When the Protestant Churches celebrate the Reformation of the 16th
Century on October 31 they commemorate especially the anniversary of
that one event which launched the Reformation: Luther's act of nailing
on the door of the church at Wittenberg, the university's bulletin board,
the 95 theses which he drew up against the sale of indulgences in the
territory of Frederick the Wise. While this event indeed launched the
Reformation, it was, in itself, not intended to be an act of reformation.
There were countless abuses in the Romish Church of the 16th and preceding
centuries; one among many was the evil of indulgences. Luther was not
alone in protesting the sale of indulgences as he was not alone in protesting
the many evils which were present in the Romish Church. But in the purpose
of God the time for Reformation had come. The time had come for the
restoration of the truth long obscured by Rome's apostasy. The time
had come for a return to the true institute of the Church. Events rushed
on swiftly seemingly beyond the control of the monk of Wittenberg -
though he remained the central figure. Events begun with the thudding
of the hammer on the chapel door could no longer be stopped. The Reformation
was begun and it remains with us today.
But as important as this event is which we commemorate on Reformation
Day, a large segment of the Protestant Churches trace their spiritual
ancestry back, not to Wittenberg and Luther, but to Geneva and Calvin.
The Lutheran Churches remain a branch of the Reformation distinct from
the Calvinistic and Reformed Churches. Nor have the two yet come together.
The differences are too great. The chasm is too deep!
Does all this mean that the Lutheran Reformation was a failure as far
as the Calvinistic Churches of the world are concerned? Is it hypocrisy
to commemorate the Lutheran Reformation when key doctrines of Luther
and of the Lutheran Churches are specifically repudiated by a large
branch of Reformation Churches? Should the Churches who go under the
name of Calvinistic celebrate some other event more closely connected
with the work of Calvin? Such an event as the publication of the "Institutes
of the Christian Religion" for example? or the arrival of Calvin in
Geneva? Is it necessary, if we are to be honest, to repudiate the Lutheran
Reformation and speak of it as some kind of pre-Reformation spasm which
was perhaps relatively worthwhile but which did not contribute essentially
to the essence of the Reformation as wrought by the Reformer of Geneva?
These questions assume a position quite different from the position
of much of modern ecumenism. The thought of ecumenism which controls
much of the church life today would not admit the validity of the questions
and would refuse to answer them on the grounds that they are based on
false assumptions. The position which today leads many churches into
one ecclesiastical structure and which is intent on bringing Protestant
Churches back into the bosom of mother Rome is a position which relativizes
doctrine. Perhaps ecumenical leaders would admit that Rome was in need
of reform and that the 16th Century Reformation was necessary to force
Rome to reform. But they would hasten to add that the purpose of the
Reformation has now been nearly accomplished. Rome has reformed or is
in the process of reforming. The Reformation has attained its purpose.
The schism of the Reformation ought to be healed. And, with respect
to the questions of the divisions between various branches of Protestantism
in general and between the Lutheran branch and the Calvinistic branch
in particular, the answer of today's ecumenical leaders is that these
differences are really unessential. At least, they are not of such import
that they offer sufficient ground to indulge in the luxury of splitting
the body of Christ. The differences ought to be forgotten. After all,
Lutheranism and Calvinism are but two of many ways of looking at Scripture.
We should, in the interests of unity, be able to see the value of each
other's viewpoints and live together in peace and harmony.
The assumption behind the questions appearing above is that the differences
are important. The breach between Rome and Protestantism which the Reformation
defined remains. The differences between the various branches of the
Reformation are differences with respect to essentials of Scripture.
They cannot be ignored. Even in the interests of unity they cannot be
An essential answer to the questions asked above is an assertion of
the truth that God is the author of the Reformation. The Reformation
is not a work of man. It is not the work of Luther. It is not the work
of Calvin. To read the history of the Reformation and to study the works
of those men who took a prominent part in it is to be forced again and
again to the conclusion that events were out of the hands of these men
whose names have lived on in history. They were instruments. They were
used by God to accomplish the work of reform. But God moved them. God
controlled events. God worked what no man could possibly work. God brought
about Reformation - a Reformation needed to preserve the Church from
the apostasy of Rome.
