Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 5)
March 26th, 2007
. . . and why every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts.
(By Phil Johnson)
Part V: Why this issue is really a lot simpler than most people think
At the end of the previous post, I described how even in my Arminian days, I affirmed an awful lot of truth about the sovereignty of God: I would have affirmed with no reservation whatsoever that God is God; that He does all His good pleasure; that no one can make Him do otherwise; that He is in control and in charge no matter how much noise evildoers try to make; and not only is He in charge, He is working all things out for my good and His glory. As a matter of fact, my confidence in the promise of Romans 8:28 was what motivated my prayer life.
That’s Calvinism. If you believe those things, you have affirmed the heart of Calvinism, even if you call yourself an Arminian. Those are the basic truths of Calvinism, and if you already believe those things, you are functioning with Calvinist presuppositions.
In fact, the truths of Calvinism so much permeate the heart of the gospel message, that even if you think you are a committed and consistent proponent of Arminianism, if you truly affirm the gospel you have already conceded the principle points of Calvinism anyway.
I want to turn to the Scriptures and illustrate for you from a typical passage of Scripture why I think that’s true. For the remainder of this series, we’ll focus on one very short text of Scripture that illustrates perfectly the point I am making.
Let’s home in on a truth Arminians hold in especially high regard, and rightfully so: the love of God. I’ve chosen a short verse, and a familiar one, to make this as simple as possible—1 John 4:19. This is one of those memory verses AWANA kids love because it’s easy to get credit for memorizing a whole verse, and it’s just eight words in English: 1 John 4:19: “We love Him because He first loved us.”
I remember very well the first time I noticed this verse. I was a fairly new Christian at the time, and I was surprised to find this truth in the Bible.
I was appallingly ignorant of the Bible when I was a brand new Christian. I grew up going to liberal churches where the Bible was hardly mentioned unless the Sunday School teacher wanted to disagree with something the Bible said.
So I remember taking a Bible literacy exam when I entered Moody Bible Institute, still as a fairly new believer. I hate to think what kind of score I made on that exam. I’m sure it was appallingly low. The amount I knew about the Bible was embarrassingly meager. I knew, of course, that Moses got the Ten Amendments on Mount Cyanide, but the only one I could name was “Thou shalt not admit adultery.”
But we still sang some of the old hymns, and one of the ones that was familiar to me was, “Oh, How I love Jesus!” And I was always intrigued by the closing line of that song: “Oh, how I love Jesus, because He first loved me.” So I was familiar with the words, but I was really surprised to find that this is what the Bible says: “We love Him, because He first loved us.”
For some reason, from my earliest childhood, hearing the chorus of that song, that had always struck me as a pretty lousy reason for loving Jesus. Of course, in my unregenerate state, I had almost no understanding whatsoever of the love of Christ for me. I knew that He loved me and I was supposed to love Him, because we sang about it and all. But loving Him just because He loved me first didn’t seem like a particularly noble or admirable reason for loving Him. In fact it always sounded a little bit childish, because it was the very same reason I always gave my mother when she asked me why I hit my brother: Because he hit me first!
I understood that reciprocity is not a good motive for determining how we act toward other people. “You love me, and I’ll love you in return” is as morally bankrupt as saying, “You hit me, and I’ll hit you back.” Love is supposed to be unconditional, isn’t it? So “because He first loved me” never sounded like quite an adequate motive for loving Jesus.
So I was really surprised after I became a Christian and started reading the Bible, when I found that these words are taken directly from Scripture: “We love Him, because He first loved us.”
But what I didn’t understand then, but I understand now, is that this verse isn’t speaking merely about the motive for our love. It is a profound statement about the grace of God that sovereignly secures our love and transforms us from God-hating enemies into adopted sons and daughters whose hearts naturally overflow with the purest kind of love—not only love for God, but also love for one another.
Incidentally, there’s a minor textual issue in this verse that I ought to mention. In the King James and New King James Versions, this verse is translated just the way I have read it: “We love Him, because He first loved us.” That’s because the Greek texts from which the King James Version was translated include the object Him.
