Beacon dictionary of theology

BRITISH-ISRAELISM. See anglo-israelism.

BROTHERHOOD. In its general sense this term indicates the social bond which people enjoy under some common head. In the theological sense it indicates unity and kinship under the Fatherhood of God. While this brotherhood includes all mankind under the generic fatherhood of God (Acts 17:28), the bond of creation has been disrupted by sin. Jesus frankly told the rebellious unbelievers of His day, "Ye are of your father the devil" (John 8:44).

Christian brotherhood, adelphotes, comes as we acknowledge the Lordship of Christ (1 Pet. 2:17; 5:9). The same thought is carried out under the slightly different Greek word adelphoi, "brethren," indicating the fellowship of the family of God (Matt. 28:10; John 20:17; Acts 9:29-30). That "brothers" includes women is repeatedly obvious, e.g., Matt. 23:8; Acts 1:16; Rom. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 19:10. Indeed, Paul would say that this brotherhood is inclusive of all sex, nationality, social or material status (Gal. 3:28).

Among others, the chief admonitions to this spiritual fellowship is "Love the brotherhood" (1 Pet. 2:17); "Love the brethren" (1 John 3:14); and love them sacrificially: "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (v. 16).

See love, agape, koinonia, brotherly love.

For Further Reading: Agnew, Transformed Christians, 84; Vine, ED, 154; 7SBE, 1:525.

Milton S. Agnew

BROTHERLY LOVE. The English term, brotherly love, is bound up in the name of a city in Lydia called Philadelphia (Rev. 1:11; 3:7), and a city in the United States as often referred to as the City of Brotherly Love; from phileo, to love; and adel-phos, brother. The compound word is found six times: Rom. 12:10; 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1; 1 Pet. 1:22; 3:8; 2 Pet. 1:7.

The word philos is one of a family of Greek words. Eros, lust, usually illicit love, is not found in the Bible. Storge, indicating family or natural affection, is used only in a compound form. With the negative prefix a, astorgoi, it is found in Rom. 1:31, "without natural affection." Curiosly it is used in Rom. 12:10 in a compound with philos to define an aspect of brotherly love. "Be kindly af-fectioned [philo-storgoi] one to another with brotherly love [Philadelphia]; in honour preferring one another." Agape, scarcely found in the early extrabiblical papyri or the inscriptions, became the word usually used to designate Christian love (the word does not always mean Christian or divine love, however).

Philos identifies a wholesome, natural affection between friends. Combined with adelphos, as phil-adelphia, it represents warm Christian fellowship. Its practice is encouraged (Heb. 13:1). It is to be associated with the verb agapab (1 Pet. 1:22). In 2 Pet. 1:7, translated as "brotherly kindness," it is to be added to godliness and then, in turn, perfected by agape, "charity," "that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 8; cf. 1 Thess. 4:9).

See love, agape, perfect love, koinonia.

For Further Reading: WBC on Rom. 12:10; Heb. 13:1;
1 Pet. 1:22; Wuest, Treasures from the Greek New Testa-
ment, 57. Milton S. Agnew

BUDDHISM. An offshoot of Brahminism, Buddhism originated in India six centuries before the Christian era. Presumably, its founder was Sid-dhartha, who is better known as Sakyamouni. Also, he is known by the title of Buddha (English, "The Enlightened") which he assumed, and from which his followers are called Buddhists. Gautama Buddha supposedly was born about 563 b.c. into a very wealthy family. At the age of 29, according to the traditions, he renounced home, wealth, power, a young wife, and an only child. Allegedly he became an extreme ascetic and attached himself to Brahman teachers. However, there is an unresolved debate whether there ever was such a person as Buddha.

Basic to Buddhistic philosophy is the assumption of a casual nexus in nature and in man, of which the law of karma is but a specific application. Also, it assumes the impermanence of

things and the illusory notion of substance and soul. In ethics, Buddhism assumes the universality of suffering and the belief in a remedy for the problem of evil.

The multifarious forms which the teachings of Gautama Buddha produced center around the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Neither devotion to the world nor asceticism saves a man, but only a complete detachment. There are four great truths concerning suffering: (1) Life is full of pain and unfilled desire; (2) This pain is caused by craving of some kind, either for things of this world or for happiness in a future life; (3) This craving can be extinguished; (4) The way this is done is by means of the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path includes: Right Views, Right Desires (resolves), Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Rapture (concentration).

