All Comments for: Calvin: Man for the Mainline | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > July (Web-only)

Christianity Today, July (Web-only), 2009 |

THEOLOGY IN THE NEWS

Calvin: Man for the Mainline

Reformer's 500th birthday draws out diverse cast of admirers.

Collin Hansen | posted 7/10/2009 10:52AM

Known as a divisive theologian, John Calvin has become a unifying figure 500 years after his birth on July 10, 1509. Already several sources have recounted how conservative Baptists, charismatics, Presbyterians, ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 37 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Greg	Posted: July 22, 2009 2:07 PM


"suggesting that Man is -- by definition -- corrupted to the point of being intrinsically evil. Were we that bad, would God our Father have bothered to send His eternal Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to save us?" Monk James...reading your response makes me want to stand up and shout, "Long live the reformation!"

db	Posted: July 18, 2009 3:33 PM

"Yet all we know about John Calvin was that he was an eighteenth-century Scotsman, a prude and obscurantist with a buckle on his hat, possibly a burner of witches, certainly the very spirit of capitalism." Not sure if the wrong quote was pulled for the article or was originally wrong but someones confusing Calvin with the puritans. Calvin was French and from the 16th century not 18th, not known for buckles on hats, witch burning, being a prude, etc.

JVK	Posted: July 16, 2009 5:28 PM

Speaking as professor who holds to Wesleyan theology, I respect John Calvin for his devotion to God and his hard work as a scholar and pastor. While I have serious differences with sections of his theology, there are also significant areas of overlap between his teaching and that of John Wesley. Indeed, Calvin and Wesley have more in common than latter-day Calvinists and Wesleyans often do. May the Genevan enjoy the fruit of his labors in the presence of his Lord!

Francis H Geis

Posted: July 16, 2009 10:44 AM

Coming from a Sovereign Grace Baptist backgound, and having read Calvin's INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, as well as several of his biblical commentators and theological essays, I acknowledge his greatness as a biblical scholar, theologian and pastor/teacher. And much that he taught about the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, sanctification, and in illuminating the interpretation and application of Scripture is of value today. Nevetheless, he was not infallible and on cetain topics--e.g.., baptism, eschatology, and the separation of church and state, he was less innovative than some would lead us to believe. Like all teachers, John Calvin and his theology must always be measured and weighed by Scripture, which Calvin himself affirmed as the final rule of all Christian belief and practice.

Donna

Posted: July 14, 2009 11:19 PM


I'm confused. I thought John Calvin was born to a French family near Paris and after his conversion ended up in Geneva. Why does Marilyn Robinson refer to Calvin as a Scotsman? I would recommend Steven Lawson, and others who have written on John Calvin as someone to read to really get to know the man

Billy Reed

Posted: July 14, 2009 8:36 PM

If you have not read anything by John Calvin, please do so! I was never really interested in the writings of someone that lived several hundred years ago. Then I found a short booklet by Calvin and read it. Very interesting. I found more. Even more interesting. I am willing to bet that the people who are critical of John Calvin on this post have not taken the time to read anything by him. Read his commentaries, his sermons and his letters. This was one amazing preacher, teacher author. Oh yes, one other thing....if you think that you know Calvin because you know the "five points".....You do not know diddly about John Calvin. He never wrote "five points" or made a reference to "five points" and if you were to come up to him near the end of his life and say "tulip" he wuold have thought you were referring to a flower. If you can recommend a better commentator on scripture let me know.

PJ	Posted: July 14, 2009 8:01 AM

"One chief cause of of the amount of unbelief in the world is, that those who have seen something of the glory of Christ, set themselves to theorize concerning Him rather than obey Him. ...More eager after credible theory than after doing the truth, ... they have presumed to explain a Christ whom years and years of obedience alone could have made them able to understand...Such naturally press their theories ... upon others, insisting on their thinking about Christ as they think instead of urging them to go to Christ to be taught by Him whatever He chooses to teach them. They do their unintentional worst to stop all growth, all life. From such and their false teaching I would glady deliver the true-hearted. Let the dead bury their dead, but I would do what I may to keep them from burying the living." George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons, Justice.

James

Posted: July 13, 2009 5:37 PM

A tidbit more on SS ("Sola Scriptura"). Another clue to it's fallacy is this. Look around at all the competing churches and denoms that claim they "speak where the bible speaks, and are silent where the bible is silent." No much agreement or unity, is there? No, what happens is that churches and movements are formed based on personality, and the personal interpretations of individual leaders. They recruit followers, break away, and start their own thing, setting themselves up as the new authority. I do not see such a model in scripture, do any of you? As a corollary, do we see any "independent" churches anywhere in scripture...or were they all part of the same church, under the authority of the bishops, who were under the authority of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem? (see also Acts 16:4 regarding Paul's autonomy or lack thereof)

James

Posted: July 13, 2009 5:33 PM

Hi Jim, some clarification on what i referred to regarding the errors of "sola scriptura". First, see if you can find this teaching anywhere in scripture, or in the early church. That is the first big clue to it's validity or lack thereof. You said, "The Scriptures are the authority because they are the Word of God." I agree. They are AN authority, but not THE (SOLE) authority. Remember, Jesus' bride is the Church, not a book. What i meant regarding 35AD-100AD comments, was this: to where did the early church turn for it's SOLE AUTHORITY in those years...and beyond, into the fourth century before the new writings were finally/officially decided upon (by Holy Spirit-inspired men, no less)? Answer: the apostles and their successors. When there was a debate in those earliest years, they would not have (because they COULD NOT have) opened the gospels, or a letter from Paul, to settle a theological dispute. The church leaders would've settled them, just as Jesus told taught them to do.

James

Posted: July 13, 2009 5:22 PM

Steve (and Jim), Yes, good conversations - i love these when they don't turn into arguments! : ) To be clear, i didn't mean to imply that "works" (alone) save us. Of course not. James, Paul, Jesus, and the early fathers are all too clear on that...but neither does faith (alone). Faith yes, "alone" no. As for Ephesians, here's the "formula" i see: God's grace, through our faith, to do good works. A three-stage deal. I see no salvation outside of "having" the whole package. And i would add that it is not "salvation" that spurns us on to do good works, but the real faith itself. Contrary to Calvin (i think!) I believe we are all in the process of BEING saved, it is not something is yet completed in our lifetime. IF (and only IF) we persevere to the end, we THEN shall be "saved". Faith without works is dead, i.e., not real faith. And where would a dead faith put us? Where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, methinks. Woe to him who does not persevere to the end, eh?

Jim	Posted: July 13, 2009 12:39 PM

Steve, thanks for the clarification on faith and works. I agree, and Scripture clearly teaches this. Yes, James, faith without works is dead. However, the works flow from the faith. They are the result of REAL faith. The Scriptures are the authority because they are the Word of God. I'm not sure I follow the 35AD-100AD comment, but what about the Old Testament? I'm not a Calvinist, because I don't follow him, I follow Christ. In fact, my guess would be that Calvin would hate to hear the term "Calvinist." That's just a label that others came up with to summarize his teachings. I believe what he taught is Biblically supported, but if you don't believe in sola sciptura then you believe something else. Please don't misunderstand. I know there are many who do believe sola scriptura and they reach different conclusions about some theological issues. Isn't it great that one day we will be like Him and see Him for all that He is and we will understand fully what we partly see now.

Steve

Posted: July 13, 2009 12:07 PM

James - I appreciate what you have said about works. I think the church has gotten too comfort-focused and self-focused. That being said - I don't agree with your interpretation of Eph 2:8-10. Yes verse 10 gets left out. Yes it needs more attention. But verse 9 specifically says we were not saved by works. Verse 10 says we were saved FOR works. Good works don't save us. Grace through faith does. But we were saved FOR good works that God has prepared for us. I think that James faith without works quote backs this up. If you are not spurred on to good works, do you really have faith? I think you and I may agree in application. Christians need to be doing good works to reach out to the hurting and play our part in advancing the Kingdom of God. But those works are the result of salvation not the cause of it. Thanks for the stimluating conversation!

LB	Posted: July 13, 2009 10:09 AM


Calvin's problems began with his parents -- he was human, and as such subject to error. TULIP is handy for sure, but a few petals of that famous flower are doubtful and stretched at best and in conflict with other scripture. A TULIP cannot last the winter and only looks good in fair weather.

Dennis

Posted: July 13, 2009 8:41 AM


I can live with Calvin as a product of his time. But as a recovering Calvinist I still struggle with his "devisive" influence - esp. as I deal with some of his devoted disciples on a regular basis.

Woody

Posted: July 12, 2009 7:45 PM


Is'nt it like the Mormons to ignore their leader's acts of murder?

James

Posted: July 11, 2009 10:03 PM


Also, isn't it interesting that Calvin was known as a "divisive theologian" (at the head of the article). Is that a terribly Christ-like thing to be?

James

Posted: July 11, 2009 10:01 PM

Hey Jim, Good stuff...but while obviously faith is terribly important and central to salvation, nowhere does scripture state we are saved by faith ALONE (sola fida). In fact, James says the exact opposite in 2:24, and Paul concurs (Eph. 2:8-10 . . . though most modern Prots only quote 2:8-9). Without any "works" (lifestyle, deeds, holiness, etc.) faith is rather useless and hollow. Oh, and Jesus would concur as well. Read the parable of the sheep and the goats. For a millenium and a half, somehow the Holy Spirit had lead the church to NOT teach "sola fida". Interesting, eh? And then there's sola scriptura. Also a non-biblical idea. After all, who/what was the "sole authority" on earth in the year 35 AD? 50AD? 100 AD?

Jim	Posted: July 11, 2009 9:49 PM

Before the 16th century, you need to read Augustine (4th & 5th century). Calvin was teaching much of what Augustine taught and many reformers of the 16th century found their basis in his teaching. The Scriptures are the Word of God and taught all about Jesus' coming, atoning sacrifice, resurrection, etc. It is the authority because it is from God. See Jesus' teaching in Luke 24 on the road to Emmaus and many other passages where Jesus taught the Scriptures. Salvation does come by grace through faith alone in Christ alone. It is a work of God. He regenerates us (born again if you will) which makes us able to respond in faith. Only someone who doesn't like the sound of this can't find it in Scripture because he won't look for it

James

Posted: July 11, 2009 9:17 PM

"And he sought to reform both the civil sphere and church life under a God who exercises sovereignty over all things." Worthy goals, yes, but what it became and has become today is that we now "reform" these things according to our own personal interpretations (read: traditions and comfort zones) of how they should be. Not a very unifying concept in my opinion. No, Calvin helped to blow the lid off of any sort of cohesive Christian thought, replacing it instead with "believe and do as ye wish", and if you disagree with the church you are currently attending, just start a new one!

James

Posted: July 11, 2009 9:16 PM

"Calvin taught that salvation comes by faith alone through Jesus Christ, not by anything we do." Although, scripture - and Orthodoxy - clearly refute this pillar of Protest-antism (at least, the "alone" part). "He bowed to the authority of Scripture, not to the papal office." Again, where is such an idea taught in scripture, or seen in Orthodox Christian history before the 16th century? Nowhere does scripture teach that IT is the "sole authority" on earth. Jesus never taught it either. He clearly left imperfect MEN in charge of His (Single) Perfect Church...not a book.

accuracy in print

Posted: July 11, 2009 5:56 PM


Calvin a Scot?? Robinson must have him confused with someone else. Calvin was essentially French but ended up in Strasbourg and Geneva. I'm not even sure that he visited Scotland.

Linda Nicholson

Posted: July 11, 2009 2:55 PM


how can you as a christian company, stand up for and promote a man like Calvin who as a lot of people know, tought that salvation comes through water baptism? not like that other guy tried to say.

sirhemlock

Posted: July 11, 2009 2:24 PM

What? "Man for the mainline? I can't help but wonder what is meant by the phrase "Man for the Mainline." That sounds a little over-ambitious to my ears. Calvin and his followers are definitely worth a read given their importance, but hardly represent the mainstream of Christendom. Mainline as if two of the three main trajectories flowing from the Reformation, the Lutheran and Wesleyan (who would both adamantly reject the full deterministic picture painted by the full-blown Calvinists), do not exist? As if 90% of Southern Baptists do not reject the full-blown Calvinist system? As if it doesn't matter that most Charismatics and Pentecostals reject TULIP? As if Orthodoxy and Catholicism do not exist? Mainline indeed!!! All the same, happy 500th JC!

Dave Daubert

Posted: July 11, 2009 12:26 PM

Actually, while I am a Lutheran and not a Calvinist, the comment from Jay about sin and evil being connected to God sparks a response from me. God is no fool and is not surprised by how this has turned out. From the beginning sin and brokenness have been options and they are part of the fabric of creation and the Creator is responsible. In part, so that the love that withstands all things can exist, then God lovingly needed to fashion a world where all things were possible. Yes, it is painful but also yes, it is the way it is and God is its author. The gift of Jesus is that God does not make such a world to simply watch. In Christ God comes and lives the love with which God fashioned the world. Calvin may not have it all right, but the truth that God is responsible for the world we live in, messy as it is, there Calvin was on to something!

j	Posted: July 11, 2009 12:24 PM

Let all the sons of adam come forward;let them quarrel and argue with their Creator that they were by His eternal providence bound over before their begetting to everlasting calamity.What clamor can they raise against this defense when God,on the contrary,will call them to their account before him? If all are drawn from a corrupt mass,no wonder they are subject to condemnation! Let them not accuse God of injustice if they are destined by his eternal judgment to death, to which they feel-whether they will or not-that they are led by their own nature of itself.How perverse is their disposition to protest is apparant from the fact that they deliberately suppress the cause of condemnation, which they are compelled to recognize in themselves,in order to free themselves by blaming God. Institutes ch.23

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment