Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Tag: Calvin (Page 2 of 5)

Does John 6:44 Teach Predestination?

August 5, 2018 / / 30 Comments

A reader wrote:

I’ve really enjoyed browsing your site. I’m a reformed Christian and have appreciated learning about the Orthodox Church. I do find the church appealing but I believe scripture supports the reformed position. I’ve been reading your plucking the tulip article and was hoping you’d interact with John 6, especially vss 44-59 as I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument in favor of the non reformed view of that passage.

The verse the reader referred to is John 6:44 which reads:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (NKJV, OSB; emphasis added)

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. (NA28; emphasis added)

Verse 44 has been construed to teach that we are saved against our will. Another way to put it is that our human wills have been irresistibly compelled by God’s eternal decree to receive Christ and so become Christians. Furthermore, any so-called freedom of the will or ability to love God is impossible outside the divine decree. It has been claimed that this verse supports the Reformed doctrine of double predestination, or more precisely the doctrine of effectual calling aka irresistible grace.

In this article I examine how John 6:44 can be approached in ways that allow for non-Reformed readings. Key to this argument will be the multiple meanings for the Greek word for “draw” – ελκω (helko).  I will also be looking at non-Reformed readings of John 6:44, the context of John chapter 6, and the context of historical theology to see if the Reformed interpretation of John 6:44 holds up to critical scrutiny.

 

The Reformed Understanding of John 6:44

Charles Spurgeon

The famous nineteenth century preacher, C.H. Spurgeon, tells the story of how he was confronted with an interpretation of John 6:44 based on the literal meaning of ελκω (helko) – “to drag.”

Another person turns around and says with a sneer, “Then do you think that Christ drags men to Himself, seeing that they are unwilling?” I remember meeting once with a man who said to me, “Sir, you preach that Christ takes people by the hair of their heads and drags them to Himself.” I asked him whether he could refer to the date of the sermon wherein I preached that extra-ordinary doctrine, for if he could, I should be very much obliged. However, he could not. But said I, while Christ does not drag people to Himself by the hair of their heads, I believe that He draws them by the heart quite as powerfully as your caricature would suggest.

Mark that in the Father’s drawing there is no compulsion whatever; Christ never compelled any man to come to Him against his will. If a man be unwilling to be saved, Christ does not save him against his will. How, then, does the Holy Spirit draw him? Why, by making him willing. It is true He does not use “moral suasion”; He knows a nearer method of reaching the heart. He goes to the secret fountain of the heart, and He knows how, by some mysterious operation, to turn the will in an opposite direction, so that, as Ralph Erskine (1685-1752) paradoxically puts it, the man is saved “with full consent against his will”; that is, against his old will he is saved. But he is saved with full consent, for he is made willing in the day of God’s power. Do not imagine that any man will go to heaven kicking and struggling all the way against the Hand that draws him. Do not conceive that any man will be plunged in the bath of a Saviour’s blood while he is striving to run away from the Saviour. Oh, no! It is quite true that first of all man is unwilling to be saved. When the Holy Spirit hath put His influence into the heart, the test is fulfilled: “Draw me and I will run after thee” (Song 1:4). We follow on while He draws us, glad to obey the Voice which once we had despised. (source; emphasis added)

Here, Spurgeon’s studiously avoided the literal meaning of ελκω “to drag.” He could have used the more literal meaning of ελκω as when the Apostle Paul was physically dragged in Acts 16:19 and 21:30, but he did not. Insisting that there is no compulsion involved in our salvation, Spurgeon relied on the figurative meaning used in the Song of Songs. He states that there is no “moral suasion” involved (which would have implied Arminianism), and instead insists that it was a “mysterious operation” of the Holy Spirit that brings about conversion.

In contrast to Spurgeon’s figurative understanding, Ligonier Ministries uses the more literal meaning of ελκω found in Acts 16:19:

. . . it is also clear that any position that says the Lord only “woos” us cannot be maintained. The same word translated “draw” in John 6:44 is found in Acts 16:19 and James 2:6 where the apostolic authors speak of someone being “dragged” somewhere. Though the elect may try at first to resist God’s drawing, He drags us, against our fallen wills, to Jesus. God overcomes our natural enmity toward Himself and guarantees that His elect people will choose to follow Christ. (source; emphasis added.)

The tension between two notable Reformed Christians, C.H. Spurgeon and R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, on the meaning of ελκω in John 6:44 shows that understanding John 6:44 is not as simple as some may think.

John Calvin

So, where does John Calvin stand with respect to Spurgeon and Ligonier Ministries’ conflicting interpretations? Calvin’s understanding of John 6:44 can be found in his commentary.

Unless the Father draw him. To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him. (Emphasis added.)

Calvin cites John 6:44 eight times in his Institutes. He understood “draw” in the sense of the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian believer.

Hear Him calling, ‘No one comes to me unless my Father draws him’ [John 6:44]. And one may incontrovertibly conclude from John’s words that the hearts of the pious are so effectively governed by God that they follow Him with unwavering intention. (Institutes 2.3.10; p. 304; emphasis added)

Calvin seems to occupy a middle ground between Spurgeon and Ligonier Ministries with respect to God’s efficacious calling. Where Spurgeon sought to soften the repellent connotations of efficacious calling, Ligonier Ministries underscored the coercive nature of divine election insisting that God drags us against our fallen wills. I have been unable to find Calvin using similar stark language which leads me to suspect that Ligonier Ministries may be more Calvinistic than Calvin!

The Reformed understanding of John 6:44 is not the only interpretation. Noted Roman Catholic bible scholar, Raymond Brown, favors understanding our being drawn to Christ in terms of attraction or desire, not compulsion. In his Anchor Bible Commentary on John, Brown notes:

If the Jews will desist from their murmuring, which is indicative of a refusal to believe, and will leave themselves open to God’s movement, He will draw them to Jesus. This is the age spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when they are being taught by God, if only they will listen. This teaching has its external aspect in the sense that it is embodied in Jesus who walks among them, but it is internal in the sense that God acts in their hearts. It is a fulfillment of what Jeremiah xxxi 33 had promised: “I will put my law within them, and on their hearts will write it” (John Bright, The Anchor Bible, vol. 21). This internal moving of the heart by the Father will enable them to believe in the Son and thus possess eternal life. (p. 277; emphasis added)

Brown’s non-Reformed reading can be seen in the causal reasoning: If the Jews will desist from murmuring, then God will draw them to Jesus. This allows for the freedom of choice – to resist God’s grace or to be receptive to God’s grace in Christ by listening to what Jesus has to say.

St. John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom, one of the preeminent preachers in the early Church, likewise offers a different approach to John 6:44. He understands ελκω in John 6:44, not in terms of compulsion, but as persuasion or wooing. A Calvinist reading Homily XLVI cannot help but be struck by John Chrysostom’s blunt, explicit affirmation of human free will:

For if a man cometh to Him,” saith some one, “what need is there of drawing?” But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implieth not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor (p. 164; emphasis added).

If there are other ways of interpreting John 6:44, the issue then becomes which is the more accurate understanding of the verse?

 

 

John 12:32

To better understand the meaning of ελκω in John 6:44, it helps to compare how the word is used in John 12:32. Here we have the same word used in two similar contexts within the same book. Under normal circumstances, we can expect the same meaning to apply for both contexts.

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself. (NKJV, OSB)
κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν. (NA28; emphasis added.)

However, the Reformed folks’ attempt to apply the literal meaning of ελκω as compulsion has problematic implications, i.e., universalism, that all will be saved. Calvin in his commentary on John 12:32 sees this problem and so downplayed the monergistic sense of the word and placed stronger emphasis on how Christ’s death on the Cross would result in a salvation that would include the non-Jews. Thus, Calvin does not take “all” literally but in the restricted sense of the elect, i.e., “the children of God, who belong to his flock.”

It might have been thought, that at that time he was carried away from the earth, so as no longer to have any interests in common with men; but he declares, that he will go in a very different manner, so as to draw upwards to himself those who were fixed on the earth. Now, though he alludes to the form of his death, yet he means generally, that his death will not be a division to separate him from men, but that it will be an additional means of drawing earth upwards towards heaven.

I will draw all men to myself. The word all, which he employs, must be understood to refer to the children of God, who belong to his flock. Yet I agree with Chrysostom, who says that Christ used the universal term, all, because the Church was to be gathered equally from among Gentiles and Jews. . . . (source; emphasis added.)

Evangelical scholar, Leon Morris, in his NICNT commentary on John, while understanding “draw” in the sense of a work of God and not a natural human response, recognizes that it would be problematic to read the passage as implying universal salvation (p. 598). To avoid universalism, Morris chooses to understand the verse as teaching the end of the particularism of Judaism and salvation being extended to non-Jews. While this reading softens the universalistic implications of John 12:32, it ignores the troubling implications of a literal compulsory understanding of ελκω in his commentary on John 6:44 (cf. Note 110 p. 371) and whether whether the figurative meaning of ελκω could have been used both John 6:44 and 12:32.

The early Church Father, John Chrysostom, in Homily LXVII, expounds on John 12:32 in which the same word ελκω appears.

“I will draw all men to Myself.” How then said He that the Father draweth? Because when the Son draweth, the Father draweth also. He saith, “I will draw them,” as though they were detained by a tyrant, and unable of themselves alone to approach Him, and to escape the hands of him who keepeth hold of them. In another place He calleth this “spoiling; no man can spoil a strong man’s goods, except he first bind the strong man, and then spoil his goods.” This He said to prove His strength, and what there He calleth “spoiling,” He hath here called “drawing.” (NPNF Vol. 14 p. 250; emphasis added)

In his subsequent sermon, John Chrysostom has no problem juxtaposing John 6:44 right next to John 12:32, neither does he append any qualifying remarks as a Calvinist might feel the need to do.

But by saying before, “No man can come to Me except the Father draw him”; and again, “If I be lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all men unto Me”; and again, “No man cometh to the Father but by Me”; He showeth Himself equal to Him who begat Him. (NPNF Vol. 14 p. 269; emphasis added)

What is worth noting here is how John Chrysostom’s syngergistic understanding of ελκω allows him to apply the same meaning to both John 6:44 and to John 12:32. This contrasts with the Reformed tradition’s attempt to apply the hard literal meaning of ελκω to John 6:44 to uphold the doctrine of predestination then seeking to apply the soft figurative meaning of ελκω to John 12:32 in order to avoid the implication of universalism. This inconsistent approach to ελκω in two similar settings within the same book raises questions about the linguistic validity of Reformed hermeneutics with respect to John 6:44.

 

The Monergistic Premise

The Reformed tradition’s doctrine of monergism—God as the sole cause of our salvation—predisposes its adherents to favor the more impersonal, coercive understanding of ελκω in John 6:44 and to ignore the figurative meaning of ελκω as persuasion. Ligonier Ministries hews to the uncompromising monergistic understanding of salvation:

The doctrine of the internal call cannot be avoided if we take the Bible seriously, and it leaves no room for man to play a part in his own salvation. Why do some people respond to the Gospel? Because God called them. Why do others not respond? Because God did not call them. (Source)

This stance is consistent with Calvin’s opposition to the notion of human cooperation with divine grace. He writes:

But here we must beware of two errors: for some make man God’s co-worker, to ratify election by his consent. (Institutes 3.24.3; p. 967)

This is not just Calvin’s opinion but reflects the formal position of the Reformed tradition. We read in the Westminster Confession Chapter 9 “Of Free Will”:

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (Source; emphasis added.)

The belief in man’s total inability is closely related to the Protestant doctrine of sola gratia that it is only by divine grace that man is saved. This doctrinal framework predisposes Reformed Protestants to favor readings of John 6:44 as irresistible compulsion or as “voluntary” acceptance that originates in divine intervention.

Do you notice the hidden assumption here?

Many Calvinists hold to the doctrine of man’s total inability because of Ephesians 2:1 “you were dead through the trespasses and sins” (RSV; emphasis added). They were taught that “dead” means the absence of any volitional capacity in man to respond to God’s grace unless God bestows upon him the ability to believe. However, if one reads the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, one finds that the prodigal son who was “dead” (verse 32) also “came to himself” (verse 17) before returning home. There is no hint in Jesus’ parable of the wayward son being dragged home. The prodigal son returned home willingly and was welcomed by his loving father.  Thus, the biblical basis for the Reformed TULIP is not as strong as some assume it to be.

In the Orthodox synergistic understanding of John 6:44, the focus is not on compulsion, but on who takes the initiative. With  divine grace, it is God who takes the initiative and fallen humans who respond to the divine imitative either with acceptance or rejection. The Confession of Dositheus, which represents the Orthodox Church’s formal response to Reformed theology, affirmed man’s free will, even after the Fall. We read in Decree 14:

We believe man in falling by the [original] transgression to have become comparable and similar to the beasts; that is, to have been utterly undone, and to have fallen from his perfection and impassibility, yet not to have lost the nature and power which he had received from the supremely good God. For otherwise he would not be rational, and consequently not a human. So [he still has] the same nature in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating, so that he is by nature able to choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil. For it is absurd to say that the nature which was created good by Him who is supremely good lacks the power of doing good. For this would be to make that nature evil — what could be more impious than that? (Emphasis added.)

The common ground shared by Orthodoxy and the Reformed tradition is the belief in prevenient grace, that it is God who takes the initiative in our salvation. Where the two traditions differ is with respect to man’s capacity to respond to divine grace. The Reformed understanding is that the Fall of Adam and Eve was of such catastrophic proportions that humans lost all ability—even volitional—to respond to God’s grace and so God needed to send the Holy Spirit to make us willing to believe in Christ. The Orthodox understanding is that even after the Fall man possessed free will and so had the freedom to accept or reject God’s grace. The synergistic understanding of salvation is not that of an interaction between equals; God has the upper hand, but he gives us the freedom to choose.

 

John 6:44 in Context

One problem with the Reformed reading of John 6:44 is that it fails to take into account how this verse fits into the overall context of John 6 – Jesus’ discourse on the Bread of Life. The backdrop to the Jews resisting Jesus’ claim to be the Bread of Life is Exodus 16 which describes how in response to the Israelites’ murmuring, Yahweh sent manna from heaven. As the Messiah who fulfills the Old Testament, Jesus is the new Moses who feeds the “elect” people with the true Bread from heaven. The prophetic type of the bread of heaven is fulfilled in the Son of God who came down from heaven in the Incarnation. The eating of manna in the desert finds fulfillment in having faith in Jesus as the Messiah and in entering into Eucharistic fellowship with Him. Thus, the unbelieving Jews of the Old Covenant are superseded by the new Israel represented by the Apostle Peter and the faithful disciples who remained even after so many stopped following Jesus (John 6:66-69). The Reformed interpretation of John 6:44 as teaching predestination holds up only if one isolates this verse to the exclusion of the overall context of John 6.

Leighton Flowers points out that the context for John 6:44 is the tension between the old Israel whose hearts were calloused and hardened and the new Israel—Jesus’ disciples. He notes that there is no suggestion in John 6 of God universally condemning all men to a totally disabled condition from birth due to Adam’s transgression and that salvation consists of God irresistibly drawing a preselected few. The Reformed reading of John 6:44 holds up only if one isolates this verse to the exclusion of the overall context. Flowers makes the intriguing suggestion that in the Bread of Life discourse Jesus was being deliberatively provocative, antagonizing the Jews, “judicially blinding Israel” in order to condemn the old Israel and to call out the faithful remnant of preselected Israelites who would make up the new Israel in the form of the Twelve.

What is the context for John 6:44? Verses 41-43 which immediately precede verse 44 contain the admonition that the Israelites ought to cease their murmuring against Jesus. The danger here is the Jews hardening their hearts against Jesus as the Israelites did against Yahweh in Moses’ time. So likewise it is important to note how John 6:44 is complemented by verse following it. Both verses 44 and 45 have the phrase “come to me.” Verse 44 points to God’s gracious initiative in drawing people to the Son; verse 45 teaches that we are drawn to the Son, not by compulsion, but through teaching. In the Incarnation God comes in the flesh and directly teaches men as was prophesied in Isaiah 54:13:

I will cause all your children to be taught by God, and your children to be in great peace. (NKJV, OSB)

Chapter 6 ends with large numbers of Jesus’ followers stumbling over the hard saying (v. 61) and parting ways with Jesus (v. 66). Here, John the Evangelist, like the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 to 11, is addressing one of the vexing theological problems facing the early Christian community: Why did the Jews—the elect people—reject the Messiah?

