Many people do not realize that Calvinism as a system of theology did not begin with John Calvin. In fact John Calvin during his lifetime was never as important of a leader during the Reformation as Martin Luther was. Calvin wasn’t as outspoken as Luther, or as controversial. It was not until years later that Calvin became the point-man of Reformed Theology. Calvin’s popularity was due mostly to his his extensive writings, especially “The Institutes of Christian Religion”, and his more Biblical teaching of the Ordinances compared toMartin Luther. Also, Reformed theology in Western Europe was called Calvinism because many European reformers from countries like Scotland and France studied under John Calvin in Geneva and identified their theology more with Calvin than Luther or Augustine.
The doctrines that constitute Calvinism are sometimes called “Paulinism” because of the Apostle Paul’s extensive writings on soteriology. Some of us just call it “the Gospel”. Indeed, these are Biblical doctrines that were affirmed centuries prior to John Calvin (c.1509-c.1564). The Church Fathers, Polemicists, and Apologists of the first few centuries of church history were primarily concerned with clarifying the Christian doctrines concerning the person of Christ and the essence of the Trinity. But in the Fourth Century the theological debate of the Christian world significantly shifted to soteriology. This is the origins of a system of theology that would one day become known as Calvinism.
Here is a sample of what we may call the pre-Calvin Calvinism debate.
Pelagius (370-435)
Pelagius believed that Adam was born morally neutral and could either sin or not. When Adam did sin it did not affect his will, but only changed his destiny. Pelagius believes that all people are born morally neutral just like Adam and could hypothetically never sin. Pelagius did not believe in the curse of sin or the doctrine of “original sin.” Pelagius is known for saying, “If I ought, I can.” Pelagius also said, “All therefore have a free will to sin or not to sin… everyone has it within the power of his own will to do anything or not to do it. Our victory over sin and Satan proceeds not from the help which God affords but is owing to our own free will.”
- Concerning Grace: Pelagius believed that God gave man grace to make the right choices.
- Concerning the Sinlessness of Christ: He believe that Jesus along with a few other Old Testament people proved that a man can live without ever sinning.
- Concerning Election: God chooses man only because He foresaw that man would choose God.
- Concerning Salvation: Man can choose to sin and change his destiny thus losing his salvation.
Augustine (354-430)
Augustine believed that all men except for Jesus (because of the Virgin Birth) have inherited the curse sin, the propensity to sin, and the guilt of sin from Adam through Traducianism based on Romans 5:12. Augustine believed that Adam’s free will was changed after the Fall. Before the Fall, Adam was able not to sin; after the Fall, Adam was unable not to sin. Furthermore, all men as sinners add Actual Sin to their Original Sin. Augustine believed that man could only be saved by the sovereign grace of God regenerating a man’s spirit and giving him the faith to believe and repent. Augustine said, “Give what Thou commandest and command what Thou wilt.”
- Concerning Man’s Will: Unregenerate man cannot do anything righteous or godly; he is spiritually dead towards God. Man can only sin and sin more; even man’s good deeds are tainted with sinful motives. Man cannot merit good from God.
- Concerning Election: Based on His sovereign, gracious will, God chose only some sinners to be saved, not based on foreseen faith or works.
- Concerning Salvation: Regeneration, justification, and perseverance are dependent on God and are irreversible, and lead to a life of holiness (not perfection).
Semi-Pelagianism (360-435)
John Cassian tried to modify Pelagius’ doctrines by teaching that man was not born with the guilt of Adam but with a tendency to sin. This became known as Semi-Pelagianism. It was condemned at the synods of Orange and Valence (529).
- Concerning Man’s Will: Man’s will is neither good or evil.
- Concerning Salvation: Man did not inherit Adam’s guilt. But Man is not innocent and cannot save himself, but needs God’s grace. Man can initiate salvation by asking God for grace and God will give it to him.
Gottschalk (804-869)
Gottschalk was a German monk. He said, “Before the worlds and before whatever God did from the beginning, He foreordained to the Kingdom whom He willed and He foreordained to death whom He willed; that those whom have been foreordained to death cannot be saved, and those who have been foreordained to the Kingdom cannot perish; that God does not wish all men to be saved, but only those who are saved… and that after the first man fell by free will, no one can employ free will for doing good but only for doing evil.” Gottschalk believed that foreordination precedes everything else in the decrees of God, including foreknowledge.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, we understand with just these few examples that the essential doctrines of Calvinism were being significantly debated since the Fourth Century. And that goes without mentioning Savonarola, John Wycliffe,John Hus, Philip Melanchthon, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Peter Vermigli, Heinrich Bullinger, the Anabaptists, and many others. So to be a Calvinist is to believe the Gospel as it has been preached throughout church history by true orthodox Christians. It is not some theology that one man came up with one day. But it is the doctrines of salvation as they have been preached since Paul wrote the Book of Romans. John Calvin just eloquently systematized the theology that it may be studied thoroughly and taught accurately. But if you are uncomfortable with the term “Calvinist” let me suggest a few synonyms that you may wish to identify with: Reformed Theology, Reformed Baptist, and Sovereign Grace Baptist. Either way, those who reject the Doctrines of Grace may still hate you… but Jesus did warn us of that.
Jason Robertson is the pastor of Murrieta Valley Church in Murrieta, California which he planted in 2001. He is theologically Christian, Evangelical, Baptist, and Reformed. He is married with three children. He loves riding motorcycles, fine cigars, and college football. He has a Masters of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and teaches Church Planting at California Baptist University.
There’s not any doubt that Augustine presented an at least somewhat Calvinistic [sorry for the anachronistic term] view of predestination in the late 4th century.
I have to wonder how important that is as a positive argument for Calvinism. The church was flooded with unconverted pagans some 60 to 80 years before Augustine wrote anything. Violence and corruption marred its testimony among both clergy and laity, and church leadership positions carried secular power and authority, too.
That had been true for decades.
But prior to that influx of pagans into the church, you find all “true, orthodox” Christians have a much more balanced view of predestination and freewill.
You will find reference to the elect and the number of the elect throughout their writings, but they’re also very clear that God’s call is to everyone and that men can heed that call. It’s really very consistent throughout the 2nd and 3rd century writings.
Augustine was a godly and influential teacher. His holiness and commitment in a corrupt age is worthy of our respect and admiration. I certainly dare not say anything negative about him. I’m sure I couldn’t have had his self-denial in his position.
However, just because he adopted a position based on a reaction to Pelagian and a strong personal experience is not good reason for us to do the same against such a consistent, universal testimony of earlier believers.
Paul, thanks for reading FIDE-O and for taking the time to comment.
But I’m not clear as to the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that “Calvinism” denies that “God’s call is to everyone.” Or are you saying that “Calvinism” denies “that men can heed that call”?
Thanks.
The scriptures are abundantly clear about God’s sovereignty over all creation. Jesus was clear about His authority. Paul was clear about Jesus’ authority. They are also all clear about man’s responsibility before God.
It is our own age that has an “unbalanced” view of man’s free will, exalting it to the highest place. No one comes to Christ on his own, out of his own head. God gave the scriptures, protected them, passed them along, raised up preachers and faithful people to bring them to others, families to raise up faithful children, missionaries to spread the word of truth through the whole world. And none of us would be saved if God had not done these things. God has given Christ Jesus authority in all these matters. Yet we want to hang on to something called “free will” in regards to our salvation.
“Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
(Revelation 7:10 ESV)
Not to speak for Paul’s post, but I think his point was that depending exclusively on Augustine to support ideas 1200 years later is a little sketchy. For one thing, that’s not a clear and consistent link. That’s over 1000 years of scarce support for Calvin. Well I guess you listed Gottschalk. Moreover, Augustine seems to have been immersed in the cult of Mani prior to becoming a Christian. In fact, he later debated with some famous Manichees, arguing that the source of moral evil could not be God, and was instead caused by the liberty of His creatures. I think the most odious part of Calvinism is its simplistic, cold, logical conclusion that since God is ominpotent and omniscient, that he is somehow the cause – indirect, secondary, secret, what have you – of evil. And David mentions that we want to hang on to free will. I just want to include some words from another church father.
“God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; He does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing.” (Homilies on Genesis, 19.1)
“All is in God’s power, but so that our free will is not lost. . . . It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first chose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help. . . . It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews Homily, 12)
John Chrysostom (347-407 AD)
In addition to Gottschalk, you’ve got Prosper of Aquitaine (contemporary of Augustine), and the neo-Augustinians such as Thomas Bradwardine (1295-1349) and Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358). Bradwardine in particular is significant for his work “On the Cause of God Against the Pelagians”, which was written as a response to Ockham’s followers. It contains essentially the five points of the Canons of Dordt. Anselm’s soteriology leaned predestinarian as well, and, at one point, he agreed with Gottschalk that the atonement was for the elect.