But to assert that God is the author of the whole Reformation is to
assert also that there was a proper place for Luther in the Reformation
and a proper place for Calvin. Both, although they themselves could
not attain unity in their own life times, and although the two branches
of the Reformation which followed from them have not been able to join
hands up until the present, were needed for the work that had to be
done. Both had a place. Luther could not have done what Calvin did.
Calvin could not have done what Luther did. The Reformation would not
have happened without both of them.
To understand this it is necessary to go back briefly to the history
of the Church beginning with Augustine who lived from 354 to 430. At
the time of Augustine a man arose in the Church by the name of Pelagius
who taught in Rome doctrines contrary to Scripture. Without going into
detail as to his views, it is sufficient for our purposes to note that
he taught that a man was free at birth from original guilt and original
pollution; that, in other words, man came into the world sinless. If
a man sinned in the course of his life, he did so because he learned
from others the bad habit of sin. Sin was a habit. Sin is not rooted
in a depraved nature; sin is only in the deed. Sin is not first of all
a corruption inherited which infects the whole nature. Only an act can
The view which Pelagius held of salvation was adjusted to fit this
view of sin. Salvation was the work of man himself. It might be, on
occasion, that a man needed the assistance of divine grace to help him
overcome deeply rooted habits even as a man may need the help of a doctor
to overcome the habit of alcoholism. But for the most part, since to
do the will of God required only the breaking of a habit, man was capable
of doing this himself if only he had the will to do it. Through strenuous
and daily effort, man could do God's will and thus be saved.
It is interesting to note that, under the influence of Augustine, this
view was condemned by the Church of that time. Augustine strongly opposed
it on the basis of Scripture, and, in so doing, developed the doctrines
of original sin, predestination and sovereign grace. The Council of
Ephesus in 431 A.D. condemned Pelagianism.
Yet, during the lifetime of Augustine the error of what became known
as Semi-pelagianism raised its ugly head. Especially such men as Cassianus
and Faustus developed these views. These men attempted to take a position,
so to speak, halfway between outright Pelagianism and strict Augustinianism.
In brief, the view of Semi-pelagianism was that salvation was a cooperative
work of God and man with man generally taking the initiative. Man, through
the fall, was not dead in sin, only seriously sick. Grace, though infused,
can be resisted and only supplements man's own power. Predestination
is based on foreseen faith and the cross of Christ is of universal value.
This position was approved by two regional synods: Arles in 472 A.D.
and Lyons in 475 A.D. On a church-wide level, however, the issue was
not resolved until the Synod of Orange in 529 A.D.
While also the Synod of Orange was a local Synod, the decisions of
it were approved by Pope Boniface II and were generally accepted throughout
the Western branch of Christendom.
The Synod of Orange was in reality a victory for Semi-pelagianism.
Although Semi-pelagianism was condemned and Augustinianism approved,
the Synod made compromise decisions. And, as is always the case with
questions of the truth, a compromise is a victory for the lie. Specifically,
Orange spoke of sin as injuring man in both body and soul and bringing
death to all men. It spoke further of grace as being the origin of all
good - even of prayers. It described grace as being the effectual power
of the disposition towards faith, of all good as being a gift of God,
of the need which all saints have for God's help. It insisted that God
loves only His own gift in us and spoke of the will as being restored
only through baptism. It accepted the position that unmerited grace
precedes meritorious works and that even unfallen man needed such grace.
