Dr. James White reviews comments by Cheryl Schatz regarding John 6:37, and her particular way of undercutting John 6?s clear testimony to monergism. The section begins around the 42 minute mark and continues to 1:18:50.
Text: John 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Good times: Got to hang out with my friends at Apologia Radio for a two hour show, talking about God’s Sovereignty, the nature of man, and the biblical gospel. The show airs tomorrow (Saturday) in the Phoenix area but can be heard online at this link now.
Douglas A. Sweeney is professor of church history and the history of Christian thought and director of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He I’ve frequently been asked whether Luther was a Calvinist. The answer, of course, is no. Calvinism didn’t emerge until the end of Luther’s life. Arminianism emerged long after Luther had passed away. So Luther himself never engaged the controversy that divided Reformed Protestantism after the Reformation.
It’s true: Calvin was called a Lutheran in the early years of his ministry. And there are notable similarities between the two. But as the Reformed movement grew, it grew apart from Lutheranism in some noteworthy ways. And as Lutheran thought developed during and after the Reformation, Lutherans leaned toward Arminians more than Calvinists on a few of the doctrinal issues that divided the latter groups.
So perhaps it’s worth a minute or two to walk through the ways in which Lutherans came down on the five “points” of Calvinism. We should all understand by now that there’s far more to Calvinism than five simple points, that the five points themselves were sharpened after Calvin’s death, and that some think that Calvin himself did not affirm them all. So Calvinist friends, hold your fire. The goal here is not to oversimplify your faith, but to scan the ways that leading early Lutherans addressed the matters fought about most fiercely at the Reformed Synod of Dordt (1618–1619), and in the subsequent debates between Calvinists and Arminians.
Four Branches
Before we attack this matter directly, let me take just a minute to remind us that, technically speaking, the debate between Calvinists and Arminians really divided but a minority of the early Protestant world.
Despite the tendency of some to assume that all evangelicals fall somewhere on the continuum between Calvinism and Arminianism, it is important to remember that there were four main branches of the Protestant Reformation—Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Church of England—and that Calvinists and Arminians were on the same branch (though their controversy would captivate the Church of England as well, and was foreshadowed by developments in the doctrine of the English Reformation).
These branches parted gradually over the course of the 16th century. It wasn’t until the mid-to-late 16th century, for example, that the lines between the Lutherans and the Reformed were drawn clearly. And it wasn’t until the late 16th and early 17th centuries that the lines were drawn starkly between the Calvinists and Arminians.
Arminianism emerged on the Reformed branch of Protestantism. Arminius and his followers considered themselves to be Reformed. They said they wanted to reform Reformed Protestant theology in response to what they deemed unhealthy Calvinist extremes.
Nevertheless, the Synod of Dordt changed the equation once and for all—and eventually affected people all over the Protestant world. So without any further ado, here’s where the Lutherans came down on the poorly named five points of Calvinism.
Lutherans and the Five Points of Calvinism
I’ll take this question point by point, offering evidence from reliable and accessible translations of classic Lutheran texts and confessions: the American edition of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Helmut T. Lehmann et al. (Concordia Publishing House and Fortress Press, 1957); the latest English edition of the Lutheran Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Fortress Press, 2000), which contains all the authoritative Lutheran confessions, such as the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord; and Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3d ed., trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs (Augsburg Publishing House, 1899), a compendium of Lutheran scholastic theology. These are exceptionally important Protestant theological sources, which should be read and used frequently by evangelical leaders.
Bear in mind that we are barely scratching the surface in this article. This is a skeletal presentation based on selected representatives of early Lutheran thought. Most Lutherans use the Lutheran confessions when interpreting Bible doctrines such as these. But there is diversity of opinion on the relative weight and authority of the other materials I quote below. Continue reading
Over at the it is helpful nevertheless:
Annotated prooftexts
Many Arminians labor under the misapprehension that the case for Calvinism begins and ends with Rom 9. In my observation, that’s common due to their self-reinforcing ignorance of the exegetical literature.
