Posted on 02/23/2005 11:25:18 AM PST by Gamecock
From his own lifetime onward John Calvin has been a controversial person. One controversy stems from the accusations leveled against him by many that he was completely unevangelistic and unconcerned about missions. A. M. Hunter, in his book on Calvin's teaching, said, "Certainly he [Calvin] displayed no trace of missionary enthusiasm."[1] Some have even said that Calvin's teaching on predestination necessarily destroyed evangelistic fervor; "we are all familiar with the scornful rationalization that facilely asserts that his horrible doctrine of divine election makes nonsense of all missionary and evangelistic activity."[2] Others, however, have said: "One of the natural results of Calvin's perspective of predestination was an intensified zeal for evangelism."[3] Though some have used Calvin's teachings to excuse their apathy towards evangelism, a close examination of Calvin's historical context, his writings, and his actions would prove John Calvin to be a man truly committed to the spread of the gospel.
Historical Context
In order to understand John Calvin, or any other historical figure, one must understand the time in which the person lived and worked. Calvin emerged as a Reformation leader in 1536 with the publication of The Institutes of the Christian Religion and remained in leadership until his death in 1564. Thus, Calvin was a generation after Luther, and the Reformation, well entrenched in Germany, was spreading all over Europe. However, there was little organization among the churches that had split with Rome. Historian Owen Chadwick noted that
The problem now was not the overthrow of the papacy, but the construction of new modes of power . . . In breaking down papal authority, the Reformation seemed to have left the authority of the Christian ministry vague and uncertain.[4]
Protestant groups, who had been accustomed to strong central authority in Rome, were now only loosely organized and, though they claimed scripture for their authority, they disagreed on what the scriptures meant with regard to certain doctrines. By the time that Calvin gained prominence in 1536, Protestant churches were in great need of organization and structure in their doctrine and practice.
In addition to the disorganization within, there was a persecution from without. The scattered condition of Protestantism was only worsened by the intense efforts of the Roman Church to eradicate the Protestant movement. Protestant churches were struggling not only for their identity but also for their very survival. Calvin himself had to leave France for personal safety, and he wrote the first edition of the Institutes in response to the ill treatment of French Protestants. Identification with Protestantism brought immediate punishment, including torture and even death.
Obviously, Calvin's era was a time of intense difficulty for Protestant churches. The demands of the day led him to spend a considerable amount of his energy developing a church organization, writing theology, and training ministers. With such pressing needs one might understand if Calvin neglected evangelism or missions. After all, the church itself and its message must first be established. Moreover, preaching Reformation doctrine in areas other than the Protestant cities would mean almost certain death. However, even these pressing needs and problems, which would immobilize many churches today, did not stop the evangelistic efforts of Calvin and his followers.
Calvin's Writings
Calvin's writings on predestination have most often been targeted as unevangelistic and destructive to missionary zeal. Calvin addressed predestination primarily in related parts of his Institutes and in his treatise, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, which J. K. S. Reid called "the longest and most sustained exposition which Calvin wrote on the subject."[5] Dealing with predestination in the Institutes, Calvin does not directly address evangelism specifically, but neither does he describe it as unnecessary. He does, in fact, write several times about the gospel being preached to the masses, resulting in the salvation of the elect and the hardening of the non-elect (III.23.10; II.5.10). In other words, Calvin did not limit the preaching of the gospel to those considered to be elect. He explains his views more fully in his treatise on predestination:
Since we do not know who belongs to the number of the predestined and who does not, it befits us so to feel as to wish that all be saved. So it will come about that, whoever we come across, we shall study to make him a sharer of peace . . . even severe rebuke will be administered like medicine, lest they should perish or cause others to perish. But it will be for God to make it effective in those whom He foreknew and predestined.[6]
Calvin clearly encouraged Christians to be involved in evangelism! "It befits us" to desire all people to be saved. The result of this proper desire should make us try to lead everyone "we come across" to faith in Christ, for that is the only way they could share in peace. This is not to be a half-hearted effort. Christians are to use "even severe rebuke" if necessary to prevent others from ignoring the gospel and perishing. Christians must make the effort to evangelize everyone knowing that only God can save.
Calvin's doctrine of predestination did not make the preaching of the gospel unnecessary; instead, it made preaching necessary because it was by the preaching of the gospel that God had chosen to save the predestined.
Aside from his writings on predestination, Calvin also strongly supported the idea of missions with passages widely scattered throughout his commentaries.[7] Commenting on Micah 2:1-4, Calvin states, "The Kingdom of Christ was only begun in the world when God commanded the gospel to be every where proclaimed and . . . at this day its course is not as yet complete."[8] In other words the Great Commission was not fulfilled by the apostles and, consequently, this mission is still the responsibility of Christians.
Calvin expressed similar views as he commented on 1 Tim. 2:4, saying "there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception."[9] He is not, of course, saying that everyone in the world would be saved, but that certain people from all parts of the world would be saved. The whole idea of the passage is that God desires "foreign nations" to hear the gospel and to be included in salvation. It is the Christian's duty "to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling."[10]
No one should be denied the opportunity of hearing the gospel proclaimed. Continuing to verse five of the same passage, Calvin writes that those people insult God "who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation."[11] The gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to all people, and the decision about who will believe is to be left to God.
Indeed, Calvin never portrays God as a cruel tyrant grudgingly allowing some to be saved. In a comment on Ezek. 18:23, he states:
God certainly desires nothing more than for those who are perishing and rushing toward death to return to the way of safety. This is why the gospel is today proclaimed throughout the world, for God wished to testify to all the ages that he is greatly inclined to pity.[12]
God desires for men to be saved and by His election has assured that some will be. It is the fact that God will definitely call some that encourages believers to "bestow more toil and exertion for the instruction of rebels," realizing that "our duty is, to be employed in sowing and watering, and while we do this we must look for the increase from God."[13] Clearly, Calvin recognized the need for Christians to exert effort in evangelism in order to be used of God to call out His elect. He saw evangelism as a duty and employment involving "toil and exertion." Such is far from an indifferent attitude toward evangelism.
Calvin's Activity
Perhaps the best evidence of Calvin's concern for missions is the mission activity of the Genevan church under his leadership. Under Calvin's leadership, Geneva became "the hub of a vast missionary enterprise"[14] and "a dynamic center or nucleus from which the vital missionary energy it generated radiated out into the world beyond."[15] Protestant refugees from all over Europe fled to Geneva; they came not merely for safety but also to learn from Calvin the doctrines of the Reformation so they could return home to spread the true gospel. Philip Hughes notes that Geneva became a "school of missions" which had as one of its purposes
to send out witnesses who would spread the teaching of the Reformation far and wide . . . . It [Geneva] was a dynamic centre of missionary concern and activity, an axis from which the light of the Good News radiated forth through the testimony of those who, after thorough preparation in this school, were sent forth in the service of Jesus Christ."[16]
Thus was Calvin's missionary concern reflected in the church he served and the students he taught.
The pastors of Geneva, including Calvin himself, met regularly and kept sporadic notes of their actions in a register, which became the greatest source of information on the missionary activity in Geneva. In April 1555 the Register of the Company of Pastors for the first time listed men who were sent out from Geneva to "evangelize Foreign Parts."[17] The entry that mentioned these men stated that they had been sent out prior to April 1555, and they were already ministering in the Piedmont valleys.[18] More ministers may have been sent out before this time without being recorded in the Register because the notes were not complete and it was often dangerous to record the names of missionaries.
By 1557 it was a normal part of business for the Genevan pastors to send missionaries into France. Robert M. Kingdon called it a "concentrated missionary effort."[19] By 1562, religious wars had broken out in France, and it was no longer safe to record the names of missionaries. However, between 1555 and 1562 the Register records 88 men by name who were sent out from Geneva to different places as "bearers of the gospel."[20]
In reality many more than 88 were sent. In one year, 1561, though the Register mentions only twelve missionaries, other sources indicate that at least 142 missionaries were sent![21] Hundreds of men were sent out, reaching Italy, Germany, Scotland, England, and practically covering France.[22] From all over Europe requests came to Geneva for ministers of the gospel and the Genevan Company of Pastors filled as many as possible. At times even their own churches were deprived of pastors in order to meet the needs of struggling groups abroad.[23] Thus, Geneva, under Calvin's direction, served as the heart of the Reformation in Europe, pumping out the lifeblood of trained ministers into all areas.
In addition to the extensive work in Europe, one group of Genevan missionaries was sent to Brazil. The Register simply states that on Tuesday, August 25, 1556, M. Pierre Richier and M. Guillaume were sent as ministers to Brazil. "These two were subsequently commended to the care of the Lord and sent off with a letter from this church."[24] The ministers were sent in response to a request from Admiral Coligny, a Huguenot leader. They were to serve as chaplains for a group of Protestants who were going to Brazil to establish a colony, and they would have opportunity to instruct the natives in the gospel.[25] One man who went on the trip wrote that, upon receiving the request,
the church of Geneva at once gave thanks to God for the extension of the reign of Jesus Christ in a country so distant and likewise so foreign and among a nation entirely without knowledge of the true God.[26]
Sadly, the mission was not successful because the leader of the group betrayed the Protestants. Some were killed, and others were sent back to Europe. Though the mission failed, it remains "a striking testimony to the far reaching missionary vision of Calvin and his Genevan colleagues."[27]
Conclusion
Though evangelism was not discussed as much in the sixteenth century as it would be later, Calvin proved himself to be genuinely concerned for the spread of the true gospel. In light of the situation of the world around him, his mission activity, and that of his colleagues, is truly admirable. His writings also show that he believed the gospel should be preached to all. The missionary endeavors of the Genevan church especially prove Calvin's commitment to missions. Speaking of these efforts, Philip Hughes states,
Here is irrefutable proof of the falsity of the too common conclusion that Calvinism is incompatible with evangelism and spells death to all missionary enterprise.[28]
Clearly, Calvin must have believed his teachings were compatible with mission work since he was so involved in such work himself. Whether or not one agrees with all of Calvin's views or actions, one must admit the great reformer's teachings (including predestination) do indeed support evangelism and mission work.
Selected Bibliography
Beaver, R. Pierce. "The Genevan Mission to Brazil." In The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. J. H. Bratt, 55-73. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.
Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries. Ephesians - Jude. Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.
. Calvin's Commentaries. Vol. 7, The Gospels. Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., n.d.
. Calvin: Commentaries. Edited by Joseph Haroutunian. Vol. 23, The Library of Christian Classics, eds. Baillie, McNeill, Van Dusen. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vols. 20-21, The Library of Christian Classics, eds. Baillie, McNeill, Van Dusen. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. The Epistles Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by T. H. L. Parker. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965.
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Translated by J. K. S. Reid. London: James Clarke and Co. Limited, 1961.
Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. Vol. 3, The Penguin History of the Church, ed. Owen Chadwick. Pelican Books, 1964; reprint, New York: Penguin Group, Penguin Books, 1990.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1988.
Gerstner, John H. A Predestination Primer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960; reprint, Winona Lake, IN: Alpha Publications, 1980.
Hughes, Philip E. "John Calvin: Director of Missions." In The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. J. H. Bratt, 40-54. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1973.
. ed. and trans. The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966.
Hunter, A. Mitchell. The Teaching of Calvin, A Modern Interpretation. Glasgow: Maclehose, Jackson, and Company, 1920.
James, Frank A., III. "Calvin and Missions." Christian History 5, no. 4 (Fall 1986) : 23.
"It was both 'a horrible decree' and 'very sweet fruit."' Christian History, 5, no. 4 (Fall 1986) : 24-26.
Kingdon, Robert M. "Calvinist Religious Aggression." In The French Wars of Religion, How Important Were Religious Factors?, ed. J. H. M. Salmon, 6-11. Problems in European Civilization, eds. Ralph W. Greenlaw and Dwight E. Lee. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, 1967.
Kuiper, R. B. God Centered Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961; reprint, Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1978.
McGrath, Alister E. A Life of John Calvin, a Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990.
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "excusing sin because
of extrinsic cicuumstances" which leads to moral relativism. The person in the early church who had (in my
opinion) the best personal existential analysis of the
nature of sin was St. Augustine. God does not "excuse" sin,
he forgives it to the penitant who amends his ways.
Sin, according to Augustine (and the Bible), is part of
human nature -- often called "original sin". Because we
are all born into humanity, we are all born with a HUMAN
nature that inevitably leads us to care more about
ourselves than our neighbor or God's will. Thus, we all
stand in need of divine grace. If we, as sinful selfish
humans,try to use those "extrinsic circumstances" as
a rationalization for our own misbehaviour -- and don't
realize our need of God's grace -- we have missed the
whole point. The secular law recognizes a sort of moral
relativism because it is dealing with crime - not sin.
Even the medieval church could claim that it burned NONE
for heresy -- it delivered the heretic over to the SECULAR
authority for punishment -- with a prayer for mercy (HA! HA!).
I hope you are being facetious. The fact is that the Greek word is "Anthropos" which would better be rendered as human beings. But the language of Elizabethan English rendered the word "men" to mean humans. So if you read the words as Paul wrote them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit it is clear that he was referencing all human beings.
