Much of what I have written or said in the last few weeks about John Calvin may have led you to believe that I agree with Charles Spurgeon, the nineteenth century Baptist preacher of London, who said, “The longer I live the clearer does it appear that John Calvin’s system is the nearest to perfection.”
I don’t agree. Calvin, like every other person who ever lived (except Jesus Christ) had his strengths and weaknesses, his insights and blind spots.
The usual complaints about Calvin are about the doctrine of predestination and about his oppression in Geneva. Both of those grievances are overblown.
Calvin taught the doctrine of predestination as a means to the end of spiritual humility. He preached to his people that their status as the elect should make them humbly grateful and should give their hearts assurance in God’s grace.
As for his alleged dictatorial oppression, including his assent to having the heretic Servetus burned at the stake, one needs to filter that through his time and circumstances. (Servetus was “asking for it,” and would have been executed anywhere in sixteenth century Europe that he took the same approach.)
I have my own set of complaints about Calvin.
He was too logical. He concluded that if God predestined some to go to heaven (a biblical idea), God predestined the rest to go to hell (not in Scripture).
He tried too hard. Calvin became frustrated and irritated when individuals or even the whole city didn’t get it right. If you really believe God is in charge and the Spirit is the one who changes people, sometimes you have to chill a little. (Calvin also almost certainly and literally worked himself to death.)
He was too sure of too much. To be sure, the prevailing religious thought of Calvin’s day needed an overhaul. I wish he had left his Institutes at their original six chapters. 80 chapters of the final version make Calvin the father of spiritual overconfidence on every little detail.
He was too separatist. The fact that Calvin left France and the Catholic church was a matter of his conviction. But he was harsh in his criticism of those who made a different choice. Even Calvin’s direct spiritual descendants continue to splinter endlessly – incessantly accusing one another of error.
That’s only a sampling, but it’s enough for now. Calvin left a great legacy, but he was only a man, not a Messiah.
Bob,
I realize I am a year late in responding to this. I appreciate your candor and grace as a Reformed Pastor in how you view Calvin. I too admire and respect the man. A man deeply influenced and obedient to the Lord for many things, yet also a man with frailties and sin.
Coming from a PCA type background I sometimes cringe at the way men lift him up almost to the same level of scripture. When God references men in the scriptures He does so honestly showing them for who they really are, men and women with strengths and weaknesses in need of a Savior, and how God and His grace used them despite those sins. This approach brings glory to our Lord and is helpful in how we portray our humanity to our neighbor. We are no different in a sense as they are. Yes there are marvelous truths about our union and redemption in Christ, but we can and should be humble, and with feet on the ground, approach our neighbor as one beggar helping another receive the bread of life.
I too lament how those who so lift up Calvin and claim his pedigree bite and devour one another. The PCA and OPC, the EPC and ARPC. The CRC and URC, etc,etc,etc. All claiming the scriptures are God breathed without error and holding to the reformed creeds and confessions and yet cannot find enough unity in Christ to stay together visibly. Majoring on minors and forgetting the more important. It grieves my soul. It is good to know you are making a positive impact in your ministry there. May God continue to bless you in your labors by His grace.
Thanks for reading the blog - even a year later - and responding! I appreciate the encouragement and your words of blessing. Bob