In this post I’m going to quote a number of Reformed prooftexts, in canonical order, then quote interpretive comments by various scholars. So the post has a simple structure: I quote a text of Scripture, then I quote one or more scholars expounding the passage. Taken by themselves, Reformed prooftexts might seem to beg the question by presupposing a Reformed interpretation thereof. (Arminian prooftexting is open to the same objection.) I’ve gone beyond bare prooftexting to provide exegetical arguments for the Reformed interpretation.
I’m doing this in part for the benefit of laymen who don’t have easy access to the best modern commentaries. But it’s also useful to have some of this material collated, at one’s fingertips.
Although both Calvinists and Arminians have their one-verse prooftexts, Reformed theological method is based less on snappy one-liners than tracing out the flow or argument or narrative flow of larger blocks of Scripture (e.g. Gen 37-50; Exod 4-14; Isa 40-48; Jn 6, 10-12, 17; Rom 9-11; Eph 1-2, 4).
I’ll quote Calvinists, Arminians, an open theist, and some scholars I don’t know how to classify. All the quotes will support or be consistent with Reformed theology. You might wonder why a non-Calvinist scholar would offer an interpretation consist with, or supportive of, Calvinism. One reason is that some commentators compartmentalize exegetical and systematic theology. They think you should interpret each book on its own terms, without shoehorning passages into a harmonious system of doctrine. Likewise, some scholars think some verses are more Calvinistic while others are more Arminian. They don’t interpret one in relation to the other. In addition, some liberal scholars don’t think Scripture has a consistent theological message.
This post is not exhaustive, either in terms of Reformed prooftexts or supporting arguments. It’s a sampler. It understates the exegetical case for Calvinism.
(Because everything below the break consists of direct quotes, I won’t bother with quotation marks or indented paragraphs.)
Gen 45:5-8; 50:20
5 And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. 6 For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. 7 And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. 8 So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.
20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
God used their crime for his purposes, purposes they could not have anticipated. Here Joseph sounds forth the overarching theological conviction of the Joseph Novel: God’s purposes are not thwarted by human sin, but rather advanced by it through his good graces. The hand of God is seen, not only in clearly miraculous interventions and revelations, but also in the working out of divine purpose through human agency, frail and broken as it is. Joseph knows it to be true: “You sold me…” but “God sent me…”
Joseph does not deny their evil intent. But the word play, using the same verb with different idioms, highlights the way God has turned the evil intent of humans into an opportunity to accomplish his good purposes. They planned harm, but God reconfigured their evil and produced good from it…The brothers sold Joseph to Egypt with evil intent, but it was really God who brought him to Egypt in order to preserve life. B. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge 2009), 361,388.
God’s providence has directed everything, even the misdeeds of the brothers. It underscores the true purpose of the entire account of Joseph: God is the subject of the story, and he is moving all things to the end and goal that he has decreed (cf. 50:20). That goal is the preservation of a “remnant,” or seed on the earth.
Joseph again highlights the fact of the sovereignty and providence of God. He states emphatically that the true source of his coming to Egypt is not the brothers’ evil activity…Rather, it was the will of God that brought about the present circumstances: this opening statement clearly proclaims the doctrine of providence. It was God who placed Joseph in these various official positions.
Joseph simply believes that God even uses the sinfulness of humans to bring about his good purposes for the world. This theological concept is no stranger to the rest of Scripture (see Prov 16:1; 20:24; Ps 37:23; Jer 10:23). As Proverbs 16:9 says, “The heart of man plans his way, but Yahweh directs his steps.” There is no stronger statement regarding the true meaning of the sovereignty of God in Scripture than what Joseph says here to his brothers. J. Currid, Genesis (EP 2003), 2:324-325; 397.
“But God sent me ahead of you” (v7a) reiterates Joseph’s interpretation of his travail in Egypt…Joseph viewed the families of Jacob as the surviving “remnant” of the world’s populations (cp. the Noah imagery, v5). If the Jacobites fail to survive, the whole of the human family will die without salvation hope. Joseph’s role as savior of the world from starvation typifies the salvation of the nations that the promises call for (e.g. 12:3). K. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26 (B&H 2005), 2:813. Continue reading
In an article “Ecclesiology of the New Calvinism” Wes Bredenhof Josh Patterson, and Eric Geiger, this book could be considered a popular introduction to ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). The authors are associated with New Calvinism (a.k.a. Young, Restless, and Reformed) and even might want to describe themselves as being ‘Reformed.’