But the weakness of this position is obvious. For one thing, the Synod
condemned (although such a view had never been a part of the Augustinian
system) predestination to sin. The Synod condemned a caricature of Augustine's
views created by his enemies. The Synod never mentioned the doctrines
of irresistible grace and of sovereign predestination. In fact, the
impression was left that the Synod carefully and deliberately avoided
mentioning these key points in the theology of Augustine. The Synod
left room for the idea of sin as being only a sickness, spoke of grace
as being the source of a disposition to faith, left room for
the meritorious value of good works, and failed to condemn the Pelagian
conception of free will. Semi-pelagianism therefore became official
Romish doctrine. While we cannot trace this in any kind of detail here,
it is not difficult to show that the entire erroneous structure of Roman
Catholic sacerdotalism especially as it emphasized the meritorious character
of good works as necessary to justification was a direct outgrowth of
Semi-pelagianism. Many evils in the Church arose specifically from this
erroneous position. The whole system of penance of masses for the dead,
of works of supererogation, of indulgences - all these and others were
developed within the framework of fundamental doctrinal apostasy which
began with Orange.
What is of importance to us is to notice that
the evils in the Church against which so many raised their voices were
evils which had a doctrinal origin. This is, in part, why many efforts
towards reform which preceded the Reformation were doomed from the outset
to failure. The doctrine of the Church (with the exception of some of
the pre-Reformers) was never called into question.(1)
But the evils which sapped the spiritual life of the Church could not
be rooted out without doctrinal renewal. Reform movements which tried
reformation without a return to the truth of Scripture failed.
But not only were the evils in the Church the direct result of doctrinal
error in a general way; but specifically, the evils in the Church were
rooted in errors of soteriology. At bottom the errors of Rome were errors
which dealt with the truth concerning the work of salvation. While the
Romish Church in the centuries preceding the Reformation stood firmly
in the tradition of Nicea and Chalcedon, this same Church strayed grievously
from the doctrines of sovereign grace and the unmerited character of
works. It was into this Church with these corruptions that Martin Luther
was born. Born to God-fearing parents who were pious and faithful sons
of the Church, Luther was brought up in the tradition of the Romish
faith as it had developed up until his day. Yet Luther was brought to
face all these important questions of soteriology. He was brought to
face them not first of all in the arena of theological debate but he
was forced to face them in the depths of his own soul. The church historian
Philip Schaff writes:
In order to understand the genius and history
of the German Reformation we must trace its origin in the personal
experience of the monk who shook the world from his lonely study in
Wittenberg, and made pope and emperor tremble at the power of his
God began the work of reformation in Luther's soul. This very matter
of salvation, not as an abstract theological truth, but as a question
of the personal assurance of salvation, was for many years the main
problem which Luther faced. He could arrive at no peace in his heart,
no assurance of the love and favor of God. His days were as the darkness
of night and his thoughts were filled with fear and turmoil as he contemplated
the just severity of God against sin and strove to bring his storm-tossed
soul into the quiet haven of God's peace.
Yet as true as all this was, we must not suppose that the whole work
of the Reformation was the result of a spiritual crisis in Luther. It
was not, as some have asserted, a movement launched because some monk
from the Augustinian Order thought he had received a divine insight
into a problem which particularly bothered him. It was not the imposition
of a highly gifted man of a subjective experience upon a band of followers.
This is the gist of the position taken by the Roman Catholic historian
Philip Hughes. He writes in his book, A Popular History of the Reformation:
He was now on the verge of his thirtieth year, and next year, taking
up his work as professor in the faculty of theology in the university,
he would, all unconsciously, begin the movement we have learned to
call the Reformation.
What that movement will chiefly be, in Luther's intention, is not
a crusade to reform the moral lives of Catholics, clerics as well
as layfolk, but rather a crusade against Catholicism itself, observant,
conscientious, dutiful Catholicism, now considered to be a corruption
of the Gospel of Christ. And on his own showing, according to his
own account, the origins of his stupendous conviction he in his own
personal experience of the ineffectiveness
and the mischievousness of Catholicism as a solution offered him for
his spiritual troubles, and in his own divinely guided discovery of
the true meaning of the religion of Christ. It is Luther, and not
his opponents, who brings into court, as an important consideration,
the experiences, the spiritual crisis which he experienced in his
life as a monk. (3)
This is a misinterpretation of the life of Luther and of his writings.
It was not a mere subjective experience which launched the Reformation.
It must be remembered, on the one hand, that God wrought the Reformation
in Luther's soul by creating this intense struggle which consumed so
much of his time in his earlier years. But, on the other hand, God led
him through this deep and profound struggle in order to lead Luther
away from the errors of the Church of which he was a part and to bring
him at last to the truth of Scripture.
Quite naturally and upon the advice of others, Luther sought the cure
for his spiritual maladies in the prescriptions of the Church. He tried
them all. He entered the Augustinian convent in Erfurt and sought peace
in a life of monkish self-denial. He committed himself body and soul
to the Church and placed his salvation entirely in the hands of those
who had promised to bring him to heaven. He walked the way of self-denial
and imposed on himself all the rigorous exercises which his order required.
He was faithful in penance and confession in the hopes that this would
solve his problems. He himself tells us:
I was indeed a pious monk and kept the rules
of my order so strictly that I can say: If ever a monk gained heaven
through monkery, it should have been I. All my monastic brethren who
knew me will testify to this. I would have martyred myself to death
with fasting, praying, reading, and other good works had I remained
a monk much longer. (4)
As a monk I led an irreproachable life. Nevertheless I felt that
I was a sinner before God.
My conscience was restless, and I could not
depend on God being propitiated by my satisfactions. Not only did
I not love, but I actually hated the righteous God who punishes sinners
. . . Thus a furious battle raged within my perplexed conscience,
but meanwhile I was knocking at the door of this particular Pauline
passage, earnestly seeking to know the mind of the great Apostle.
But it was all to no avail. Every good work which the Church prescribed
he undertook to do. Every method laid down by the clergy as the sure
way to God was tried again and again. But the ways in which the Church
led him went deeper into darkness and farther from the light of God's
love and mercy. He found no peace.
It was from the Scriptures that he finally learned the truth. This
knowledge did not come in a flash of insight, but only by way of long
and arduous study. In 1508 Luther was appointed professor in the University
of Wittenberg established but a few years before by Frederick the Wise.
In 1512 he began to lecture in theology and studied especially the Psalms
and the epistles of Paul. It was the phrase "the righteousness of God"
which constantly attracted his attention. He had always thought that
this phrase (found especially in Romans
1:17 and 3:22)
referred to God's essential righteousness and His consequent hatred
Meanwhile, that same year I had again turned to the exposition of
the Psalter, confident that after academic treatment of the Epistles
of St. Paul to the Romans and Galatians, and the Epistle of the Hebrews
I was better trained. Certainly I had been possessed by an unusually
ardent desire to understand Paul in his Epistle to the Romans. Nevertheless,
in spite of the ardour of my heart I was hindered by the unique word
in the first chapter: "The righteousness
of God is revealed in it." I hated that word "righteousness
of God" because in accordance with the usage and custom of the
doctors I had been taught to understand it philosophically as meaning,
as they put it, the formal or active righteousness according to, which
God is righteous and punishes sinners and the unjust. (6)
But gradually Luther came to see that the phrase "The righteousness
of God" referred to imputed righteousness which God gives to His people
on the basis of the cross. He describes this insight as follows:
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed
to the context of the words, namely, "in it the righteousness of God
is revealed, as it is written, He who through faith is righteous shall
live." There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is
that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith.
And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the
gospel, namely, the passive righteousness God with which a merciful
God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through
faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether
born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There
a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.
Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in
other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does
in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom
of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation
of God, the glory of God.
And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred
with which I hated the word "righteousness of God". Thus that place
in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine's
"The Spirit and the Letter", where contrary to hope I found that he,
too, interpreted God's righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness
with which God clothes us when He justifies us. Although this was
heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning
imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God's righteousness
with which we are justified was taught.
Armed more fully with these thoughts, I began a second time to interpret
the Psalter. (7)
Luther later said quoted in his Table Talk:
The words "righteous" and "righteousness"
of God struck my conscience like lightning. When I heard them I was
exceedingly terrified. If God is righteous (I thought), he must punish.
But when by God's grace I pondered in the tower and heated room of
this building, over the words, "He who through faith is righteous
shall live" (Rom. 1:17)
and "the righteousness of God" (Rom.
3:21), I soon came to the conclusion that if we as righteous men,
ought to live from faith and if the righteousness of God should contribute
to the salvation of all who believe, then salvation will not be our
merit but God's mercy. My spirit was thereby cheered. For it is by
the righteousness of God that we are justified and saved through Christ.
These words (which had before terrified me) now became more pleasing
to me. The Holy Spirit unveiled the Scriptures for me in this tower.
And so, after a long and difficult struggle, Luther saw the glorious
truth of Scripture that by the works of the law is no man justified
before God, for the just shall live by faith.
God led the troubled monk away from himself, away from his monk's cell,
away from penance and indulgences, away from all works, away from the
Church itself, to the foot of the cross of Calvary. The cross is the
rock of justification. And it is by faith alone that the righteousness
of God manifested in the cross becomes the portion of God's people.
Thus the fundamental principle of Luther's life and of the whole Lutheran
Reformation was the truth of justification by faith. There is no student
of the Reformation who denies this. Schaff writes:
Henceforth the doctrine of justification
by faith alone was for him to the end of life the sum and substance
of the gospel, the heart of theology, the central truth of Christianity,
the article of the standing or falling Church. (9)
Luther himself said:
One article, the only solid rock, rules
in my heart, namely, faith in Christ: out of which, through which,
and to which, all my theological opinions ebb and flow, day and night.
This principle of justification by faith was the tool in Luther's hand
to attack the entire towering structure of Roman Catholicism. It was
the weapon with which the stronghold of the pope was challenged. It
was the banner that led the forces of the Reformation into victorious
battle with the strongest powers which Rome could summon to her aid.
The whole corrupt institution of Roman Catholicism was shaken to its
foundations by this fundamental principle of the truth. So it had to
be. The doctrinal apostasy of Rome was particularly in the field of
soteriology. The attack had to come at this point. All the evils in
the Church to a greater or lesser degree resulted from this cardinal
doctrinal error; the Reformation had to begin with a reaffirmation of
the truth at this point.
Yet it soon became evident that the Reformation could not stop with
Luther; i.e., the Reformation could not stop with the establishment
of the truth of justification by faith. The structure of Biblical and
Reformed truth cannot be erected on the foundation of this principle
of soteriology. This is not to say that the principle itself is not
entirely Scriptural; there is no doubt that it is. Nor is this to say
that Luther was wrong in emphasizing this principle. It was necessary
to destroy the error of Rome. But the truth of justification by faith
is a stone in the structure of the truth and not the foundation. It
is a block in the wall but not the cornerstone. It is an integral part
of the system of the truth, but it is not the heart which gives life
That this was true also historically soon became evident even in the
history of the Reformation. While Lutheranism made rapid progress in
Germany and other countries, it never produced the Reformed faith. That
is, it never became a system of beliefs which was in full harmony with
the Word of God.
There was good reason for this. Lutheranism, in spite of Luther, became
essentially synergistic. Although Luther himself was not in any sense
of the word a synergist, Philip Melanchthon, his close friend and co-worker
was. Under the influence of Melanchthon synergism was officially incorporated
into the confessional standards of the Lutheran Churches and continues
to the present as an integral part of Lutheran theology. But synergism
is not essentially different from Semi-pelagianism. There is difference
of emphasis, but not of principle. Synergism too speaks of salvation
as a cooperative venture in which God and man both participate in the
work of salvation. These synergistic ideas appeared early in the Lutheran
Reformation. No doubt Luther himself was free of them but his colleague
There is something inevitable about this. If the truth of justification
is taken as the foundation of the whole structure of the truth it is
all but inevitable that synergism should appear in some form. This does
not mean that the seeds of synergism are present in the truth of justification.
But it does mean that it is impossible to maintain the principle of
justification by faith alone in all its implications unless one sees
it as a part only of the whole structure of the truth dependent itself
upon other principles. The truth of soteriology, as important as it
is, is not the most basic principle of the truth. It is not fundamental,
It is not the cornerstone. It cannot stand if it is made such a principle.
As Schaff notes:
The Lutheran system is a compromise between
Augustinianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Luther himself was fully agreed
with Augustine on total depravity and predestination, and stated the
doctrine of the slavery of the human will even more forcibly and paradoxically
than Augustine or Calvin. But the Lutheran Church followed him only
half way. The Formula of Concord (1577) adopted his doctrine of total
depravity in the strongest possible terms, but disclaimed the doctrine
of reprobation; it represents the natural man as spiritually dead
like "a stone" or "a block", and teaches a particular and unconditional
election, but also an universal vocation. (11)
For this reason, the Reformation, if it was to be successful, could
not stop here. It had to move on. It had to develop, and in another
direction. Justification by faith had been necessary to overthrow the
false and evil structure of Romanism. But the Reformation had to take
a different tack if it was to face the future. It was the weapon to
destroy the enemy, the only weapon which could successfully do this.
But, it could not be the principle of further development.
It was because of this that God prepared a man in France, Calvin, to
continue the cause of the Reformation. He occupied his own place in
the struggle and an important place it was. Schaff takes note of this:
Revolution is followed by reconstruction and consolidation. For this
task Calvin was providentially foreordained and equipped by genius,
education, and circumstances... Calvin, the Frenchman, would have
been as much out of place in Zurich or Wittenberg, as the Swiss Zwingli
and the German Luther would have been out of place and without a popular
constituency in French-speaking Geneva. Each stands first and unrivalled
in his particular mission and field of labor... Calvin was twenty-five
years younger than Luther and Zwingli, and had the great advantage
of building on their foundation.
He had less genius, but more talent. He was inferior to them as a
man of action, but superior as a thinker and organizer. They cut the
stones in the quarries, he polished them in the workshop. They produced
the new ideas, he constructed them into a system. His was the work
of Apollos rather than of Paul: to water rather than to plant, God
giving the increase. Calvin's character is less attractive, and his
life less dramatic than Luther's or Zwingli's, but he left his Church
in a much better condition.
He lacked the genial element of humor and pleasantry; he was a Christian
stoic: stern, severe, unbending, yet with fires of passion and affection
glowing beneath the marble surface. His name will never arouse popular
enthusiasm... But he surpassed them in consistency of self-discipline,
and by his exegetical, doctrinal, and polemical writings, he has exerted
and still exerts more influence than any other Reformer upon the Protestant
Churches of Latin and Anglo-Saxon races... History furnishes no more
striking example of a man of so little personal popularity, and yet
such great influence upon the people; of such natural timidity and
bashfulness combined with such strength of intellect and character,
and such control over his and future generations. He was by nature
and taste a retiring scholar, but Providence made him an organizer
and ruler of churches.
Widely as these Reformers differed in talent,
temperament, and sundry points of doctrine and discipline, they were
great and good men, equally honest and earnest, unselfish and unworldly,
brave and fearless, ready at any moment to go to the stake for their
conviction. They labored for the same end: the renovation of the Catholic
Church by leading it back to the pure and perennial fountain of the
perfect teaching and example of Christ. (12)
Calvin never met Luther, but knew of Luther and of Luther's teachings.
While he was still a student in Paris, the shock waves of the Reformation
were rolling over France. He had studied the principles of the Lutheran
Reformation and had done this in the light of his own intimate knowledge
of Roman Catholicism. He did this while still a member of the Romish
Church and only committed himself to the cause of the Reformation after
careful consideration. He repeatedly acknowledged his debt to Luther
and, in one of his most striking phrases, after the controversies with
Lutheran theologians concerning the presence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper, he wrote to Bullinger:
Often have I been wont to declare, that
even though he were to call me a devil, I should still not the less
esteem and acknowledge him as an illustrious servant of God. (13)
But the point is here that Calvin saw immediately that the Reformation,
while it had to begin with questions in the field of soteriology, specifically
with the truth of justification by faith, could not possibly end there.
