Monthly Archives: May 2022

In An Unmarked Grave

Posted on by
Reply

By Ryan Griffith (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) – pastor at Cities Church in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and a Senior Fellow at the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.

source: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/hero-in-an-unmarked-grave

On May 27, 1564, just after eight o’clock in the evening, a nurse urgently summoned Theodore Beza (1519–1605) to Calvin’s bedside. “We found he had already died,” Calvin’s friend and fellow pastor later wrote. “On that day, then, at the same time with the setting sun, this splendid luminary was withdrawn from us.”1 Calvin was 54 years old.

Calvin’s death sent a shock wave throughout Geneva and beyond. Beza writes, “That night and the following day there was a general lamentation throughout the city . . . all lamenting the loss of one who was, under God, a common parent and comfort.” He records that two days later “the entire city” gathered at the St. Pierre Cathedral to honor their beloved pastor. Despite Calvin’s prominence, the funeral was unusually simple, “with no extraordinary pomp.”2 But Calvin’s burial was particularly unusual.

Unmarked Grave

Eighteen years earlier, on February 18, 1546, fellow Reformer Martin Luther died at the age of 63. As was common practice for ministers, Luther’s remains were interred inside the church where he had faithfully served. His casket lies in Wittenberg’s Castle Church, near the pulpit, seven feet below the floor of the nave. Luther’s successor and fellow Reformer, Philip Melanchthon (1490–1560), is buried beside him.

So also William Farel (1489–1565), who first called Calvin to Geneva in 1536, is buried in the cathedral of Neuchâtel, where he spent the final years of his ministry. When Calvin’s friend and successor Theodore Beza died in 1605, he was buried next to the pulpit of St. Pierre, the Genevan church in which he and Calvin ministered together.

But Calvin’s remains lie elsewhere.

Rather than being interred in St. Pierre, Calvin’s body was carried outside the city wall to a marshy burial ground for commoners called Plainpalais. With close friends in attendance, Calvin’s body was wrapped in a simple shroud, enclosed in a rough casket, and lowered into the earth. Beza writes that Calvin’s plot was unlisted and, “as he [had] commanded, without any gravestone.”3

Why did Calvin command that he be buried, contrary to common practice, in an unmarked grave? Some speculate that he wanted to discourage religious pilgrims from visiting his resting place or to prevent accusations from the Roman church that he desired veneration as a saint.4 But the answer lies somewhere deeper — in Calvin’s understanding of Christian modesty.

Forgotten Meaning of Modesty

When we speak of modesty today, we most often mean dressing or behaving in such a way as to avoid impropriety or indecency. But modesty more generally refers to the quality of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of oneself. For centuries, the church understood the connection. Immodest dress was not simply ostentatious or sexually suggestive; it reflected an overemphasis on appearance. As Jesus warned, outward appearance can mask impiety (Matthew 6:16) or pride (Luke 18:12).

This is why both Gentile women converts in Ephesus and the Jewish Christians addressed in Hebrews are urged to consider how their outward appearance relates to the disposition of the heart. Excessive adornment could be evidence of self-importance (1 Timothy 2:9). Acceptable worship requires a posture of reverence, not pretension (Hebrews 12:28). Thus, a modest person represents himself neither too highly nor too meanly because he understands both the dignity and the humility of being transformed by the grace of God.

Modesty, then, is simply the outward reflection of true Christian humility. It obliterates pride by embracing the reality that a Christian is both creaturely and beloved. In this light, self-importance becomes absurd. Grandiosity becomes laughable. Celebrity becomes monstrous.

We Are Not Our Own

For Calvin, the gospel radically reshapes our view of self. As those created in God’s image, provisioned by his goodness, redeemed by his mercy, transformed by his grace, and called to his mission, those who belong to Christ no longer live for themselves. “Now the great thing is this,” Calvin writes, “we are consecrated and dedicated to God in order that we may thereafter think, speak, meditate, and do, nothing except to his glory.” Calvin continues,

If we, then, are not our own but the Lord’s, it is clear what error we must flee and whither we must direct all the acts of our life. We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us not therefore see it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours.

Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal. Oh how much has that man profited who, having been taught that he is not his own, has taken away dominion and rule from his own reason that he may yield it to God! For, as consulting our self-interest is the pestilence that most effectively leads to our destruction, so the sole haven of salvation is to be wise in nothing through ourselves but to follow the leading of the Lord alone.5