There are many good things to say about this book. Chief among them would be the way in which the authors argue that biblical churches need to be focussed on the Saviour in every aspect of their existence. The authors have a high view of Scripture and that leads them to see rightly many aspects of the doctrine of the church. For example, they argue for the centrality of preaching and the necessity of biblical church discipline. As I was reading Creature of the Word, there were several times where I had to stop and share with my Facebook friends some of its excellent insights.
And yet this book also highlighted for me some significant differences between confessionally Reformed churches and the New Calvinism. While there are many things we can appreciate about this movement, there are also points of departure. They call themselves Calvinists, and in terms of the doctrine of salvation they are. However, I’m quite confident that Calvin would not want his name associated with this book. Let me highlight the main problems under three headings.
The Beginning of the Church
In the first chapter of the book, the authors make a distinction between Israel and the church. They write, “In Acts 2, the Word of God formed a people yet again” (14). Shortly thereafter, they write, “God spoke to Abraham and created Israel; and in the same way, God created the Church through the proclaimed gospel of the revealed Word, Jesus Christ” (15). In case there should be any doubt, consider this question they ask, “What makes the Church able to succeed where the Israelites so often failed?” (16). It is quite evident that the authors take an approach where Israel and the church are considered as separate entities. With this view, the Church only comes into existence in the New Testament era. This is a common view, influenced by dispensationalism, but it is not the Reformed view of the church.
The Reformed view can be found in this line from article 27 of the Belgic Confession: “This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will be to the end, for Christ is an eternal king who cannot be without subjects.” This is a fine piece of logical argument and it likely came into the Belgic Confession via the influence of John Calvin. He mentions the same argument in one of his sermons on the ascension of Christ. The argument is simple and biblical:
Premise one: Christ is an eternal king
Premise two: By definition, a king needs to have subjects
Conclusion: Christ the king has always had subjects. Those subjects are those whom he has gathered into his church.
This view is not only found in Calvin and the Belgic Confession. It’s also in the Heidelberg Catechism. In answer 54, Reformed believers confess that “the Son of God, out of the whole human race, from the beginning of the world to its end, gathers, defends and preserves for himself, by his Spirit and Word, in the unity of the true faith, a church chosen to everlasting life.” The church begins in Genesis, not in Acts. This has always been the position of Reformed churches. The position of Chandler et al. actually has more in common with Anabaptism than historic Calvinism.
The Membership of the Church
The vast majority of the New Calvinists are Baptists. Even though they don’t use the word ‘Baptist’ in the name of their church, these New Calvinists adopt a Baptist perspective when it comes to the membership of the church. Creature of the Word reflects that same perspective. The membership of the church is made up of baptized believers only. The children of believers are not included. Now interestingly, Creature of the Word does have a chapter on ministry to children and there are many good things written there. The authors emphasize how “moral training” should not be the goal or modus operandi of church ministry to children. Instead, the focus needs to be on the gospel. That’s an excellent emphasis. However, it could be sharpened dramatically if the children are regarded as covenant children, members of the church. Then the children can be addressed on the basis of their already existing covenant relationship to God and urged to the way of life within that relationship. Continue reading
On March 12, John Piper was the guest lecturer for the 7th annual Gaffin Lectures at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. The title of Dr. Piper’s lecture is “The New Calvinism and the New Community: The Doctrines of Grace and the Meaning of Race.”
The New Calvinism and the New Community from Westminster Theological Seminary on Vimeo.
As you might already be aware, for the last couple of weeks I have had the distinct honor and privilege of hosting Dr. James White’s “Dividing Line” broadcast while he was away on a ministry trip to Europe. For those of you would wish to have all five youtube videos at one internet link, view here they are:
Hour 1. “Law and Gospel.”
Hour 2. “The Five Solas of the Reformation.”
Hour 3. The “T” in the TULIP, “Total Depravity:
Hour 4. The “U” in the TULIP, “Unconditional Election.”
Hour 5. The “L” in the TULIP, “Limited Atonement.”