‘The world should realize with increased clearness that Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism.’i
The great princeton theologian Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield wrote those words a century ago. At the time, Calvinism still had a major influence on evangelicalism, helping to define its theology, shape its spirituality, and clarify its mission. That is no longer as true as it once was. Increasingly Calvinism is defined over against evangelicalism, and while many Calvinists still consider themselves evangelicals, most evangelicals are suspicious of Calvinism.
On a first reading, therefore, Warfield’s claim seems excessive, and probably false. One doubts whether it would find widespread acceptance in the contemporary church. What has Calvinism to do with evangelicalism? And why would the vitality of the evangelical church in any way depend on Calvinist theology?
As surprising as it may seem, Warfield’s claim is the thesis of this book, namely, that evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism. To put this in a slightly less provocative way, evangelicalism needs Calvinism. In order to see why this is so, it helps to remove the labels.
By “Evangelicalism,” Warfield essentially meant what German Lutherans meant when they first started using the term during the Protestant Reformation: a church founded on the gospel, the good news if salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And when Warfield spoke of “Calvinism,” he was referring to the Protestant Reformation, with its insistence on justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone.
To put it more simply, evangelicalism stands for the gospel and Calvinism stands for grace. What Warfield was really saying, therefore, is something that every Christian should and must believe: the gospel stands or falls by grace.
As Warield recognized, the gospel is not really the gospel unless it is a gospel of grace; in other words, the gospel is only good news if it announces what God has done to save sinners.
And if that is true, then the gospel stands or falls with the doctrines of grace.
—James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.), p17-18.
Footnotes
- B. B. Warfield, quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), 83-84. [↩]
Wow, what a great quote. Thanks for posting.
Couldn't agree more. I think the biggest problems we calvinist-evangelicals have is the misunderstanding of 'labels' both by believers and the world in general.I just hate undefined terms. This quote is an excellent example of good definition.We used to use the term evangelical to identify what kind of Christians we are. (Even the label "Christian" was the worlds attempt to define those who followed Christ. Acts 11:26). Now the terms evangelical has been so widely used and abused that it is no longer definitive. The term 'reformed' is fairly widely used amongst Calvinists, but I'm not sure that its a term widely understood by either Christians or the world, so I tend to use it only with those whom I know appreciate its nuance. I have two problems with the label 'Calvinist'. It has so much baggage encumbered with it, most of which is the result of a complete ignorance of what Calvin actually stood for. The second reason is that I'm uncomfortable with any label that attaches me to another 'man'. I am not a follower of Calvin – I read his theology, I accept his theology, but I am a Christ follower – not a man follower.
Does evangelicalism fall without irresistible grace though? As I read the posts here for the first time and play around on the site this Christmas morning I find myself in agreement with a lot of the material but either through my Christian “upbringing” (9 years ago is when I first became a Christian, abandoning my former ways and realizing that I was a sinner, that there was a standard, that I could never meet that standard and that Christ died for me.. So by upbringing I mean teaching since then) or my own Bible study I have come to find a hard time accepting the doctrine of irresistible grace.
I hope to do more to settle this one in my head and will someday get thoughts out but the short of it is – I do believe faith comes by grace, and not works. I do believe that grace can only come from God and it is through Christ’s completed work on the cross and proven by his resurrection. I also believe that I have nothing to do with my own salvation and apart from God’s grace, I wouldn’t even want to want to want it. So in that much, I think most “calvinists” (Like Don, I dislike labels, especially labeling ones self after a man since Christ is who we follow) would agree with me.
Where we differ and where I need to explore more through Bible study and prayer is the question – is that grace irresistible? Are we elected for salvation because of a sovereign choice only or is it because of a sovereign choice and foreknowledge of a response?
On the one hand – if it is sovereign grace and we have no part in it, if we are targeted for grace we’ll accept it, then that puzzles me about the scriptures that refer to Christ dying for all, for God willing that all would repent, etc. On the other hand, if we have the final decision to accept or deny then that seems to take away from sovereignty and seemingly robs God of that last bit of Glorying in our salvation.
To me both are serious issues and I think the way I have settled on thinking about this makes sense and is based on my interpretation of scripture thus far. As I go deeper perhaps I will see it differently… I believe that enabling Grace is what gives the opportunity to believe/accept or not. Without this we would not and could not ever desire to worship, obey, trust our King. With it, we can still choose to accept or not. It isn’t that our choosing is what saves us. I truly believe that all will have an opportunity to receive and act on saving Grace but many will still not choose. I just don’t see how that takes away from God’s sovereignty or takes anything away from Grace.
I’ll take many of Calvin’s other teachings but no one that reads this site would call me a Calvinist but I would still (the earlier caveat about not liking labels) consider myself an evangelical, Christ worshiping, Bible believing, Grace Through Faith and not of works kind of Christian.
What you have described as your belief is classical Arminianism. That’s the only thing that Arminius (Calvin’s successor’s student) wanted to modify in Calvinism. Once the election is conditional, the grace resistible, the atonement universal, then the depravity is not total and the perseverance is not sure and not of grace. At that point, Calvinism is no longer Calvinism in even the smallest degree.
Calvinism?
Is it really only Calvinism that teaches the necessity of God’s Grace? I think not!
I belong to denomination that is not Calvinist but has Grace at the heart of its doctrine. Calvinism may well be good and helpful teaching but I have come to believe that systematic theology is far too often us trying to fit God into a system we understand