John Calvin Believed in Free Will: Who Knew!

John Calvin Believed in Free Will: Who Knew!

Sep 12, 2023 | Theology

For the Calvin haters, and they are legion, I might have just uttered a heresy. I can imagine the reply in their fevered brains: No he does not! It’s been interesting since I became a certified Calvinist in 1985 to witness how some people respond to the name Calvin or the word Calvinism. It’s an alien concept to most, and even if they know nothing about it, they do know for sure they reject it. I’ve seen visceral responses to Calvin that make him out to be a Christian tyrant who wants people to be controlled and miserable, or that he believed human beings are robots without “free will.” I would often say or think to myself, if you had read any Calvin you would not think such things. Everything I’ve read by the man implies he believes people are volitional beings who have agency, whose choices matter and come with consequences. Now I can say with indisputable proof, he believed in “free will.” 

Let me give a little background before I get to that. Back when I decided as a snot-nosed 25 year-old that I was going to seminary, I purchased Calvin’s commentaries. These voluminous writings take up 22 hard bound volumes. And this didn’t include his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion which clocks in at over 1500(!) pages. Mind you, this was before computers and lightbulbs. I’m sure much of it was written by candlelight. Writing utensils in the early to mid-16th century were likely quills dipped in ink. It’s hard to fathom that kind of productivity with that technology. The same can be said for people like the prolific Aquinas three hundred years before Calvin, and Augustin seven hundred years before Aquinas. Those guys spent a lot of time writing! I don’t know if Calvin was the most productive writer up to his time, but if not he was among them.

So, how do I know Calvin believed in free will? Before I prove he does, I’ve written here about the topic. In one post I argue that “Free Will Does Not Exist,” by which I mean a certain concept of free will. The idea is that our choices exist in a vacuum of complete independence from any influence other than our own choosing. Such a thing does not exist. There are almost an infinite variety of causes that act upon our will, upon our choosing, so in that sense we most definitely are not “free.” In another post on “Calvinism and Free Will,” I discuss the implications of sin for our choosing God. Sinners are enemies of God, so in no sense are we “free” to choose him. That only happens because the Holy Spirit transforms our hearts from spiritual stone to flesh so that we can trust him for our salvation. Our brains are not floating in a vat of neutral liquid where we are presented with information and then decide of our own volition what to do with it. Given the choice without God’s intervention, we would never choose Christ, never.

Then, in what sense does Calvin believe in “free will”? I’m reading some of Calvin’s commentaries on the Psalms. It seems those who interacted with him in his ministry as a pastor encouraged him to commit his lectures on the Psalms to posterity in writing. He mentions other writers who he feels have done such work that he doesn’t feel like he has anything to add, but then he writes this in the introduction:

One reason which made me comply with their solicitations, and which also had from the commencement induced me to make this first attempt, was an apprehension that at some future period what had been taken down from my lectures, might be published to the world contrary to my wishes, or at least without my knowledge. I can truly say that I was drawn to execute this work rather from such an apprehension, than led to it from my own free will. I began to perceive more distinctly that this was by no means a superfluous undertaking, and I have also felt from my own individual experience, that no readers who are not so exercised, I would furnish important assistance in understanding The Psalms.

There you go! Calvin was just like you and me believing his choices were not an illusion, that what he did or didn’t do for the reasons he did them really mattered, and actually determined the direction of his life this way or that, one way or the other. Calvin also believe these choices as free as they are, however, are always in the context of God’s sovereign ordaining of all things. To me that is true freedom because I never have to worry that God’s sitting up on his throne in the heavens and is taken by surprise by anything that happens. If he is not absolutely in some way in “control” of all things, then Romans 8:28 cannot be true: 

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Not 99%, but all. How is he sovereign and ordaining all things for his perfect ends, and we’re still actual free beings whose choices matter? We have no idea because, well, we’re not God. We get into trouble thinking we can figure that out or can some way understand it. We can’t! What we do know is that His sovereignty doesn’t mean He’s a cosmic puppet master and we’re all on strings He’s pulling to move us one way or the other. When the Bible says He is “the ruler of all things,” it means He directs human action and choosing in the context of how human beings exist without ever violating their nature. We are accountable and we know it! We have significance because we are choosing beings and our choices matter. We have agency. We can change things! Scripture, God Himself through His inscripturated word implores us to choose wisely.

Back to Calvin’s voluminous commentaries. I’m embarrassed to say I’ve almost ignored them these almost four decades, although more sad because I’ve left all that wisdom I could have been learning sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Shame on me it took this long, but God is merciful and gracious to us in his Son! Please don’t tell anybody this, but I even wanted to sell them amidst our several moves over the last number of years. Thank God my longsuffering wife talked me out of it! There are two reasons they are no longer on the shelf gathering dust.

As you may know, Calvin was a Frenchman, so when he preached or lectured it was in French, or as a scholar he sometimes wrote or lectured in Latin. The commentaries we have were translated in the mid-nineteenth century, and as you can see the English from that time is kind of stilted and foreign to our ears. It takes a little more work to get at the meaning, and I guess I was too lazy to do it, doggone it! No more! Which brings me to the second reason.

I recently read a biography of one Calvin’s contemporaries, the great Scottish Reformer John Knox, and it helped me realize what a treasure I have right under my nose. Knox and other British Protestants fled England to Calvin’s Geneva from the wrath of the Catholic “Bloody Marry” from 1553-1558. Over 300 Protestants who didn’t flee were burned at the stake. These sentences from a paragraph in the book blew my mind:

Many of the city’s exiles came to listen to Calvin, and a system had been organized with a speed writer to transcribe his sermons as they were preached. The text was copied and circulated and, after Calvin had revised it, formed the basis of his printed Biblical commentaries.

And they’re sitting on my shelf! And in English! And by God’s grace, no longer taken for granted.

 

Uninvented: Who Is the Greatest and the Criterion of Embarrassment

Uninvented: Who Is the Greatest and the Criterion of Embarrassment

Sep 9, 2023 | Apologetics

One of the most powerful arguments for the veracity of the historical accounts of the Bible is the criterion of embarrassment. The idea is simple: Nobody tells stories to make themselves look bad. Nor do they tell stories making themselves look bad to try to prove what they are conveying is historically true. Human nature doesn’t work that way. We tend to the opposite, wanting to make ourselves look good, excuse our foibles and faults, and we’ll even be tempted to lie to cover up things we don’t want others to know. Yet if you read the Bible the people portrayed almost never come up looking good with a few exceptions. I heard Tucker Carlson in a recent interview make this point. He’s been red pilled with the rest of us since Trump came on the scene, and he’s had an awakening of his Episcopalian faith. He decided not too long ago to read the Bible from cover to cover, something he’d never done, and was shocked at how horrible most of the characters were. That’s because they are real, flawed people like we all are, and the authors are writing about real people doing real things in real time. It doesn’t read at all like the fairy tales and myth ignorant critics think it is.

The examples in Scripture are plentiful, but Jesus’ disciples are great fodder for this argument. They come off looking clueless most of the time, and are consistently confused by most things Jesus says and does. And keep in mind the gospels were the foundational books for the growth of a new religion built on a very old one. You would think those who wrote and promoted them would want to make themselves look good, or at least less embarrassing, but that’s not the case. Recently reading through Mark I was reminded of how this argument gives the biblical stories verisimilitude, which is the quality of appearing to be true or real. That is the argument of Uninvented in a nutshell. It’s an important reason when people read the Bible for the first time they’re surprised, like Tucker was, because it’s nothing like they expected. I wrote a post a year ago about the conversion of Shia LaBeouf, and if you listen to his interview with Bishop Barron he says how blown away he was when he read the gospels for the first time. Jesus was nothing like he expected.

When I first started thinking about and then writing the book I was going to call it Psychological Apologetics, but nobody would have known what that meant. Not a good thing for the title of a book. The idea in my brain was that if you look at the characters and how they are portrayed in the Bible from a psychological perspective, it reads absolutely real. People act and react exactly the way real people act and react. And keep in mind a critical point: fiction as we know it today did not exist in the ancient world. That is a modern phenomenon of the last few hundred years. Yes, ancient people made up and told stories, but they had no illusions they were creating verisimilitude. Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, the foundational works of ancient Greek literature, are perfect examples to contrast with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. There likely was a Trojan war something like Homer presents it, but nobody thought he was writing “history.” The reason this is a good comparison, and not the histories of ancient historians like Herodotus, Thucydides, or Livy is because of the super-natural elements in both. Skeptics think they are comparable—they are not. A cursory read of both makes that very clear.

Read the Bible and it’s apparent the writers of the biblical books were attempting to write history, while Homer was taking poetic license with the history involving the Greek gods. Nobody really believed Achilles, for example, was the son of the mortal Peleus, and the sea nymph, Thetis. While the ancients certainly believed in the reality of their gods, none of them saw the gods like the Hebrews saw Yahweh, the one true God. The religious texts of ancient pagans do not read anything at all like the religious texts of the Hebrews, what Jesus and the Apostles called the graphé- γραφή, the writings, our Old Testament. And just as there was no fiction in the ancient world, there wasn’t what we call today historical fiction, or writing history with made-up stuff to make it appear real. Knowing all of this makes the criterion of embarrassment all the more powerful to have in our apologetics tool kit.

I’ll briefly discuss the mark passage as a great example. It comes from chapter 9:

33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

36 He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

I love  how the Apostles, the Twelve, are so cowered by Jesus because they know how stupid it was to argue which of them is the greatest. This happens to Jesus’ closest followers a lot. They either do something they’re embarrassed by like this, or are afraid to ask Jesus questions when they don’t understand what he says or does. Another example along the same lines comes when James and John, the sons of Zebedee (and their mother) ask Jesus if one can sit at his right and the other at his left in his kingdom.  

In both cases, instead of rebuking them directly for being self-centered idiots, as if Jesus’ ministry is about them, he teaches them something so counterintuitive nobody in the Roman or Jewish world would make it up. All influence in the ancient world was a form of the will to power, might makes right. The stronger as well as the more affluent upper classes had all the benefits in that society. A large portion of the population were slaves, and the rest common laborers, few of whom had politics rights of any kind. Women and children weren’t all that far above slaves, and it must have been confusing when Jesus used a child as an example of what it means to be first in his very upside down kingdom. The absurdity of that in the culture of the time is difficult to convey because we’re too familiar with Christianity living in light of 2000 years of it. As we say in the vernacular of our time, you just don’t make that stuff up! Jesus says something just as absurd in the incident with James and John. The other ten were furious when they heard what the brothers had done, which is funny, then Jesus teaches them more craziness:

42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.

What? Again, given our familiarity with the stories it’s difficult to read this with the shock Jesus’ disciples must have felt when they heard it. Jesus’ teaching here is so counterintuitive, so inside out and upside down that no Jew or Pagan of the time could have made it up. It had to come from Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Jewish Messiah, Risen Lord.  

 

 

 

Wisdom on Marriage from Luther and Mangalwadi

Wisdom on Marriage from Luther and Mangalwadi

Sep 5, 2023 | Parents and Family

Having officially been married to my wife Sarah for 36 years on August 15, I think I know a thing or two about the institution, and when I read the thoughts on marriage by these two men of God they instantly become fodder for a blog post. It so happens when I went to Seminary at Westminster in Philadelphia, having driven all the way from my home in southern California, the last thing I expected to find, to say the least, was a wife. But there she was! We got engaged, and it so happens that our pre-marital counselor was the late Tim Keller, a professor there at the time before he moved to New York City to found Redeemer Presbyterian Church and become, well, Tim Keller. I’ll never forget two things he said among many, but these two stand out as especially true in our experience. We sat down in his office in chairs in front of his desk and after some initial niceties he got right to the point:

The only sinner worse than the one you’re marrying is you.

Well, ok. That took a while to sink in, but I can report after all these years . . . . it is absolutely true! Sometimes we argue about who the worse sinner is, but I always win. It’s too obvious! The other thing is related, flowing out of the depth of our sin. I guess we did a personality test and he got to know us a bit, then said this:

You guys are so different you can either destroy one another or sanctify one another.