Modesty and humility flow from a heart transformed by the Spirit of Christ. “As soon as we are convinced that God cares for us,” Calvin writes, “our minds are easily led to patience and humility.”6 The Spirit shapes us with a kind of moderation that “gives the preference to others” and that guards us from being “easily thrown into agitation.”7 Modesty blossoms when we experience the freedom from having to prove ourselves to God or one another.
‘Modesty, His Constant Friend’
Calvin’s life reflected this reality. Despite the doors that were opened to him through his writing and network of connections, he was committed to “studiously avoiding celebrity.”8 When the Institutes was published in 1536, he was so successful in his object to “not acquire fame” that no one in Basel knew that he was its author. For the rest of his life, wherever he went, he took care to “conceal that I was the author of that performance.”9 Calvin even sought to avoid a wider ministry in Geneva, having “resolved to continue in the same privacy and obscurity.” He was drawn into the limelight only when William Farel warned him “with a dreadful imprecation” that turning down the post would be refusing God’s call to service.10 In brief autobiographical comments he wrote the year that he died, we see a glimmer of his own surprise over God’s sovereign hand through his life.
God so led me about through different turnings and changes that he never permitted me to rest in any place, until, in spite of my natural disposition, he brought me forth to public notice. . . . I was carried, I know not how, as it were by force to the Imperial assemblies, where, willing or unwilling, I was under the necessity of appearing before the eyes of many.11
It is no surprise, then, that a few days before his death, Calvin exhorted his friends to not be those who “ostentatiously display themselves and, from overweening confidence, insist that all their opinions should be approved by others.” Instead, he pleaded with them to “conduct themselves with modesty, keeping far aloof from all haughtiness of mind.”12 For Beza, Calvin’s modesty — forged by his vision of God’s glory, Christ’s redeeming love, and the Spirit’s animating power — was his defining characteristic. After Calvin’s burial, Beza captured it in verse:
Why in this humble and unnoticed tomb
Is Calvin laid — the dread of falling Rome;
Mourn’d by the good, and by the wicked fear’d
By all who knew his excellence revered?
From whom ev’n virtue’s self might virtue learn,
And young and old its value may discern?
’Twas modesty, his constant friend on earth,
That laid this stone, unsculptured with a name;
Oh! happy ground, enrich’d with Calvin’s worth,
More lasting far than marble is thy fame!13
Free to Be Forgotten
In old Geneva, on the grounds of the college Calvin founded, stands an immense stone memorial to four leaders of the Protestant Reformation. At its center are towering reliefs of Calvin, Beza, Farel, and John Knox (1513–1572). Calvin would surely detest it. But the monument is a metaphor. We live in a culture that fears obscurity and irrelevance. We measure ourselves against others and build our own platforms in the hope that we will not be forgotten. We attempt to distinguish ourselves at the expense of the humility and modesty that honors Christ. Calvin would have us be free from such striving.
For however anyone may be distinguished by illustrious endowments, he ought to consider with himself that they have not been conferred upon him that he might be self-complacent, that he might exalt himself, or even that he might hold himself in esteem. Let him, instead of this, employ himself in correcting and detecting his faults, and he will have abundant occasion for humility. In others, on the other hand, he will regard with honor whatever there is of excellences and will, by means of love, bury their faults. The man who will observe this rule, will feel no difficulty in preferring others before himself. And this, too, Paul meant when he added, that they ought not to have everyone a regard to themselves, but to their neighbors, or that they ought not to be devoted to themselves. Hence it is quite possible that a pious man, even though he should be aware that he is superior, may nevertheless hold others in greater esteem.14
We may rightly regard Calvin as a hero of the faith, but he didn’t ultimately see himself that way. Humility had taught him to walk modestly before God and others — and, in the end, the freedom to lie down in a forgotten grave.

Theodore Beza, “The Life of John Calvin” in Tracts Related to the Reformation (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), 1:xcv. ↩
Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. ↩
Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. ↩
Eighteenth-century guidebooks indeed list the disused Plainpalais cemetery as an important stop for tourists, though they warn that pilgrims will search for Calvin’s resting place in vain. By the nineteenth century, keepers of the burial ground staked out a “likely-enough” site for Calvin’s grave (complete with a rudimentary marker) simply to avoid the irritation of being so frequently asked. ↩
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 3.7.1 (emphasis mine). ↩
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen (Edinburgh: T. Constable,1855), 149. ↩
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: T. Constable, 1851) 52–53. ↩
John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Edinburgh: Edinburg Printing Company, 1845), 1:xli, xlii. ↩
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xlii. ↩
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xlii. ↩
Calvin, Psalms, 1:xli, xliii. ↩
Beza, Tracts, 1:xci. ↩
Beza was widely known for his literary works. As a humanist, he became famous for his collection of Latin poems in Juvenilia, published just before his conversion in 1548. He continued to write poetry, satires, and dramas until the end of his life. Francis Sisbon’s nineteenth-century translation attempts to capture the sense of the Latin in a more familiar poetic form (Theodore Beza, The Life of John Calvin, trans. Francis Sibson, [Philadelphia: J. Whetham, 1836], 94). For the original text, see Calvin and Beza, Tracts, 1:xcvi. ↩
Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul, 53. ↩

Preaching Should Aim At Simplicity

Posted on by
Reply

Simplicity in Preaching by Kevin DeYoung – original source https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/simplicity-in-preaching/

It’s short and so helpful that I think I can say without exaggeration that every preacher should try to read J. C. Ryle’s Simplicity in Preaching. The 22-page booklet, recently (and inexpensively) reprinted by Banner of Truth, began as an address to a group of clergy at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London in the latter part of the 19th century.

Before moving to the substance of his lecture (which Ryle reworked into written prose), Ryle starts off with four prefatory remarks:

1. “I ask all my readers to remember that to attain simplicity in preaching is of the utmost importance to every minister who wishes to be useful to souls.” We aren’t useful unless we are understood, and we aren’t understood without being clear and straightforward.

2. “To attain simplicity in preaching is by no means an easy matter.” It’s actually much easier to sound erudite than to be intelligible. Simplicity is hard work.

3. “When I talk of simplicity in preaching, I would not have my readers suppose I mean childish preaching.” Simple does not mean shallow or condescending.

4. “It is not coarse or vulgar preaching that is needed.” Ryle would have us speak as courteous gentlemen, not as uneducated rabble-rousers.

From there, Ryle launches into the body of his address, offering “five brief hints” for simplicity in preaching:

1. “If you want to attain simplicity in preaching, take care that you have a clear view of the subject upon which you are going to preach.” If you aim at nothing, you’ll always hit nothing. If you begin in a fog, you will leave your people in darkness. The goal of the preacher is not to be thought clever, but to be thought clear. This means, according to Ryle, that we should not be ashamed of having divisions in our sermons, nor ashamed of announcing those divisions. “If we would be simple, there must be order in a sermon as there is in an army.”

2. “Try to use in all your sermons, as far as you can, simple words.” This doesn’t mean the preacher can only use words of one syllable or that he cannot teach important terms and definitions. Rather, it means we should avoid unexplained jargon and words that ordinary people never use (like “erudite” perhaps?!). Preachers must not try to impress the learned or fall back into preening seminary-speak. The application of this point will vary from congregation to congregation, but as a general rule Ryle is surely right: the more you use plan common words, the better.

3. “Take care to aim at a simple style of composition.” Beware of colons and semicolons in your discourse. Beware of long sentences and long paragraphs. Try to develop pithy points and memorable sayings. Ryle gives several examples that we would say are Tweet-worthy: “Hell is paved with good intentions.” “Sin forsaken is one of the best evidences of sin forgiven.” “Meddle with no man’s person, but spare no man’s sins.” “One thief on the cross was saved, that none should despair, and only one, that none should presume.”

4. “If you wish to preach simply, use a direct style.” I imagine some homiletics professors may disagree, but Ryle is adamant that preachers should avoid “we” when they mean “I” and stick with “you” when they mean to address the people directly.

5. “You must use plenty of anecdotes and illustrations.” I imagine some of us in Reformed circles have come to be suspicious of illustrations. To be sure, illustrations can overtake an ill-equipped sermon, but the Puritans were constantly using figures, metaphors, and stories. Ryle cautions against elaborate story-telling and stuffing our sermons so full of illustrations that the message becomes a cake “entirely of plums and containing hardly any flour.” And yet, if we follow the example of Jesus, we will find examples and illustrations all around us.

Finally, Ryle finishes the address with four concluding remarks:

1. “We ought to aim not merely at letting off fireworks, but at preaching that which will do lasting good to souls.” We mean to edify, not entertain.

2. “All the simplicity in the world can do no good, unless you preach the simple gospel of Jesus Christ so fully and clearly that everybody can understand it.” Clear sermons don’t save without a clear gospel.

3. “All the simplicity in the world, again, is useless without a good lively delivery.” Be careful: simple sermons can still be boring sermons.

4. “Above all, let us not forget that all the simplicity in the world is useless without prayer for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the grant of God’s blessing, and a life corresponding in some measure to what we preach.” The preacher works hard, so that God might work through us. We still depend on him for power.

Amen and amen. Do yourself and your hearers a favor—take 30 minutes sometime in the next month to read Ryle on preaching.

Scripture’s Sufficiency

Posted on by
Reply

Article: “What Does Scriptural Sufficiency Mean?” by Jordan L. Steffaniak – original source – https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-does-scriptural-sufficiency-mean/

Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience according to the Reformed confessions.

Such an understanding of Scripture has been confessed by Protestant Christians since the Reformation. However, our understanding of sufficiency has corroded over the years. There has been a slippage between how the Reformers thought about sufficiency and how many modern Christians do.

When the doctrine of sufficiency is being wielded as a weapon against areas as widely divergent as Critical Race Theory to Classical Theism you know you’ve found an issue in need of clarification.

So, what does it mean to say Scripture is sufficient?

Let’s Start with Some Questions

Let’s start with a few questions to orient ourselves.

Is Scripture sufficient for changing the oil on my pickup truck? I think most would say no. Maybe there are general principles to work hard and not lose my temper when I cut my hand but there isn’t an instruction list for how to properly do this.

So, let’s try another one. Is Scripture sufficient for determining the validity of the law of non-contradiction? I think most would say sort of. But this is more difficult than the first.

Now, a more difficult question. Is Scripture sufficient for determining our thoughts on ethical topics like transhumanism? I think most would say yes and no. While the Bible may not address the modern technological challenges we face, there are general Christian principles that guide us as we navigate these challenges.

Finally, let’s take one that is right at the center of our faith as Christians. Is Scripture sufficient for the metaphysics of the incarnation? Yes, but we have to admit no verse in the Bible directly says that there are two natures that are inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably united. The Bible does not use the terminology of two natures that are inseparable.

Does this mean it isn’t “in” the Bible? Does this mean Scripture is insufficient?

These examples illustrate two related but crucial questions regarding what sufficiency is supposed to mean:

  1. What does it mean for something to be “in” Scripture?
  2. Does the sufficiency of Scripture require all things exhaustively to be in Scripture?

While most would agree that the Bible doesn’t contain an instruction manual for oil changes, many find it difficult to understand scriptural sufficiency when it comes to topics like logic, transhumanism, and incarnation.

So, what are we to make of these questions?

Turning to the Wisdom of Earlier Christians

I think it’s helpful to begin by remembering how the Reformed confessions understand the nature of sufficiency. Take the very beginning of the Second London Confession of Faith 1.1:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.

There are several aspects to unpack here. Instead of beginning by explaining what they do mean I am going to start by explaining what they don’t mean. Sometimes one of the best ways to understand something is to understand what it’s not. So, notice what the confession does not say:

  • “Because Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, therefore there are no insufficient, uncertain, and fallible subordinate rules.”
  • “Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience whatsoever.”
  • “The light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do not manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God.”

Each of these misinterpretations is quite common.

So common, in fact, that two of the greatest Protestant theologians in Francis Turretin (1623-1687) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) address them as well.

They too found ample misunderstandings of the sufficiency of Scripture. They provide laundry lists of what sufficiency doesn’t mean. Three of them relate directly to the most common misunderstandings today. They argue that:

  1. Sufficiency doesn’t mean that Scripture contains everything done or said by Christ. John 20:30 says as much.
  2. Sufficiency doesn’t mean that everything is taught word for word in Scripture. Many things are to be deduced by inference.
  3. Sufficiency doesn’t mean that it contains everything exhaustively related to the Christian faith—only that it contains matters necessary to salvation (e.g. the articles of faith).[1]

So, sufficiency doesn’t mean that Scripture contains all possible knowledge—either word for word or implicitly. It certainly doesn’t contain knowledge about how molecular biology works or the compression ratio of premium and regular unleaded fuel.

The Reformed tradition provides conceptual clarity here.

Part of the reason they were able to properly locate the doctrine of sufficiency is because they sought to distinguish between various epistemological principles.

First, the Spirit himself works as the ontological principle of knowledge. He is the ultimate bedrock.

Second, Scripture is the infallible external cognitive principle of knowledge.

But there remains a third principle of knowledge: the internal cognitive principle where the Spirit causes knowledge to be received, contemplated, and confessed via various sources.[2] The sufficiency of Scripture does not invalidate this third principle.

Rational contemplation in faith is a necessary means for knowledge. But this does not mean it is either the first principle from which doctrines of faith are tested and proved or the foundation from which they are built.[3]

It is the Spirit himself as ontological principle and Scripture as infallible external cognitive principle that fulfill these roles.