Thus, it is important when using passages like John 6:44 to formulate doctrine that we take into account the context of the passage. Furthermore, we should avoid rushing to link passages that use the literal, mechanical meaning to those that teach salvation in Christ. Yet this is what Ligonier Ministries has done. They cited John 18:10 a passage that describe a mechanical action—Peter’s drawing his sword—in order to interpret John 6:44 which is about man’s response to divine grace. The more sound approach is to cite biblical passages that pertain to our salvation in Christ (e.g., John 12:32) and omit passages that pertain to mechanical actions. If they had been willing to allow for ελκω with the sense of persuasion as in Jeremiah 31:3 and Song of Songs 1:4 in the Septuagint, the folks at Ligonier Ministries could have avoided many theological and exegetical difficulties. It is regrettable that Ligonier Ministries has succumbed to clumsy proof texting instead of using a simpler and more direct lexical solution – the figurative sense of ελκωas as persuasion or wooing.

 

The Range of Meaning of ελκω – “to draw”

There are multiple meanings for the Greek word ελκω “to draw.” This means that interpreting John 6:44 is not a simple matter as many in the Reformed tradition would assume. Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon’s entry for ‘ελκω‘ lists two meanings: (1) to pull often implying resistance (Vol. 1 15.212; p. 205) and (b) to lead by force (Vol. 1 15.178; p. 208). It is quite surprising that this fine lexicon did not touch on the figurative meaning for ελκω. Also, the lexicon makes no mention of John 6:44 and 12:32, two passages that use ελκω in relation to our salvation in Christ. Arndt and Gingrich’s lexicon lists two categories of meaning for ελκω: a literal physical meaning and a figurative meaning: “of the pull on man’s inner life.” They assigned to ελκω in John 6:44 and 12:32 the figurative meaning: to draw or to attract. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament likewise assigns the figurative meaning of ελκω to the two verses. It notes that in the Septuagint, ελκω had the sense of “drawing to oneself in love.”

Apostle Paul dragged into the marketplace

The Greek word ελκω is normally used in the sense of drawing or pulling on an inanimate object, or of pulling a person through physical force: the Apostle Peter drawing out his sword (John 18:10) or the disciples pulling on their nets in the post-resurrection account in John 21:6 and 11. Determining the appropriate meaning becomes more complicated when ελκω is is applied to humans. It can be applied externally to the physical body or internally implying persuasion. In the book Acts, we find ελκω used in the sense of physical force applied to unwilling subjects, e.g., the Apostle Paul and his companion Silas dragged into the marketplace (Acts 16:19), and the Apostle Paul on another occasion being dragged out of the Jerusalem temple (Acts 21:30). James in his epistle makes reference to the common practice of the rich dragging the poor to court (2:6).

Jeremiah being pulled out of the cistern

In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), we find a range of meanings for ελκω, from physical force to persuasion. In Jeremiah 45:13 is a positive example of physical force being applied to a human being: Jeremiah being pulled out of the pit by means of ropes cushioned with old rags. David’s song in 2 Kingdoms 22:17 (2 Samuel 22:17) refers to Yahweh drawing him out of many waters, evoking the image of a lifeguard pulling a drowning man out the deep waters.

The Septuagint also uses ελκω in the sense of persuasion. In Jeremiah 38:3, we read:

I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I drew you in compassion, O virgin of Israel. (OSB; emphasis added; cf. Jeremiah 31:3 MT)

κύριος πόρρωθεν ὤφθη αὐτῷ ἀγάπησιν αἰωνίαν ἠγάπησά σε διὰ τοῦτο εἵλκυσά σε εἰς οἰκτίρημα (source; emphasis added.)

In the Song of Songs 1:4, we find ελκω used in the sense of persuasion.

They draw you. We will run after you, For the smell of your ointments. The king brought me into his chamber. (OSB; emphasis added.)

εἵλκυσάν σε ὀπίσω σου εἰς ὀσμὴν μύρων σου δραμοῦμεν εἰσήνεγκέν με ὁ βασιλεὺς εἰς τὸ ταμίειον αὐτοῦ (source; emphasis added.)

These verses tell us that the Greek ελκω can be understood in the sense of physical force or as persuasion. Absent in the Septuagint are passages that suggest the Reformed understanding of internal compulsion against one’s free will.

To sum up, there are at least three meanings for ελκω:

• Inanimate Objects – physical force: Peter drawing his sword from its sheath (John 18:10); Peter and his companions pulling the nets (John 21:6).
• People – physical force: Paul dragged bodily from the marketplace (Acts 16:19) or from the Temple (21:30); Jeremiah pulled out of the pit (Jeremiah 45:13; cf. 2 Samuel 22:17); the rich dragging the poor into the courtroom (James 2:6).
• People – persuasion or wooing: Yahweh drawing Israel by His love (Jeremiah 38:3 in LXX; cf. Jeremiah 31:3 MT); the beloved calling out to her love in Song of Songs 1:4)

Given this range of meanings, our task is ascertaining the appropriate category of meaning for ελκω for John 6:44 and 12:32. One important clue is that in John 6:44 and 12:32 ελκω is used in the context of personal relationships: Christ and the individual believer in John 6:44 and Christ saving the world in John 12:32. To treat salvation in Christ as an impersonal compulsion would be a dubious undertaking. One could argue for the mechanical understanding of ελκω by appealing to man’s total inability, however that would be to import wholesale the theological system known as TULIP into John 6 which makes no mention whatsoever of total depravity or predestination. The Reformed interpretation of John 6:44 is more eisegesis (reading doctrine into the text) than exegesis (drawing doctrine from the text). Furthermore, the Reformed exegetes’ inconsistent application of one sense of ελκω for John 6:44 and a different one for John 12:32 sacrifices the linguistic integrity of biblical hermeneutics for the sake of upholding a novel theological system.

 

Conclusion

The Reformed tradition’s attempt to use a literal, compulsory meaning of ελκω for interpreting John 6:44 is problematic for several reasons. First, in order to read verse 44 as supporting predestination one would need to isolate verse 44 from the broader context of John 6. There is no hint or suggestion of the Fall, man’s total depravity, irresistible grace, or predestination in Jesus’ exposition on the bread of life – the main theme of chapter 6. The Calvinist reading of John 6:44 depend on reading certain assumptions into the text. This projecting of the Reformed theology onto the biblical text is questionable and deserves to be criticized.

Second, using the literal, coercive understanding of ελκω in John 6:44 leads to significant theological difficulties if it is applied likewise to John 12:32. The problem of universalism can be avoided if we understand ελκω in the more figurative sense of wooing. This is a much simpler and direct solution than the Reformed exegetes’ clumsy solution of applying the literal meaning of ελκω to John 6:44 and the allegorical meaning to John 12:32. This semantic inconsistency doesn’t make sense.

Third, using the figurative, relational definition for ελκω is consistent with the early Church Father’s affirmation of human free will. To sum up, the Reformed interpretation of John 6:44 involves: proof texting, eisegesis over exegesis, potential universalism, questionable handling of the Greek language, the ignoring the immediate context of John 6, and the ignoring of historical theology.

While the Reformed reading of John 6:44 founders on linguistic, contextual, and historical grounds, John Chrysostom’s reading of John 6:44 does a much better job in reflecting the meaning of ελκω, the context of John chapter 6, and the historic Christian Faith. To the reader who submitted the original query, I hope this article answers your concerns about John 6:44 and is of help to you in your journey to Orthodoxy.

 

Looking Ahead

I hope in the future to address other aspects of the Reformed tradition’s soteriology. The Calvinist paradigm, which has so profoundly influenced many people’s understanding of salvation and God’s character, is based on assumptions that need to be critically examined in the light of Scripture and the teachings of the early Church Fathers. Among the assumptions that deserve scrutiny are the human condition after the Fall, man’s freedom to love God or to suppress the Truth of God, and the problem of theodicy — God’s absolute sovereignty becoming the cause of sin. The early Church Fathers in their wisdom recognized that even though fallen and deeply flawed, man still retained the divine image and so possessed the freedom to respond to God’s loving initiative in Christ or to suppress the truth also by his own free choice. I also hope to compare Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism—two theological systems that the Reformed tradition has so strongly opposed—against the teachings of early Church Fathers. I suspect that many of the problematic aspects of Calvinist soteriology can be traced to the West’s departure from the ancient patristic consensus. The Calvinist paradigm is a complex system of interrelated ideas which means it cannot be refuted with one single argument. Persuading sincere inquirers to relinquish their Calvinism will require a wide-ranging critique. Also needed is persuading the inquirer to embrace the ancient Church’s soteriology which is articulated in the ancient liturgies that recalled and celebrated Christ’s work of salvation through his Incarnation, his life on earth, his saving death on the Cross, and his third-day Resurrection by which he destroyed Death and Hell in order to restore us to life with God.

Robert Arakaki

 

References

Arndt and Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Nathaniel W. Bingham. “Charles Spurgeon on Calvinism – Irresistible Grace.” Ligonier Ministries
Raymond E. Brown. Anchor Bible Commentary on John I-XII.
John Calvin. Commentary on John.  BibleHub.com

John Calvin. Institutes Vol 1 and 2. Ford Lewis Battles, editor and translator.
Leighton Flowers. “John 6 – “Down From Heaven”: Why Context Kills Calvinism.”
German Bible Society. Septuagint. Academic-bible.com
Gerhard Kittel. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. II p. 503
Ligonier Ministries. “Effectual Calling.”
Ligonier Ministries. “Man’s Radical Fallenness.”

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida.  Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. VOL I & II.
Leon Morris. NICNT Commentary on John.
Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece | 28. German Bible Society.
Alfred Rahlfs. Septuaginta. Vol. II.
C.H. Spurgeon. “How Men Come to Christ.” Monergism.com

 

Note: In an earlier version of “Man’s Radical Fallenness,” Ligonier Ministries apparently mistyped John 6:44 as John 6:65. In light of their recent correction, I am retracting my earlier criticism of their reading of the Greek text. Thanks to Jon H for bringing this to my attention!  [11 October 2018]

 

Evidence for Christ’s Descent Into Hell

April 6, 2018 / / 23 Comments

 

Christ standing over the shattered doors of Hell and rescuing Adam and Eve

On Holy Saturday, the Orthodox Church celebrates Christ’s descent into Hell (Hades).  For many Protestants and Evangelicals this is a strange idea. When I was a Protestant, I was often puzzled by the line in the Apostles Creed: “he [Christ] descended to hell.”  I thought this line was bizarre and unnecessary.  As a Protestant, I was never taught the theology behind the historic creeds of the Church. However, after attending the Orthodox Easter (Pascha) services I began to see how Christ’s descent into Hell is important for our salvation.

Recently, the Rev. Scot McKnight wrote an insightful article “Holy Saturday: What Happened on Saturday to Jesus?”  In it he listed bible verses that taught Christ’s descent into Hell.  The article helped me to understand familiar passages in a new light.  I thought I knew the Bible pretty well, but I was surprised to find that I had overlooked bible passages that support Holy Saturday, a feast day that takes place just before Easter Sunday.  Thank you, Pastor McKnight!  In this article, I examine the biblical basis for Christ’s descent into Hell, the witness of the Church Fathers to this doctrine, and John Calvin’s rejection of this important doctrine.  

 

Icon – Jonah and the Whale

What the Bible Teaches

Christ’s descent into Hell (Hades, Sheol) can be found in both the Old and New Testaments.  It forms a part of the arc of biblical narrative of how God saves us through Jesus Christ.  Hell can be understood as the holding place where the souls of the good and the bad went after death (Luke 16:19-31).  It is to be distinguished from Gehenna, the place of eternal torment (Mark 9:42-48; Revelation 20:14).  

Christ’s descent into Hades was anticipated by Jesus himself in Matthew’s Gospel.

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:40: OSB; emphasis added)

Here Jesus saw in the Prophet Jonah’s three nights in the whale a foreshadowing of what would happen to him in his impending death.  

The Apostle Peter spoke of Jesus’ descent into Hell in his Pentecost sermon:

He [David], foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. (Acts 2:31; OSB; emphasis added)

Here Peter was making reference to Psalm 16 verse 10, one of the messianic psalms.  One of the greatest concerns expressed throughout the Book of Psalms is the fate of the souls after death.  In this passage we learn that death is not the final word and see hints of the Messiah’s victory over death.

The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians developed the theme of Christ’s elevation to the highest position in the cosmos for our salvation.  In Ephesians 4, Paul discussed Christ’s descent into Hades in light of Christ’s later ascension to heaven.  

Now this, ‘He ascended’—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?  (Ephesians 4:9; OSB; emphasis added)

In his epistle, the Apostle Peter gave a more detailed explanation of Christ’s descent into Hell in light of the impending Judgment Day.  

By whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah. (1 Peter 3:19-20; OSB; emphasis added)

For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6; OSB; emphasis added)

Apparently, in preparation for the Final Judgment everyone, both living and dead, will have some knowledge of the Gospel.  

Protestants pride themselves on their biblical exposition, but I had never heard a sermon on these verses or on the theme of Christ’s descent into Hell during my twenty-plus years as a Protestant.  The reasons for this oversight is not all that surprising.  These verses don’t fit in well with the Protestant dogma sola fide (justification by faith alone) which gives heavy emphasis to the penal atonement model of salvation. Yet what we see here is a strand of biblical teaching that began in the Old Testament, is reiterated by Christ, and expounded by the two preeminent Apostles: Peter and Paul.  

Protestant and Evangelical readers might ask: So what are the practical implications of Christ’s descent into hell?  Below are some of the practical implications:

  • Hell is not an unknown place, for Christ has gone there for us.
  • Hell is not a place of complete hopelessness, for Christ has evangelized Hell.  
  • Hell is not Satan’s domain, for Christ has invaded Hell and taken death captive.
  • Hell is not the final destination, for the gates of Hell have been shattered and the captives liberated.
  • We need not fear death, for Christ our Captain has gone before us leading the way to heaven.  

Resurrection Icon – Death Taken Captive

 

The Apostles’ Creed

This strand of biblical teaching would later find expression in a line in the Apostles Creed that many Protestants find baffling:  

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.    (Source)

The Apostles Creed represents an ancient baptismal creed that became part of the liturgical life of western churches.  Because the early Christians regularly recited the Apostles Creed, Christ’s descent into Hell was widely known.  This stands in contrast to modern day Evangelicalism which is largely ignorant of the Apostles Creed and the theology behind it.  My former Protestant home church said the Apostles Creed every few years.  That’s how rarely we used it!

 

The Witness of the Church Fathers

An examination of the Church Fathers shows a widespread acceptance of Christ’s descent into Hell.  Irenaeus of Lyons (died c. 200), one of the earliest Church Fathers, in Against Heresies 4.27.2 (ANF Vol. 1 p. 499) paraphrases 1 Peter 3:19-20:

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him.

Here we see an explicit reference to the Gospel being proclaimed in Hell by none other than the Lord Jesus himself.  Hell is no longer a place of hopelessness, but one in which the dead can be saved through faith in Christ.  

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 310-386) in his catechetical lectures taught Christ’s descent into Hell to redeem the righteous.

He was truly laid as Man in a tomb of rock; but rocks were rent asunder by terror because of Him. He went down into the regions beneath the earth, that thence also He might redeem the righteous. (Lecture 4.11; NPNF Vol. 7 p. 22; emphasis added)

He also linked Christ’s descent into Hell to a puzzling verse in Matthew’s Gospel (27:52-53)  which spoke of the dead rising and entering into Jerusalem: 

I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead; for I have many testimonies of this, both from the Divine Scriptures, and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose — who descended into hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company; for He went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose through Him. (Lecture 14.18; NPNF Vol. 7 p. 99; emphasis added)

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368), one of the less well-known Church Fathers, was a staunch defender of Christ’s divinity against the Semi-Arians.  In On the Trinity (De Trinitate) Hilary discussed Christ’s descent into Hell in connection with the confession made by the Good Thief:

When He descended to Hades, He was never absent from Paradise (just as He was always in Heaven when He was preaching on earth as the Son of Man), but promised His martyr a home there, and held out to him the transports of perfect happiness.

. . . for the Lord Who was to descend to Hades, was also to dwell in Paradise. Separate, if you can, from His indivisible nature a part which could fear punishment: send the one part of Christ to Hades to suffer pain, the other, you must leave in Paradise to reign . . . . (On the Trinity 10.34; NPNF Vol. 9 p. 190; emphasis added)

The point Hilary is making is that the alleged contradictions that appear to contradict Christ’s divinity can be cleared up by taking into account Christ’s two natures, that is, Christ was at the same time both divine and human in his Incarnation.  

Gregory of Nazianzen (330-389) in his Second Oration on Easter (Orations 45.24) declared:

If He descend into Hell, descend with Him. Learn to know the mysteries of Christ there also, what is the providential purpose of the twofold descent, to save all men absolutely by His manifestation, or there too only them that believe.  (NPNF Vol. VII p. 432; emphasis added)

Gregory’s phrase “twofold descent” refers to Christ’s descent from heaven to earth, and then from the world of the living to the world of the dead.  Christ’s purpose for doing so is for our salvation.  The phrase “save all men absolutely” points to a broader understanding of salvation than just the forgiveness of sins.

Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397) in On the Christian Faith related Christ’s two natures to his descent into Hell:

Distinguish here also the two natures present. The flesh hath need of help, the Godhead hath no need. He is free, then, because the chains of death had no hold upon Him. He was not made prisoner by the powers of darkness, it is He Who exerted power amongst them. (Book 3.4.28; NPNF Vol. 10 p. 246; emphasis added)

Then,

Now, if it please you, let us grant that, in accordance with the mystic prophecy, the substance of Christ was present in the underworld—for truly He did exert His power in the lower world to set free, in the soul which animated His own body, the souls of the dead, to loose the bands of death, to remit sins. (Book 3.14.111; NPNF Vol. 10 p. 258; emphasis added)

Here Ambrose showed how Christology relates to the Christus Victor understanding of salvation.  Ambrose is a prominent and influential Latin Father.  It was he who brought Augustine to faith in Christ.  

Augustine of Hippo (354-430), whose teaching gave rise to the theology of Western Christianity, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, in no uncertain terms affirmed Christ’s descent into Hell.  He wrote in Letter 164 Chapter 2: 

It is established beyond question that the Lord, after He had been put to death in the flesh, “descended into hell;” for it is impossible to gainsay either that utterance of prophecy, “You will not leave my soul in hell,” — an utterance which Peter himself expounds in the Acts of the Apostles, lest any one should venture to put upon it another interpretation — or the words of the same apostle, in which he affirms that the Lord “loosed the pains of hell, in which it was not possible for Him to be holden.” Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell?

Augustine wrote this letter because even back then there were people who doubted that Christ descended to Hades.  His fierce retort against the skeptics of his time, likening them to unbelievers, should give pause to our present-day Protestant skeptics.  

John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) wrote the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early Church.  In his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Chapter 29), Saint John devoted one brief chapter to Christ’s descent into Hades.

The soul when it was deified descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of Righteousness rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the earth in darkness and shadow of death: in order that just as He brought the message of peace to those upon the earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to the blind , and became to those who believed the Author of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe a reproach of their unbelief, so He might become the same to those in Hades: That every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth. And thus after He had freed those who had been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from the dead, showing us the way of resurrection. (NPNF Vol. 9 pp. 72-73; emphasis added)

In this short passage, John of Damascus interweaves several biblical passages around the theme of Christ’s descent into Hades: Malachi 4:2, Isaiah 9:2, 1 Peter 3:19, and Philippians 2:10.  Saint John teaches us that Christ took his ministry of miracles and preaching to Hades when he died.  We learn that Hell is not exempt from Christ’s ministry of salvation for Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of all people everywhere, both the living and the dead.  

In summary, we find a patristic consensus that ranges from Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century to John of Damascus in the eighth century.  Both Greek and Latin Fathers bore witness to this doctrine.  Furthermore, we find this doctrine expressed in the worship life of the early Church, e.g., the Apostles Creed, which is still used by Western Christians and in the Holy Saturday services celebrated by the Orthodox.  Thus, we can say that the doctrine of Christ’s descent to Hades is a fundamental Christian teaching as it meets the criteria set forth in the Vincentian Canon: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all). (Commonitory [6])

 

Calvin’s Break From the Patristic Consensus

John Calvin

It came as a surprise to me to find that John Calvin understood Christ’s descent to Hades metaphorically.  In his discussion of the fate of those who died and the place of the dead known as Limbo (Limbus), Calvin regards this to a “fable” and something “childish” taught by “great authors” (the Church Fathers): 

Though this fable has the countenance of great authors, and is now also seriously defended by many as truth, it is nothing but a fable. To conclude from it that the souls of the dead are in prison is childish. And what occasion was there that the soul of Christ should go down thither to set them at liberty? (Institutes 2.16.9; Vol. 1 p. 514; emphasis added)

Calvin was of the opinion that the line in the Apostles Creed regarding Christ’s crucifixion, death, and burial referred to Christ’s physical sufferings and the following line about Christ’s descent to Hades referred to Christ’s internal suffering as he experienced divine wrath on behalf of sinful humanity.

But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance.   . . . .

But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man. . . . . 

Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. (Institutes 2.16.10; Vol. 1 p. 514; emphasis added)

Calvin’s emphasis here is on Christ’s sufferings to appease the wrath of an “angry God.”  Here we see in stark terms the penal atonement model of salvation (which assumes a wrathful deity) that many find grossly overplayed, if not deeply repugnant.  What I find surprising is how Calvin cavalierly discards the ancient Christus Victor model of salvation and replaces it the penal atonement model.  Also upsetting was Calvin’s condescending attitude towards the Church Fathers.  To ignore the teaching on Christ’s descent to Hell, Calvin brings a novel, allegorical reading to the Apostles Creed. That Calvin’s reading is a minority position can be seen in the fact that Martin Luther did not jettison the traditional reading of the Apostles Creed.  In his 1533 sermon at Torgau, Luther affirmed the traditional understanding that Christ entered Hell as Victor over Satan and his host (Bente).  While Luther introduced a new soteriology (doctrine of salvation) with his novel understanding of justification (sola fide), Calvin made even bigger break with a soteriology based on the penal atonement model, which would grow to largely ignore, if not exclude the ancient patristic models of salvation used by the Church Fathers for centuries

Pastor John Piper

Calvin’s dismissive attitude towards the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hell would have long term consequences.  It would lead to the descensus controversies that would roil sixteenth century Protestantism (Bagchi p. 198).  Calvin’s innovative understanding was accepted within Reformed circles, but when brought into contact with other Protestant traditions it traditions it came across as bizarre.  Nonetheless, Calvin’s view became part of the Reformed tradition.  It can be found in Question 44 of the Heidelberg Catechism.  Reformers like Theodore Beza would, on their own imitative, omit that line (Bagchi p. 199).  Even today, prominent Reformed theologians like John Piper have taken the liberty to omit that line.  They “retain” aspects of ancient Christianity and throw out what they don’t like.  This is like wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too.

When I studied church history at seminary, I learned that Protestantism’s heavy emphasis on the penal aspects of Christ’s dying on the Cross is a relatively recent doctrine that emerged to prominence in the 1500s.  What we see in the Apostles Creed reflects the theology of the early Church which reflected the patristic doctrine of Christus Victor.  The fact that many Protestants today are unfamiliar with Christ’s descent in Hades and even the Apostles Creed show how far Protestantism has drifted from its ancient Christian roots.  This is not to say that Protestants and Evangelicals should relinquish the penal model of salvation altogether, but that they should incorporate the ancient patristic model of Christus Victor into their theology.  A good resource for this is Gustav Aulen’s theological classic Christus Victor.  Protestantism has paid a heavy price in forsaking its roots in the early Church.  It has adopted a novel soteriology accompanied by a new form of worship resulting in their estrangement from Ancient Christianity.

 

Two Paradigms of Salvation

When I was a Protestant it was hard to fit the verses about Christ’s descent to Hell into the penal substitutionary theory of salvation.  In this model, all that mattered was Christ’s suffering and dying on the Cross.  His death was the crucial element; everything else was superfluous.  This led to strained attempts to explain how Christ’s resurrection was necessary for our salvation.  More prominent in the early Church was the recapitulation theory in which Christ as the Second Adam retraced human existence from birth to death, from conception in his mother’s womb to his descent into the underworld.  The underworld was where all the dead souls—good and bad—awaited the Final Judgment.  Like the other humans who died, Christ descended into Hades. However unlike other humans, this was the uncorrupted Second Adam who was unjustly sentenced to death, Immanuel who is “God With Us.”  John Chrysostom in his famous Easter sermon declared:

It [Hell] took a body [Jesus Christ], and, lo, it discovered God.  
It took earth and behold! it encountered Heaven.  
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it could not see.  
O death where is your sting?  O Hades [Hell], where is your victory?  
Christ is risen, and you [Hell] are annihilated.  
Christ is risen and the demons have fallen.  
Christ is risen and the Angels rejoice.  
Christ is risen and life is liberated.  
Christ is risen, and the tomb is emptied of the dead. . . .

Where Protestantism puts the emphasis on the forgiveness of sins obtained through Christ’s death on the Cross, Orthodoxy puts the emphasis on the defeat of sin, death, and the devil through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. What saves us is not an event but rather a Person, Jesus Christ.  This is not to say that Protestantism’s doctrine of salvation is all wrong. However, Protestantism’s reductionism unduly emphasizes only one part of a far richer and fuller picture of Salvation in Christ.  Orthodoxy’s holistic understanding of salvation is multifaceted.  It teaches us about the many ways Christ saves us: freeing us from captivity to Satan and the demons, the healing our souls and body, bringing us back home and restoring us to our standing as God’s beloved children, making us wise, transforming us into his likeness and more.  Unlike Protestantism’s novel approach to salvation, Orthodoxy preserves the teachings of the early Church to the present day.

This year [2018], Orthodox Easter will come one week after Western Easter.  This will give Protestants and Evangelicals an opportunity to compare their celebration of Easter with Orthodoxy’s ancient liturgy.  It may come as a surprise that on Saturday there are two services.  On Saturday morning, the Orthodox Church celebrates Christ’s harrowing of Hell.  The mood of this service is that of a quiet joy in anticipation of the Easter service.  We invite our Protestant friends to come to the Saturday morning service and celebrate with us Christ’s descent into Hades to set the captives free.  Then Saturday midnight, the Liturgy is celebrated with exuberance and extravagance.  Over and over, we cry out: Christ is Risen! This service is the high point of Orthodox worship.  Tip: Check ahead for the specifics of the service.  Better yet, ask an Orthodox friend to take you along.   

Come and see!

Robert Arakaki

 

Additional Readings

Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev.  2002. “Christ the Conqueror of Hell” (lecture)

Gustav Aulen.  1931.  Christus Victor: A Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement

David V.N. Bagchi.  2008.  “Luther Versus Luther? The Problem of Christ’s Descent into Hell in the Long Sixteenth Century.”  Perichoresis 6.2.

F. Bente.  “XIX. Controversy on Christ’s Descent into Hell.”  The Book of Concord

Robert B. Kruschwitz.  2014.  “He Descended into Hell.” Christian Reflection – A Series in Faith and Ethics

Scot McKnight.  2018. “Holy Saturday – What Happened on Saturday to Jesus?” Jesus Creed

John Piper.  2008.  “Did Christ Ever Descend to Hell?”  DesiringGod.org

 

31 October 1517 - Martin Luther Posts His 95 Theses

Was the Reformation Necessary?

October 31, 2017 / / 0 Comments

An Orthodox Assessment

This is a reposting of an article I wrote in 2015 with a few minor updating. One notable addition is my assessment of “A Reforming Catholic Confession” which was just released today.

 

On 31 October 1517, Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church (Wittenberg, Germany) sparking a huge theological debate that would radically alter the religious landscape of Europe. Within a few decades the once unified European society became divided among competing Christian churches.

Today marks the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.  On this anniversary, it would be good for Christians – Protestants and non-Protestants — to reflect on its origins and its legacy.  And to ask: Was the Reformation Necessary?  To answer this question, we need to first understand what justification was given for the Reformation.  One of the finest apologia was written by John Calvin.

 

Historical Context

In 1543, Calvin wrote “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” in anticipation of Emperor Charles V’s convening the Diet of Spires (Speyer).  Altogether there were four Diets (parliamentary assemblies) held at the town of Speyer situated on the river Rhine in Bavaria.  During that period the Reformation was seen as a minor faction outlawed at the Diet of Worms (1521) and politically a nuisance.  It is likely that the Reformation would have been quashed then and there if it were not for the fragile state of Europe’s political unity.  The four Diets at Speyer trace the growth of the Reformation from a dissenting view into a separate church body independent of Rome.

Muslim Invasion of Europe in the 1500s source

At the first Diet of Speyer in 1526, in a moment of political and military weakness, Charles V was forced to accept the principle allowing each local ruler to rule as he wished: “every State shall so live, rule, and believe as it may hope and trust to answer before God and his imperial Majesty.”  This decision in effect suspended the Diet of Worms and allowed the Lutherans to coexist with the Roman Catholics.  (In 1526 the Turks were advancing in Hungary and later that year would lay siege to Vienna necessitating vigorous military action by the Emperor.)  In 1529, Charles V was strong enough to seek the reversal of the 1526 resolution.  While most complied, six rulers along with fourteen free cities objected.  They drew up an appeal which would be known as the “Protest at Speyer”; the signatories would become known as “Protestants.”  A third diet of Speyer was convened in 1542 for the purpose for rallying support against the Turks.  The Protestant princes withheld support until the Emperor agreed to the Peace of Nuremberg (1532).  A fourth Diet at Speyer was convened in 1544.  This time Charles V needed support against two fronts, against Francis I of France and against the Turks.  It was in this the context that Calvin composed “The Necessity of Reforming the Church.”  By 1555, the Emperor would be forced to give legal recognition to the Lutherans in the Peace of Augsburg.

Source: James Jackson

Christian Europe divided    source: James Jackson

 

Historically, Calvin’s “Necessity of Reforming the Church” was not a game changer.  However, Theodore Beza (1519-1605) considered this essay one of the “most powerful” of the time (Beza, p. 12).  This review seeks to be sensitive to the fact that Calvin’s essay was written in the context of a Protestant-versus-Catholic debate while assessing Calvin’s apologia for the Reformation from the standpoint of the Orthodox Faith.  References and page numbers are from J.K.S. Reid’s Calvin: Theological Treatises (1954).

 

Iconoclasm and True Worship

Calvin’s first justification is the use of images in churches which for him impedes “spiritual worship.”

When God is worshipped in images, when fictious worship is instituted in his name, when supplication is made to the images of saints, and divine honours paid to dead men’s bones, and other similar things, we call them abominations as they are.  For this cause, those who hate our doctrine inveigh against us, and represent us as heretics who dare to abolish the worship of God as approved of old by the Church (p. 188).

The critique was directed against Roman Catholicism which at the time was heavily influenced by the Renaissance.  While there may have been excesses in the churches of Calvin’s time, his remedy was drastic – the removal of all images from churches.  This is something no Orthodox Christian could endorse especially in light of the fact that iconoclasm was condemned by an Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787).

 

Strasbourg Cathedral - France Source

Strasbourg Cathedral – France Source

 

Calvin’s argument here is highly polemical with very little theological reasoning involved.  Calvin’s failure to rebut John of Damascus’ classic defense of icons based on the Incarnation and the biblical basis for the use of image in Old Testament worship present a gaping hole in his argument for the necessity of the Reformation.  See my critique of Calvin’s iconoclasm in “Calvin Versus the Icon.”

 

Spiritual Worship versus Liturgical Worship

Calvin’s next target is what he deemed “external worship” and “ceremonies” (p. 191).  Calvin argues that there was a time when liturgical worship was useful (i.e., during the Old Testament) but that with the coming of Christ liturgical worship has been abrogated.

When Christ was absent and not yet manifested, ceremonies by shadowing him forth nourished the hope of his advent in the breasts of believers; but now they only obscure his present and conspicuous glory.  We see what God himself has done.  For those ceremonies which he had commanded for a time has now abrogated forever (p. 192; emphasis added).

This argument is a form of dispensationalism.  While there are differences between Jewish and Christian worship, Calvin pushes it to the breaking point.  Calvin’s dismissal of liturgical worship overlooks the fact that early Christian worship was liturgical.  Evidence for this can be found in Volume VII of the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series p. 529 ff.

Calvin objects to external ceremonial worship on the grounds that it leads to the failure of people to give their hearts and minds to God (p. 193).

For while it is incumbent on true worshippers to give heart and mind, men always want to invent a mode of serving God quite different from this, their object being to perform for him certain bodily observances, and keep the mind to themselves.  Moreover, they imagine that when they thrust external pomps upon him, they have by this artifice evaded the necessity of giving themselves (p. 193).

For Calvin true Christian worship consists of the preaching of Scripture and the inculcation of right understanding of the Gospel.

For the Orthodox Calvin’s derisive assessment of the Liturgy is hard to swallow.  The Liturgy lies at the core of Orthodox life.  On most Sundays we use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which dates to the fifth century and on 10 Sundays we use the older Liturgy of St. Basil which dates to the fourth century. Calvin’s argument here rests on the assumption that early Christian worship was basically Protestant in form (Reformed).  This is highly questionable in light of the church fathers and historical evidence.  Most likely the theological motive for Calvin’s anti-liturgical stance is his spiritual versus physical dichotomy.

In short, as God requires us to worship him in a spiritual manner, so we with all zeal urge men to all the spiritual sacrifices which he commends (p. 187).

Protestantism’s emphasis on the sermon and its downplaying of the embodied aspects of worship: bowing, prostrations, processions, candles, incense, etc. can be seen as originating from this dichotomy.  There is no evidence that the early Christian worship was informed by this mind/body dichotomy.  Where Calvin takes an either/or approach, Orthodoxy takes a both-and approach holding that the symbolism and ritual actions that comprise the Liturgy help us better understand Scripture.

 

Reforming Prayer

Calvin strongly objects to the intercession of the saints and to the practice of praying in an unknown tongue (pp. 194-197).  He notes that there was a Catholic Archbishop who threatened to throw in prison anyone who dared to pray the Lord’s Prayer in a language other than Latin (p. 197)!  Calvin’s motive was to emphasize Christ as the sole mediator.  For him the invocation of the saints is idolatrous (p. 190).  Similarly, he condemns relics, religious processions, and miraculous icons.

Now it cannot without effrontery be denied, that when the Reformers appeared he world was more than ever afflicted with this blindness.  It was therefore absolutely necessary to urge men with these prophetic rebukes, and divert them, as by force, from that infatuation lest they might any longer imagine that God was satisfied with bare ceremonies, as children are with shows (p. 191; emphasis added).

This leads Calvin to call for the reforming of worship and devotional practices so as to restore what he calls “spiritual worship.”  In this particular passage Calvin seems to advocate church reform by preaching and if that did not work, by force.

It is hard to know to what extent medieval Roman Catholic devotional practices had fallen into excesses during Calvin’s time, but an Orthodox Christian would be taken aback by the sharpness of Calvin’s critique.  Praying to the saints is an ancient Christian practice.  The Rylands Papyrus 470 which dates to AD 250 contains a prayer to the Virgin Mary asking for her help.  The ancient Christian practice of praying to the saints is based on Christ’s resurrection and the communion of saints.  While certain bishops sought to temper the excesses in popular piety surrounding the commemoration of the departed, the idea of worshipers here below – the church militant — being surrounded by the departed – the church triumphant – became part of the Christian Faith.  Excess in popular piety is best held in check through faithful participation in the liturgical life of the Church and submitting to the pastoral care of the priest.

Also, in comparison to Roman Catholicism Orthodoxy has been more receptive to the use of the vernacular in the Liturgy.  The Church of Rome’s inflexible stance on Latin as the language of worship changed with Vatican II.  An Orthodox Christian would find it puzzling that the acceptance of the vernacular was accompanied with a new liturgy, the Novus Ordo Mass.  Why not retain the historic Mass but translate it into the local vernacular?  This is what is done in many Orthodox parishes in the US.  Many Orthodox parishes celebrate the ancient St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy in English or a mixture of English and non-English.

While not a prominent part of contemporary Reformed-Orthodox dialogue, it should be noted that not only does Orthodoxy today continue to venerate icons, we also have relics and miraculous icons.  While the danger of fraud exists, Orthodoxy has safeguards to discern the validity of these supernatural manifestations.  What is concerning about Calvin’s critique is the way it rejects the sacramental understanding of reality so fundamental to Orthodoxy.  Also, concerning is the secularizing effects of Calvin’s position.  The Protestant Reformers did not deny the supernatural, but confined it to Scripture.  For example, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were efficacious because of the power of the “Word of God” (signaled by the capitalized form for the Bible) invoked during the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Another implication of Calvin’s emphasis on personal faith is the interiorizing and psychologizing effects on Protestant spirituality.  The personal interior dimension of Christianity took priority over the collective ecclesial aspects of the Christian life.  Thus, Calvin’s quest to reform prayer comes with a high cost that many Protestants may not be aware of.

 

The Ground of Salvation

It was justification by faith alone (sola fide) that sparked the Reformation.  When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses he called into question the practice of selling indulgences.  In the ensuing debates the focus shifted to the ground of salvation.  The sale of indulgences was based on the Western medieval theory of the church as a treasury of merit and the power of the keys.  Calvin writes:

They say that by the keys the treasury of the Church is unlocked, so that what is wanting to ourselves is applied out of the merits of Christ and the saints.  We on the contrary maintain that the sins of men are forgiven freely, and we acknowledge no other satisfaction than that which Christ accomplished, when, by the sacrifice of his death, he expiated our sins (p. 200).

Much of the debate surrounding justification by faith was framed and constrained by the judicial, forensic paradigm to the exclusion of other soteriological paradigms.  While much of Calvin’s rebuttal of his opponents rested on the forensic theory of salvation, one can find a non-forensic understanding of salvation in his writings.

This consideration is of very great practical importance, both in retaining men in the fear of God, that they may not arrogate to their works what proceeds from his fatherly kindness; and also in inspiring them with the best consolation, lest they despond when they reflect on the imperfection or impurity of their works, by reminding them that God, of his paternal indulgence, is pleased to pardon it (p. 202).

Calvin’s emphasis here on God’s paternal love for humanity is surprisingly close to what Orthodoxy affirms.

The issue of the ground of our salvation and the faith versus works tension was never a major issue in Orthodoxy.  Unlike Western Christianity, Orthodoxy never went into detail about how we are saved and the means by which we appropriate salvation in Christ.  Where Orthodox soteriology remains rooted in patristic theology, medieval Catholicism took a more legal and philosophical turn with unexpected innovations like the sale of indulgences and the understanding of the Church as a treasury of merits.  The Orthodox understanding of salvation is informed by the Christus Victor (Christ the Conqueror) motif as is evidenced by the annual Pascha (Easter) service and by the understanding of salvation as union with Christ.  The theme of union with Christ is much more intimate and relational than the idea of imputation of Christ’s merits which is more impersonal and transactional in nature.  Unlike certain readings of sola fide (justification by faith alone), the Orthodox understanding of the relationship between faith in Christ and good works is more organic and synergistic.  We read in Decree 13 of the Confession of Dositheus:

We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works.

Soteriology is one of the key justifications for the Reformation.  In claiming to bring back the Gospel the Protestant Reformers introduced a much more narrow understanding of the Gospel.  The debates over justification would be consequential for Protestantism.  Justification by faith was elevated into a pivotal dogma.  Some Protestants insist that unless one holds fast to the distinction between imputed righteousness and infused righteousness, then one will not have a “proper” understanding of the Gospel; and if one did not have a “proper” understanding of the Gospel, then one was not truly a Christian!  The early Church on the other hand dogmatized on Christology but remained flexible and ambiguous on how we are saved by Christ.  It was not until the medieval Scholasticism introduced these categorical precision that the Catholic-versus-Protestant debates over justification became a possibility.  One unforeseen consequence of these debates is that personal faith in Christ soon became equated with intellectual assent to a particular forensic theory of salvation.  Another consequence is that it erects walls between Protestantism and other traditions like Orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy being rooted in the church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils would not view the Protestant Reformers’ “rediscovered” Gospel in sola fide (justification by faith alone) as sufficient justification for the Reformation but more as a theological innovation peculiar to the West.

 

Reforming the Sacraments

For Calvin the reform of the church entailed the reforming of the sacraments, removing man-made additions and returning to the simplicity of biblical worship.  This is his justification for reducing the number of sacraments from seven to two.  Calvin is reacting to several developments: (1) liturgical additions not found in the Bible, (2) the adoration of the Host, (3) withholding the communion chalice from the laity, and (4) the use of non-vernacular in worship.  For Calvin the pastor medieval Catholic worship resulted in the laity being reduced to passive bystanders looking on with dumb incomprehension.  Calvin seeks to replace this magical understanding of the sacraments with one based on an intelligent understanding of Scripture in combination with a lively faith in Christ.

Like Calvin, modern day Evangelicals hold to two sacraments but many will be surprised by how Calvin understood the sacraments.  Calvin did not do away with infant baptism, nor did he insist on total immersion.  While Calvin rejected the medieval Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, he did not embrace a purely symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

Accordingly, in the first place he gives the command, by which he bids us take, eat and drink; and then in the next place he adds and annexes the promise, in which he testifies that what we eat is his body, and what we drink is his blood.  . . . .  For this promise of Christ, by which he offers his own body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine, belongs to those who receive them at his hand, to celebrate the mystery in the manner which he enjoins (p. 205; emphasis added).

Calvin adopts a view somewhere between the extremes of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the later Protestant Evangelical “just a symbol” understanding of the Lord’s Supper.  However, his “under the symbols” seems to implicitly deny that the bread and the wine undergo a change in the Eucharist.  It is at odds with the understanding of the early church fathers.

 

Assessing Calvin’s Apologia

To sum up, Calvin justifies the Reformation on three grounds: (1) doctrine, (2) the sacraments, and (3) church government, claiming that the goal was to restore the “old form” using Scripture (i.e., sola scriptura).

Therefore let there be an examination of our whole doctrine, of our form of administering the sacraments, and our method of governing the Church; and in none of these three things will it be found that we have made any change in the old form, without attempting to restore it to the exact standard of the Word of God. (p. 187; emphasis added)

Calvin and the other Reformers had no intention of dividing the Church or of creating a new religion.  They desired to bring back the old forms using the Bible as their standard and guide.  The results, however, have been quite different from what the Reformers had expected.  The next five centuries would see within Protestantism one church split over another, new doctrines, new forms of worship, and even new morality.

 

Saddleback Community Church

One interesting statement in Calvin’s apologia is the sharp denunciation of “new worship” (p. 192).

. . . God in many passages forbids any new worship unsanctioned by his Word, declared that he is gravely offended by such audacity, and threatens it with severe punishment, it is clear that the reformation which we have introduced was demanded by a strong necessity” (p. 192; emphasis added).

In light of the fact modern day Protestant worship ranges from so-called traditional organ and hymnal worship that date to the 1700s, to exuberant Pentecostal worship, to seeker friendly services with rock-n-roll style praise bands, to the more liturgical ancient-future worship one has to wonder if the Protestant cure is worse than the disease the Reformers sought to cure!

It is encouraging to see a growing interest among Reformed Christians in the ancient liturgies and the early Church Fathers.  This points to a convergence between two quite different traditions.  However, they remain far apart on icons, praying to the saints, and the real presence in the Eucharist.  These are not minor points. Calvin’s essay “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” makes clear these are part of the basic rationale for the Reformation.

 

Was the Reformation Necessary? 

My answer as an Orthodox Christian is that while the situation of medieval Catholicism in Luther and Calvin’s time may have warranted significant corrective action, the Protestant cure is worse than the disease.  For all its adherence to Scripture, the Reformed tradition as a whole has failed to recover the “old form” found in ancient Christianity.  Its numerous church splits put it at odds with the catholicity and unity of the early Church.  Orthodoxy being rooted in the early Church, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and in Apostolic Tradition has avoided many of the problems that have long plagued Western Christianity.  Orthodoxy has never had a Reformation.  It has had no need for the Reformation because it has remained rooted in the patristic consensus and because it has resisted the innovations of post-Schism medieval Roman Catholicism.  The fact that Orthodoxy has never had a Reformation is something that a Protestant should give thought to.

 

Reform versus Return

Sign Here for Church Unity  source

One of the unintended consequences and greatest tragedies of the Reformation has been the numerous church splits and theological divisions among Protestants. In response to this, today on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, a coalition of some 250 Protestant theologians and leaders issued “A Reforming Catholic Confession.”  They sought to show that “difference does not mean division” and that the heirs of the Reformation are more “catholic” than the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox!

Caleb Lindgren in the Christianity Today article “Protestants: The Most ‘Catholic’ Christians” writes:

Additionally, the new statement of faith, crafted by a team of Protestant theologians and church leaders, aims to show that Protestants are actually more catholic (meaning “universal”) than Roman Catholics, who demand allegiance to the Roman pontiff, or than Orthodox Christians, who reject the claims of Rome but still rely heavily on apostolic succession to guarantee faithful Christianity.

The first thing I noticed about Mr. Lindgren’s description of Orthodoxy is his fixation on church governance.  Actually, what defines Orthodoxy is fidelity to Apostolic Tradition, written and unwritten.  A bishop’s apostolic succession in itself does not guarantee Orthodoxy; there must also be faithful adherence to the Liturgy, the Nicene Creed (325 and 381), the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and the patristic consensus.  For the Orthodox, Orthodoxy is an integrated package, a way of living life in Christ.

The Eucharist is Our Unity

As an Orthodox Christian, what I find most striking about the “Reforming Catholic Confession” is how Protestant their solution was — a piece of paper!  This is an intellectual and disembodied solution to a very serious problem.  A signed theological statement can have much value, but it is not adequate for addressing the deep flaws of Protestantism.  Protestantism suffers from: (1) the lack of an binding, authoritative and unifying Creed, (2) lack of common worship, and (3) lack of church leadership united in faith and worship.  For the Orthodox, unity is found in the Eucharist — sharing in the body and blood of Christ.  In the Eucharist we are united with the Church Catholic.  Ignatius of Antioch, the third bishop of the Apostle Paul’s home church in Antioch wrote:

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [Letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8]

What should be noted here is that Ignatius of Antioch defined catholicity, not in terms of a theological statement on a piece of paper, but in terms of sharing in the Eucharist.  Thus, Protestants need to keep in mind that the “A Reforming Catholic Confession” offers a Protestant approach to unity that is radically at odds with the early Church.

There is a funny story about a Protestant who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy.  He runs up to an Orthodox priest and says: “I’m a Protestant, what must I do to become Orthodox?”  The priest answered: “You must give up your Roman Catholicism!”  The point here is that many of the problems in Protestant doctrine and worship reflect its origins in Roman Catholicism.  It also reflects the fact that Western Christianity has broken from its patristic roots in the early Church.  Another way of putting it is that Protestants are innocent victims of Rome’s errors and innovations.

Anniversaries are often occasions for celebration.  They can also be time of assessment and evaluation.  Has the Reformation worked?  Has it been beneficial?  There is an oft-told joke about insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  For the past 500 years Protestants have made many, numerous attempts to reform, to bring back the early Church.  They have done so despite repeated failures.  The thinking seems to be: “This time we’ll get it right!”  I have referred to this as ecclesia reformans sed semper reformanda gone amok.  [See “Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw:  Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos.“]  To weary Protestants and Evangelicals I say: “Stop the reforming madness and return to the early Church.  Five hundred years of reform hasn’t worked.  It is time for Protestants and Evangelicals to consider something different — renounce the innovations of the Protestant Reformation and embrace Apostolic Tradition.”

Athanasius the Great taught, not sola scriptura (the Bible alone), but fidelity to Apostolic Tradition. In his Letter to Serapion chapter 28 he wrote:

But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called.

Here we read that Apostolic Tradition, which originated with the Lord Jesus Christ and was passed on through the Apostles and the Church, is foundational to being a Christian.  Without this Tradition, one cannot be a Christian.

This nothing new.  It is an elaboration of what the Apostle Paul wrote to the 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Robert Arakaki

 

References

Robert Arakaki.  2012.  “Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw:  Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos.”

Athanasius the Great.  “The Letters of Saint Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion.”

Theodore Beza.  “Life of John Calvin.”

James Jackson.  “The Reformation and Counter-Reformation.”

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. “Diets of Speyer.”

Caleb Lindgren.  2017.  “Protestants: The Most ‘Catholic’ of Christians.” Christianity Today. (12 September)

J.K.S. Reid, ed.  1954.  Calvin: Theological Treatises.  The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Edition.  Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

“A Reforming Catholic Confession.” (31 October 2017)

Additional Resources

Center for Baptist Renewal. 2017.  “In Praise of Reforming Catholic Confession.” (15 September)

Internet Monk (Chaplain Mike).  2015.  “Reformation Week 2015: Another Look – God’s Righteousness.”

The Gospel Coalition. 2015.  “Keller, Piper, and Carson on Why the Reformation Matters.”

Ligonier Ministries (Robert Rothwell). 2014.  “What is Reformation Day All About?”

 

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