How different the world would look today if the Protestant reformation had never taken place we can only guess, but it is easy to surmise that it would bear little resemblance, religiously or politically.
Though Martin Luther was undoubtedly the most important of the Reformers, John Calvin would rank not far below him. In fact, in the realm of theology, Calvin has probably had as much, if not more, influence than Luther. The Sovereign Grace movement that is going on in the religious world today is based upon the doctrines of John Calvin. His was a system of belief that spread all over Europe, became the basis for the Presbyterian Church, and established the doctrinal foundation for many other denominations and individual churches. Calvinist doctrines have reurfaced in many churches, including my own, over the past 50 or so years.
Calvin was both a theologian, and a politician. His great book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, was published in its first edition in 1536. Calvin would revise it into several more editions throughout his lifetime. He would also write a commentary that encompassed most books of the Bible. Being involved in all of this, it is almost difficult to believe he could have had time for politics, but this was certainly the case.
The city of Geneva, Switzerland was where Calvinism took root. Calvin had fled France, his native country, early in his Christian life, due to Catholic persecution, and found safe haven in Reform-minded Geneva. In 1536 the city adopted the Reformation, dissolving monasteries, abolishing the Mass, and renouncing Papal authority. But there were further arguments over how the city government was to be organized, and Calvin was compelled to abandon the city, and live in Strasbourg for 3 years. In 1541, he returned to Geneva, where he would live the remainder of his life, and help organize the city government, which was a mixture of the powers of both church and state.
The politics in Geneva are too complex to discuss in a short article. Calvin believed the church and the state should remain separate entities, but also that the state should obey the doctrinal and practical teachings of the church. This is why I call the government in Geneva a mixture of church and state government. Moral codes were strictly enforced in Geneva. Both church and state officials observed the lives of the people, and sought to keep their lives in conformity with the Word of God. Although places of vice such as taverns and brothels were too deeply embedded in Geneva to be eradicated entirely, Calvin did his best to minimize their effect upon his flock. Adultery was highly punishable under the Genevan government. Calvin viewed it as destructive to all good order, and a threat to society. “Fornicators and adulterers should not be tolerated,” he declared, “for they rob the honor of everything.” He also did his best to help the poor of the city, stating that, “We should be moved to pity when we see any poor folks in adversity and provide for them according to our ability.”
Calvin’s system of government was doubtless more authoritarian than most modernists would like to see, but there is little doubt that he was attempting to do what was best for the people of Geneva, spiritually and physically. Despite some rather harsh rules, including exiling of Anabaptists from the province, Calvin was a tender-hearted man, devoted to his family, to the people of Geneva, and above all, to God. He sought to interpret the Scripture plainly, and preached eloquent, instructive sermons. The church he organized in Geneva he sought to model after the teaching of the New Testament, eradicating most of the extra-biblical Catholic offices and practices that had been prevalent for so long.
Any discussion of Calvin without some mention of his theology would be incomplete. Because his theology is so extensive and complex, I will reduce my discussion to an outline of what is termed the 5 points of Calvinism, or, the TULIP Acrostic, listing one or two verses used in support of these teachings. They form the basis for what is commonly termed in our modern religious day, The Doctrines of Grace.
1. Total Depravity, or, The Inability of Man. Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-18
2. Unconditional Election. Romans 8:28-30, II Timothy 1:9
3. Limited Atonement. John 17:2,9.
4. Irresistible Grace, or, Effectual Calling. I Corinthians 1:26-30, Romans 8:30
5. Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints. Job 17:9, I Peter 1:3-5
Because of the humanistic philosophy of our day and age, these doctrines are largely reviled and scorned by anyone who ever hears or discusses them. But John Calvin was a man who sought to be faithful to Scripture, not someone who invented a theological system to enhance his own reputation and prestige. I would encourage the reader to not merely pass over Calvin’s teachings as outdated and disproved, but to examine them in the light of Scripture, which this great servant of God spent a lifetime studying and expounding.
Mr. Ashwood, I’d like to point out some…interesting.. Scriptures in regards to the five points.
1. On Total Depravity – What about Acts 10:1-4 or Acts 28:2? Or Romans 2:14-15? These show that there is genuine goodness in non-Christians. James 1:17 states, ‘[e]very good and perfect gift is from above’ and John 1:9 says that Jesus is the ‘true light that gives light to every man’. If God’s grace can’t exist in non-Christians, how can they convert?
2. On Unconditional Election – Romans 11:32 and 1 Timothy 2:4 point out that God truly wants all to accept His grace. If this is so, how can you say that God has picked those He wants to go to heaven and those He wants to spend suffering for eternity in hell?
3. On Limited Atonement – John 3:16-17 and 1 John 2:2. He died not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world!
4. and 5. On Irresistable Grace and Preservation of the Elect – Romans 11:22-23 makes it clear that it is up to us whether we will follow God’s commmandments or leave His grace, and that if we choose to leave, He will “cut off” those who do. Philippians 2:12 tells us that we must work our salvation with fear and trembling because it is possible for us, sinners, to abuse God’s grace. (Matthew 23:37, Mark 4:19, 2 Corinthians 6:1, Galatians 5:4)
Something to think about,
Lexa
Lexa,
Thanks for your comments. First, on total depravity: It would seem that Cornelius was a true believer, who was serving God according to the light he currently had. As for the other verses you mention, the doctrine of Total Depravity does not state that no unsaved person can do anything that is right. However, everything they do is tainted with sin, because our sinful nature. Even “the plowing of the wicked is sin,” as it states in Proverbs. Romans 3:10-18 clearly points out the true nature of men, which is why they can only be saved by the grace of God. I could multiply verses proving Total Depravity, although I think history itself would be proof enough.
Unconditional election: I do not believe these verses are saying that God wants all to be saved… rather, the use of the terms such as “all” in Romans 11:32 refer to all of His elect. If God really does want to save all men, then He is a great failure, for, from all appearances, the majority of people in the world are not saved.
Limited atonement: Many, perhaps most, uses of the word “world” in the New Testament do not refer to every single human being ever created. For instance, Romans 1:8, Paul says that the faith of the Romans is spoken of throughout the “whole world.” Does this mean every single people in the whole world is speaking of their faith? Obviously not, for there were many areas of the world where the Gospel had not as yet penetrated. Again, if Christ died for the whole world, then He is a failure, for all men are not saved. I think there is a misunderstanding on your part of the nature of the atonement of Christ. If Christ paid for all the sins of those for whom He died, which according to your belief is the whole world, then how can any be lost? Will God not have those for whom His Son shed His precious blood? Is God such a weakling He will let the will of a man be more powerful than the blood that Jesus shed upon Calvary? And if Christ did not pay for all the sins of those for whom He died, then none can be saved, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” What can you do then, resort to self-flagellation to shed your own blood in an effort to pay for your own sins? I’m sure you would be no more willing than me to do something so patently ridiculous. Besides this, if you allow that the word “world” always refers to every single human being, then how can you explain Christ’s Priestly prayer of John 17, where He says in verse 9, “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou has given Me: for they are Thine.” No, I think Scripture makes it clear that the “world” for whom Christ died is His elect, which are referred to throughout the length and breadth of the New Testament.
Irresistible Grace/Preservation: The evidence of Scripture makes clear that a person who is truly saved cannot be lost… therefore, those who “leave” the grace of God are leaving what they claimed to believe, but never really had in the first place.
My proof? The proof texts are too numerous for any but the briefest summary. John 10:27-29… “I give unto them eternal life.” What is the nature of the life Christ gives? ETERNAL! A life that is eternal cannot be lost. Furthermore, He states that no man can pluck them out of His hand, or the Father’s hand, for they are One in purpose. Also, John 6:39, Jesus says, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me (election!) I should lose NOTHING, but should raise it up at the last day.” No, Christ is not going to lose those for whom He died. I Peter 1:5 tells us that we “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation…” And how could they be lost, when He has wiped sin from their record, and imputed unto them the very righteousness of God? (II Corinthians 5:19-21). If we can be lost even with the righteousness of God, then we truly are in sad shape.
Please understand, I am not insinuating these doctrines should lead us to a brash assurance that will lead to sloth, and careless living. We are warned to, “Examine ourselves whether we be in the faith,” (II Corinthians 13:5), and to “make our calling and election sure.” (II Peter 1:10). The great danger is in ourselves, not in Christ. We cannot lose the grace that He gives, for He will make certain that those for whom He died arrive in glory. The danger is that we may have fooled ourselves into thinking we have the grace of God, when in reality we are still under the blinding power of sin. That is why we are instructed to examine our own lives and hearts in the light of Scripture, to see if we are living in accordance with the will of God. But it is none of these works, done before or after our conversion, that saves us, but only the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ… and if Christ’s righteousness is not enough to “save to the uttermost that come unto God by Him,” then nothing is.
Thanks for taking time to make your points, and hope this will be helpful.
Sam Ashwood
Despite my theological differences with John Calvin (not nearly as different as some would think), I have a deep admiration for the man. I find it ironic that his constant studies of the Scriptures were the cause of his death – then again, “he who loses his life for my sake will find it.”
Actually, I have much more respect for Calvin, than for Luther…
I am completely with you, I respect Calvin more than Luther too… :) Although I do have great respect for both of them, and consider them great men of God.
Of course, this means I add men like St. Thomas Aquinas to my list too…loved his Summa Theologica – very good books if you like philosopical explanations of your beliefs… (actually, it presents a form of predestination…pretty interesting from a Catholic author).
I haven’t read Aquinas, but it does sound very interesting… although I confess I would be skeptical of anything written by a Catholic author. I do, for myself, enjoy reading authors who present a philosophical examination of their beliefs, particularly R.L. Dabney, a 19th century historian/philosopher/theologian. I enjoy his secular stuff almost as much as his religious. His insights are simply amazing, sometimes nearly prophetic. However, as far as religious reading, my favorite outside the Bible is C.H. Spurgeon, the famous 19th century English preacher… His only concern is to preach “Christ, and Him crucified,” in a manner that is both eloquent, but simple, and easy for anyone to understand.
although I confess I would be skeptical of anything written by a Catholic author.
Well, Aquinas is what you could call one of the “classics.” His time was when the Roman Church was beginning its long exodus in corruption…
In fact, Calvin would have read Aquinas in his training at the college…as with Luther and Knox. Many Protestants claim Aquinas to be a true believer (which is true) but try to say that he wasn’t Roman Catholic (untrue). Just goes to show you that you can’t judge a believer by the denomination…
Hmm, he does sound like quite an interesting fellow. Some time I’ll have to read some of his stuff for myself, so I can form my own opinion. :)
***interruption***
SA, can you email me (alexanderrblair at yahoo dot com) so we can continue our discussion regarding WW2, Cold War, etc. If not, that’s OK. :) Thanks!
***/interruption***
If I remember correctly, Aquinas was a main propagator of the “two spheres” philosophy—the idea that the sacred and the secular are not relevant to each other. I hope I explained that right. :)
He’s sounding more interesting. Maybe Dad has something of his in his massive theological library…