Senses of Sufficiency

But what does sufficiency mean? It means that we have a single final authoritative rule for all matters of saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Unlike Roman Catholicism, we do not have an incomplete revelation that needs alternative means to supplement its lack.[4] It means that Scripture is the norming norm for all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It is the final arbiter of truth for all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It is the final rule for all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

As a sufficient rule, it means that nothing can supersede Scripture. If something disagrees with Scripture, it is wrong. As to sufficiency in content, it means that Scripture is the sufficient rule in a limited scope. It relates to all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. It does not speak to all areas. There is non-saving knowledge that can be found outside of Scripture.

Consider the Second London Confession of Faith 1.6 where it offers further clarity:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

The confession provides answers to both the nature of sufficiency and the content of sufficiency. Let’s take them in turn.

The Nature of Sufficiency

The first question to be considered is “what do we mean by something being “in” the Bible?”—this relates to the nature of sufficiency.

As with most theology, the answer is not simplistic. Theology requires us to distinguish between various senses of sufficiency. Francis Turretin is a good guide at this juncture. He distinguishes between the form or substance of Scripture and the specific literal words of Scripture.

Only the actual words are absolutely contained in Scripture. But while many things are not recorded literally in the words of the Bible, they are contained in its form or substance. Within the substance of Scripture, things are contained “in them really” or they are “not doctrines necessary to salvation” or “false and counterfeit” doctrines.[5]

It is the terminology of substance and form wherein the Reformed confessional “good and necessary consequence” methodology fits (e.g., “expressly set down or necessarily contained”).

These consequences from Scripture, though they are not absolutely “in” Scripture, are either innate (virtually contained) or implied and carried into it. Some consequences are proximate, necessary, and plain but others are remote, probable, and obscure.[6] But the Reformed tradition has understood these to be “in” Scripture—even if they require external philosophical contemplation.

It is the wooden sense of “in” the Bible (absolute/word-for-word only) that heretics have often used to twist the substantial meaning of Scripture while claiming to be following what the Bible teaches.

You see this with the Eunomians in the early church and the Socinians in the Reformation. For example, Francis Turretin argues at length against the Socinians:

Our controversy here is with the Socinians who deny the existence of any such natural theology or knowledge of God and hold that what may appear to be such has flowed partly from tradition handed down from Adam, and partly from revelations made at different times. The orthodox, on the contrary, uniformly teach that there is a natural theology, partly innate (derived from the book of conscience by means of common notions) and partly acquired (drawn from the book of creatures discursively).[7]

His problem with the Socinians is restricting the knowledge of God. And it seems this problem isn’t new.

Basil (329–379) and Gregory of Nazianzus (329–390) faced a similar challenge. Basil confesses his frustration with those critiquing Pro-Nicene theology:

Since whatever the theologians seem to have recorded about the substance of God has been expressed in figurative language or even in allegories, the words transport us to other notions. Hence if someone should contentiously stand by the mere letter, taking it in its obvious interpretation without duly examining it, he has strayed into the myths of the Jews [Ti 1.14] and silly old wives’ tales [1 Tm 4.7], and he will grow old in abject poverty, devoid of worthy concepts about God.[8]

Gregory similarly calls these thinkers “textual vandals” that use their simplistic notions to “rob the written word” of its sense.[9] He argues in a similar fashion:

Time and time again someone repeats the argument about not being in the Bible. Yet we are dealing here not with a smuggled-in alien, but with something disclosed to the consciousness of men past and present. The fact stands already proved by a host of people who have discussed the subject, all men who read the Holy Scriptures not in a frivolous, cursory way, but with penetration so that they saw inside the written text to its inner meaning.[10]

The constant refrain among the false teachers is to “show us the express words or we cross them out as unscriptural.”[11] But Gregory argues that you cannot be “dreadfully servile to the letter.”[12] There must be a place for biblical teaching that is implicitly, though not explicitly, located in the Bible.

The Scope of Sufficiency

Now, what about whether the sufficiency of Scripture requires all things exhaustively to be in Scripture? There are really two questions embedded within this one.

First, does Scripture contain absolutely everything about the world? Most are comfortable answering this as no. Scripture doesn’t contain how molecular biology works or the compression ratio of premium unleaded fuel. It doesn’t teach me how to change the oil on my truck. Fine and good.

But what about whether or not everything helpful for Christians to know is contained in Scripture? It might seem anti-Protestant to suggest there are useful truths in nature that are not found either explicitly (e.g., absolutely and word-for-word) or implicitly (e.g., by good and necessary consequence) in Scripture.

But here again, Reformational Protestants may surprise us. As the Second London Confession explicitly claims, there are some things that are ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence.

The sufficiency of Scripture is about matters of saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. That modifier is critical. It could have excluded it and universalized the claim. But it didn’t.

And this is good since God is infinite. If everything about him could be contained in a book he would no longer be infinite. As Gregory of Nazianzus reminds us, “No one yet has discovered or ever shall discover what God is in his nature and essence.”[13]

Summing Up

The sufficiency of Scripture is a beautiful doctrine. It comforts us because we needn’t worry that we will fail to have all knowledge necessary to know God and obey him. It encourages us because we can grow in our faith without needing a multi-million-dollar library.

But it is liable to be abused like any other doctrine. And it’s liable to be misunderstood in both liberal and conservative directions. We can end up rejecting it or we can end up expanding it beyond its proper scope.

The truth of sufficiency is that the Bible is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule. But there remain other insufficient, uncertain, fallible subordinate rules.

[1] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994), 1:135; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:488.

[2] Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 31–32.

[3] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:24.

[4] Bavinck, RD, 1:481.

[5] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 140.

[6] Turretin, 1:38.

[7] Turretin, 1:6.

[8] Basil, Against Eunomius, trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 1.14.

[9] Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. Frederick Williams and Lionel R. Wickham (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), Oration 31, 1.

[10] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31, 21.

[11] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31, 23.

[12] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31, 24.

[13] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 28, 17.