It doesn’t ultimately matter which reading you prefer, because both things are actually true, and our capacity for loving God is dependent on our ability to have true love. If we couldn’t love at all, we certainly couldn’t love God. So either way, the meaning of this verse includes the truth that “We love Him, because He first loved us.”
(To be continued tomorrow)
“in my Arminian days… That’s Calvinism.”
I smell bait and switch. Convince the Arminians they really are already Calvinists? By your own recognition you can believe that paragraph and not believe the TULIP. The Gospel is not the principle point(s) of Calvinism, TULIP is.
[…] Phil Johnson (http://www.sfpulpit.com) continues his series on why he is a Calvinist and why all Christians are one of sorts with part five. […]
What a wonderful God we have, who would initiate His love toward us. I guess this has seized my thinking in bewilderment since my conversion in 1969 - and I can’t really leave that wonder for long. A dear Arminian woman shared the initiating love of God for me from John 3:16 and for some strange reason I was truly bewildered. I remember thinking “Why? Why would He do such a wonderous thing for me, as to give His Son so that I might not perish.” Years later as you and I Phil roomed together at Moody Bible Institute I learned that “strange reason” was the initiating work of regeneration, but at first I didn’t have any grasp of a soul being awakened to new life by the grace of God. I just remembered being overcome by the initiating love of God. And now after almost 38 years, it still grips my thinking, holding it even deeper. Thanks for stiring my heart this morning with your good post and great memories.
Well, I wouldn’t agree that Calvinists have a monopoly on “the sovereignty of God.” It is not a “Calvinist doctrine,” only their particular definition of it (one that is, in my view, flawed). The sovereignty of God is a biblical doctrine, and belongs to all Christians. The traditional Calvinist notion of sovereignty is deterministic; moderate Calvinists have moved away from that because of the fatalistic implications… and guess what? Those who have are really offering an “Arminianism of sorts”!
Which means that Arminians who know what they’re talking about (and not the sloppy mess offered up in many pulpits) and Calvinists who are not hyper, have a lot more in common than is often supposed.
True, there will always be a fence of disagreement, but it is not worth dividing over. We can and should move forward together on behalf of the gospel, and issues like Scriptural integrity in the face of postmodern challenges.
I guess we are all Calvinists buuuuut… my problem is what I call the “puppet show doctrine”. That would be the belief that God is the puppeteer and on one hand He holds the “sinner” puppet and the other holds the “saint” puppet. Everything each puppet does is dictated by the puppeteer. Therefore God calls but not only does He give the possibility of acceptance to each but actually makes the decision for them. Therefore there is no free will. He decides for you and it’s a done deal. The problem with that is that
*It makes a mockery of His calling
*It outright belies the scriptures saying that He is not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to the knowl;edge of the truth.
*It likewise belies the “men loved darkness rather than light” and countless other texts wherein God beseeches “why will you die? Choose me and live”.
I don’t know.. I’m just frustrated by hyper-Calvinists who insist that we don’t respond by our free will (not initiate, mind you!!). “Choose you this day whom you will serve”…. You mean God, who is love, decided billions of people will spend eternity in hell when it could just have easily been a few to glorify Him by showing His judgment? Surely Man has some part in this.
As a 4 point Calvinist I am thorougly comfortable with monergistic language in reference to salvation - but does monergism apply to damnation?
i.e. - God in His electing love draws, imparts faith, etc. - but is His preterition or rejection of some to be seen as the cause of man’s sin and damnation?
I think historic Reformed would not go there - and perhaps that would fall under the ‘Quick and Dirty’ category?
I think that’s where Spurgeon would probably line up - he once said, ‘Salvation is all of God - Damnation is all of man’
What’s with the doubt and uncertainty? Maybe a few of you haven’t read Phil’s stuff before, but I promise, that’s really not where he’s going. He’s said from the very beginning that he very firmly affirms that the tenets of Arminianism are error - he’s not suddenly going to switch things up and say that everything about Arminianism is really Calvinism in disguise.
