Calvinism is not a monolithic reality (thus this blog), historically, often times I find, when interacting with Classic Calvinists, that there is the pervasive belief that “their” tradition is pure gospel without development. I think the following, at least, illustrates that this is too reductionistic, and in fact there is significant disagreement between someone like John Calvin, and Theodore Beza, on the ordo salutis and the decrees .
In Richard Muller’s book: Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology From Calvin to Perkins, he is discussing Theodore Beza’s articulation of Christ and the decrees relative to predestination and the consequent doctrine of sanctification and assurance. Let’s hear from Muller on Beza’s view on “finding assurance” of salvation:
The syllogismus practicus [practical syllogism] appears in Beza’s thought as, at most, a partial solution to the problem of assurance. Beza frequently spoke of the inner witness of the Spirit as a ground of assurance, particularly in the context of justification and sanctification. This accords, on the one hand, with Beza’s forensic definition of justification and, on the other, with his recognition that sanctification could not be equated with progress toward a sinless life; in neither case could the emperical syllogismus enter the picture as the sole ground of assurance. But when Beza asks the question of the Christian life that results from faith, justification, and sanctification, proceeding, that is, from the divine cause to its human effects, he more pointedly even than Calvin, demands that good work follow. Throughout Beza’s works there is a tension between the spiritual and the emperical grounds of assurance: there is, in the relatively late study on Ecclesiastes, a denial of any use of material riches as a sign of justification or election–but in the isolated statement of the Catechismus compendarius, the syllogism rears its head in unabated form.
As Bray remarks, we encounter in Beza hardly a trace of Calvin’s teaching concerning Christ as the ground of assurance. There is a strong christological center in all of Beza’s attempts at systematic formulation and we sense everywhere the connection between Christ and the decree, but on the problem of assurance, which must always relate to causally to the decree, there is little christological discussion. In a sense, then, Beza allows more of a separation to occur between the munus Christi and the ordo salutis than does Calvin, to the end that the causal-emperical and pneumatological interests of the ordo predominate. . . . (Richard Muller, Christ and the Decree, 85)
The first point I want to highlight on Beza is that according to Muller the “Practical Syllogism” played a heavy heavy role as the basis for the elect to find assurance of salvation—in other words, emperically “proving” salvation was predominate within the soteriology of Beza. Secondly, there is a juxtaposition between the trajectory set by Beza versus the trajectory set by Calvin in regards to the basis of finding assurance (Calvin, according to Muller, believed that Christ alone was the sole base for finding assurance of salvation vs. Beza who “demanded” that good works are necessary if a person is to have assurance of salvation).
While Beza desires to present an christocentric soteriology, it appears, at least according to Muller’s analysis, that he becomes bogged down by concerns relative to ordo salutis rather than to emphasize the PERSON AND WORK of Jesus Christ.
Let me leave with a suggestion: it is this kind of Calvinism that is considered “Orthodox” today, the kind that was ratified at the Synod of Dordt. Again this kind of regimented Calvinism finds its genesis and shape through its Doctrine of God. The “Doctrine of God” that leads to a Bezan understanding (even a Westminster understanding), is the one informed by what has been called Thomism; that is, Thomas Aquinas’ (Roman Catholic scholar) integration of Aristotelian categories of the infinite with the Christian God. If we err at this point, which I believe Classic Calvinism has, then every other doctrine (including soteriology, issues dealing with salvaiton) will be skewed from an actual “Evangelical” understanding of Christian theology.
In fact it is this issue that will determine whether someone ends up an Evangelical Calvinist versus a Classic Calvinist; that is how we “start” out talking about God. I will need to unpack more of this later . . . I can do some of that in the comment meta if you want.
P. S. If anything, I want you to walk away from this post realizing that there really is a discernable distinction, very early on, to be made amongst Calvinism[s]. Thus, at the least, my blog title is warranted; and in fact, within the history of ideas, these distinctions are demanded if we are going to be “people of the truth” (Janice Knight has made a distinction between English Calvinism, one she labels The Spiritual Brethren [which would correlate closely to our “Evangelical Calvinism”, in some ways], and The Intellectual Fathers [which would correlate to “Classic Calvinism”, exactly] — I’m bursting at the seems here ;-), I have a surplus of things I want to speak to . . . in time ;-). I have left some terms undefined in this post (i.e. practical syllogism), this is on purpose . . . I’m hoping to create some space for discussion and questions :-).