Regardless it appears to me by that comment that you are being argumentative for no other reason than to be argumentative.
So if the passage were rendered "all humans" would you still disagree with everything that was in the quote I posted?
And do you know who the author of that missive was?
Who used the power of the state to persecute and kill the Donatists. Another Moral Relativist.
You don't know -- or more likely just don't care -- what you're talking about.
Augustine, of course, would not defend himself by saying it was okay for him or for that time or in his circumstances. He would say persecuting heretics is a moral obligation on all orthodox believers whenever we have the secular power to do it, and he would criticize us for laxity. He'd be wrong, but not a relativist.
When defending your position has you resorting to things like that, it's time to reconsider the position.
Did you have a point?
You called Augustine a moral relativist. This was a stupid thing to say.
The fact of the matter is that he used the power of the state to do evil to the Donatists. What he did was objectively evil. He justified the evil in his own mind, appealing to whatever extrinsic circumstances he wanted to use to justify it. Purity of the Church is no excuse. Jesus did not admonish us to persecute and kill our enemies but to love and to pray for them.
My charge of Augustine's Moral Relativism was in response to T.L. Sinks post in which he chided the Medieval Church for claiming that they did not burn any heretics, but turned the heretics over to the state for disposal.
Times were different then, huh AJ? Well if you can claim that something evil by objective standards can be excused because of extrinsic factors (everybody's doing it), then your morality is relative to your times and seasons. Hence Augustine was a moral relativist. And those who defend his actions because of the times and seasons are likewise moral relativists.
BTW, AJ, is it possible for you to make a point on these threads without tossing out an insult or two?
Of, for God's sake. Folks really seem to be horrified that an almight Deity might actually (gasp!) DELEGATE a responsibility to someone (accept salvation, evanglize), and in doing so somehow not be omnipotent anymore.
Last I checked, when the President delegates a task to the Sec. of Defense, he is stil the President.
Excuse the typos. It's late.
A typographical relativist, huh?
Relatively speaking, yes. :-)
I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying (more anon), but I'm not advocating civil penalties for heretics, so this is all mostly unnecessary.
Times were different then, huh AJ? Well if you can claim that something evil by objective standards can be excused because of extrinsic factors (everybody's doing it), then your morality is relative to your times and seasons. Hence Augustine was a moral relativist. And those who defend his actions because of the times and seasons are likewise moral relativists.
1) I'm not sure exactly how I'm expected to reply to comments like this without calling them stupid. After a certain point, it seems a waste to make any deeper reply.
In #44, I said, "He'd be wrong [in his defense], but not a relativist."
What part of "wrong" strikes you as an appeal to everyone else doing it? Or any kind of defense? Did you read #44 at all?
2) But even as stupid as your attack on ME was, you then actually said, "Hence Augustine..." Augustine was born in 354 and died in 430. I'm writing in 2005. So what can *my life* possibly prove about Augustine? He was already long dead a thousand years ago!
3) I repeat: Augustine defended his position as right on general principles. This can be wrong, but not relativist. Let it be noted that the Circumcellions, at least, really did need to be suppressed.
4) If an act which would be evil apart from other considerations cannot be defended by "extrinsic factors", such as what the victim had been up to, we need to abolish the legal system. Or will you try to explain why heresy isn't an extrinsic factor but crime is? But that assumes heresy isn't illegal. The whole dispute between Augustine and us is over whether that ought to be the case.
Or more accurately, crime is a factor extrinsic to the acts themselves which make locking a person up, taking his money, or killing him lawful for the magistrate to do. Why one set of factors, but not another? That's the dispute, and it calls for political philosophy, not glib stuff about relativism. (And for the record, the answer should be something that applies everywhere and always, and should not include heresy as a civil crime.)
But Augustine (and Calvin) did.
In #44, I said, "He'd be wrong [in his defense], but not a relativist." What part of "wrong" strikes you as an appeal to everyone else doing it? Or any kind of defense? Did you read #44 at all?
If he'd be objectively wrong, and if you are defending his position because even though he was wrong, you have to take into consideration what was going on at the time, then YOU would be a moral relativist. Yes it was wrong for Augustine to advocate the killing of heretics to protect the purity of the Church. Objectively it was wrong. Biblically it was wrong. You admit it was wrong. That should be the end of the argument. We ought not defend that which is wrong because of the times and seasons. We ought not to defend killing in the name of Christ. To justify it in any way is to practice Moral Relativism.