What he’s doing here is setting up the undeniable truths of Scripture about the Sovereignty of God - all the simple stuff that you can’t be saved by the Gospel and deny.
I imagine the next step is beginning to show how the error creeps in and how these basic ideas can be turned into something that’s almost but not quite totally outside of Scripture. Don’t worry.
The Gospel is not the principle point(s) of Calvinism, TULIP is.
Now that sort of phrase, that would make me worried.
“moderate Calvinists have moved away from that because of the fatalistic implications”
I don’t believe I’m a fatalistic kind-of-a-guy. Could you expound on this statement a little.
“they drew and lifted Joseph up out of the pit … and sold Joseph to the Ismeelites for twenty pieces of silver and they brought Joseph into Egypt. … But the Lord was with Joseph … And Joseph said to them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God?
But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” Gen. 37:28;39:21;50:19-20
Doug Heck became a Christian in OKC in 1969; I was converted in Tulsa in 1971. I met Doug for the first time in 1972 (in Chicago, in the freshman enrollment queue at Moody Bible Institute), and he already knew more Scripture than I knew when we graduated a few years later. Doug was one of the first people who encouraged me to consider Calvinism in light of Scripture, rather than dismissing it out of hand, as I was prone to do.
So if you hate this series of posts, take it up with Doug.
“Now that sort of phrase, that would make me worried.”
Trinian, the Gospel is the Gospel. You have to stretch pretty far to find the TULIP in 1 Cor. 15 or any of the other concise Gospel passages. Calvinism is simply one of several ways trying to explain the Gospel. Calvinism and the Gospel are not synonymous nor mutually exclusive, as Phil clearly shows in his ability to believe that first paragraph before ever believing the TULIP.
I’ve linked this post, as well as the entire series, and another post on God’s gracious election, on my blog. Thank you for this series, I’ve greatly appreciated it, especially the sermon on the historical Calvinism.
Reading Deeply
[…] Phil Johnson is now on part 5 of his series about why he’s a Calvinist. Part 3 had some very good book recommendations, as well. […]
Isn’t it wonderful though the order of 1 John 4:19.
“We Love Him because He first loved us.” (KJV) or “We love because He first loved us.” (NIV, NASB etc.)
Notice the verse does NOT say “He loves us because we first loved Him.”
MDM
‘Calvinism’ may be reduced to Jonah’s affirmation (2.9) that ‘Salvation is of The LORD’. Now if that is not the core of the Gospel, I do not know what is.
The Gospel also presupposes the BAD NEWS of the Fall of man and human sinfulness. John Wesley (my favourite Arminian) clearly affirmed original sin, and that salvation was God’s work. He was, if you like, a four-point Arminian (note that, I once had a man rant at me for saying Wesley was a four-pointer because he didn’t notice the word ARMINIAN).
I have noticed that a lot of anti-Calvinist ranting is based on the unconscious rejection of original sin (assuming that we all start out good). Maybe we all need to re-examine our theology in the light of the first three chapters of Romans?
[…] As part of Phil Johnson’s series at Pulpit Magazine, Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 5), the following question has come up in the comments: If some are elected to salvation, are others elected to damnation? […]
Kubecki - thanks for posting those links together. I should probably clarify that my thinking is more on the lines of ‘what are the boundaries or qualifications in a discussion of God’s sovereignty in reprobation?
Grudem has a few sentences on this: ‘the blame for the condemnation of sinners is always put on the people or angels who rebel, never on God Himself. (John 3:18-19; 5:40) So in the presentation of Scripture the cause of election lies in God, and the cause of reprobation lies in the sinner.’ [Systematic theo, p. 686]
The canons of Dordt also address this issue and make the similar conclusion.
That’s why I was trying to decide if monergism should only apply to election and not to damnation. Just thinking out loud.