No doubt John Calvin is a controversial historical figure. Many regard him as having been an austere man. Others criticize him for his role in what happened to Michael Servetus. If memory serves me correctly, historian Will Durant went as far as to claim Calvin was a monster and ran Geneva as a police state. Even among Christians, some have exclaimed in disbelief “What love is this?” with regard to the theological system known as “Calvinism.”Others have had a much higher esteem for Calvin. B.B. Warfield believed Calvin deserved the title “the theologian of the Holy Spirit.” D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once compared the Puritans to the Alps but Calvin (along with Luther) to the Himalayas (and Jonathan Edwards to Mt. Everest).
Speaking for myself, I think the negative charges are probably based on an overly simplistic and possibly even faulty understanding of the man and his beliefs, whereas the acclamations are at least somewhat overstated.
In any case, we don't (or shouldn't) look to Calvin in the same way, for example, as Catholics look to the Pope or the Magisterium. Calvin was merely a man of his times, warts and all - which Calvin himself would have been the first to admit. He tried to serve God and God’s people as best as he could according to the light God gave him to understand and unfold the Holy Scriptures. Calvin himself prayed: "I offer my heart to you, O Lord, eagerly and earnestly."
Personally, I find reading Calvin wonderfully sweet. He lived in harsh times and suffered quite a bit in his life—probably more so than most of us in the West have or will ever suffer. Yet, by God’s grace, his hard life made his pen flow with such beautiful words. When I read his writings (in the context of such a polemical period of history), there’s a tremendous sense of humility and love which exudes from his writing, which draws me to worship and thank the Lord our God for what he did in and through such a servant.
Perhaps the following words will seem excessive as well, but I’m tempted to say, if Luther was the bright, blazing fire which ignited the Reformation, then Calvin was the still, deep waters which settled the Reformation. If Luther burned as hot as the sun in the fight for the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, then Calvin was as profoundly reflective as the moon in his philosophical and theological systematizing of these same biblical truths. If Luther was like Elijah challenging Ahab and Jezebel, calling down fire from heaven, slaying the prophets of Baal, and riding into the heavens upon a chariot of fire, then Calvin was like Elisha quietly and graciously feeding the hungry with bread, curing Naaman the Syrian of leprosy, and restoring a poor woman’s only son to life again. Perhaps the difference between the two Reformers is accentuated in each of their most famous hymns: in Luther’s case the vigorous and stalwart "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," and in Calvin’s case the gentle and honeyed "I Greet Thee Who My Sure Redeemer Art."
I don't think it's possible to over praise John Calvin, and I'm not a Calvin junky.
ReplyDeleteThe Institutes are as much a great, inspired work of literature as anything in the canon in that era as they are on-the-mark apostolic biblical doctrine. I'm not sure Luther produced anything similar, maybe only Augustine in this sense.
I think an interesting, never-mentioned, aspect of Calvin is his self-restraint in not talking or writing about anything that wasn't in the realm of or given warrant by Scripture. I mean, he was a giant, as inspired as any Renaissance humanist artist or poet of his day, and he could have discoursed deeply in subjects mystics ventured into and so forth, but he saw his role and he had the discipline to stay on it. He didn't even talk about himself for this reason.
Do you happen to know what hymnbook is being used?
ReplyDeleteSorry, Ryan, I don't. :-(
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone else might know?
Yes. It's important to be reminded that Calvin had more than five points in his theology.
ReplyDelete"Calvin was merely a man of his times, warts and all - which Calvin himself would have been the first to admit"
ReplyDeleteWhat sins/faults are you referring to?
Depending on what you're "overlooking" in viewing the man this highly, can we not just as well say that Bishop Gene Robinson should be judged in light of our sexually permissive culture and considered as a Christian spokesman purely in light of his theology?
Sure do like what Calvin says on idolatry: http://idolatrycondemned.blogspot.com/2008/05/john-calvin-on-idols-idolatry.html
ReplyDeleteJames said:
ReplyDeleteDepending on what you're "overlooking" in viewing the man this highly, can we not just as well say that Bishop Gene Robinson should be judged in light of our sexually permissive culture and considered as a Christian spokesman purely in light of his theology?
1. Paul strongly ties homosexuality with idolatry in Romans 1.
2. There's a vast difference between a genuine Christian and a false Christian. For one thing, the false Christian is impenitent in his sin.
3. Robinson is anything but repentant about his homosexuality. In fact, he actively promotes it and tries to persuade others concerning it.
4. BTW, people who accept heterosexual promiscuity and other sexual practices do not necessarily likewise accept homosexual sexuality. In fact, I don't think homosexuality is as accepted in our society and culture as you may think it is. But perhaps I'm mistaken.