. If this does not happen, then God's love is compromised. It becomes an idolatrous and unfaithful kind of love. Any and everything which God does is rooted in love... of Himself, first and foremost.

So when we see God's wrath, we are seeing love. Albeit, a very God-centered type of love which most evangelicals have scarcely ever considered. In the same way, when we hear and receive the offer of salvation found in Jesus, we are also seeing God's love for Himself. This salvation serves to emphasize and display God's graciousness to his enemies. Evangelicals, for the most part, have exclusivized God's love to this second manifestation. They can scarcely see what is so loving about God's wrath, but they think they see lots of loving things about His mercy.

If we have really been thinking in this way, then we will be more troubled by salvation than we will by damnation. Salvation presents enormous problems for God's love. This is because in salvation, we have God, a good judge, acting like a bad judge and acquitting the guilty. He appears to regard His own name lightly. In saving sinners, He appears not to love and defend His own name. There are far more problems in God's pardoning the wicked than there are in his executing justice upon deserving sinners.

So look at the complaint before us, once again. "How does God call Himself love when the majority of His creation is going to be separated from Him for all eternity?" The question assumes that the height of love is for the creature to find union with God in eternity. And no doubt, there is a tremendous amount of truth to that - especially from the human perspective. But when looked at from the divine perspective, the complaint becomes a wash. "God is love" is compatible with any and all of God's actions, so long as He is always acting in a way which primarily promotes His own fame.

This understanding of God's essence as "loving" lays the essential groundwork for a true, robust, Biblically faithful understanding of election. If we don't have this groundwork, then we'll constantly be saying, "But He could have done more! He could have been more loving!" These complaints fall away once we can see God's love in his wrath and his justice. The Biblical mindset, then, does not protest, but instead cries out, "Show us your glory! Show us your justice! Show us your grace! Show us Yourself!" It does not - nay, it cannot - complain that God has not been enough of this, or enough of that.

We ought to consider, as well, that the number of the elect who will inhabit heaven and worship the Lord of Glory will be more numerous than the sands of the sea (Jer. 33:22). This is no small number. I have pointed out in another post that around 635 billion people are estimated to have lived throughout history. If even a small fraction of this number receive the gift of salvation, then we would regard the population of heaven as being numberless. Consider that the population of Phoenix, AZ, where I used to live has a population of around 4.3 million. I daresay that if God had only saved 4 million people in all of human history, we ought to consider it a tremendous number. And yet the number is surely even larger than that. The hosts of heaven will be so many that we will be daunted by the men and women purchased by our Lord.

Given what I have already said, even here there is no room to complain. There is no room to struggle against the doctrine of election or the number of the saved. Any complaint or charge of injustice or cruelty on the part of God is dwarfed by the love of God for Himself and His own name.

Putting the Historical Population Into Perspective

It is estimated that 271 million people lived in the world prior to the time of Christ. Since the coming of Jesus, 635 billion have been born and died.* To put this into perspective, I created this graph to accurately represent the ratio in visible form:


I'm not even sure you can see the blue section that represents the world population, B.C. but it is the thin blue sliver in the top of the chart. So in all of history, it is estimated that roughly 635.3 billion people have walked the earth, and of that number, only 0.3 billion lived prior to the sacrifice of Christ and the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the seed of Abraham.

I'm sure that this data has apologetic significance. Especially for those who think it was cruel of God to wait thousands of years into human history before sending the Savior to redeem the world.

*I got this data from Wikipedia, so if Dave in Cincinatti decides to revise the world population, then this chart will have to be modified, as well.

Freedom of the Will in the Massachusetts Bullying Case

In Massachusetts, 6 young people are being charged with various crimes related to the suicide of a 15 year old girl. According to the prosecutors, the severe, repetitive, incessant bullying caused Phoebe Prince to commit suicide. At this point, the bullying case is hinging upon whether the defense will be able to have access to Ms. Prince's medical records, which the defense believes will demonstrate that Prince had a history of mental illness and suicide attempts.