The line doesn’t exactly go from Augustine to Gottschalk and only then to Calvin; there are quite a few stops in between…
Thanks! I looked into the first source a bit, and am not sure if we can compare Prosper of Aquitaine with Chrysostom? After all, Chyrsostom was a bishop, and eventually Archbishop of Constantinople. Prosper of A. seems to have been simply a writer, and not responsible for a flock, not responsible for leading the Church. Furermore, when I study him, I realize he tried to vett concerns from bishops, say in Gaul. One of his writings seems to indicate that there were no less than 15 Gallic bishops who had serious concerns about Augustine’s writings. I suppose I can add them to Chrysostom as church leaders who may have had problems with Augustine’s writings? Thank you for the sources nonetheless. One quick question – how do Calvinists deal with Romans 5:18? I realize this must be a very elementary question, but it seems very clear that Christ died for all men when I read this…
“Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.”
I wasn’t intending to compare Prosper with Chrysostom, so I’m not sure what that’s got to do with anything… My point was to demonstrate that there was more than Augustine and Gottschalk before Calvin.
If a bridge exists from Augustine to Calvin, then I’m guessing it should rest on the shoulders of authoritative sources. My guess is that Prosper of Aquitaine is less authoritative than Chrysostom. Also, it seems Chrysostom, Augustine, and Prosper of A. were all living around the same time. So this begs comparison. Do you know of any other thinkers, writers, church fathers between Augustine and Calvin that might bridge that gap in time?
I thought Calvinism was simplistic, cold, logical and odious. Until I read Calvin.
Calvinism does not deny the fact that human beings are free moral agents. It does deny that their moral freedom can result in salvation.
God does not choose us because of us, He chooses us because of Him.
Does Calvinism teach that a man can choose to be saved? This is different than saying he can choose to be saved, and then save himself. I don’t think anyone – Arminians included – would confuse the will to do something with the power to do it.
Good question, Mike. I believe that what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans answers this question. Consider Romans 3:9-11 “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.”
As you can see, Scripture teaches us that no one chooses to be saved, whether or not the ability to follow through with actually saving one’s self exists.
Thus God both give the desire to be saved and actually saves. A comprehensive study of “faith” will reveal that when God give a person the gift of faith, that gift (faith) includes “desire for salvation.”
Thanks for the answer. I’m not sure Romans 3 is addressing the point, though. Its purpose seems to put Gentiles and Jews on equal footing, not address free will, election, what have you. Honestly, I’m very new to the Calvinist world – my sister recently recommended some books by Sam Storms, and that’s my reason for investigating these things.
I believe that when we are presented with the gospel, or the universe itself (as Paul also points out in Romans can be an appeal), we have a choice to believe or reject it. I’m sure there are some desires involvled, but ultimately it’s a decision that every competent, mature, and responsible adult must make.
So I live my life trying to spread the gospel, and occasionally use words. I seek to love God with all my being, and my neighbor.
Can you tell me what I can gain from adopting Calvinism?
Mike, Calvinism is to theology what hermeneutics is to preaching. Paul warned Timothy to “rightly divide” the word of God. The analogy Paul was using was that of carpentry. In other words, if a carpenter doesn’t make straight cuts at the beginning the house he builds will be dangerous and will eventually be condemned or fall over.
When a preacher is preparing a sermon, he first dissects the passage of Scripture, cutting it up, and cross-referencing it with the rest of the Bible. We call that hermeneutics. If his hermeneutics is faulty, then his sermon will not be accurate, indeed faulty and dangerous.
All Christians have a system of theology whether they know it or not, whether it is any good or not. Bad systems produce faulty beliefs. Calvinism is the systematic study of theology that has stood the test of time. It gives you the tools to build a solid theology upon which your entire life is based. It is the system that is the most God-centered, biblically consistent, and evangelistic. It is a sub-category of Covenant Theology (which is the broader system of Reformed Theology).
Mike, I would be more than happy to walk you through these issues. I hope you realize even now that what you believe about Calvinism will not be the same a year from now or even five years from now.
Calvinism is a system of theology on one hand, but a walk of faith on the other. And as you walk with God, you will trust in and understand His sovereignty more and more.
