Theology beacon dictionary of theology

Broadly speaking, there is a twofold call re­lating to full salvation in Jesus Christ because of the twofold nature of sin, i.e., sin inherited and sins committed. It issues first in a call to repen­tance (Matt. 9:13; Luke 5:32), and secondly, in a call to holiness, addressed to believers (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Thess. 4:7-8; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).

The call to salvation in Christ can be accepted or rejected, and those who accept are the called, or elect. Hence the Church is the ecclesia, or "called-out ones." The apostle Paul speaks of "the called of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1:6; cf. 1 Cor. 1:24). The divine call, described as "upward" and "heavenly," to freedom and happiness (1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 5:13; Phil. 3:14; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:10) includes ethical standards relating to a manner of life or life-style, demanding a worthy walk (1 Thess. 2:12; Eph. 4:1), in holiness (1 Thess. 4:7; 1 Pet. 1:15; Heb. 12:14), with patience, even in suf­fering (1 Pet. 2:20-21), and in peace (1 Cor. 7:15; Col. 3:15).

The word "call" also relates to the vocation or calling of individuals (e.g., Abraham, Gen. 12:1; Moses, Exod. 3:10; Isaiah, Isa. 6:8; Paul, Acts 26:16); as such it may pertain to some special of­fice or function, such as judge (Judg. 3:9-10), prophet (Isa. 6:8; 8:11), missionary (Acts 13:2; 16:10), apostleship (Rom. 1:1), and craftsman, like Bezaleel (Exod. 31:2). Israel was called as a nation to be God's chosen people through whom the Savior came (Isa. 41:8-9; cf. Deut. 7:6-8).

For Calvinists, "effectual calling" pertains only to the elect, who, by divine decree, are predes­tinated to salvation. This view, however, fails to give due regard to the many "whosoever wills" in the NT regarding salvation (e.g., John 3:14-16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Tim. 2:3-4; Rev. 22:17).

Regarding prayer, in Gen. 4:26 we are told that men began "to call upon the name of the Lord" (cf. Ps. 105:1; Zeph. 3:9). In the NT "call" is used to show that men were accustomed to invoke God in prayer (Acts 7:59; Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 1:2).

See effectual calling, elect, vocation.

For Further Reading: Wiley, CT, 2:334-44; Calvin, In-
stitutes of the Christian Religion, ed. Allen, 2:217-41;
Kittel, 3:487-500. william M. ARNETT

CALVINISM. This is one of the three major theol­ogy systems of Protestantism, the other two be­ing Lutheranism and Wesleyan-Arminianism. It takes its name from its primary systematizer, John Calvin (1509-64) of Geneva. His thought was expounded in his epochal three-volume In­stitutes of the Christian Religion, published in its final form in a.d. 1559 (the last of several re­visions and expansions of the original one-volume treatise published when Calvin was 27 years of age). Supportive were Calvin's Commen­taries on the Bible, and lesser works.

As a system Calvinism has been articulated in such creeds as the Canons of the Synod of Dort (The Netherlands, a.d. 1619) and The Westminster Confession (England, a.d. 1647). Most Presbyterian, Reformed churches, and Bap­tists would classify themselves as Calvinists, though in many groups the adherence is very partial—a fact which has given rise to such loose distinctions as hyper-, moderate-, and mild-Calvinism (which last is actually about 80 per­cent Arminian). Other divisions have been Old School and New School Calvinism.

As a pure system Calvinism is logically coher­ent, consisting of five major interdependent and interlocking doctrinal positions. For both under­standing and memory, students have sometimes resorted to the acronym TULIP, which stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance (eternal security). While these constitute the



"bones" of the entire system of thought, they are not always handled in this order. The Canons of Dort, for instance, begin with Predestination. Historically, however, the doctrine of depravity proved to be the springboard in Augustine's mind for the doctrine of predestination. More­over the TULIP order was the order of the Re­monstrance document presented in 1610 to the political authorities at The Hague by the 42 Re­monstrant signers, led by John Uitembogaert.

The first tenet, Total depravity, does not mean that humans are as evil as they can be, but that they are depraved in every faculty and facet of their being. This depravity is the result of com­plete alienation from God due to Adam's sin, and constitutes a complete moral inability. Man in this state is unable to live a truly meritorious life, or do one effective thing toward turning to God or acquiring personal salvation. I The second tenet—Unconditional election— ' concerns the basis of God's redemptive plan, in the face of this abject helplessness of man. Salva­tion must be totally the work of God, not only in initiation and prosecution but in final con­summation. This stress on the divine will implies that if God does not save all men, it can only be because He does not choose to do so. Instantly we have on our hands some idea of election and predestination—that God has foreordained in advance those who will be saved.

