ReGrace

by Frank Viola

  Two closing historical notes for those who are interested in the origins of modern church practices. These aren’t “shocking” beliefs, just interesting points of history.

  (1) Luther didn’t use the word priest to refer to the new clergy of the Reformation, but the ministry was essentially the same.

  He wrote,

  We neither can nor ought to give the name priest to those who are in charge of the Word and sacrament among the people. The reason they have been called priests is either because of the custom of the heathen people or as a vestige of the Jewish nation. The result is greatly injurious to the church.44

  Yet as I pointed out in my book Pagan Christianity, not much changed between the Catholic priest and the Protestant pastor during the Reformation. The “priest” was transformed into the “preacher,” “the minister,” and finally “the pastor.”

  Catholic priests had seven duties at the time of the Reformation: preaching; the sacraments; prayers for the flock; a disciplined, godly life; church rites; supporting the poor; and visiting the sick. The Protestant pastor took upon himself all of these responsibilities—plus he sometimes blessed civic events.

  The famed poet John Milton summed the idea up by saying, “New presbyter is but old priest writ large.”45

  In other words, because of the way Luther viewed and wrote about the priests and the new ministers of the Reformation, identifying the latter as responsible for the same rites as Roman Catholic priests, Luther held that the Protestant pastor was little more than a priest with a new title.

  (2) Luther detested the word “church” as a translation for ekklesia.

  The renowned theologian Emil Brunner wrote about this point, saying,

  Of all the great teachers of Christianity, Martin Luther perceived most clearly the difference between the Ecclesia of the New Testament and the institutional church, and reacted most sharply against the quid pro quo which would identify them. Therefore he refused to tolerate the mere word “church”: he called it an “obscure ambiguous” term (7). In his translation of the Bible, he rendered the New Testament “Ecclesia” by “congregation.” . . . He realized that the New Testament Ecclesia is just not an “it”, “a thing”, an “institution”, but rather a unity of persons, a people, a communion. . . .

  Strong as was Luther’s aversion to the word “church”, the facts of history prove stronger. The linguistic usage of both the Reformation and the post-Reformation era had to come to terms with the so powerfully developed idea of the Church, and consequently all the confusion dependent upon the use of this “obscure ambiguous” word penetrated Reformation theology. It was impossible to put the clock back one millennium and a half. The conception “church” remained irrevocably moulded by this historical process of 1,500 years.46

  I happen to agree with this sentiment, but it’s an interesting, yet little-known fact about the great Reformer.

  All told, if you’re a Luther fan, I hope you will have a bit more grace when you meet a fellow Christian who you believe to be theologically wrong. For even the leader of the Protestant Reformation didn’t see all things clearly.

  Let’s now turn our attention to one of the most influential Christian leaders of all time.

  9

  The Shocking Beliefs of John Calvin

  Beware of anything that competes with your loyalty to Jesus Christ. The greatest competitor of true devotion to Jesus is the service we do for Him. It is easier to serve than to pour out our lives completely for Him. The goal of the call of God is His satisfaction, not simply that we should do something for Him.

  ~ Oswald Chambers

  John Calvin played a significant role in the development of Reformed theology, a theology that still flourishes today. Hailed as a master theologian, the French Reformer’s writings still live and breathe in the twenty-first century.

  Calvin was a second-generation Reformer (he was twenty-six years younger than Martin Luther). Trained as a lawyer, he possessed a keen analytical mind.

  By all counts, Calvin was an intellectual. He wrote the original version of his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion when he was only twenty-seven years old, updating it throughout his life. (Some regard the Institutes to be the single most influential theological work in history.)

  Sometime between 1530 and 1533, Calvin experienced a spiritual conversion and joined the Reformation in 1537.

  Whether you agree with Calvin’s theological system or not, there’s no question that John Calvin made an indelible mark on today’s Christianity, including many segments of evangelicalism.

  And like all highly influential Christians, Calvin has been hailed and hammered, loved and loathed, adored and abhorred.

  Consider these quotes, for example:

  Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin; no age, before him ever produced his equal, and no age afterwards has seen his rival. In theology, he stands alone, shining like a bright fixed star, while other leaders and teachers can only circle round him, at a great distance—as comets go streaming through space—with nothing like his glory or his permanence . . . the longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.1

  ~ Charles Spurgeon

  Taking into account all his failings he must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best of men whom God raised up in the history of Christianity.2

  ~ Philip Schaff

  The famous Calvin, whom we regard as the apostle of Geneva, raised himself up to the rank of Pope of the Protestants (s’érigea en pape des Protestants).3

  ~ Voltaire

  According to Will Durant, Calvin “labored twelve to eighteen hours a day as preacher, administrator, professor of theology, superintendent of churches and schools, advisor to municipal courts, and regulator of public morals and church liturgy.”4

  Calvin died at age fifty-four. But he was incredibly productive during his short life. Prolific since his early twenties, Calvin preached an average of five sermons a week and wrote a commentary on nearly every book of the Bible.

  What follows is not intended to debate the ethics or theological veracity of Calvin—including his system of theology which is still held dear by many. That being interpreted means, those of you who are wired to interpret anything but praise for John Calvin as equating to being “anti-Calvin,” calm down.

  Along with Calvin’s admirers, there exists a loud and vocal group of “Calvin-haters.” Often, those who stand against Calvin’s theology think that personally attacking John Calvin is a means of discrediting the theological system of Calvinism, but it’s not.

  I have high regard for Mr. Calvin and his contribution, even though I don’t agree with everything he believed. I suspect that when you finish this chapter, you’ll agree that not all of Calvin’s viewpoints were compatible with the teachings of Jesus. That fact alone should make us all more tolerant toward those with whom we disagree over doctrines.

  1. Calvin believed that executing some unrepentant heretics was justifiable.

  Keep in mind that during the sixteenth century, the church and the state were symbiotically combined. Severe heresy, then, was punishable by death. It was viewed as leading to both societal anarchy and eternal death. Most Christians of that day accepted the death penalty for heretics, except for the Anabaptists (but that’s another story).

  The best known example of this societally accepted belief is when Calvin consented to the execution of Michael Servetus, a man who denied the Trinity and infant baptism. Servetus denied that Jesus was the Son of God in the orthodox sense.5

  Servetus burned for thirty minutes before he died. Why? Simply because of his theological views. (Well, it was actually because the fire was really hot, but you get what I’m saying.)6

  John Calvin’s supporters are quick to point out that the great Reformer didn’t directly execute the man. And he even tried to persuade Servetus not to come to Geneva. Calvin also attempted to get Servetus to repent and soug
ht for him to be granted a more humane execution (which was beheading instead of burning).

  Even so, Calvin made this remark regarding Servetus, showing that he believed death for heresy was justified:

  But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come [to Geneva], I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.7

  One notable remark by Calvin was, “I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death, but I desire that he should be spared the cruelty of the punishment [of fire].”8

  Nine years after the execution, Calvin made this comment when answering his critic François Baudouin:

  Servetus suffered the penalty due his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?

  Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.9

  Calvin is also quoted as saying,

  Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church.10

  One of Calvin’s contemporaries, Sebastian Castellio, allegedly said this about him:

  If Christ himself came to Geneva, he would be crucified. For Geneva is not a place of Christian liberty. It is ruled by a new pope [referring to Calvin], but one who burns men alive while the pope at Rome at least strangles them first.11

  Summarizing Castellio’s feelings toward Calvin, Durant remarks,

  Can we imagine Christ ordering a man to be burned alive for advocating adult baptism? The Mosaic laws calling for the death of a heretic were superceded by the law of Christ, which is one of mercy not of despotism and terror.12

  Whether you agree with Calvin’s view or defend his actions because he was “a man of his times,” many Christians today find the idea of executing heretics to be shocking. Yet throughout various periods of church history, it was widely accepted.13

  2. Calvin believed that the Eucharist provides an undoubted assurance of eternal life.

  Calvin stated that the sacrament of the Eucharist provided the “undoubted assurance of eternal life to our minds, but also secures the immortality of our flesh.”

  In context, Calvin is discussing how Christ is present in the sacraments. For Calvin, believers are united with Christ spiritually. It’s not that Christ comes down to be physically present in the elements, but that believers, are in a spiritual sense, taken up to heaven during the Lord’s Supper to be connected to Jesus spiritually.14

  3. Calvin believed it was acceptable to lambaste his opponents with vicious names.

  Calvin treated his critics with contempt, calling them “‘pigs,’ asses,’ ‘riffraff,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘idiots,’ and ‘stinking beasts.’”15

  In this vein, Calvin said the following words about the great Anabaptist leader Menno Simons:

  Nothing could be prouder, nothing more impudent than this donkey.16

  4. Calvin believed that some of the Old Testament capital offenses should be enforced today.

  The city of Geneva was ruled in part by the clergy. But Calvin’s voice was the most influential in the city for a lengthy period of time. One historian put it this way: “From 1541 till his death in 1564 his voice was the most influential in Geneva.”17

  Here are some facts about Geneva while Calvin was in residence there, including capital offenses:18

  According to Durant, “The whole household shall attend the sermons on Sunday, except when someone shall be left at home to tend to the children or cattle. If there is preaching on week days, all who can must come—unless there be some good excuse—so that at least one from each household shall be present.”19

  If a person came to the service after the sermon had begun, he was warned. If he continued to do so, he would have to pay a fine.20

  Heresy was regarded as “an insult to God and treason to the state and was punished by death.”21

  “Witchcraft was a capital crime. In one year, fourteen alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with the plague.”22

  Clergy were to abstain from “hunting, gambling, feasting, commerce, secular amusements, and had to accept annual visitations and moral scrutiny by church superiors.”23

  “Gambling, card-playing . . . frequenting of taverns, dancing . . . indecent or irreligious songs, . . . immodesty in dress” were all prohibited.24

  “The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law.”25

  “A woman was jailed for arranging her hair in an immodest fashion.”26

  “Children were to be named not after saints in the Catholic calendar but preferably after Old Testament characters; an obstinate father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.”27

  “To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violations with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment.”28

  “To laugh at Calvin’s sermons, or to have spoken hot words of him in the street, was a crime.”29

  “Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death.”30

  “In just two years (1558–1559), there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses.”31

  “As everywhere in the sixteenth century, torture was often used to obtain confessions or evidence.”32

  “Calvin’s son-in-law and his step-daughter were among those condemned for adultery.”33

  “The Consistory made little distinction between religion and morality.”34

  “The extant records of the Council for this period reveal a high percentage of illegitimate children, abandoned infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death.”35

  “During the seventeen years for which there are reliable records (1542–1564), there were 139 recorded executions in Geneva.”36

  5. Calvin believed that Jewish people were impious, inauthentic, and lacked common sense.

  Calvin wrote, “I have had much conversation with many Jews. I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness—nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew.”37

  In Calvin’s comment on Isaiah 60:6–7, “where the Jews had been promised great ‘abundance’ and that the ‘wealth of the nations shall come unto thee,’ Calvin observed: ‘Under the pretext of this prophecy, the Jews stupidly devour all the riches of the earth with their unrestrained cupidity.’”38

  6. Calvin believed that God did not create all humans on equal terms, but created some individuals for eternal damnation.

  In popular Calvinism, all humans are born equally in sin, yet out of His mercy, God saves some, leaving the rest in their sin. This idea is known as “double predestination.” According to this view, God predestines some to salvation and others to destruction.

  While this idea will not be shocking to some Christians, particularly Calvinists, the idea that God would knowingly create some individuals so as to destroy them eternally in the end is shocking to many believers. (Calvinists, on the other hand, are shocked that God chooses to save anyone!)

  According to Calvin,

  The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny. . . . By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been cr
eated for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.39

  Calvin also stated,

  With Augustine I say: the Lord has created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This has happened because he has willed.40

  While this isn’t shocking to any Calvinist, to most evangelicals who aren’t Reformed, the notion that God wills that anyone would “go to destruction” is a shocking idea. Especially in light of texts like 2 Peter 3:9, “[God is] not willing that any should perish” (NRSV).

  Chapter 21 of book 3 of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is called “Of the Eternal Election, by Which God Has Predestinated Some to Salvation, and Others to Destruction.”

  Now before any of you become saturated with ill feelings toward Calvin, some historical context will prove helpful.

  Calvin lived in an era where theological transgressions were punished by force. Historians have pointed out that Servetus forced Calvin’s hand by coming to Geneva. In fact, Calvin pleaded with him to give up his errors. Geneva, like most European cities of that day, was ruled by law, including theological law. Life in Calvin’s day was difficult, harsh, and short.

  Consequently, brutish communal strictures weren’t the exception in Geneva. They were the rule all over. On the flip side, Calvin’s Geneva provided pastoral help to the city, even becoming a city of refuge for Protestants who lived all over Europe.

  Again, as in all the chapters of this book, the point is not to put the greatest influencers of the Christian faith in a bad light or disregard their legacy.

  It’s the opposite.

  It is to show that even the most influential Christians who have changed the lives of countless people for good—Calvin being one of them—believed things that were surprising, shocking, and even outrageous.

  So tread carefully the next time you come across another follower of Jesus who doesn’t believe just like you do on every doctrinal point. And when you’re tempted to verbally slaughter them because of their “bad theology,” remember John Calvin—the man whom Charles Spurgeon said had a near flawless theology—and consider some of the other ideas the great Reformer believed.