Keller was not the kind of guy to pull his punches; he was a straight shooter, and this truth was sobering. I believe it’s true in any marriage even if the spouses are more similar in personality. Two self-centered sinners living in such close proximity 24/7/365 is a recipe for conflict, but in understanding and accepting that we are self-centered sinners allows the promise of sanctification and reveals the genius of marriage. It’s not only God’s chosen instrument to sanctify His people and build his kingdom on earth, but also the ultimate redemptive biblical metaphor for the salvation of His people. The significance and profundity of marriage is beyond the ability of mere words to convey, but that’s all we have. It is the most important God ordained institution for extending Christ’s reign on earth, advancing His kingdom, and building His Church, and in that I do not exaggerate. I will explain below.

When I read these two quotes in Vishal Mangalwadi’s book, The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, I knew I had to share them here. First from the great Reformer, Martin Luther, who is a more pessimistic than I am, but the point is well taken: 

There is no estate the Devil is so opposed to as marriage. The clergy have not wanted to be bothered with work and worry. They have been afraid of a nagging wife, disobedient children, difficult relatives, or the dying pig or a cow. They want to lie abed until the sun shines through the window. Our ancestors knew this and would say, “Dear child, be a priest or a nun and have a good time.” I have heard married people say to monks, “You have it easy, but when we get up we do not know where to find our bread.” Marriage is a heavy cross because so many couples quarrel. It is the grace of God when they agree. The Holy Spirit declares there are three wonders: when brothers agree, when neighbors love each other, and when a man and a wife are at one. When I see a pair like that, I am glad as if I were in a garden of roses. It is rare.

Mangalwadi adds perspective as to why marriage is so great and essential to life in a fallen world:

Marriage brings out the worst in both husbands and wives. They must choose whether to stay in that school of character, or to drop out. The Bible made divorce difficult because one does not learn much by quitting a challenging school. The only way to make monogamy work is to value love above pleasure, to pursue holiness and humility rather than power and personal fulfillment, to find grace to repent rather than to condemn, to learn sacrifice and patience in place of indulgence and gratification. The modern world was created by countless couples who did just that. In working to preserve their marriages and provide for their children, they invested in the future of civilization itself.

I’ll never forget before we got married telling other young people we were getting married, and watching the disapproval on their faces while disparaging marriage. Phrases like, “Poor guy” were common. Given my nature, I would get right back in their face telling them how great marriage is, how important, how I can’t wait, and that they should get married too! I was basically telling them how wrong they were. I remember several, specifically the young women, get kind of a quizzical look on their face seeming to say, that’s refreshing to hear! I think some even said that.

And the reason these people all felt that way? Marriage is hard! But I must cut them some slack because examples of successful marriages are not bountiful, nor were they in the mid-80s. When California, no surprise, got the no-fault divorce laws-band wagon rolling in 1969, divorce became common in America; when the going got tough, as it will in every marriage, this gave people the idea, and the legal right, to think they could easily get out of a marriage, and that unilaterally. They think, why be miserable if I can just be rid of it, and the problem, as if the problem was the other person. Yes they can be, but as we say, it takes two to tango. In fact, second marriages fail at a higher rate than first marriages because the person who failed at the first one is the same person in the second, and bring all their problems, and sin, with them.

The other reason is the secular culture that bought into the arguments of feminism, among the many other evils of secularism. However, feminism all along its historical development from the 19th century on had a point. Because of the fall, the relationship between men and women was distorted. After telling Eve her pain will increase in childbirth, the Lord tells her, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16, and here is an excellent explanation of this from the ESV study Bible). Men and women were created different, shocking I know, with different roles and responsibilities within a marriage. All of that become complicated by the fall, and thus the thoughts on marriage of Luther and Mangalwadi about how difficult marriage is. I was going to write, “can be,” but that would not be right. The very nature of the unique consequences of the fall for specifically men and women make every marriage, every single one of them, hard by definition.

The fundamental distortion is what this verse describes, and what makes marriage so difficult. Women will seek to usurp the man’s rightful role as the leader and ultimate authority in the family, and the woman is rightfully commanded to submit to her husband in this, but the man will overplay his role as leader and become a domineering authoritarian. This plays out in every marriage over a continuum, but the dynamic in every marriage is the same. How do marriages not only survive but also thrive in the face of such relentless headwinds? Jesus! God has revealed “the secret” in Ephesians 5:21-33. The analogy Paul uses is Christ and the Church, and the good news is it’s not a secret!