Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism, Part 4
As I bring this "introduction" to a close, the final comment I would like to make is that the five points of Calvinism (or the five points of Arminianism) are the particular product of a particular way of studying the Scriptures. They are the product of systematic theology, which is a thematic approach to studying the Scriptures. Systematic theology picks a topic or theme and then searches the Scriptures to gather all of the data on that topic together in one place. Then, the systematic theologian massages the data and formulates summary statements on these matters. These statements are creedal statements. Systematic theology is inescapable. Even those who despise theology are systematic theologians. Anyone who says they believe in “once saved, always saved,” or that we are saved by grace through faith saved "by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone" is doing systematic theology. The reason is that the bible never says it in those words. Even those who say they believe in “no creed but Christ,” are making a creedal statement. Although the Scriptures never say explicitly that we should have no creed but Christ, these folks have engaged in systematic theologizing by searching the scriptures, examining the data and forming the creedalistic statement “we have no creed but Christ.”
But in saying that systematic theology is inescapable we do not say that this is the only way to study or approach the Scriptures. One of the major projects within reformed circles in the last century was the study of biblical theology. I realize that there is a type of “biblical theology” practiced by liberal scholars, but the version I am speaking of is the biblical theology of scholars like Vos and Ridderbos. I would also mention that, in this case, the term “biblical theology” is being used in a very narrow, technical sense. In speaking of this as “biblical theology” I am not saying that “systematic theology” or other approaches are unbiblical.
Having said that, “biblical theology” approaches the bible from a historical standpoint, as opposed to a thematic standpoint. It seeks to trace the great works of God throughout history. You will often hear those who practice biblical theology speak of “redemptive history.” You will hear them speak of “redemptive historical” preaching. What they mean by this is that God has had a plan for the redemption of His people, and the bible unfolds for us the story of redemption.
So, whereas a systematic theologian will look at particular texts and ask what they say about particular thematic issues, the biblical theologian looks at particular texts and asks how they contribute to the overall flow of redemptive history. The biblical theologian sees creation, the fall, the flood, the giving of the law, the various covenants, the united and divided kingdom eras, the fall of Jerusalem, the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, Pentecost and the 2nd coming as “redemptive historical” events which contribute to the outworking of the plan of redemption.
The difference between systematic and biblical theology can also be seen by looking at a couple of Latin phrases. You may have heard the term “ordo salutis,” which means “order of salvation.” When theologians speak of the “ordo salutis” they are speaking of the order in which God works out His decrees. When they speak of such things, they are speaking of the logical outworking of God’s decrees, not the temporal outworking. The five points of Calvinism are a part of the “ordo salutis.”
Biblical theologians will use the term “historia salutis,” which refers to the history of salvation. In the “historia salutis,” the biblical theologian looks at events from the standpoint of where they fit in the history of redemption.
In this regard, we might look at how systematic and biblical theologians look at an event like the fall. The systematic theologian will view the fall in terms of its place in the order of salvation. For those who are interested there is a whole realm of debate about the order of salvation that wrestles with whether or not God decreed to elect before or after He decreed to permit the fall. I won’t have the time or space to tackle this here, but the systematic theologian looks at how the fall relates to things like election, calling, regeneration and conversion. The biblical theologian on the other hand, will be more interested in how the fall relates to the proto-evangel, the Abrahamic covenant and things like that. Or, I could say that the biblical theologian will look at what place the proto-evangel, the Abrahamic covenant and other things played in reversing the effects of the fall.
There is some debate about how biblical and systematic theology relate to each other. Some say that biblical theology is the servant of systematic theology. Others say that systematic theology must be controlled and governed by biblical theology. My interest here is to simply point out that these are two different perspectives, or trajectories with which we might approach the Scripture. Both have value. Further, these aren’t the only possible trajectories with which we might approach Scripture.
There has been some terrific work done using literary approaches to the Scripture. Whereas biblical theologians approach the bible as a book of history, systematicians approach it as a book of themes, literary scholars approach it as a book of literature. Each approach helps the reader find new and pertinent things in the Scripture.
Then of course there is the devotional reader who reads the Scripture simply to see what the Word of God has to say to them about their daily life. This is the vast majority of those who read the bible. They don’t come with any particular agenda except to see what today’s bible reading has to say about today’s problems.