Cessationism – Defining Terms

Posted on by
Reply

Article: “What Cessationism Is Not” by Nathan Busenitz (original source – https://thecripplegate.com/what_cessationism_is_not/)

Dr. Busenitz writes:

Over the last few years, I’ve enjoyed investigating the historical record regarding the charismatic gifts, especially the gift of tongues. And I can only hope that the above pastor, and his co-author, will treat the material responsibly in their upcoming work on the subject. (Who knows, maybe they’d be open to a two-views book?)

I would also hope that, in the process of critiquing the cessationist position, the authors do not create a straw man version of cessationism. (I’ll admit that, based on what I’ve read so far, I’m afraid the straw man is already under construction.)

Nonetheless, in an effort to dismantle a fallacious misrepresentation before it is built, I offer the following four clarifications about what cessationism is not:

* * * * *

1. Cessationism is not anti-supernatural, nor does it deny the possibility of miracles.

When it comes to understanding the cessationist position, the question is not: Can God still do miracles in the world today? Cessationists would be quick to acknowledge that God can act at any time in any way He chooses. Along these lines, John MacArthur explains:

Miracles in the Bible [primarily] occurred in three major periods of time.  The time of Moses and Joshua, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Christ and the apostles.  . . . And it is during those three brief periods of time and those alone that miracles proliferated; that miracles were the norm; that miracles were in abundance. Now God can interject Himself into the human stream supernaturally anytime He wants.  We’re not limiting Him.  We’re simply saying that He has chosen to limit Himself to a great degree to those three periods of time. (Source)

Cessationism then does not deny the reality that God can do whatever He wants whenever He wants (Psalm 115:3). It does not put God into a box or limit His sovereign prerogative.

But it does acknowledge that there was something unique and special about the age of miracles and miracle-workers that defined the ministries of Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Christ and His apostles. Moreover, it recognizes the seemingly obvious fact that those kinds of miracles (like parting the sea, stopping the rain, raising the dead, walking on water, or instantly healing the lame and the blind) are not occurring today.

Thus, cessationists conclude that:

The apostolic age was marvelously unique and it ended.  And what happened then is not the normal thing for every Christian.  The normal thing for every Christian is to study the Word of God, which is able to make us wise and perfect.  [It] is to live by faith and not by sight. (Ibid.)

But can God still do extraordinary things in the world today? Certainly He can, if He chooses to do so. In fact, every time a sinner’s eyes are opened to the gospel, and a new life in Christ is created, it is nothing short of a miracle.

In his helpful book, To Be Continued?, Samuel Waldron aptly expresses the cessationist position this way (on p. 102):

I am not denying by all this that there are miracles in the world today in the broader sense of supernatural occurrences and extraordinary providences. I am only saying that there are no miracles in the stricter sense [of] miracle-workers performing miraculous signs to attest the redemptive revelation they bring from God. Though God has never locked Himself out of His world and is still at liberty to do as He pleases, when He pleases, how He pleases, and where He pleases, He has made it clear that the progress of redemptive revelation attested by miraculous signs done by miracle-workers has been brought to conclusion in the revelation embodied in our New Testaments.

So, the question is not: Can God still do miracles?

Rather, the definitive question is this: Are the miraculous gifts of the New Testament still in operation in the church today–such that what was the norm in the days of Christ and the apostles ought to be expected today?

To that, all cessationists would answer “no.”

* * * * *

2. Cessationism is not founded on one’s interpretation of “the perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10.

For that matter, it seems there are almost as many views of “the perfect” among cessationist scholars as there are commentators who write about 1 Corinthians 13:8–13. Space in this article does not permit a full investigation into each of these, but rather a cursory explanation of the major positions.

 The Different Views

(1) Some (such as F.F. Bruce) argue that love itself is the perfect. Thus when the fullness of love comes, the Corinthians will put away their childish desires.

(2) Some (such as B.B. Warfield) contend that the completed canon of Scripture is the perfect. Scripture is described as “perfect” in James 1:25, a text in which the same word for “mirror” (as in v. 12) is found (in James 1:23). Thus partial revelation is done away when the full revelation of Scripture comes.

(3) Some (such as Robert Thomas) contend that the mature church is the perfect. This view is primarily based on the illustration of verse 11 and on the close connection between this passage and Eph. 4:11–13. The exact timing of the church’s “maturity” is unknown, though it is closely associated with the completion of the canon, and the end of the apostolic era (cf. Eph. 2:20).

(4) Some (such as Thomas Edgar) see the believer’s entrance into the presence of Christ (at the moment of death) as the perfect. This view accounts for the personal aspect of Paul’s statement in verse 12. Paul personally experienced full knowledge when he entered Christ’s presence at his death (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8).

(5) Some (such as Richard Gaffin) see the return of Christ (and the end of this age) as the perfect. This is also the view of most continuationists. Thus, when Christ comes back (as delineated in chapter 15), the partial revelation we know now will be made complete.

(6) Some (such as John MacArthur) view the eternal state (in a general sense) as the perfect. This explanation interprets the neuter of to teleion as a reference to a general state of events and not a personal return of Christ. This view overlaps with both numbers 4 and 5 above in that, according to this view: “For Christians the eternal state begins either at death, when they go to be with the Lord, or at the rapture, when the Lord takes His own to be with Himself” (John MacArthur, First Corinthians, p. 366).

Of these views, I personally find the last three more convincing than the first three. This is primarily due (I will confess) to the testimony of church history. Dr. Gary Shogren, after doing an in-depth study of some 169 patristic references to this passage, concludes that the church fathers overwhelmingly saw the perfect in terms of something beyond this life (most normally associating it with the return of Christ, or with seeing Christ in heaven). Even John Chrysostom (who was clearly a cessationist) saw it this way. While not authoritative, such historical evidence is difficult to dismiss.

In any case, my point here is simply this: The interpreter can take any of the above positions, and still remain a cessationist. In fact, there are cessationists who hold to each of the positions listed above (as the names I’ve listed indicate).

Thus, Anthony Thiselton notes in his commentary on this passage: “The one important point to make here is that few or none of the serious ‘cessationist’ arguments depends on a specific exegesis of 1 Cor 13:8–11. . . .  These verses should not be used as a polemic for either side in this debate” (NIGTC, pp. 1063–64).