If the gains of the Reformation and the cause of the truth were to be
consolidated and moved forward, this had to be on a different principle
than the principle of justification by faith. For, as important as that
Principle was, it could not serve as the real foundation for the Reformed
faith which was to be true to the Word of God.
Calvin was, above all, a Biblical theologian. And with his intimate
knowledge of Scripture Calvin saw immediately that the most fundamental
principle of all Scripture is the principle of theology. God stands
on the foreground. The Scriptures are, above all else, the revelation
of God. And God reveals Himself for His own glory. Hence, it is the
knowledge of God which is basic. On this principle only could the Reformation
be secured. Rome's imposing structure was dashed to pieces by Luther's
thunderings from Wittenberg; but upon these crumbled ruins could a new
edifice, faithful to Scripture be reared, which was built upon the fundamental
truth of God's glory.
Not soteriology but theology lies at the heart of all Scripture., In
Vol. I of the Courtenay Studies of Reformation Theology (The volume
of John Calvin) J.I. Packer writes on "Calvin the Theologian". In his
lecture he makes these comments:
The layout of the 1559 Institution shows us at once its scope
and range. As the opening chapter, dating from 1539, explains, it
is a treatise on the knowledge of God, and the knowledge of ourselves
which is bound up with it.
As in Scripture, so in Calvin, "knowledge of God" is a concept which
unifies belief, experience, and conduct. It embraces both the knowing
of God, which is religion, and what is known of, or about God, which
is theology. It denotes an apprehension of God, not merely as existing
but as being "for us"; in grace, and of ourselves as being "for Him"
in worship and service.
In making the knowledge of God his central
theme, and presenting the reformed faith as a recovery of this knowledge
- a truly religious theology, and a truly theological religion - Calvin
was picking up Luther's early polemic against the scholastics, mystics,
and merit-mongers, who thought to know God without knowing Jesus Christ.
James Atkinson in his book "The Great Light" essentially agrees:
From the structure of the book (The Institutes) as well as
from Calvin's other writings, it is crystal-clear that Calvin's theology
began from the conviction of the absolute transcendence of God and
therefore of His total otherness in relation to the creature man.
If Luther found his liberation in the doctrine of justification by
faith alone, Calvin found that same liberation in a passionate theocentrism,
in a terrifying certainty of being mastered by God. Calvin, if not
God-intoxicated, was certainly God-possessed.
This doctrine of the unqualified sovereignty
of God related to the consequent equally unqualified creatureliness
of man, lies at the heart of Calvin's experience and theology. It
further dominates all of Calvin's exposition and is the stumbling
block his critics never negotiated. (15)
Anyone who has read Calvin knows that this is true. Calvin saw that
Scripture is theocentric in the highest sense of the word. God reveals
Himself. Hence the knowledge of God is all-important. But the knowledge
of God through His revelation is for the purpose of the glory of His
own name. Soli Deo Gloria was the theme of Calvin's life and
his deepest theological principle. And from this it follows that God
is sovereign in all that He does, for He does all things for Himself
that "of him, and to him, and through him may be all things." God is
above all, glorious and majestic. He reigns supreme in the heavens to
accomplish His own purpose and realize His own glory. Hence, God's sovereign
determination in the counsel of His will is of primary consideration.
God determined to glorify Himself through His only begotten Son Jesus
Christ Whom He would raise to power and glory in heaven through the
way of the cross and the resurrection. On this principle rests the truth
of predestination. And from this follows the sovereign character of
the work of salvation as God performs it in Christ on behalf of His
people. It is here that the truth of justification by faith must find
its proper place and contribute its own part to the whole of the truth.
Even this truth must, in the broad and sweeping scope of the revelation
of God, be subservient to God's own glory. All things are for God's
sake. God's glory stands at the heart of all Scripture. To it must all
be subjected. for its sake all things are done in heaven and on earth.
Not man and his salvation; not even man justified by faith is the most
important thing that happens in history. God is glorified in His own
works. What is not for the glory of God will never take place. What
God determines to do in all His works is actually wrought that God may
receive all glory forever and ever.
This is the genius of the Reformer of Geneva. This is the work to which
he was called and appointed. This is the divinely-ordained role he played
in the Reformation.
To fail to put the truths of soteriology in this perspective is to
run the grave risk of repeating the error of Rome and of falling into
the heresies of some kind of Semi-pelagianism. Only when the deepest
principle of God's glory is firmly maintained can its corollary be preserved:
God's absolute sovereignty in the work of salvation.
The importance of this has been largely forgotten today. It is not
our purpose in this essay to point this out in detail. It is sufficient
to note the fact that, even in churches which parade their Calvinism
with pride, this important emphasis which Calvin insisted upon was the
key to the Scriptures is lost. The emphasis today in many different
forms falls upon man and his salvation. Hence even revelation is spoken
of in terms of the kerygma. Those who maintain this (and they occupy
a broad scope in the theological spectrum from liberals to conservatives
within the Reformed Churches) maintain that the Scriptures cannot and
do not give to us any knowledge of God as He is in Himself. This, these
men insist, is not the purpose of Scripture. The purpose is rather to
bring man to some confrontation, through the kerygma, with God.
This is, quite understandably, characteristic of those who deny the
infallibility of the sacred Scriptures, who speak of the fact that the
Word of God is in the Scriptures while denying that the Scriptures are
the Word of God.
But it all leads to a certain relativizing of doctrine. Even such a
theological conservative as Dr. Hendrik Hart, assistant professor of
philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, Canada,
who himself professes to believe in the infallibility of Scripture can
write at length of this. In a footnote to a discussion of this point
Theories of truth that speak of absolute
objectivity make truth to be a conceptual matter of doubtful origin.
Intellectualistic doctrines of truth cannot possibly account for the
biblical notion of truth as something to be done and lived. Truth
primarily concerns man's relation to the Word of God and not his first
of all having correct ideas or beliefs. (16)
This is not in the tradition of the Reformation. Especially is it not
in the tradition of the Calvin Reformation. Nor is it the emphasis of
Scripture. Scripture is the objective and infallibly inspired record
of the revelation of God. It is through the Scriptures that God is known.
He reveals Himself in order that through the knowledge of Himself He
may have all the glory. This knowledge of God is itself eternal life.
"This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John
17:3. And this knowledge of God as the principle of eternal life
results in God's glory because God is the sovereign Author of it in
all the work of salvation.
To The Top | Back To Pamphlets Page
1.) Cf. e.g., the Council of Constance which
met specifically to initiate reform in the Church but which burnt Hus
at the stake for doctrinal deviation.
2.) History of the Christian Church,
Philip Schaff; Eerdmans, 1955; VII p. 105.
3.) A Popular History of the Reformation,
Philip Hughes Image Books Edition, 1960, pp. 93 & 94
4.) Quoted from The Reformation, Hans
J. Hildebrand; Harper & Row, 1964; p.24
5.) Ibid. p. 27
7.) Quoted from Captive to the Word,
A Skevington Wood; Eerdmans, 1969; pp. 51, 52.
8.) Ibid. p. 53.
9.) Op. cit., VII, p. 124.
10.) Quoted from The Great Light.
James Atkinson; Eerdmans, 1968; p. 109.
11.) Schaff, Op. cit., VIII, p. 541.
12.) Ibid., VIII, pp. 257, 258, 260.
13.) Ibid., VII, p. 661.
14.) John Calvin, A Collection of Essays,
Edited by G.E. Duffield, translated by G. S. R. Cox & P. G. Rix; Eerdmans,
1966; p. 155.
15.) Op. cit., pp. 173, 174.
16.) The Challenge of Our Age, Hendrik
Hart, Christian Perspective Series, 1967/1968, p. 62, footnote 19.
To The Top | Back To Pamphlets Page
For additional information on the Reformed faith contact:
The Reformed Witness
1307 E. Brockton Avenue
Redlands, CA 92374