John Calvin

Credit where credit is due, Calvin had a big influence in developing the doctrine of the Trinity.


Monday, February 12, 2007
John Calvin on the Trinity
John Calvin

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote with deep insight into the doctrine of the Trinity. He dismissed as "an absurd fiction" (I:XIII:29) the scholastic teaching on the eternal generation of the Son. To him, the idea that the Father eternally generated the Son's divine essence was the wost kind of theological speculation. Instead, he proposed that "the Godhead is absolutely of itself [autotheos]. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, without reference to his person, is also of himself [autotheos]; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God". (I:XIII:25). The Son, in his divine essence is I AM, the self-existing God. He does not derive his deity from the Father. He is Son because he has a Father, but he is God because he is God.
B. B. Warfield spelt out the value of Calvin's contribution to our understanding of the Trinity in a remarkable and influential essay. Much recent evangelical work on the Trinity owes a debt to Warefield's exposition of Calvin's teaching.
"In his assertion of the autotheos of the Son Calvin, then, was so far from supposing that he was enunciating a novelty that he was able to quote the Nicene Fathers themselves as asserting it "in so many words". And yet in his assertion of it he marks an epoch in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. Not that men had not before believed in the self-existence of the Son as He is God: but that the current modes of stating the doctrine of the Trinity left a door for the entrance of defective modes of conceiving the deity of the Son, to close which there was needed some such sharp assertion of His absolute deity as was supplied by the assertion of His autotheos. If we will glance over the history of the efforts of the Church to work out for itself an acceptable statement of the great mystery of the Trinity, we shall perceive that is is dominated from the beginning to the end by a single motive - to do full justice to the absolute deity of Christ. And we shall perceive that among the multitudes of great thinkers who under the pressure of this motive have laboured upon the problem, and to whom the Church looks back with gratitude for great services, in better formulation of the doctrine or better commendation of it to the people, three names stand out in high relief, as marking epochs in the advance towards the end in view. These three names are those of Tertullian, Augustine and Calvin. It is into this narrow circle of elect spirits that Calvin enters by the contribution he made to the right understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. That contribution is summed up in his clear, firm and unwavering assertion of the autotheos on the Son. By this assertion the homoousios of the Nicene Fathers at last came into its full right, and became in its fullest sense the hinge of the doctrine".


B. B. Warfield


From Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity, in Calvin and Augustine. p. 283 & 284, (P&R, 1980).
Posted by Exiled Preacher at 7:51 PM
Labels: John Calvin, Theology, Trinity, Warfield

 

Another area that Calvin's thought had a huge impact was in the idea of vocation. Prior to the Reformation, the religious "jobs" (priests, etc.) and secular jobs were divided. Calvin and the Reformers saw the goodness of all work (at least that given to God's glory), and that we should all use our gifts whether they be in full-time ministry, or as a carpenter, a blacksmith, etc. All work was to be done to God's glory and done well. The Puritans carried forward this same idea, which then had a huge impact on the founding of this country and the ideals of the "Protestant work ethic" that helped build this country.

 

He was a disciplined exegete of the sacred text.

 

He is also known in church history as the "Theologian of the Holy Spirit". His writings did more to explain the Person and work of the Holy Spirit than any since the days of the apostles. They are still the standard.

 

That's not what Calvin did. He was the only one who argued for mitigation in the sentencing of Servetus.

 

Is this your idea of Calvin mitigating the sentence? Do you see Servetus was called a heretic in part because he opposed infant Baptism? And party because be was associated with the Anabaptists? The point is, one does not execute someone for not agreeing with their theology. We would all do well to come up with a new name for the doctrines of sovereignty and grace.


Calvin vs. Servetus,
by J. Steven Wilkins


In the year 1553 an event occurred which would forever blacken the reputation of Calvin in the eyes of an ungodly world. In that year a heretic named Michael Servetus entered Geneva after fleeing from France after being condemned for his heresy there and escaping from prison in Vienna. He was seen in the streets of Geneva and arrested on August 13. This trouble he had brought upon himself by his book which denied the existence of the Trinity as well as the practice of infant baptism. Though the former is clearly a more serious error than the latter, the latter position identified Servetus with the hated Anabaptists who had spread the revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism. Why Servetus came to Geneva is not clear though the Reformer Wolfgang Musculus wrote that he apparently thought that Geneva might be favorable to him since there was so much opposition to Calvin.

On August 21, the authorities in Geneva wrote to Vienna asking further information on Servetus. The authorities in Vienna immediately demanded his extradition to face charges there. At this the Genevan city council offered Servetus a choice: he could either be returned to Vienna or stay in Geneva and face the charges against him. Servetus, significantly, chose to remain in Geneva.

The trial began and as it progressed, it became evident that the authorities had two choices: banish Servetus or execute him. They sent to their sister cities Berne, Zurich, Schaffhausen and Basle for their counsel. The counsel from each city was the same: execute the heretic. The method of burning alive was chosen. Calvin intervened to appeal for the more quick and merciful beheading as the method of execution but the council refused and on October 26, 1553, Michael Servetus was executed.

It is strange that this incident should bring such odium upon Calvin and another example of the hatred of orthodox Christianity that it has. The facts are that mass executions were carried out in other places throughout this time. After the Peasants' War in Germany, after the siege of Munster, during the ruthless period of Roman Catholic dominance in Elizabethan England. Even as late as 1612 the authorities in England burned two men who held views like those of Servetus at the behest of the bishops of London and Lichfield. Thirty-nine people were burned at the stake for heresy between May of 1547 and March of 1550. The 16th century was not a time of great tolerance of heresy in any place in Europe.

If one contends that Calvin was in error in agreeing with the execution of heretics then why is there not equal indignation against all the other leaders who supported and carried out and supported these measures elsewhere. None less than the honored Thomas Aquinas explicitly supported the burning of heretics saying, "If the heretic still remains pertinacious the church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by separating him from the church by the sentence of excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to be exterminated from the world by death." (Summa Theologiae, IIaIIae q. 11 a. 3)

Furthermore, Servetus was the only individual put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime. Strange indignation it is that men focus upon this one and virtually ignore the hundreds executed in other parts of the world.

Further still, it must be remembered that Calvin's role in this entire matter was only that of expert witness at the trial. The idea that Calvin was "the dictator of Geneva" is utterly unfounded in fact. Calvin was never allowed to become a citizen of Geneva. He was technically among the habitants — resident legal aliens who had no right to vote, no right to carry weapons, and no right to hold public office. A habitant might be a pastor or teacher if there was no Genevan citizen who was qualified for the position. This is why Calvin was allowed to be pastor of the church there. But he was always denied access to the decision-making machinery.

The only place where Calvin could have exerted significant influence was in the Consistory. But the Consistory was completely bypassed in this entire matter by the council apparently in an effort to demonstrate that they were far more concerned for holiness and purity than Calvin (and some of the people) had thought. They sought thus to shut Calvin out of this matter as much as possible.

Why then all the outrage at Calvin? Simply because of who he was and what he taught. The world can live with Romanism and Arminianism, it cannot abide the truth of the Reformed faith. For this reason Calvin and Calvinism have been the enemies of the world and will be till the world ends.



Copyright 1998, J. Steven Wilkins

Released for informational purposes to allow individual
file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting

 

He mitigated for a 'quicker' death of beheading and if possible not the burning alive.

This is from good ol' Wiki

He was actaully chided (as the portion states later) for asking for such kindness.

It is interesting to note that Servtus was arrested immidiately following his attenance and exitting of the church of one of Calvins sermons

This an interesting portion as well - Calvin’s Opera, vol. 8, Corpus Reformatorum, vol., 36, p. 475. (vols. 35 & 36 of the CR are one vol.).
:

Now understand I'm not laying Servetus death at Calvins feet but I am not foolish enough to dismiss his involvment either as that was the way of things during his time and he was one of the witnesses against him and was for his execution. The extermination of declared heretics was enforced by protestants and Catholics alike. As a matter of fact even the Catholic church had Servetus on their list of people to be executed once caught.

 

First, my comment is neither to be taken as a defence or not of John Calvin's actions (or lack of them) in the matter of Servetus' execution.

But for those who do condemn him out of hand, it is good to remember the context of the times in which he lived. We no longer even execute murderers, rapists, etc. Not too long ago people were hung for stealing food in "Christian countries".

In the days of the Reformation, there were 2 things that were linked - civil and religious liberty. The fight for religious freedom invloved civil matters at many levels, as the Reformers understood that if they were going to have religious freedoms, they would also have to know civil liberties as well.