* * * * *

3. Cessationism is not an attack on the Person or work of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, just the opposite is true. Cessationists are motivated by a desire to see the Holy Spirit glorified. They are concerned that, by redefining the gifts, the continuationist position cheapens the remarkable nature of those gifts, lessening the truly miraculous working of the Spirit in the earliest stages of the church.

Cessationists are convinced that, by redefining healing, the charismatic position presents a bad testimony to the watching world when the sick are not healed. By redefining tongues, the charismatic position promotes a type of nonsensical gibberish that runs contrary to anything we know about the biblical gift. By redefining prophecy, the charismatic position lends credence to those who would claim to speak the very words of God and yet speak error.

This, then, is the primary concern of cessationists: that the honor of the Triune God and His Word be exalted—and that it not be cheapened by watered-down substitutes.

And how do we know if something is authentic or not? By comparing it to the written testimony of Scripture. Does going to the Bible to define the gifts mean that we are bypassing the Holy Spirit? Quite the contrary. When we search the Scriptures, we are going to the testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself to discover what He has revealed about the gifts that He bestowed.

As a cessationist, I love the Holy Spirit. I would never want to do anything to discredit His work, diminish His attributes, or downplay His ministry. Nor would I ever want to miss out on anything He is doing in the church today. And I’m not the only cessationist who feels this way.

Because we love the Holy Spirit we are thankful to God for the Spirit’s amazing and ongoing work in the body of Christ. His works of regenerating, indwelling, baptizing, sealing, assuring, illuminating, convicting, comforting, confirming, filling, and enabling are all indispensable aspects of His ministry.

Because we love the Holy Spirit we are motivated to study the Scriptures that He inspired to learn how to walk in a manner worthy, being characterized by His fruit. We long to be filled by Him (Eph. 5:18), which begins by being indwelt with His Word, which is the Word of Christ (Col. 3:16–17), and being equipped with His sword, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17).

Finally, it is because we love the Holy Spirit that we long to rightly represent Him, to understand and appreciate His purposes (as He has revealed them in His Word), and to align ourselves with what He is doing in this world. This more than anything else gives us reason to study the issue of charismatic gifts (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7-11). Our goal in this study has to be more than mere doctrinal correctness. Our motivation must be to gain a more accurate understanding of the Spirit’s work—such that we might better yield ourselves to Him in service to Christ for the glory of God.

* * * * *

4. Cessationism is not a product of the Enlightenment.

Perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate this final point is to cite pre-Enlightenment Christian leaders who held to a cessationist position. It is, after all, difficult to argue that John Chrysostom’s fourth-century theology was a result of 18th-century European rationalism.

In bringing this blog post to a close then, here are ten leaders from church history to consider:

1. John Chrysostom (c. 344–407):

This whole place [speaking about 1 Corinthians 12] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place.

(Source: John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 36.7. Chrysostom is commenting on 1 Cor 12:1–2 and introducing the entire chapter. Cited from 1–2 Corinthians, in the Ancient Christian Commentary Series, 146.)

2. Augustine (354–430):

In the earliest times, the Holy Spirit fell upon them that believe and they spoke with tongues, which they had not learned, as the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs adapted to the time. For there was this betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues [languages] to show that the gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a sign, and it passed away.

(Source: Augustine, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, 6.10. Cf. Schaff, NPNF, First Series, 7:497–98.)

3. Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466):

In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. . . . Even in our time grace is given to those who are deemed worthy of holy baptism, but it may not take the same form as it did in those days.

(Source: Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 240, 43; in reference to 1 Cor 12:1, 7. Cited from 1–2 Corinthians, ACCS, 117).

Note: Proponents of continuationism, like Jon Ruthven (in his work, On the Cessation of the Charismata), also acknowledge cessationist views in other church fathers (like Origen in the 3rd century, and Ambrosiaster in the 4th century).

Additionally, to this list, we could include the most well-known name of the middle ages, the 13th-century scholastic, Thomas Aquinas.

But let’s jump ahead to the Reformation and Puritan eras.

4. Martin Luther (1483–1546)

In the early Church the Holy Spirit was sent forth in visible form. He descended upon Christ in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16), and in the likeness of fire upon the apostles and other believers. (Acts 2:3.) This visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit was necessary to the establishment of the early Church, as were also the miracles that accompanied the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul explained the purpose of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 14:22, “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” Once the Church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased.

(Source: Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians 4, Trans. by Theodore Graebner [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1949], pp. 150-172. This is from Luther’s comment on Gal. 4:6.)

5. John Calvin (1509–1564):

Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity.

(Source: John Calvin, Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, III:389.)

The gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the preaching of the Gospel marvellous forever.

(Source: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV:19, 18.)

6. John Owen (1616–1683):

Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, that dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion.

(Source: John Owen, Works,  IV:518.)

7. Thomas Watson (1620–1686):

Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ’s time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased.

(Source: Thomas Watson, The Beatitudes, 140.)

8. Matthew Henry (1662–1714):

What these gifts were is at large told us in the body of the chapter [1 Corinthians 12]; namely, extraordinary offices and powers, bestowed on ministers and Christians in the first ages, for conviction of unbelievers, and propagation of the gospel.

(Source: Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary, in reference to 1 Corinthians 12.)

The gift of tongues was one new product of the spirit of prophecy and given for a particular reason, that, the Jewish pale being taken down, all nations might be brought into the church. These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast, 2 Peter 1:29.

(Source: Matthew Henry, Preface to Vol. IV of his Exposition of OT & NT, vii.)

9. John Gill (1697–1771):

[Commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:9 and 30,]

Now these gifts were bestowed in common, by the Spirit, on apostles, prophets, and pastors, or elders of the church, in those early times: the Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, “by one Spirit”.

(Source: John Gill’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:9.)

No; when these gifts were in being, all had them not. When anointing with oil, in order to heal the sick, was in use, it was only performed by the elders of the church, not by the common members of it, who were to be sent for by the sick on this occasion.

(Source: John Gill’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:30.)

10. Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758):

In the days of his [Jesus’] flesh, his disciples had a measure of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, being enabled thus to teach and to work miracles. But after the resurrection and ascension, was the most full and remarkable effusion of the Spirit in his miraculous gifts that ever took place, beginning with the day of Pentecost, after Christ had risen and ascended to heaven. And in consequence of this, not only here and there an extraordinary person was endowed with these extraordinary gifts, but they were common in the church, and so continued during the lifetime of the apostles, or till the death of the last of them, even the apostle John, which took place about a hundred years from the birth of Christ; so that the first hundred years of the Christian era, or the first century, was the era of miracles.

But soon after that, the canon of Scripture being completed when the apostle John had written the book of Revelation, which he wrote not long before his death, these miraculous gifts were no longer continued in the church. For there was now completed an established written revelation of the mind and will of God, wherein God had fully recorded a standing and all-sufficient rule for his church in all ages. And the Jewish church and nation being overthrown, and the Christian church and the last dispensation of the church of God being established, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were no longer needed, and therefore they ceased; for though they had been continued in the church for so many ages, yet then they failed, and God caused them to fail because there was no further occasion for them. And so was fulfilled the saying of the text, “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.” And now there seems to be an end to all such fruits of the Spirit as these, and we have no reason to expect them any more.

(Source: Jonathan Edwards, Sermon entitled, “The Holy Spirit Forever To Be Communicated To The Saints, In The Grace Of Charity, Or Divine Love” on 1 Corinthians 13:8.)

“Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given ‘in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased.”

(Source: Jonathan Edwards, Charity and its Fruits, 29.)

* * * * *

To this list, we could add other names: James Buchanan, R. L. Dabney, Charles Spurgeon, George Smeaton, Abraham Kuyper, William G. T. Shedd, B. B. Warfield, A. W. Pink, and so on. But, admittedly, they are post-Enlightenment historical figures.

So I guess we’ll have to save their testimony for a different post.

Misconceptions About Calvinism

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Jack Lee (original source here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/chorusinthechaos/6-common-misconceptions-about-calvinism/)

When it comes to Christianity, few theological subjects are more controversial and polarizing than Calvinism. Since the time of the Reformation, Christians, historians, and theologians all over the world have fiercely debated these doctrines. Subsequently, this has created all kinds of claims about what Calvinism teaches (some accurate and some not). Having been a Calvinist for almost 20 years, I have experienced this firsthand; I have heard it all. From robot analogies to man-worship, to even gross misunderstandings about God’s love and justice. In turn, I thought it would be useful to directly address some of the common misconceptions about the Doctrines of Grace.

This article is intended to be the first in a series on the topic of Calvinism as a whole. As stated, I will begin by addressing many of the misconceptions, then in future articles. I will build scriptural cases for several of the core doctrines represented within Calvinism.

Misconception #1: Calvinism is the Worship of John Calvin

To some (me) this might seem silly, however, I have heard the misconstruction dozens of times. I gather it is rooted in the thinking that because Calvinism is named after a specific man (John Calvin), then this implies some innate level of worship or veneration for the person. At face value, I suppose I can understand this. After all, the term “Christian” is used to describe people who worship Christ.

To put it bluntly, Calvinism does not teach the worship, adoration, or veneration of John Calvin. Rather, I would strongly argue that it teaches the exact opposite! The term “Calvinism” exists because the doctrines contained within gained popularity under the writings of Calvin. However, Calvin did not create them. His teaching large mirrors concepts taught by Saint Augustine, and the Apostle Paul before him. If anything, Calvin rediscovered scriptural truths once suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Contrary to this common misconception, at the heart of Calvinism, is a principle wholly focused on the glory, holiness, and worship of God alone. Reformed Theology teaches that man is completely devoid of being worthy of any type of worship. Additionally, John Calvin never sought any worship or any type of adoration; his focus was fully on directing all praise and honor to God. If you have met a person who seems to carry some undue adoration for Calvin, this is that person’s error and has nothing to do with the person or the theology of John Calvin – he taught the opposite.

As a type of exclamation point to this misconception, I will offer a small anecdote. When Calvin was dying, he requested that his grave be unmarked. He did so because he did not want people making pilgrimages to his burial site to pay him homage. Calvin never sought the attention he has received. His concern was only to honor God through the faithful teaching of Holy Scripture.

Misconception #2: People are Robots / God’s Sovereignty Undermines Man’s Responsibility

I have heard many times this notion that if God is completely sovereign then people are like programmed robots. Implied in this accusation is that because God is sovereign man is not responsible for his actions. This is simply not true. Any casual reading of God’s Word demonstrates that man is an independent moral agent completely responsible for their actions; Calvinism would agree. However, moral responsibility does not always automatically equate to ability.

In John 6:44, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”. He is effectively saying that no one, outside of the working/drawing of God, has the ability to come to Christ. Christ also taught condemnation for those outside of Him. Both are true. Paul makes this point extensively in Romans 1-5. All men are dead in sin because all men are naturally in Adam. At the same time, God is completely sovereign in salvation. Both realities are true.

Undoubtedly, there is an element of deep mystery in this. That’s OK. God never promised that we would know everything in this life. Rather, such mysteries allow us an opportunity to die to ourselves and trust God’s Word/truth to be correct even if we can’t fully grasp it. Likely, this relationship (God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility) is some of what Paul had in mind when he exclaims in Romans 11, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (11:33).

Humans are not robots controlled by God. Instead, we are moral agents made in the image of God. We live, move, and act according to our natural ability (more on this when I come to Total Depravity).  Yet, in all of this, God remains sovereign and just; He uses our brokenness and sin to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps one of the best examples of this in scripture comes to us in the last chapter of Genesis. Joseph, when confronting his brothers on their sin against him, famously says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (50:20).

Misconception #3: Calvinists Don’t Believe in Evangelism

This claim is rooted in some faulty logic that suggests since God elects those whom He wants to save, there is no need for Christians to evangelize. What’s the point? God will do it and save anyway. This thinking is not merely wrong, it is heretical (Hyper Calvinism). Scripture is clear: Christians are called to evangelize and share the truth of God’s love with the world; it is a fundamental role of the church.

Calvinism understands that in God’s sovereign plan of redemption, He sovereignly chose people-to-people evangelism as the method of gospel proclamation. What a wonderful gift and privilege for the church! Although God is omnipotent and fully capable, He allows us to be the means by which He saves his people. As the title of Paul David Tripp’s famous book wonderfully states, we are instruments in the Redeemer’s hands.

Calvin also never taught Hyper Calvinism. He was deeply passionate about reaching the lost. This is apparent to anyone who reads his works.  In a sermon on Deuteronomy 33, Calvin stated that “if we have any humanity in us, seeing men going to perdition,…ought we not be moved by pity to rescue the poor souls from hell, and teach them the way of salvation”. Another example comes from his commentary on 1 Timothy. He says, “…there is no people or rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception.” He later points out that people insult God who, “shut out any person from the hope of salvation”.

In summary, Calvinism joyfully teaches evangelism. Knowing that God is sovereign in salvation provides great hope to missionaries. This means that Christians can go into the darkest areas of the world with the gospel. They know that God is sovereign and will bring His people home, regardless of the environment and opposition. Their mission is to share the gospel and trust God with the results. Some of the greatest missionaries the world has ever known were Calvinists, such as William Carey and Jim Elliot.

Misconception #4: God is the Author of Sin / The Problem of Evil

This misconception is the logical cousin of #2 on this list. The thinking goes that if God is sovereign in all things, and because bad things happen, then God causes sin and evil. The Bible doesn’t teach this and therefore Calvinism doesn’t teach this. Still, the subject is complex and abstract. It will be difficult to address this topic in just a few paragraphs. Yet, let us be clear on defining some terms and bounding the discussion.

Unequivocally, it is false to say that God is the agent, doer, or author of sin; this is blasphemy. Allowing it to exist does not mean He is the cause of it. Rather, He allows it to exist to bring about His purpose, for His glory. Confused? It’s tough. Let’s look at a well-known example of this in scripture.

In Peter’s famous Pentecost sermon, he is speaking to a group of men and women who were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. He says, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:22-23). Don’t miss what Peter is saying. The greatest sin and evil the world has ever seen (the murder of God) was also part of the “definite plan” of God. Yet, at the same time, Peter is clear in his accusation of the crowd. He says, “you crucified and killed”.

Jonathan Edwards, the great American Calvinistic theologian, offers an analogy to help us understand the relationship between God and sin. He explains that the sun gives us light and warmth. This is part of the sun’s basic nature and it is good. But at the same time, in contrast, it allows for cold and darkness when it sets in the evening. The sun does not create darkness, yet it comes about once the light is withheld. Similarly, God ordains to pass those things He loves and those things He hates by withholding his grace and light. Permission of allowing a thing to exist for a specific purpose does not also make one the creator of it.

Misconception #5: Some People Want to be Saved but are Denied Because They’re not Elect

This common misconception is rooted in a principle misunderstanding of how Calvinism understands and applies original sin. I  will address this topic in more detail in a future article. For now, I will offer a brief answer. Calvinism does not teach this because it understands that the natural man does possess the ability to seek God. Any person who genuinely desires to be saved is doing so because God has already completed the world of regeneration in their heart.

Their desires are the fruit of a work God has already done.

Paul, in this letter to the Romans, states that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (10:13). This is a true statement without error and one with which every Calvinist should agree. God receives all and any who come to Him; He denies no one. The crux of the issue lies not with God, but with the natural man’s ability to seek God on his own (Romans 3).

Misconception #6: John Calvin Murdered Servetus

I initially debated on whether or not to include this topic, as it is not theological. Yet, I ultimately decided to include it in the list due to the frequency with which I hear the objection. It generally sounds something like this: John Calvin murdered a man, Servetus, and therefore is unreliable and evil.

First, let’s address the poor logic. While all types of sins are grievous, especially sins tied to the ending of human life, such a claim does not immediately discredit the person as a whole. The entire Bible was written by sinful men. One simply has to look at the life of David as an example. Here we have a man who was deeply devoted to God and His kingdom.  Yet, he was also guilty of grotesque sins (adultery and murder). Let me be clear that I am not making light of such things; they’re horrible. All I am saying is that sinlessness is not a required prerequisite to teach/preach the truth.

We are all wretched sinners in need of God’s grace. The Bible is a collection of books that detail the awfulness of the human race and the greatest of Jesus; the contrast is intentional. The only truly good person to ever touch this planet is the God-man, Jesus Christ. It is a genuine miracle that God uses broken, sinful, wretched men (such as John Cavin) to accomplish His purposes.

Secondly, if one contextually, and historically, examines what happened between Calvin and Servetus, a very different narrative emerges. Servetus ended up in Geneva (Calvin’s city) because he was on run from the Roman Catholic Church for teaching heresy. He openly and repeatedly denied the trinity. At this time in history, an appropriate punishment for such a crime was death. If Servetus had not fled to Geneva, he would very likely have been given a death sentence by the Roman Catholic Church.

When he arrived in Geneva, he was arrested for heresy. Calvin met with him multiple times and pleaded with him to repent from his errors. In all of this, Servetus knew what punishment awaited him. He never repented, and eventually, Calvin turned him over to the local government. It was at this point that he was burned at the stake for teaching heresy.

In this day and age, it can be hard for us to comprehend such a punishment for theological error. Yet, this was generally normal for the time. Please note that I am not defending the morality of what happened. I am simply explaining that a statement as simplistic and dismissive as “John Calvin was a murderer” does not accurately explain what happened.

John Calvin’s works are a true gift to the church. If you have never read anything he’s written, I encourage you to try using one of his commentaries in your private studies. They often read like a devotional and can be wonderfully helpful for the Christian. Calvinism is a faithful, systematic understanding of God’s Word and work in salvation.