The most familiar Calvinist synopsis in the U.S. probably is the Westminster Catechism, a product of British Calvinism. Having been an ardent Calvinist for 20 years, I nevertheless was stunned this morning to see how stark is the contrast between the “let’s keep God at arms’ length” approach of Calvinism and the radical teaching of the Fathers.
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.Q. 3. What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A. The Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.
At least they got glorifying God in there. Otherwise, it’s awfully arid: belief and duty.
For the Fathers, Christ’s Incarnation was more central:
God became man so that man might become a god.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation.
But as our Lord is alone truly Master, so the Son of God is truly good and patient, the Word of God the Father having been made the Son of man. For He fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: For He bound the strong man, and set free the weak, and endowed His own handiwork with salvation, by destroying sin. For He is a most holy and merciful Lord, and loves the human race.
Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man (human nature) to cleave to and to become one with God.
Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Incarnation.
There was a book, in the 60s I think, titled “Your God Is Too Small.” Black Evangelical Tom Skinner in my era riffed “Your God Is Too White.”
From the contrast between Westminster and the Church Fathers, I’d say to Calvinists “your salvation is too small.”
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 