It is sometimes hard to get our minds wrapped around the sheer immensity of what was happening then, and how society as a whole viewed capitial punishment as being right for a wide range of offences.

When I consider the darkness of those days, I am amazed at the light they did have. I would caution against the temptation to play 'armchair quarterbacks' on our forefathers, whether we agree with their theology or not. They lived in times that most of us would never be able to endure and had to deal with life and death issues on an almost hourly basis.

When was the last time anyone on BB had to make a decision that would determine whether they would live or be executed?

 

If you are a baptist, and hold to a believer's baptism, then John Calvin (and Luther as well) considers you a heretic~~I would consider that a bit beyond "falling short in some areas".

 

No one has, because in this country, such nonsense is against the Constitution. To blame the murder of Mike Servetus on "the times" is not accurate. The times did nothing. The Geneva City Council and John Calvin had him murdered.

If that is how they conducted their governments back then is no excuse. That is like excusing the way African-Americans were treated in the South before 1965. Wrong is wrong. There was no excuse for having that man put to death. Mike Servetus was no more of a heretic than John Calvin. Calvin called him a heretic in part because he did not believe in infant baptism and associated with the Anabaptists.

Either way, we could come up with a better name to use for doctrines of sovereignty and grace.

So Mr Lux, if you could travel in time back to your hero John Calvin, and explained to him your beliefs and doctrine, just what do you think would happen to you?

 

:applause:

 

Come on. That aspect of MS's theology mattered little to Calvin compared to the many other outrageous doctrines of the former.

 

Now that is simply a stupid remark SN. You really need to think more clearly before you post something so utterly wrong. Compare the doctrines of the two men side-by-side and tell us the same thing again. Retract your comment or you will never have any credibility.

 

Well, the first sentence describes most of your posts. You do the sovereignty side no favors. By the way, I am thinking quite clearly. Sorry, I have no tolerance of a group of thugs who would put someone to death because they did not agree with them theologically. I also have no tolerance for the person or persons who put him to death to accuse him of being a heretic because he was against infant baptism and/or associated with Anabaptists. The only point you have is that not believing in the Trinity, if that is a true statement in the article I posted, would be much worse than believing in infant baptism.

By the way, the article I posted paints Calvin in a favorable light, and he still comes through as the person he really was.

 

Thats great. I'll pick up some Michael Servetus candles for the cake.

 

But that aspect of Calvin is never really emphasized. A shame, I say.

 

It is still stupid for you to insist that M.S. was no more of a heretic than John Calvin.

Because M.s. was against infant baptism was not a basis for his state execution.

The person he really was -- a godly scholar who the Lord used mightily for centuries to enlighten the minds of His people.

 

Out of topic as my reply may sound, it wasn't very long ago that certain people with certain skin colors bowed their heads and said nothing when insulted by certain people with a certain skin color, or else risk getting very publicly lynched. THAT also is pure evil, the point being no one is able, then or now, to pick up that first stone and cast it at the "sinner".

Just another proof that man is totally depraved, even when a saint of God.

 

I am well aware of the destructive and evil nature of bigotry. I grew up in Mississippi in the 50s and 60s, and people of my own race treated those not white like dirt. The whole society at that time thought it normal. I remember when I was about 12, getting on a city bus. There was a white line in the middle of the bus, behind which all African Americans had to sit. I got on the bus, the only white person. All these seats were empty, and in the back of the bus, an older lady stood in the aisle with a cane. I looked around and she starred right into my eyes. I have never forgot that, and knew instantly there was something terribly wrong. I could tell other stories but you get the point. If I have a predjudice (if you can call it that), it is that I have no tolerance (and I can spot them a mile away) for arrrogance, holier than thou attitudes, or people that flaunt their possessions or themselves by being overbearing.

Now that I totally agree with, and the Lord knows my fault far exceed Calvins

One final note, mans inhumanity to man has been here from day one. We do not obey the second great commandment very well, or the first one for that much. In our history, the treatment of the Indians, slavery, the treatment of the American-Japanese to mention a few are not pretty in American history. One thing I do not agree with is 100 years after the fact, exacting a penalty on the decendents who were the offenders if the problem has been solved.

 

Now that's a wonderful article. And,most importantly,it is factually true, unlike other articles on the same subject that are sometimes posted on the BB.