One is not asked to renounce love in Buddhism, but one is asked to renounce love for self. Such self-renunciation is the goal of the noble Eightfold Path. At the end of the path one finds Nirvana, and it can be attained even in this life. Scholars are not certain of the meaning of the term Nirvana; some believe it means annihilation, while others think it means absorption into Buddha. It is certain that this end is to be attained by the extinction of the self.

In Buddhism a man must save himself; no gods and no rituals will help him. There is no god in Buddhism, but there is a kind of worship of Buddha, for which temples are erected. Each person may become a Buddha, an "Enlightened One." Buddhism has always had the remarkable power of assimilating into itself some of the features of other religions; Buddhists will also claim to be adherents of other religions, and they do not see any contradiction in this. The number of Buddhists is estimated to be from 200 to 400 million. It is known as a missionary religion.

See hinduism, comparative religion, non-christian religions, christianity.

For Further Reading: Perry, The Gospel in Dispute,

175-225; Parrinder, A Dictionary of Non-Christian Religions; Ferm, A History of Philosophical Systems.

Jerry W. McCant

BURNT OFFERING. The burnt offering was one of four sacrifices described in Leviticus in which the blood of the sacrificial victim was shed (1:2-17; 6:1-6). The distinguishing feature of the burnt offering was that, after the blood had been taken and sprinkled on the sides of the altar, the rest of the sacrifice was burned on the altar without any part being returned to the offerer or to the priest (except the skin, 7:8). The victim was usually an unblemished male taken from the cattle or the sheep (1:2). A turtledove or a pigeon could be offered, however (v. 14), a provision probably intended for the poor (cf. 5:7; 12:8).

The blood sacrifices in the OT included the ideas of atonement and presentation of a gift to God. But these two ideas were not equally balanced in the various sacrifices. Although atonement was involved in the burnt offering (Lev. 1:4), the element of presentation of a gift as an act of divine worship had special prominence. As an act of worship it expressed praise, thanksgiving, and rejoicing on the part of God's people (Gen. 8:20; 1 Sam. 6:13 ff; 1 Chron. 23:30 ff; 2 Chron. 29:25-30). It implied the complete consecration of the offerer to God (v. 31). The offering served to maintain and renew the existing bond of fellowship between God and His people.

Christians express the meaning inherent in the burnt offering when they present themselves in worship to God, and as a definite and complete sacrifice according to Rom. 12:1.

Also, they glorify God by their sacrifices of praise and faithful service (Heb. 13:15 f). These offerings are acceptable (Lev. 1:3 ff) because of the atonement of Christ, "a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2, rsv).

See consecration, lamb (sacrificial).

For Further Reading: Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of
Sacrifice; Ringgren, Sacrifice in the Bible; De Vaux, Studies
in Old Testament Sacrifice. fred D. layman
CABALA—CALVINISM

85

_c

CABALA. See kabbala.

CALL, CALLED, CALLING. Of all the various uses of the idea or word "call" in the Bible, the most significant is the divine invitation to sinners to accept the redeeming grace of God in the gift of His Son (John 3:16-17; Matt. 11:28; Luke 14:16-17; Rev. 22:17; cf. Isa. 55:1). This call is universal in its scope through the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit in the sense of awakening (a phase of prevenient grace) (John 1:9; 6:44; Rom. 1:19; 2:15; cf. Acts 14:17). It is more direct or immediate through the Word of God and/or preaching of the gospel (Rom. 10:17; Matt. 28:19-20).

Broadly speaking, there is a twofold call relating to full salvation in Jesus Christ because of the twofold nature of sin, i.e., sin inherited and sins committed. It issues first in a call to repentance (Matt. 9:13; Luke 5:32), and secondly, in a call to holiness, addressed to believers (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Thess. 4:7-8; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).

The call to salvation in Christ can be accepted or rejected, and those who accept are the called, or elect. Hence the Church is the ecclesia, or "called-out ones." The apostle Paul speaks of "the called of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1:6; cf. 1 Cor. 1:24). The divine call, described as "upward" and "heavenly," to freedom and happiness (1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 5:13; Phil. 3:14; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:10) includes ethical standards relating to a manner of life or life-style, demanding a worthy walk (1 Thess. 2:12; Eph. 4:1), in holiness (1 Thess. 4:7; 1 Pet. 1:15; Heb. 12:14), with patience, even in suffering (1 Pet. 2:20-21), and in peace (1 Cor. 7:15; Col. 3:15).

The word "call" also relates to the vocation or calling of individuals (e.g., Abraham, Gen. 12:1; Moses, Exod. 3:10; Isaiah, Isa. 6:8; Paul, Acts 26:16); as such it may pertain to some special office or function, such as judge (Judg. 3:9-10), prophet (Isa. 6:8; 8:11), missionary (Acts 13:2; 16:10), apostleship (Rom. 1:1), and craftsman, like Bezaleel (Exod. 31:2). Israel was called as a nation to be God's chosen people through whom the Savior came (Isa. 41:8-9; cf. Deut. 7:6-8).

For Calvinists, "effectual calling" pertains only to the elect, who, by divine decree, are predestinated to salvation. This view, however, fails to give due regard to the many "whosoever wills" in the NT regarding salvation (e.g., John 3:14-16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Tim. 2:3-4; Rev. 22:17).

Regarding prayer, in Gen. 4:26 we are told that men began "to call upon the name of the Lord" (cf. Ps. 105:1; Zeph. 3:9). In the NT "call" is used to show that men were accustomed to invoke God in prayer (Acts 7:59; Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 1:2).

See effectual calling, elect, vocation.

For Further Reading: Wiley, CT, 2:334-44; Calvin, In-
stitutes of the Christian Religion, ed. Allen, 2:217-41;
Kittel, 3:487-500. william M. ARNETT

CALVINISM. This is one of the three major theology systems of Protestantism, the other two being Lutheranism and Wesleyan-Arminianism. It takes its name from its primary systematizer, John Calvin (1509-64) of Geneva. His thought was expounded in his epochal three-volume Institutes of the Christian Religion, published in its final form in a.d. 1559 (the last of several revisions and expansions of the original one-volume treatise published when Calvin was 27 years of age). Supportive were Calvin's Commentaries on the Bible, and lesser works.

As a system Calvinism has been articulated in such creeds as the Canons of the Synod of Dort (The Netherlands, a.d. 1619) and The Westminster Confession (England, a.d. 1647). Most Presbyterian, Reformed churches, and Baptists would classify themselves as Calvinists, though in many groups the adherence is very partial—a fact which has given rise to such loose distinctions as hyper-, moderate-, and mild-Calvinism (which last is actually about 80 percent Arminian). Other divisions have been Old School and New School Calvinism.

As a pure system Calvinism is logically coherent, consisting of five major interdependent and interlocking doctrinal positions. For both understanding and memory, students have sometimes resorted to the acronym TULIP, which stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance (eternal security). While these constitute the


"bones" of the entire system of thought, they are not always handled in this order. The Canons of Dort, for instance, begin with Predestination. Historically, however, the doctrine of depravity proved to be the springboard in Augustine's mind for the doctrine of predestination. Moreover the TULIP order was the order of the Remonstrance document presented in 1610 to the political authorities at The Hague by the 42 Remonstrant signers, led by John Uitembogaert.

The first tenet, Total depravity, does not mean that humans are as evil as they can be, but that they are depraved in every faculty and facet of their being. This depravity is the result of complete alienation from God due to Adam's sin, and constitutes a complete moral inability. Man in this state is unable to live a truly meritorious life, or do one effective thing toward turning to God or acquiring personal salvation. I The second tenet—Unconditional election— ' concerns the basis of God's redemptive plan, in the face of this abject helplessness of man. Salvation must be totally the work of God, not only in initiation and prosecution but in final consummation. This stress on the divine will implies that if God does not save all men, it can only be because He does not choose to do so. Instantly we have on our hands some idea of election and predestination—that God has foreordained in advance those who will be saved.

This develops in different directions. Some declare a "double predestination," meaning that the damned are predestined to be lost as surely as the saved are predestined to be rescued (e.g., Canons of Dort). In contrast the advocates of "single predestination" declare that only the "elect" are predestined by a divine decision or decree, the others simply being allowed to suffer the fate inherently their just desert—a desert not only attached to their personal sins but their "real" participation in Adam's first sin.

Another difference is indicated by the terms supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. The first means that the election of individuals was determined in the divine mind before the Fall— indeed, that the Fall was included in the divine decree. The second term represents the belief that it was after the Fall, and was God's response to it. Supralapsarianism can scarcely escape the criticism that it makes God "the author of sin" (as James Arminius said in his Declaration of Sentiments of 1608).

Having once declared a doctrine of predestination, the remaining tenets of Calvinism follow naturally. The third therefore concerns the Atonement: that Christ atoned only for the sins of those predestined to be saved. This is called Limited atonement. Congenial to this is that theory of the Atonement which sees it as an objective transaction, consisting of a full satisfaction of the claims of God's holiness and justice, in the form of a full payment of the exact penalty. The elect, therefore, are necessarily freed. Calvin thus speaks not of Christ providing (i.e., making possible) salvation for us, but that "salvation was obtained" (Institutes, 2:77).

The fourth tenet is called Irresistible grace (or effectual calling). This relates to God's mode of bringing about the salvation of the elect. The gospel call is impressed on the hearts of elect sinners by the Holy Spirit in such a manner as to assure their faith and repentance. Others may be moved by the gospel also, but their response will fall short of saving faith because they are left without the crucial aid of the Spirit—which Calvin calls "the secret efficacy of the Spirit" (ibid., 2:86).

The fifth letter of TULIP stands for Perseverance, meaning that since God has decreed the salvation of the elect, it is impossible for them to be lost, for that would be a failure of the divine will. Therefore the assurance of final salvation is inseverable from the initial infusion of saving grace. God undertakes full responsibility for preserving the "saints" in a state of sonship.

Calvinists divide into different camps respecting sin in the Christian after conversion. While assuming that a person in this life could never be free from sin, or perfect, John Calvin' made no allowance for willful sinning, but insisted that the desire and endeavor to live a holy, life was endemic to regeneration and a prime ev-' idence of being among the elect. Other views have not been so guarded, some even veering into virtual antinomianism.

Today the usual Calvinistic stance is that sin breaks one's fellowship with God, and may even jeopardize one's rewards, but has no bearing on final destiny. That destiny is unchangeably settled. Some go so far as to declare that a backslider is still saved even if he dies in his backslidden state; others would say that such terminal backsliding only proved that the person was never truly born again in the first place.

The single most distinguishing mark of Calvinism is its emphasis on divine decrees. The world, including men, is governed not merely by the power of God but by His decrees (Calvin, 1:236). "That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his

secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of scripture" (1:268). Thus God's providence is not viewed as flexible response but ad- ' vance determination, and divine sovereignty is not seen as absolute authority primarily but as ; absolute efficiency. The divine will cannot b^' thwarted.

This system is believed to magnify God. Only by exalting God as the Source and Cause of all things can all ground for human pride be removed.

Yet throughout Calvin's Institutes he struggles with the implications of such one-sided mon-ergism. Many words are used in seeking to protect the honor of God from the stigma of arbitrary selectivity in saving people. All sorts of hedging and qualifying are engaged in, seeking to prove that while God alone is responsible for good deeds, for faith, and for final salvation, the sinner alone is responsible for his sins and his final lostness.

In the Calvinistic system the will is central not only in God as the Source but in man, as the so-teriological pivot. While in Arminianism the will \ is^eMHed^ by grace, in Calvinism it is essentially 1 and superhafurally altered by grace. Calvin says: / "The Lord both corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also substitutes a good will from himself" (Institutes, 1:346; cf. 350, 389, et al.). This is the first action of God upon the elect in the sequence of saving grace. From this alteration of the will flow faith, and then repentance (which Calvin defines as regeneration—cf. ibid., 2:159). A turned will thus moves freely in the direction of righteousness. But the sinner is powerless to effect the turning himself or even to aid it.

The tension between the absolute exercise of sovereignty and human freedom, together with any rational philosophy of moral responsibility, has been felt by each generation of Calvinistic thinkers. Jonathan Edwards, America's greatest Calvinistic theologian, struggled with the problem in his remarkable essay on Freedom of the Will. In this effort he sought to preserve both predestination and human freedom by the ingenious utilization of the concept of motives. While the will is free, and not coerced, the human psychology is such that the will always chooses the strongest motive—or responds to the strongest reason for action. And motives are determined not from within, but from without—by divine providence; and thus God retains full suzerainty.

Following Edwards, the modifying process of Samuel Hopkins, Timothy Dwight, and Na-thanael Taylor resulted in what is called the New England Theology, a move away from hyper-

Calvinism's extreme view of moral inability toward the granting of a larger role to human freedom and responsibility. The greatest revivalist of this era, Charles G. Finney, a New School Presbyterian (later a Congregationalist), was a sworn foe of moral inability.

Calvin's conception of justification by faith alone was similar to both Luther's and Wesley's in the sense that it was viewed as the hinge of evangelical soteriology. However, with Calvin/ faith was not a gift in the sense of an enable-; ment, but a direct creation, an infusion. The elect/ person was given faith; from then on he pos-j sessed faith, which meant that from then on hej remained justified.

Calvin along with Wesley and Luther affirmed initial sanctification as a universal concomitant of justifying faith. He said that "holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness" (ibid., 2:151). But it is the free and unconditional justification which is determinative of eternal life, and in no sense the success or failure of sanctification. The deficiency in sanctification can never be fatal, for it is more than compensated by the imputed obedience of Christ. As Christ's death is imputed for justification, so His obedience is imputed for sanctification, so that God sees us as perfect and complete in Him (cf. ibid., 2:216, et al.).

In all fairness it must be said that Calvin's deficient concept of the possibilities of sanctifying grace in this life stemmed in large part from his faulty doctrine of sin. "Nothing can be accepted that is not in every respect entire and absolute, and tainted by no impurity; such indeed as never has been, and never will be, found in man" (ibid., 2:334).

In evaluating Calvinism, only certain very brief observations can be made, though at the risk of seeming superficial. Calvinism's hold on much of the evangelical world can be accounted for, in part, by the fact that the Bible contains much apparent support for the system. It is only as careful students such as James Arminius, John Wesley, John Fletcher, and hundreds of others, have taken a second look, and turned Calvin's textual stones over, that they have become convinced that the net teaching of the Bible respecting the relation of a sovereign God to His human creatures, and respecting the conditions and processes of salvation, move in a different direction.

The appeal of Calvinism also lies in its abso-, lutism. It is a comforting teaching for those who j have reason to believe they are among the elect.■

88

CANON

To feel that personal security is settled, by God himself, takes from one's shoulders an immense | load of responsibility. Wesleyans and others who (disagree, however, insist that their sense of security is as satisfying, but on a sounder foundation: It rests in the assurance that as long as one wants to be kept, the love of God is faithful and the power of the Spirit adequate. But it sees neither ■ moral nor scriptural ground for presuming that security is unrelated to continued trust and willing obedience.

Calvinism can be faulted for its inadequate conception of the present possibilities of grace for both inner and outer holiness. Strange grace, that can overwhelm the will in conversion but cannot energize it against sin! It would be better to redefine sin than to retain a definition which puts a limit on Christ's power to save, which makes Him a Savior in sin rather than from it, and which contradicts the many promises in the Bible for thorough cleansing. Calvinism fails utterly to see entire sanctification in this life as either possible or necessary.

Furthermore, Calvinism's absolute divine sovereignty, expressed in the form of inviolable decrees, does not really honor God but shamefully dishonors Him. For one thing, a redemption that can be accomplished only by commandeering the human will must be branded as a colossal c failure. This is a salvation which depends on ar-, bitrary power, not on the winsomeness of love. A human will taken over by an irresistable divine energy must of necessity be acknowledged for what it is—a violated will. Such a person is not free, even though he may have the illusion of freedom.

But the most terrible stigma on the Creator is the implication of selective predestination, entirely on the basis of God's own pleasure, without regard to foresight of human response, with the balance of mankind left to rot eternally in their inherited corruption. The God who can save whom He will could save all if He willed. The God who can save all but chooses not to, cannot escape responsibility for their lostness, by His default. This seems to thoughtful persons to be a travesty on any doctrine of divine love, which no amount of adroit dodging can evade.

See arminianism, augustinianism, monergism, synergism, divine decrees, freedom, infralapsarianism, atonement, canons of dort.