Having said all of that I’ll now begin coming to the point I want to make. All of these points of view are valid. In this I am arguing along the lines of John Frame in his advocacy of multi-perspectivalism. Frame understands that we all come to the Scripture from different perspectives and it applies in different ways from different perspectives. These differing perspectives are not in conflict, and we should do all we can to harmonize the different perspectives. But, we are not a blank slate when it comes to reading the Scripture. We all have particular bents and questions we bring to the study of Scripture. The questions we ask of Scripture will determine the answers we get.
In one of his books (sorry I can’t remember which one) Eugene Peterson argues that, through systematization we often flatten out the bible. What he means is that the bible is full of peaks and valleys, different landscapes and different points of view. There are those who think that systematic theology is the only way to approach Scripture, or that systematic theology is the “queen of the sciences.” In such a perspective, the system controls the interpretation of every Scripture. Thus, the peaks are lopped off and all of the valleys are filled and the bible ceases to become the story of God’s mighty acts in history, but becomes something along the lines of a tech manual or legal brief.
I bring all of this up in the context of a discussion of the five points of Calvinism because, though I believe the five points are clearly biblical, I think we can seek to apply them in ways that do violence to some parts of the Scripture. This goes for Calvinists and their opponents.
For example, the doctrine of total depravity basically teaches that man, in his natural, unregenerate state, cannot believe in Christ in a saving fashion. Therefore, many Calvinists will have a seizure if someone tells someone else to “choose” to follow Christ. I have been around many Calvinists who will say that we should never tell anyone to “choose” Christ because they can’t choose Christ apart from the supernatural regenerating work of God in their hearts. These Calvinists are right in their theology but wrong in their theology. If this were so, then there is much in the bible that would violate these principles. If these folks are correct, then they should fault Joshua in Joshua 24:15 for saying to the Israelites:
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
In this text Joshua makes no mention of the Israelites inability to choose to serve the Lord apart from His regenerating work. It is true that they couldn’t choose to serve the Lord apart from His work, but in God’s sovereignty, He ordained that Joshua didn’t need to say that at that time.
Similarly, I have met Calvinists who will never tell an unbeliever that God loves them. They say that God only loves the elect, and they will point to God’s love for Jacob and hatred for Esau as proof that God doesn’t love the non-elect. So, they go to John 3:16 and God’s love of the world becomes a love for only the “world of the elect.”
In my mind these things do violence to the text. I believe it was Spurgeon who said that if you come to a verse in the bible that doesn’t correspond with your system, then that’s too bad for your system. And don’t forget that Spurgeon was a flaming Calvinist. It’s just that his flame burned hotter for Christ and the bible than his system.
Non-Calvinists “flatten” those passages that teach that you can’t choose Christ apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit with passages that say you must choose Christ. Calvinists flatten calls to choose Christ with passages that say you can’t. We’ve got to find a way to let both types of passages stand. This involves some hard work. We should try to harmonize Scripture with Scripture, but we’ve got do it in such a way that one passage doesn’t negate another, rather both passages stand and keep their force.
One of the reasons I love some of the Calvinists I have read from history is that most of them had a fairly nuanced understanding of matters that many of their followers don’t. It is common for Calvinists to say that man’s will is not free, yet if you look at the Westminster Confession you will see that it has a fairly robust understanding of human freedom. It conflicts with the popular understanding of human freedom, but it doesn’t deny it the way some think it does. Also, I have already mentioned that the great Calvinistic theologian Charles Hodge begins his discussion of “limited atonement,” by talking about the universal benefits of the death of Christ.
I offer these thoughts as a precursor to my defense of the five points. I am absolutely convinced that the five points of Calvinism are biblical and you should believe them like I believe them. I’m just as convinced that I could be wrong on these matters, and I am also convinced that the five points don’t summarize the totality of Scripture.
In my opinion, some of the divisions between Calvinists and non- or anti- Calvinists could be resolved by getting a grasp of this idea of multi-perspectivalism. This won’t resolve all of the tensions. We can’t say that man is constitutionally unable to choose Christ and constitutionally able to choose Christ. But, I think we can move a little closer to one another if we keep these things in mind.
And with all of that said and done, my hope is that tomorrow, God willing, I’ll launch into a discussion of the first of the five points – total depravity.
The rest of the series:
Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism
Part 5The Five Points of Calvinism
Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace
Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints
Recent Comments