John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, despite what seems like quite disparate views, is actually, very much informed by prior theological thinkers. When considering the foundation of their arguments, Calvin and Luther share almost the same view on the workings of faith, and the reason for scripture. Calvin’s predestinational doctrine also grows out of a line of thinking which includes Luther, and even prior writers, namely Erasmus; this line of thought, continually allows more and more freedom to be given to theological conceptions of God as time goes on.
Luther and Calvin lay down very similar foundations for the arguments that they will later present. Firstly, they both develop the matching concepts of faith and justification, which, to Luther and Calvin, respectively, become the primary currency in the soul’s salvation. In Luther’s writings, faith takes the place of good works as the central tenet of salvation. According to Luther, the redemptive properties of good works are laid bare by the Old Testament, which simply serves to demonstrate the imperfection of man: “Although the commandments teach things that are good, the things taught are not done as soon as they are taught, for the commandments show us what we ought to do but do not give us the power to do it.” The commandments, along with the remainder of the Old Testament, present unrealistic expectations, and no solution providing any form of “power” to do what is being asked. Luther debases the idea that good works can be redemptive, as there is no way to have good enough works to continuously obey all of the proscriptions of the Old Testament legal system. This leaves one receptive to realize what is, to Luther, presented in the New Testament, the promises of mercy from God. These promises lay out that belief is the most important, and most redemptive feature of a Christian: “If you believe, you shall have all things.” In this way, Luther replaces good works; after this discovered inability to completely obey law, one is left will little else but to believe and have faith in Christ, the manifestation of God’s promise of salvation toward mankind.
Calvin takes almost the exact same approach to the idea of faith which Luther takes. Again, Calvin cites the belief in Christ as the paramount necessity of a Christian, based solely upon the mercy of God, and not through man’s good works: “man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy.” In this passage, there is very much which is right in line with Luther-for example the lack of power of good works or the mercy of God-and it is this idea which forms, at very least, the basis upon which many of Calvin’s other arguments are founded. Calvin even utilizes the same mechanism by which humanity turns to God’s grace as the only means of salvation, discussing one, “when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners…he is prostrated and humbled before God.” A line of thought in which the despair brought on by man’s flawed nature is what leads to faith, which proves to be, once more, fully in concordance with Luther as Calvin assembles the foundations for his theology.
It is very much in the idea of predestination itself where Calvin begins to differ from Luther, but, even as such, the difference is subtle, and, possibly a natural outgrowth of the pattern of Luther’s own thought. While it could be argued that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is vastly different from the teachings of Luther, given that the latter has no such doctrine which can be considered analogous, Calvin’s predestination is merely a product of the fact that he is willing to allot more freedom to both humanity and God than is Luther. Firstly, there is the fact that Calvin begins his remarks on the subject of predestination with the phrase, referring to the disparity between the saved and the unsaved, “In this diversity the wonderful depth of God’s judgment is made known.” It is clear that Calvin is willing to bestow God with a large degree of freedom; the phrase “wonderful depth” certainly gives one the sense that Calvin prefers his God to have optimum liberty, and that God and humanity are both better off from this “depth.” It is also this depth which leads to the development of the doctrine of predestination, for any completely free conception of God must also conceive of God as being completely free to decide those whom he will save, and who he will not save.
This concept of God’s freedom, which figures so heavily in the doctrine of predestination, continues a trend which takes place in Luther, who, himself, marked a new degree to the “allowance” of freedom to God. The denunciation of works, and the promotion of the idea of faith takes from humanity, who can control the degree to which good works are performed, and places the means of salvation at God’s unmediated discretion, his grace. In this, man is forced to relinquish their fate to the will of God; Luther describes: “I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force anyone to have faith. That is God’s work alone, Who causes faith to live in the heart. Therefore we should give free course to the word and not add our works to it.” The only means by which man can control their own salvation, according to Luther, is through the amount in which they read the Word of God. The entire rest of the process, the grace and salvation come from God. Even the works which someone endowed with grace performs have not other bearing on salvation than that they are a manifestation of the grace which God has bestowed.
Calvin simply takes God’s freedom further, freeing Him even from the confines which are inherent in Luther’s theology. He extends the freedom of God to the point that faith, or justification, based upon God’s unlimited will, can be given-or not given-at will to whomever God pleases, based, of course, upon no criteria or actions of the involved person. Calvin states that, “salvation comes about solely from God’s mere generosity…His mere good pleasure preserves whom He will, and moreover that He pays no reward, since He can owe none.” God’s will, according to Calvin, and unlike Luther, cannot be limited by any intervention or distinction of man, and only goes to serve God’s own higher plan. The use of the phrase “he can owe none,” seems especially telling of this idea, in that God cannot have any means by which he must be subjugated to any other will, and owing humanity would certainly be a compromise of that infinite freedom. Thus, the will of God, when utilizing this system of election, can entirely not, according to Calvin, be anything but utterly free; the reading of scripture, which Luther prescribes as a means to attaining grace, would not be effectual on the decisions of the God of Calvin.
This gradual buildup of the freedom of God does not begin with Luther, but, rather, evidences of this line of thought can be seen prior to this time, in the writings of Erasmus. Erasmus divides people into two parts, the “inner,” and the “outer” man. In this aspect, Erasmus begins to liberate the idea of faith, and the will of God from the works of man, taking away power from the works of the “outer” man, and placing it in the ideas of faith: “Of what advantage to you is a body covered by a religious habit if that same body possesses a mind that is worldly? If your habit is white, should not your mind be white, too?” This focus upon the “inner man” can be seen as placing more freedom with God, in very much the same way that Luther and Calvin will in their theological writings. By taking away the moral influences of worldly behavior, the actions of God, in the eyes of the worshippers, are less inhibited by, for example, the color of one’s habit, and more by the inner workings of the mind of the worshipper, and by faith. This inner self, according to Erasmus, is even, largely influenced by the will of God, “The spirit, on the other hand, may be said to represent us a reflection of the divine nature of our creator. Here we find the original pattern of the divine mind wherein the eternal law is engraved by the finger of God, the Holy Spirit.” This passage marks a fairly large step toward the idea of God which is presented in Calvin; Erasmus strongly recommends looking to the spirit, and this is because this bears the likeness of God. Thus, this looking to the place, even if human, where God has the most influence, certainly, if not a direct step toward bolstering the sovereignty of God, can definitely be said to be a precursor to the ideas of Luther, and then later Calvin.
Calvin and Luther, despite the possibly perceived difference in the predestination doctrine of Calvin, have theological views which are very similar in nature. Both thinkers share the same foundational arguments for their thinking, their conception of faith, and the way in which scripture builds the argument for salvation by faith. Luther and Calvin also share the same line of thought regarding the freedom of God; beginning with the pre-Reformation thinkers, such as Erasmus, and continuing through Luther, the amount of freedom allotted to God in theological theories begins to increase, and Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is simply the next logical step in this trend.