3) I repeat: Augustine defended his position as right on general principles. This can be wrong, but not relativist. Let it be noted that the Circumcellions, at least, really did need to be suppressed.
Just because you can argue that your sin was justifiable based upon "general" principles does not mean that you are not practicing moral relativism. Wrong is wrong. What he did was wrong. Even you admit that. So don't try to justify it. You can try to understand his position, but if you attempt to justify it, then you are engaging in Moral Relativism.
Moral relativism results in an inability to see your own sinful actions as sin. That is where the danger is. Everyone (including me) has a tendency to downplay their own wrong and to attempt to justify it some manner (It was the woman you gave me) but just because you can defend a sin on "general principles" does not take it out of the realm of sin and resorting to general principles to defend it is no excuse. It is Moral Relativism.
If he'd be objectively wrong, and if you are defending his position because even though he was wrong, you have to take into consideration what was going on at the time, then YOU would be a moral relativist.
Good thing I'm not doing that, then.
Yes it was wrong for Augustine to advocate the killing of heretics to protect the purity of the Church. Objectively it was wrong. Biblically it was wrong. You admit it was wrong. That should be the end of the argument.
Well, if we were even arguing about that it woud be. But we're not. Or rather, I'm not. You're arguing random crap with an imaginary debater, it seems.
We ought not defend that which is wrong because of the times and seasons. We ought not to defend killing in the name of Christ.
Good thing I didn't do that.
To justify it in any way is to practice Moral Relativism.
No, to justify it in one particular way is moral relativism. Words mean things, and whether you know it or not, there are wrong ethical views every bit as absolutist as yours.
Just because you can argue that your sin was justifiable based upon "general" principles does not mean that you are not practicing moral relativism.
Yes it does!
Wrong is wrong.
And moral relativism is moral relativism.
You DO realize that moral relativism is a specific believe, not a synonym for "bad stuff", right? I mean, at some point it has to get through to even your mind that being in the wrong does not automatically equal moral relativism.
What he did was wrong. Even you admit that. So don't try to justify it. You can try to understand his position, but if you attempt to justify it, then you are engaging in Moral Relativism.
Good thing I'm not trying to justify it. I'm defending against one specific false charge, that Augustine was a relativist. Frankly, calling Augustine a relativist is so obviously wrong I shouldn't have bothered.
Moral relativism results in an inability to see your own sinful actions as sin. That is where the danger is.
Well then, we should avoid it, shouldn't we?
Everyone (including me) has a tendency to downplay their own wrong and to attempt to justify it some manner (It was the woman you gave me) but just because you can defend a sin on "general principles" does not take it out of the realm of sin and resorting to general principles to defend it is no excuse. It is Moral Relativism.
No, it's pretty much the opposite of moral relativism.
You can believe that something is right everywhere and always (and therefore not be a moral relativist, since moral relativism asserts that nothing applies at all places and times) and still be wrong and even in sin. And that's a different matter from moral relativism.
Then why are you so compelled to do it, and to sprinkle your reply with ad hominems and insults? That does seem to be your modus operandi. I've laid out my position, you've laid out yours (complete with insults to my intelligence).
I'd say we are at an impasse, so unless you have some more insults to throw out, I'd say we leave it at that.
Actually, what he said was "anthropoi." It meant everyone in that language at that time.
You are suggesting that the TRANSLATOR should have used the word "people" instead of "men."
The argument about "some" and "all," however, does not have that ready explanation available. The writer could have used a word other than "all" if he had intended something other than "all."
In that I use the NIV far more than any other version, and that the translators of that version being very knowledgable concerning the Greek and Hebrew languages; I assume that they used the best English words availabe to convey the intent of the original authors.
Maybe suzyaruki is simply unaware that the man, Edwin Palmer, who headed up the NIV effort was a staunch Calvinist. Clearly the usage of the word 'men' most often includes males and females unless they are specifically contrasted in a passage of scripture.
Gen 1:27 "So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan
Seems pretty obvious that 'men' includes both males and females.
I understand the difference between the Reformed view and the Arminian view in interpreting the passage in context. As my Senator (Boxer) says when I write to her, "I guess we will just have to agree to disagree."
Charles Spurgeon delivered a lot sermons and spoke a lot of words. I doubt that anyone would agree with everything he said.
Good response, suzy. It has been beat to death.
It would be interesting to find out if there's anything to resolve the debate.
What process would enable the debate to be resolved?
In most situations, a difference of opinion would go up the chain of command, which would be easy if we were RC. =^oo^=
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.