Concerning Romans 3:11, I was hoping that you would focus on the part that says “no one seeks after God.” Paul says that neither Jews nor Greeks seek after God, which was his way of saying that neither the religious or the irreligious seek after God.
If you want to look at it from the perspective of “free will” then Paul is saying that we all “will not” seek after God.
That doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice, it just means that no one will ever “choose” God. No one! Never!
Thus, we are saved by God’s sovereign act of granting us faith to want to believe and actually trusting. The Apostle Paul said that it is not of man’s works, or then we could boast.
Chapter 3 of Romans seems to begin with this question: What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? I think Paul answers this question in the rest of the chapter. The OT portions he quotes in v. 11 seem to me supporting evidence for his answer.
I totally agree with you about not boasting over salvation. I chose to be saved a while ago. It would be foolish to say I somehow brought all those elements together that led me to that decision – from the family I was born into, to the friends put in my life, even to the books I happened to be reading. The fact that I have a Bible is in itself wonderful, given they’re banned many countries. All of these things make me grateful, not boastful.
“Therefore, we understand with just these few examples that the essential doctrines of Calvinism were being significantly debated since the Fourth Century”
Hmmm, the “essential doctrines”? What about justification by faith alone? That’s certainly central but wasn’t debated since the 4th century until the reformation. i.e. There’s more to the reformed faith than simply predestination (or the five points for that matter).
I think we really have to be careful of anachronism when talking about “Calvinism” (itself not a helpful label in that Calvin wasn’t regulative for the tradition). Historical theology is a messy work, and things aren’t often as neat as we’d like.
Marty, thanks for your interaction. But I think you confused the statement “essential doctrines of Calvinism” with “essential doctrines of the Reformation.” Probably you just read it to quick.
So, of course, Justification by faith alone is a very important doctrine, arguably one of the most important doctrines. But as we know, Calvinism is a more narrow discussion than that which includes that great doctrine. Besides, Justification by faith was debated between the 4th C. and 14th C. The trouble was with the aspect of faith ALONE. But anyways, I am thankful for your interaction. I hope my response does not turn you away; it is only meant to clarify and continue helpful discussion.
“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. ” (I Tim 2)
“For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” (I Tim 4:10)
“Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. ” (Romans 5:18)
“…God does not wish all men to be saved, but only those who are saved….” (Gottschallk)
Speaking of rightly dividing the word, I can’t see how to re-interpret these words from Paul to make them fit with Gottschalk. What am I missing here?
Mike, I encourage you to be careful not to assume that “all” is referring to the same thing in Gottschalk’s statement as Paul’s.
This is a classic example of the necessary use of hermeneutics and the need for systematic theology. If not, we can just pick words or phrases and use them anyway we want.
So, in light of your question, here is the most important hermeneutical question: What was Paul talking about and what was Gottschalk talking about?
And here is the most important theological question: Is it possible for God to want things that he cannot have?
Paul seems to be talking about all men, which I gather from the phrase “all men”. Sorry, but I think that’s how any reasonable person would read this. As for Gottschalk, I don’t know much about the man, but he seems to be consciously contradicting these scriptures. You know more about Gottschalk than I do – when he says God “does not wish all men to be saved”, what does he mean?
Mike, if you would allow me to ask you a few questions, I think they could help you. Such as:
Do you think that Christ died for the sins of the people in Hell? If so, then why are they paying for their own sinfulness?
Do you believe that the crucifixion of Christ was a penal substitutionary atonement?
I shall point you back to what I said originally:
In addition to Gottschalk, you’ve got Prosper of Aquitaine (contemporary of Augustine), and the neo-Augustinians such as Thomas Bradwardine (1295-1349) and Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358). Bradwardine in particular is significant for his work “On the Cause of God Against the Pelagians”, which was written as a response to Ockham’s followers. It contains essentially the five points of the Canons of Dordt. Anselm’s soteriology leaned predestinarian as well, and, at one point, he agreed with Gottschalk that the atonement was for the elect.
Thank you Jennifer. I was just wondering if there might be any more names, in that space of about one thousand years between Augustine and Bradwardine. Besides Gottschalk.
Has there been any reasonable scholarship looking at the Augustinian Order as a hot bed of pre protestant thought leading up to the Reformation? Gottschalk, Calvin, Luther were all influenced by that order.