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Ms. Prince’s vulnerability made the bullying all the more reprehensible. If the defendants’ acts are found to have prompted her suicide, they could be legally culpable, regardless of her past, said Andrew Goode, a defense lawyer in Boston.

Interestingly, many purveyors of libertarian freedom would gladly get behind the victim in this case. And yet I can't help but notice that the underlying assumption of this case is that someone's behavior can be "caused" by another. I wonder if there are any Arminians or Semi-Pelagians who would argue that Ms. Prince was not free when she chose to hang herself, since her behavior was caused by another.

In either case, the assumption is not that the defendants are innocent because you cannot "cause" another person's behavior. As the defense attorney says, "The state is trying to say that my client’s behavior was the catalyst for her taking her life, but these records might show there were other reasons." Rather, the argument is that there were other factors in Ms. Prince's case which show that the bullying was not the only cause. I wonder why the defense attorney does not simply cry out, "Free will! Free will! Ms. Prince did this of her own free will!" It seems like the simplest way to go, and a jury might just buy it.

In either case, notice that the entire assumption of the case hinges on the principle that one person can be then antecedent cause of another's behavior. This seems to confirm Jonathan Edwards' statement that the legal system rejects the Arminian notion of freedom and liberty.

On another telling note, this trial is taking place in Northampton, Mass.; home of none other than Jonathan Edwards himself. I wonder what President Edwards would have to say from his pulpit about this case if he were in Northampton today...

The Last Letter of the TULIP

No, not the "P"! I mean, the last letter that potential Calvinists finally come to terms with. I'm talking about the infamous "L," which stands for Limited Atonement. I am accumulating an ever-growing list of friends who have learned to rejoice in man's radical fallenness, God's sovereign choice, the Spirit's effectual calling, and his preservation of his people. In other words, I know a lot of four-point Calvinists. What I was going to do was call this post "Limited Atonement for Dummies," but it seemed a little too clever for its own good. Also, I didn't want these newcomers to think I was calling them dummies.

What I wanted to do here was a series of drive-by arguments meant to provoke thought and not to exhaustively answer this subject in a drawn-out way.

Thought #1:
Limited Atonement is not about how valuable the blood of Jesus is. Rather, it is a statement about the Son's intent in coming and laying down his life "of my own accord." What was Jesus' intent, in other words? J.I. Packer defines limited atonement in this way: "the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God's elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve."

Thought #2:
If you believe that the Father elected only some, that the Spirit draws only some, then by denying Limited Atonement, you set the Son against the Father in his purpose, because you have the Father choosing some, the Spirit drawing some, and the Son atoning for all with the intention of saving all. This creates a Trinitarian dilemma which I would not want to find myself in. Rather, let us say that the Father chooses his elect, the Spirit draws the elect, and the Son removes the sin of the elect, giving them His own righteousness in their place. This is the single-minded purpose of God in salvation and brings him great glory.

Thought #3:
If Jesus really did atone for the sins of those in Hell, not only are we to accuse God of double jeopardy (punishing the same sin twice), but we have a situation where someone's sin has been removed. But then what sin, does the person suffer for in Hell? I have heard many argue that they are punished for their unbelief. However, John Owen famously argued that if Christ died for all of the sinner's sins, then He also must have died for their sin of unbelief. If, then, Owen argued, the sin of unbelief has been atoned for, they have no grounds for punishment in Hell. And if someone argues that all sins except for unbelief are atoned for, then it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement, but the person who is saying that Christ does not die for all of a person's sins.

Thought #4:
There are plenty of verses which teach that anyone who believes will be saved, but these do not contradict Limited Atonement. Likewise, there are many verses which praise Christ's dying for "the world." Each of these verses, on their own may individually be answered. D.A. Carson argues that "both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love." And so we do. We affirm that Christ died for the world, but we are careful to define what we mean by that, as we should all do anyway. (Incidentally, I recommend Carson's article, which fleshes out his meaning quite a bit.)

Thought #5:
There are many verses which teach Christ's particular intention in laying down his life. This includes Christ talking about intending to save "His sheep": John 10:11, 15; "His Church," Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; "His people," Matt. 1:21, and "the elect," Rom. 8:32-35. Furthermore, The Bible does speak of Christ's only coming to save some: "John 6:37-40; Rom. 5:8-10; Gal. 2:20; Gal. 3:13-14; Gal. 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6; Rev. 5:9-10. We also see Jesus' particular intention to only lay down his life for his sheep in the high priestly prayer in John 17:9: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given to me."* If Jesus was trying to save each and every person who ever lived or ever would live, then this would be a very curious prayer, indeed. As Packer puts it, "Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only...view that harmonizes with this data."

*Many thanks to Louis Berkhof and J.I. Packer for the Scripture references.

Calvinists, Grow Up! Or Why Calvinists Must Embrace Election and then Keep Going

You can't call my Election Pedigree into question. I've spent almost a decade arguing with any Arminian that would get within ten feet of me. I spent five years in the cage stage (the stage early on where all new Calvinists need to be put in a cage so they do not hurt themselves or others). I wrote an unpublished book destroying Arminian soteriology. I'm the guy who calls you an Arminian, even if you swear you're a four-point Calvinist. I've been that guy for almost ten years.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Geneva (or should I say, after I reached Geneva): I started caring about other stuff. Yeah, I still like poking semi-pelagians. And yeah, I will defend Calvinism until your mom agrees with me. ... If she brings it up.

You see, it took me a long time before I joined a church where I really felt like I belonged, theologically speaking, and then the funny thing happened. I started to love the Church and stopped loving my club. Richard Mouw makes the point in his book Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport that God has elected us, but He elected us to something. The election was merely a step - an all-gracious and free step - but a step nevertheless. It was not the end of the line, the conclusion of the argument. It was the step which made the rest of the journey possible, and which ensures that we will reach our destination. But what happens between "election" and "eternity" is happening right now. And there is an impressive amount of stuff that fits in between those two events.

The fellow whose emphasis is on election is like someone who has just been given a new Corvette and he can't stop playing with the sunroof. You just want to throw a water balloon through the roof and scream, "Drive the car!" To misquote Switchfoot, "we were meant to live for so much more." Election & predestination were an essential part of why God's grace has been expressed towards His people, but if we stop there, then we're almost no better than the broad evangelical who's read The Purpose Driven Life three times and thinks that Max Lucado is "pretty heavy stuff." I'm grateful for the doctrine of election, because it was the springboard that got me really into studying theology in the first place. But after awhile, we have to admit that if you've been a Calvinist for a decade and can't stop thinking about and fighting about election, then you have settled for something just a step above milk, but far from the meat that you should be chewing on.

It needs to get into our blood, and soak into our bones, and come out every time we breathe, but it paradoxically is not to be our focus. This is because once it gets into our blood, then it can stop dancing before our eyes. This is a much better way to live in the grace and knowledge of God.

Sorry I Panicked!

Piper's Warning for Young & Restless Reformers

John Piper was asked whether there was any warning which he might have for the Young, Restless, and Reformed crowd. He responded that the greatest tendency for this crowd (and I feel he was talking to me in his response) is to idolize theology and not God Himself, much as modern worshippers idolize "loving God" rather than God Himself.

Reformed people tend to be thoughtful. That is, they come to the Bible and they want to use their minds to make sense of it. The best of them want to make sense of all of the Bible and do not pick and choose saying, "I don't like that verse. That sounds like an Arminian verse, so we will set it aside." No! Fix your brain, don't fix the Bible.

The kind of person that is prone to systematize and fit things together, like me, is wired dangerously to begin to idolize the system. I don't want to go here too much, because I think the whiplash starts to swing the other direction, and we minimize the system, thinking, and doctrine to the degree that we start to lose a foothold in the Bible...

So that would be my flag, the danger of intellectualism. And maybe the danger of certain aspects of it becoming so argumentative or defensive that it becomes unnecessarily narrow.

He then reminds us of how we should be doing things:

We should be intellectually and emotionally more engaged with the person of Christ, the person of God—the Trinity—than we are with thinking about him. Thinking about God and engaging with him are inextricably woven together. But the reason you are reading the Bible, and the reason you are framing thoughts about God from the Bible, is to make your way through those thoughts to the real person.

Calvin: "We Believe Above Human Judgment"

No, this is not Cornelius Van Til; but you could have fooled me!

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else's judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork. This we do, not as persons accustomed to seize upon some unknown thing, which, under closer scrutiny, displeases them, but fully conscious that we hold the unassailable truth! Nor do we do this as those miserable men who habitually bind over their minds to the thralldom of superstition; but we feel that the undoubted power of his divine majesty lives and breathes there. By this power we are drawn and inflamed, knowingly and willingly, to obey him, yet also more vitally and more effectively than by mere human willing or knowing...Yet they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputation are doing things backwards. For my part, although I do not excel either in great dexterity or eloquence, if I were struggling against the most crafty sort of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence their clamorous voices. And if it were a useful labor to refute their cavils, I would with no great trouble shatter the boasts they mutter in their lurking places. But even if anyone clears God's Sacred Word from man's evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty which piety requires.

John Calvin
Institutes of the Christian Religion
1.7.4-5

The Unprofessional Book Review: Calvin by Bruce Gordon

I'm not sure if I should be embarrassed, really. I've been a Christian for over 11 years, and a Calvinist for 9 years. And yet I've never read a biography of Calvin, let alone done anything more than peruse the Institutes and occasionally stick my head into his Commentaries when I needed a little wisdom. The deepest I've gotten into Calvin's life was studying up on what really happened during the Servetus affair. Part of my reticence stemmed from my early years as a Calvinist. My own self-consciousness caused me to desire a self-righteous platform from which I could proudly declare that my doctrine came from the Bible, and not from a man, and that I had never even read Calvin.

Fast forward to today; I've been a Calvinist for almost a decade. I'm now at that place where I feel like if I haven't read a proper biography of Calvin, then it's just a little bit sad. That's why I initially picked up Bruce Gordon's biography, which, as it turns out, is a very good starting place for a Calvin rookie like myself. Part of my take on this book is that it is very helpful to have a rough understanding of the Reformation before reading, because a lot of references are made to Calvin's contemporaries, and Gordon simply assumes that you know who the big players are. While I'm aware of Zwingli, I don't really know much about him. Similarly, with Luther and Bucer, though I have decent background on them, it wouldn't have hurt for me to be up on my Reformation history before diving in.

Beginning in Calvin's childhood (of which we know little) and moving through his years in the university, we see Calvin's journey from the ground up. Doubtless, Gordon avoids more trivial facts for the sake of moving along the narrative. For this, I was thankful.

Gordon takes us through Calvin's tumultuous and adventurous life. One of my favorite quotes from Calvin came after he was first thrown out of Geneva. After a few years away from the Genevans, Calvin's friend Viret essentially told Calvin he may have him return to Geneva. At this, Calvin responded, "But it would be far preferable to perish for eternity than be tormented in that place. If you wish me well, my dear Viret, do not mention the subject!" Basically, Calvin would have rather gone to hell than to Geneva.

What I want to do, instead of retelling the narrative that Gordon gives us, is to share the things which I personally gleaned from reading this life of Calvin.

1. Don't self-righteously preside as judge over the tough decisions Christians had to make in times which were different from our own
When I first learned about the Servetus affair, I stood as a modern, liberal, freedom-loving westerner. In many respects, it is very easy for us to look down upon the Genevans' decision to execute the man. While it may have been the wrong decision, we act as though the answer is obvious. The more I learned of the precarious times in which Calvin lived, the more intensely I appreciate that at the time, it was not obvious what to do with heretics such as Servetus. Most of society stood and fell upon matters of theology. Every major city really needed theologians around which society could build its metaphysics. These were times in which harboring heretical ideas could cause one city to go to war with another. This is so foreign to us in the 21st century west that we almost think that we're hearing a bad excuse without taking seriously how difficult the times they lived in were.

2. The importance of friends
This might seem like a given, but we often think of the giants of the Christian faith and think of them as monoliths or as solitary figures. However, as I read Calvin, I time and time again encountered a man desperately in need of dependable men who would stand back to back with him. The greatest disappointments in his life appeared to have been failures of friends to remain by his side during his toughest trials.

I am surprised that in the first colloquy you did not perceive the snares in which you threw yourself. The method you adopted always displeased me, namely, making half of your cause rely on the testimony of antiquity. On this matter [of images] the agreement between us is like that between fire and water. But because you committed this slip not from error or want of reflection, I leave that decision free to you. The wound, however, which was beginning to form a scar is evidently bleeding again and compels me to profess how greatly I differ from you.
(Pg 319-320)

The friendship which I most enjoyed observing was that between Calvin and Pierre Viret during Viret's time in Geneva after Farel's departure. Calvin clearly believed that Viret balanced him out. He saw Viret as crucial to his own ministry and almost could not imagine leading Geneva without Viret's help. When the time came for Viret to leave, Calvin wrote to Farel regarding his fears:

Therefore, should Viret be taken away from me I shall be utterly ruined and this church will be past recovery. On this account it is only reasonable that you and others pardon me if I leave no stone unturned to prevent his being carried off from me. In the meantime we must look for supply to the church of Lausanne, according as shall be appointed by the godly brethren, and by your own advice. Only let Viret remain with me.
(Pg 154)

By Calvin's estimation, his friend kept the peace in Geneva by his calm and soothing approach. Though the two men differed in no way theologically (at least for many years), their different approaches to dealing with error created a formidable and effective collaboration. I have a relationship that reminds me a great deal of Calvin/Viret, and friendships like this are irreplaceable. No man is an island, as they say. Gordon put Calvin's understanding of friendship in these terms: "All his life Calvin would define friendship in terms of a commitment to a common cause; it was within that framework he was able to express fraternity and intimacy" (29). Exactly. Who is a closer brother than the one who stands back to back with you in the matters which matter most significantly and eternally? Similarly, what greater betrayal can a man who loves truth experience than when his brother who stood with him in a common cause later abandons that cause?

3. The importance of a single-minded pursuit of the knowledge of God
How easy is it for we modern men to luxuriously talk about pursuit of God from the comfort of our air conditioned homes, our soft beds, with our indoor plumbing. Yet in the meantime I consider it a challenge to spend 30 minutes a day writing on my blog which 50-100 people a day read from the comfort of their living rooms or laptops. How easily we murmur and complain, and yet I don't believe that I have had one day in which I devoted myself as fully to the cause of Christ as Calvin did. He wrote without aid of typewriters, in a medieval setting with quill pens and dirty houses, in a city battling the plague and with constant threats against his life - if not from his enemies within the city, then from neighboring cities like Berne who - for all he knew, might just go to war with Geneva if they didn't like something Calvin said about predestination.

Under threat of war, against the physical odds, the man wrote prolifically and taught publicly at least three times a week, all the while training men to be pastors and trying to root out the bad ones. And when he did root out the bad ones, they would be permitted to live in neighboring cities and spread vindictive lies about him, many of which were difficult to stop from spreading. In his death, one biographer manufactured pure lies about him, calling him a sexual miscreant, a sodomite, and claimed that he died in the grip of genital lice. These were the sort of problems and pressures under which the man lived, wrote, and eventually died. Our challenges are tame by far, in comparison.

4. The importance of embracing the sinfulness of our leaders in the faith
If we want to only take our cues from sinless men, then we need look no further than the example of our Lord Himself. However, we need heroes in the faith who are fallen and sinful like we are. These are men with the same sin nature which we also suffer with, and as such, we need them, so that we can see how they fought for joy in God, and also so that we can learn from their failures.

I could write a lot about Calvin's own vices; about his pridefulness, about his uncharitable words against his opponents (he still pales in comparison to Luther in terms of sheer colorful expression), or about his treatment of dissenters within Geneva. He was quick to remember betrayals and to repay them in his own way, often years later.

But at the same time, he was keenly aware of his own wickedness, and this compelled him to cling to Jesus even further. In his final confession before he died, he expressed that "alas, my desires and my zeal, if I may so describe it, have been so cold and flagging that I am conscious of imperfections in all that I am and do." Bruce Gordon observes, "It was his acute sensitivity to the gap between what was and what should be that distressed him." While he held others to high standards, he did the same for himself. He was not willing to judge others by a standard which he was not also willing to apply to himself. It is this way of living in the face of sin from which I take great encouragement.


Conclusion

The only shortfall in the book, by my estimate, is his discussion of the affair with Westphal. At first I wasn't going to mention this, thinking that I simply hadn't properly understood Gordon. However, in Paul Helm's review of this same book, he mentions that Gordon almost entirely omits discussing the details of Calvin's struggle against Westphal. This omission caused a great deal of confusion for me over the course of about ten pages, as I simply tried to reconnect with the narrative, wondering what I had missed. While Gordon does mention that their disagreement was regarding the Lord's Supper, and he does give the blow-by-blow of Calvin's polemics against Westphal, what is largely missing from the narrative was the substance of their disagreement and why it was that the Lutherans generally supported what Westphal was saying.

Overall, I am grateful for Bruce Gordon's work in this book. I recommend it wholeheartedly as a very readable, somewhat brief (though about twice as long as T.H.L. Parker's biography). I can't help but think that Bruce Gordon's Calvin paired with Paul Helm's book John Calvin's Ideas would be an incredibly potent reading combination. In fact, Helm's book is the next book that I've started, having now finished Gordon's largely historical overview of the man's life.

Now This is Why We Read History Books...

Matters came to a head in 1546 when Pierre Ameaux, a citizen of Geneva, was publicly humiliated for opposing Calvin's teaching on predestination. The council had proposed a fine, but Calvin and his colleagues insisted on something more degrading: Ameaux was forced to walk through the city dressed only in a shirt and carrying a torch.

Bruce Gordon, Calvin, 2009

Just imagine if we could get our own magistrates to re-institute this old Genevan punishment for being an Arminian. On second thought, that would require 99% of the U.S. population to go pantless from the womb, so... lets just keep this one in the history books.

Calvinism is Back

The Christian Science Monitor has another in a long line of stories on the ascendancy of Calvinism. Christian Faith: Calvinism is Back by Josh Burek

Choice nuggets from the article:

What newcomers at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) hear is hardly "Christianity for Dummies." Nor is it "Extreme Makeover: Born-Again Edition."
...
Much of modern Christianity preaches a comforting Home Depot theology: You can do it. We can help.
...
For all its controversy, predestination is something New Calvinists accept as part of their take-it-all-or-leave-it approach to the Bible.
...
Ultimately, Calvinism's contrast with chummier, Jesus-is-my-friend forms of evangelicalism may highlight a more fundamental change in the world of faith. Bestselling religion writer Phyllis Tickle sees the interest in Calvinism as the first phase of a backlash against the dominant religious trend of today: the rise of "Emergence Christianity."

Thanks for the nuggets, Josh. Though I'm almost certain you spelled Mark Dever's name wrong for pretty much the entire article.

How to Defeat Calvinism

King and Servant Show 7

Jonathan and Bryan discuss the importance of understanding the relationship between historic Calvinism and paradoxical theology and how it logical gives room for the well-meant offer of the gospel, the two-wills of God and common grace.

Piper on the New Calvinists