This develops in different directions. Some de­clare a "double predestination," meaning that the damned are predestined to be lost as surely as the saved are predestined to be rescued (e.g., Canons of Dort). In contrast the advocates of "single predestination" declare that only the "elect" are predestined by a divine decision or decree, the others simply being allowed to suffer the fate inherently their just desert—a desert not only attached to their personal sins but their "real" participation in Adam's first sin.

Another difference is indicated by the terms supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. The first means that the election of individuals was determined in the divine mind before the Fall— indeed, that the Fall was included in the divine decree. The second term represents the belief that it was after the Fall, and was God's response to it. Supralapsarianism can scarcely escape the criticism that it makes God "the author of sin" (as James Arminius said in his Declaration of Senti­ments of 1608).

Having once declared a doctrine of predes­tination, the remaining tenets of Calvinism fol­low naturally. The third therefore concerns the Atonement: that Christ atoned only for the sins of those predestined to be saved. This is called Limited atonement. Congenial to this is that the­ory of the Atonement which sees it as an objec­tive transaction, consisting of a full satisfaction of the claims of God's holiness and justice, in the form of a full payment of the exact penalty. The elect, therefore, are necessarily freed. Calvin thus speaks not of Christ providing (i.e., making possi­ble) salvation for us, but that "salvation was ob­tained" (Institutes, 2:77).

The fourth tenet is called Irresistible grace (or effectual calling). This relates to God's mode of bringing about the salvation of the elect. The gospel call is impressed on the hearts of elect sin­ners by the Holy Spirit in such a manner as to assure their faith and repentance. Others may be moved by the gospel also, but their response will fall short of saving faith because they are left without the crucial aid of the Spirit—which Cal­vin calls "the secret efficacy of the Spirit" (ibid., 2:86).

The fifth letter of TULIP stands for Persever­ance, meaning that since God has decreed the salvation of the elect, it is impossible for them to be lost, for that would be a failure of the divine will. Therefore the assurance of final salvation is inseverable from the initial infusion of saving grace. God undertakes full responsibility for pre­serving the "saints" in a state of sonship.

Calvinists divide into different camps re­specting sin in the Christian after conversion. While assuming that a person in this life could never be free from sin, or perfect, John Calvin' made no allowance for willful sinning, but in­sisted that the desire and endeavor to live a holy, life was endemic to regeneration and a prime ev-' idence of being among the elect. Other views have not been so guarded, some even veering into virtual antinomianism.

Today the usual Calvinistic stance is that sin breaks one's fellowship with God, and may even jeopardize one's rewards, but has no bearing on final destiny. That destiny is unchangeably settled. Some go so far as to declare that a back­slider is still saved even if he dies in his backslid­den state; others would say that such terminal backsliding only proved that the person was never truly born again in the first place.

The single most distinguishing mark of Cal­vinism is its emphasis on divine decrees. The world, including men, is governed not merely by the power of God but by His decrees (Calvin, 1:236). "That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and delib­erate on anything but what he has previously de­creed with himself and brings to pass by his

This system is believed to magnify God. Only by exalting God as the Source and Cause of all things can all ground for human pride be re­moved.

Yet throughout Calvin's Institutes he struggles with the implications of such one-sided mon-ergism. Many words are used in seeking to pro­tect the honor of God from the stigma of arbitrary selectivity in saving people. All sorts of hedging and qualifying are engaged in, seeking to prove that while God alone is responsible for good deeds, for faith, and for final salvation, the sinner alone is responsible for his sins and his final lostness.

In the Calvinistic system the will is central not only in God as the Source but in man, as the so-teriological pivot. While in Arminianism the will \ is^eMHed^ by grace, in Calvinism it is essentially 1 and superhafurally altered by grace. Calvin says: / "The Lord both corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also substitutes a good will from himself" (Institutes, 1:346; cf. 350, 389, et al.). This is the first action of God upon the elect in the sequence of saving grace. From this alter­ation of the will flow faith, and then repentance (which Calvin defines as regeneration—cf. ibid., 2:159). A turned will thus moves freely in the di­rection of righteousness. But the sinner is power­less to effect the turning himself or even to aid it.

The tension between the absolute exercise of sovereignty and human freedom, together with any rational philosophy of moral responsibility, has been felt by each generation of Calvinistic thinkers. Jonathan Edwards, America's greatest Calvinistic theologian, struggled with the prob­lem in his remarkable essay on Freedom of the Will. In this effort he sought to preserve both pre­destination and human freedom by the inge­nious utilization of the concept of motives. While the will is free, and not coerced, the human psy­chology is such that the will always chooses the strongest motive—or responds to the strongest reason for action. And motives are determined not from within, but from without—by divine providence; and thus God retains full suzerainty.

