THAT “HORRIBLE DOCTRINE"
—What kind of understanding of God conceived of such an idea?
Commentary by Pastor Charles Schmitt (continued)

Five major points cluster around John Calvin’s doctrine of salvation. Three of the five are within the boundaries of orthodoxy; two are clearly not. We will examine a few of these.
John Calvin’s understanding of total depravity is orthodox. Mankind is not merely spiritually disadvantaged or morally incapacitated; mankind is spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Man is so utterly depraved, so totally unable to do anything of or from himself to turn to God, that unless God first comes to him and creates within him the very ability to turn to God in repentance and in faith, he would forever perish. Consequently, God is the author of every single grace that comes to man – from conviction to repentance to faith to conversion to regeneration to sanctification, to glorification! Salvation is totally and solely of the Lord! It is “by grace [we] have been saved…”
(Ephesians 2:8).

John Calvin’s second point of salvation-doctrine, however, marks a wide departure from biblical orthodoxy. Unconditional election is neither Scriptural nor is it moral. It is, in Calvin’s own words a “horrible doctrine.” But what exactly did John Calvin mean by “unconditional election?” Calvin understood “unconditional election” as God’s eternal, sovereign, unconditional decree, whereby in electing some to eternal life, he passes others by, and thereby justly condemns them for their own sin. In other words, the vast majority of humanity stands condemned to eternal damnation for their sins because a God who could have chosen them to eternal salvation did not, and apart from that election they could not be saved. The great revivalist and founder of Methodism, John Wesley, opposed Calvinism on this very issue – “when you say that God condemns millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which they cannot avoid for want of that grace He will not give them – this is to represent the most high God as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil!” For Calvin and his followers John 3:16 therefore must read: “For God so loved [the elect in] the world that He gave His only begotten Son….” I Timothy 2:3-6 is likewise manipulated to read: “This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wills [the elect among] all men to be saved….” This is a very limited election!

The third point in John Calvin’s salvation-theology is a natural consequence of the error of this previous point. If election is limited, then so must be the atonement. The concept of a “limited (or ‘particular’) atonement,” that Christ died only for the elect, is serious doctrinal error, for Scripture declares that “Christ Jesus…gave Himself as a ransom for all men….” (I Timothy 2:6). He is therefore “the Savior of all men.” (I Timothy 4:10), “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42). “Jesus Christ, the Righteous One…is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2). “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself….” (II Corinthians 5:19, AV).

Serious doctrinal error lies in depreciating either the Person or the work of our precious Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses depreciate His Person by limiting Jesus in His eternal Deity. Calvin and his followers limit and depreciate the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary by declaring a “limited atonement.” A contemporary Calvinist succinctly states: “Because there is a limited election, there is a limited atonement…Christ died only for the believer.”

Bearing in mind that at the heart of John Calvin’s limited thinking lies this “horrible doctrine” (“decretum horribile”), we must ask the deeper question, how exactly did Calvin understand God Himself who, when it is in His power to save all men, saves barely a few? Exactly what vision of God did John Calvin have?

We gain some insight into this question by observing how Calvin and his party ruled Geneva in the 16th Century. A contemporary author, who like many other clear thinkers has abandoned Calvinism, begins this thought: “I first heard the name of Miguel Servetus (1511-1553), whom the Calvinists in Geneva burned over green wood so that it took three hours for him to be pronounced dead....” Servetus was “oneness” in theology (from the same doctrinal background as our contemporary T.D. Jakes, Tommy Tenney and Joseph Garlington). “Calvin himself engineered the arrest, conviction, and execution of this ‘heretic.’ Nor was Servetus the only ‘heretic’ whom Calvin wanted put to death. Previously he had sought the death of Jerome Bolsec because of a disagreement over the doctrine of predestination.” Calvin had written to Guillaume Farel concerning Servetus, “I hope the judgment will be capital in any event…if he comes, I will never let him depart alive, if I have any authority.” Calvin’s close friend and associate, Theodore Beza, similarly wrote, “The contention that heretics should not be punished is as monstrous as the contention that patricides and matricides [murderers of fathers and mothers] should not be put to death; for heretics are a thousandfold worse criminals than these.” It should not shock us then that in five years, Calvinist Geneva with only 16,000 inhabitants, witnessed 57 executions and 76 banishments!

It is common knowledge from church history that Calvin was no original thinker on these issues; he was a follower of Augustine, Catholic Bishop of Hippo. Calvinism is not much more than Augustinianism reformulated. And Augustine had the same understandings of the vindictive nature of God as his distant student John Calvin would have. The Donatists had withdrawn from the Catholic Church in Augustine’s day because of Catholic spiritual deadness and laxity. They were the reformers of their era. In his De Correctione Donatistarum, Augustine argues for the death of the Donatist reformers by the sword, supposedly “following the example of [our] Lord.” Augustine argued, “Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return…?” for those who have fallen into heresy “must first be recalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil slaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives.” These Augustinian seeds would eventually bear the evil fruit of the medieval Inquisition with all of its unspeakable horrors for Jews and Protestants.

So we have men like Augustine and Calvin who have made a vengeful God in their own broken image and after their own fallen likeness, and then have presumed to accurately interpret that God and His sovereign purposes for all of us who believe! That makes absolutely no sense at all! Augustine’s God is not the God we have come to love; Calvin’s God is not the God we have come to adore. The God of Holy Scripture, the God revealed through the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, the “God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” – He is the true God! Without in any way obscuring God’s awesome justice or His righteous judgments against sin, it is eternally true that “the Lord is good to all; He has compassion on all He has made…loving toward all” His creation! (Psalm 145:9,13) And He has sent Jesus “the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9). And His heart is longing over His whole creation “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9, AV). This is the only God worthy of our adoration! And this is the only God worthy of our poured out service! For this is the only God there is, and he commands us, “You shall have no other gods besides Me!” (Exodus 20:3, NIV margin)

—Pastor Charles Schmitt

—To read other articles from Pastor Charles take a look at, “Is the Body of Christ a Melting Pot or a Tossed Salad?” , “Why are our Nations’ Flags in the Rotunda (and not in the Sanctuary)?” and A Distortion of Biblical Prosperity. Please check for them on this website.