Hey Bobby I hope that all is well!! Great post!! Both stirring and contemplative!! If assurance of salvation is not grounded in the person and work of Jesus Christ than there are terrible practical consequences that will follow…We must stay centered in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ!!! I have witnessed the damaging effects of both Classic Calvinism and Arminianism in this area…General questions: Do you think people within these camps are truly seeing the damaging effects that assurance of salvation outside the person and work of Jesus Christ brings and are refusing to change because of their theological commitments? Or do you believe that people from both of these camps truly aren’t seeing the damaging effects? 🙂
In the Superabundant Grace of God,
Chris
Chris,
Doing well; hope you are too!
Great question!! In America today, I would say most do not experience the angst that their theology should cause them. I think we have to go back to Puritan England or America, wherein the theology was sown into the fabric of society in order to see how this damaging theology plays out in an internalized and realized way. I think that this is why it is so difficult to get traction with Calvinists; they don’t seem to see the pastoral implications of their theology, and thus they don’t seem to grasp what all the fuss is about. Although, I know a few people (my dad included, although he is not a Calvinist, but has grown up under the Arminian/Calvinist culture his whole life) who have struggled in this area. In fact look at this post by Pyromaniac Dan Phillips: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/09/spurgeons-pastoral-wisdom-in-dealing.html . So instead of thinking that there might be something wrong with his theology, Dan embraces it, and nobly moves forward the best he can; gaining comfort from the fact that he’s not the only one in the history of Calvinism who has had to do this. I think I might do a post, response, to Dan’s sad post; his post really discouraged me, and made me feel bad for him!
I am good!!! 🙂 I am pressing on through school online!! I have like 10 classes left before I have my associate of arts degree in Christian ministry!!! Thanks for the response!!! I am aghast after reading that blog post!!! That is horrible!!! That poor woman was already introspective enough before getting that bit of cyanide!!! Look to Jesus as Savior, Mediator, and High Priest!!! Looking to good works as assurance of salvation has terrible consequences because it is based on our own validation and the validation of other men which is only and always purely subjective!!!!! On top of that unbelievers do good deeds for the sake of others!!! It is such a temptation to do that for so many Christians!!! And people always have a proof text used out of its context to validate looking to their own works!!!! It is a vicious cycle!!! Thanks again!!! I will be looking for that post in response if indeed you decide to carry out your plans!!!
In His Great Love and Mercy,
Chris
Chris,
I am glad you’re doing good, brother! That is exciting to hear about your degree; press on man, that’s awesome!! Yeah, it breaks my heart to see saints unnecessarily struggling with assurance issues; all of this tied to an erroneous understanding of our loving God in Christ. I do think I am going to write a rejoinder type post to Dan Phillips post at the Pyromaniacs; I think this subject continues to need address.
Great!! I look forward to it!! 🙂
Great post. Not having grown up under Calvinist preaching nor having spent any time being influenced by it, the very idea that one must look to oneself, one’s own faithfulness and works in order to find assurance of salvation is just so foreign to me.
For me I always knew that my conversion was according to John 3. I believed in Christ and He gives me eternal life. I trust in Him and his blood washes away all my sin. Sure I have grieved over my sin, my doubts about God, my faithlessnes, but even in those times I have always rested on the finished work of Christ for me – He is faithful even when we are not.
Not having heard about the eternal decree of election as the basis of my salvation freed me from wondering if I was elect. The question never entered my mind. I knew that I had responded to the call to follow Jesus and having once put my faith in His work there was no more work for me to trust in.
How sad for all those commenting over at Pyro. Many comments were saying they too often doubted if they were saved. How utterly tragic! There just is no place in the gospel or the teaching of discipleship for that to become an issue.
I guess it must be the combined effects of Federal Calvinism – the doctrine of the decree of predestination, the preaching of sanctification as keeping the law that cause those doubts. Yet what about the perseverance of the saints? Why isn’t that sufficient to alleviate doubt? Maybe because they don’t know if they truly are saints to begin with. I really don’t understand how people can arrive at that possibility. Somebody is lying to them.
Jon,
I’m glad you didn’t have to experience this; I didn’t grow up under this either, but in a way we all do in the West. I think Classical Theism is the pervasive theology that shapes our Evangelical sub-culture, theologically. So in a way, we can’t escape the pressure that this kind of doctrine of God provides.
The Pyro thread is absolutely sad! I am still planning on doing a post in response to that one; hopefully on Monday. Perseverance works for some, but not for those who understand the whole package that the TULIP offers. They may not be one of the elect for whom Christ died; they may have a temporary faith; etc. Sad stuff indeed!!!