Following Edwards, the modifying process of Samuel Hopkins, Timothy Dwight, and Na-thanael Taylor resulted in what is called the New England Theology, a move away from hyper-

Calvinism's extreme view of moral inability to­ward the granting of a larger role to human free­dom and responsibility. The greatest revivalist of this era, Charles G. Finney, a New School Pres­byterian (later a Congregationalist), was a sworn foe of moral inability.

Calvin's conception of justification by faith alone was similar to both Luther's and Wesley's in the sense that it was viewed as the hinge of evangelical soteriology. However, with Calvin/ faith was not a gift in the sense of an enable-; ment, but a direct creation, an infusion. The elect/ person was given faith; from then on he pos-j sessed faith, which meant that from then on hej remained justified.

Calvin along with Wesley and Luther affirmed initial sanctification as a universal concomitant of justifying faith. He said that "holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness" (ibid., 2:151). But it is the free and unconditional justifi­cation which is determinative of eternal life, and in no sense the success or failure of sanctifica­tion. The deficiency in sanctification can never be fatal, for it is more than compensated by the imputed obedience of Christ. As Christ's death is imputed for justification, so His obedience is im­puted for sanctification, so that God sees us as perfect and complete in Him (cf. ibid., 2:216, et al.).

In all fairness it must be said that Calvin's defi­cient concept of the possibilities of sanctifying grace in this life stemmed in large part from his faulty doctrine of sin. "Nothing can be accepted that is not in every respect entire and absolute, and tainted by no impurity; such indeed as never has been, and never will be, found in man" (ibid., 2:334).

In evaluating Calvinism, only certain very brief observations can be made, though at the risk of seeming superficial. Calvinism's hold on much of the evangelical world can be accounted for, in part, by the fact that the Bible contains much apparent support for the system. It is only as careful students such as James Arminius, John Wesley, John Fletcher, and hundreds of others, have taken a second look, and turned Calvin's textual stones over, that they have become con­vinced that the net teaching of the Bible re­specting the relation of a sovereign God to His human creatures, and respecting the conditions and processes of salvation, move in a different direction.

The appeal of Calvinism also lies in its abso-, lutism. It is a comforting teaching for those who j have reason to believe they are among the elect.■

To feel that personal security is settled, by God himself, takes from one's shoulders an immense | load of responsibility. Wesleyans and others who (disagree, however, insist that their sense of secu­rity is as satisfying, but on a sounder foundation: It rests in the assurance that as long as one wants to be kept, the love of God is faithful and the power of the Spirit adequate. But it sees neither ■ moral nor scriptural ground for presuming that security is unrelated to continued trust and will­ing obedience.

Calvinism can be faulted for its inadequate conception of the present possibilities of grace for both inner and outer holiness. Strange grace, that can overwhelm the will in conversion but cannot energize it against sin! It would be better to redefine sin than to retain a definition which puts a limit on Christ's power to save, which makes Him a Savior in sin rather than from it, and which contradicts the many promises in the Bible for thorough cleansing. Calvinism fails ut­terly to see entire sanctification in this life as ei­ther possible or necessary.

Furthermore, Calvinism's absolute divine sov­ereignty, expressed in the form of inviolable de­crees, does not really honor God but shamefully dishonors Him. For one thing, a redemption that can be accomplished only by commandeering the human will must be branded as a colossal c failure. This is a salvation which depends on ar-, bitrary power, not on the winsomeness of love. A human will taken over by an irresistable divine energy must of necessity be acknowledged for what it is—a violated will. Such a person is not free, even though he may have the illusion of freedom.

But the most terrible stigma on the Creator is the implication of selective predestination, en­tirely on the basis of God's own pleasure, with­out regard to foresight of human response, with the balance of mankind left to rot eternally in their inherited corruption. The God who can save whom He will could save all if He willed. The God who can save all but chooses not to, cannot escape responsibility for their lostness, by His default. This seems to thoughtful persons to be a travesty on any doctrine of divine love, which no amount of adroit dodging can evade.

See arminianism, augustinianism, monergism, synergism, divine decrees, freedom, infralapsar­ianism, atonement, canons of dort.

Directory: sites -> default -> files -> publications
publications -> Table of Content forward introduction
publications -> Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies Georgia Institute of Technology
publications -> Housing Counseling Research in Chicago
publications -> Communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Audiences
publications -> New Brunswick Info Sheet on First Nations Child Welfare
publications -> Paap’s Electronic Newsletter 14 November 2008 Volume 11 Number 22 towards ‘smart’ subsidies in agriculture: lessons from recent experience in malawi
publications -> Information support of pedagogical process for the children experiencing difficulties with acquisition of preschool educational programs
publications -> Asus’ ZenFone ar has Google’s augmentted and virtual reality baked in — but not combined
publications -> School Readiness and Early Grade Success Consultation Memo Atlanta, ga

Download 6.66 Mb.

Share with your friends: