“Calvinism”
is a term with various shades of meaning.
For example, there are the “four-point Calvinists” as opposed to the
“five-points” of the full “Reformed” doctrine as set out in the Institutes. All will certainly testify
that Calvin´s Institutes are a most significant contribution to the sum of
evangelical theology. But a close study
of the text brings to light some serious weaknesses in the teaching given.
Calvin´s
understanding of the Scriptures seems
to be limited to some extent by his lack of appreciation of the literary genres of which they are made up.
One can see this limitation in the case of the story of Job. The literary
purpose of the author in the first two chapters of Job is plain. It is rather like a play, where in one scene
the villain declares his wicked plans, so that the audience knows them. In the following scenes, the action takes
place, and develops, the hero knowing nothing of what happened and what was
said in the previous scene. It is
essential to the plot of the play that the hero and his friends should not know
what has been planned against them, but the audience knows. It is this dramatic situation which has been
created in the first two chapters of the book of Job, and it continues to be
the background of. the first 31 chapters, and it is picked up in Job 42:4-11,
where God censures Job´s friends for passing judgment so severely
on their friend, without having total
knowledge of the situation.
Job is totally unaware of the confrontation
that has taken place in Heaven between God and Satan, ,and is never permitted
to know. He does not realize that he has
been made God´s champion. His acceptance
of his fate: “The Lord gave, and the
Lord has taken away. Blessed be the Name
of the Lord.” is spoken in total ignorance of the part that the devil played in
his misfortune. So this statement of
Job´s is a truth, but only part of the whole truth. It has been justifiably used over the ages to
comfort the Lord´s people in times of bereavement. But Calvin uses it over and
over again, by extrapolation, as an absolute truth, to establish his teaching.
Calvin ignores the fact which sets the scene for the whole book, that a contest
is being enacted in Heaven.
Let us look at the scene in
Heaven. The “sons of God” appear before
the Lord, and Satan appears among them.
God says: ”Where have you come from?”, which does not sound like a
master welcoming an expected servant. There is a note of surprise, it is the
equivalent of: “What are you
doing here?”.
And Satan´s reply is hardly
submission.
“From roaming
through the earth, and going to and fro in it”
Satan´s reply, far from being submission, is
defiance. The earth is his stamping ground. This attitude is confirmed by a second
encounter, in Job, Chapter 2. Job
repeats his defiance, and the Lord replies:
“Have
you considered my servant Job? There is
no-one on earth like him, he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God, and
shuns evil. And he still maintains his
integrity, though you incited me
against him, to ruin him without any reason.”
This
is what the Bible says. “You incited me
against him” from the mouth of God Himself. Now let us turn to the Institutes,
where the incident is referred to in scattered phrases. We read:
“The
devil himself, who, we see, durst not attempt anything against Job without
(God´s) permission and command…We infer that God was the author of that trial
of which Satan and the wicked robbers were merely the instruments….Satan
himself performs his part, just as he is impelled.”(Inst…Bk.I, 17,7; 18, 1, 2). We
have to consider this: according to the
Bible, God says to Satan: “You incited
me against him.” According to Calvin, Satan “was impelled” by God. Calvin
elsewhere declares:
“I
cannot see the least danger in simply holding what the Scripture delivers.”
But we have to
give the verdict that in this incident the Bible says one thing, and Calvin
says something quite different. He does
not hold what the Scripture delivers.
So, the Bible says “Satan
incited God,” Calvin says “God incited Satan”.
There
is a discrepancy which I cannot understand (how it seems to have escaped the
notice of the theological world) between what Augustus Strong states in his Systematic Theology, and
modern translations of Calvin´s
Commentary on John´s Epistles.
Strong
states on page 778:
“In
later days Calvin wrote in his Commentary on I João 2:2 “He is the propitiation
for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” as
follows: Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness
of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not
for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the
world nothing is found worthy of the favour of God, yet He holds out the
propitiation to the whole world, since without exception He summons all to the
faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”
The
modern translation in English of Calvin´s Commentary on John´s Epistles does not include this passage,
but repeats the teaching of the Institutes
. This is the version of the Ethereal
Library of Christian Classics.
And it is followed by Packer and McGrath`s paraphrase of Calvin´s Commentary. If Strong
did not get his text from Calvin, where did it come from? It is too substantial a passage to be a
variation in translation.
Strong
also quotes James Richards:
“Richards,
Theology, 302-307,
shows that Calvin, while in his early work, the Institutes, he avoided definite
statements of his position with regard to the extent of the
atonement, yet in his latter works, the Commentaries, he acceded to the theory
of universal atonement.”
The
problem has its beginning in Calvin´s treatment of the doctrine of
election. This is, of course, a Biblical
doctrine, stated clearly by Paul in his letter to the Ephesians.
He
tells them that as believers they were chosen in Christ
“before the Creation of the world,
to be blameless and holy in His sight.
In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons”.
This positive view of election is
also seen in Rom.8:28-30, and in I Peter 1:1,2.. One might almost take the view
that the Word of God carefully avoids declaring a negative side to the
doctrine. But Calvin is very assured:
“There could be no election without
its opposite reprobation,” (Bk.III, Chp.XXIII, seç.1. )
Berkhof follows this line of teaching.
It is a great comfort to a soul,
when they accept Christ, to know that their salvation is not something that God
has improvised for them on the spot.
Before
coming to Him, they were lost, no different from all those who live secular
lives without the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.(Rom.3:23.). For
Calvin, those who are predestined to be of the elect do not live in sin in the same way as
others. He states:
“He through the works of the law
preserves (them) in fear”. (Institutes, Bk.II, ch.7, sec, 11)
and further, on the same
page:
“when they are called, they are not
like mere novices.”(sec.10)
Yet Scripture seems to teach that all the
lost are on an equal footing before God. Two passages bring this out:
Titus 3:3 - 5: For we ourselves were
sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures,
living in malice and envy, hateful, and
hating one another, but after that the kindness and love of God our
Saviour toward man appeared… He saved us.”
I Cor.6:9-11: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not
deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of
God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed…”
These passages do not leave much
possibility for any elements of the lost being “preserved in fear”.
We have to leave logic behind.
Calvin´s system is entirely ruled by
logic: it all fits together, and is logically consistent. But we know that this strange world we live
in, in many aspects does not conform to the rules of logic.
At
one time an individual`s condition is as described in Eph.2:12:
“That
at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of God
in the world”.
The ye of
this statement referring to the future church of Ephesus, means they were, then, the
future elect. But they had no hope, and
were without God in the world. That does
not seem to fit in with being preserved in fear, and, on entering into life,
not being novices. It is better to
believe in a miracle, that on entering into eternal life the one who had no
hope, and was without God in the world, becomes at that moment, one who was
“chosen in Him, before the foundation of the world.” It is a real mystery, as great a mystery as
any mentioned by Paul, how this can happen.
But it is better to believe in this miracle, than to stay with a question
mark over the character of our God, which
the conclusion of Calvin´s system unavoidably brings us to.
The question mark arises because the
alternative to this miracle is Calvin´s teaching about the reprobates. He appears to be a little chary about making
a bald statement of God´s treatment of these unfortunates, so his comments are
wrapped up in a question and a generality.
Unwrapped, they are the following:
God did from the first pre-destine some to
death, when as they were not yet sinners they could not have merited sentence of death.
By His eternal providence they were before
their birth doomed to
perpetual destruction.
Yes,
but even man in his sin is a creature with a God-given moral sense, and it is
most difficult for him to believe that He who is the Fount of all goodness
would create soul-bearing beings simply for the purpose of destroying them –
and find glory in so doing (III, 23,6).
Better to accept without
reservations the Scripture:
All you who are thirsty, come to the waters.
Everyone who
calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved.
Or, as the hymn has it:
Whosoever
will. whosoever will,
Send the
proclamation over vale and hill:
`Tis a loving
Father calls the wanderer home,
Whosoever will may
come.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário