- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostReading the Classics - Real Christianity (III)
- Next Post »Ligonier Conference - Sinclair Ferguson
Ligonier Conference - Al Mohler
- 03/19/09
- 22
The 2009 Ligonier Ministries National Conference begins today.Though the conference proper does not kick off until after dinner, thePre-Conference, “John Calvin—Celebrating a Legacy” began bright andearly. This mini-conference features messages from Al Mohler, StevenLawson, Sinclair Ferguson and Ligon Duncan. They will each speak onetime and will also participate in a panel discussion.
Al Mohler began with this reflection: the legacy of John Calvin isnow represented by a half millennium of influence. Calvin would nodoubt be shocked to learn that, 500 years after his birth, severalthousand people would gather in a Pre-Conference to talk about hislegacy. That so many are gathered here is a testimony to God’sfaithfulness to his church.
Mohler’s task today was to introduce John Calvin as a preacher and ateacher. And indeed, the focal task of Calvin’s ministry came down tothese two tasks. He excelled in both.
The first portion of Mohler’s address was biographical, a quickoverview of Calvin’s life focusing on his tasks of preacher andteacher. It was too fast to easily summarize, so I will leave it tothose who are interested to watch the webcast.Calvin believed there were four offices within the church: preachers,teachers, elders and deacons. This message revolved around the first two.
Having given this thumbnail sketch of Calvin’s life, Mohler spokeabout Calvin as a teacher. Calvin left behind a significant legacy ofteaching material, even down to his personal correspondence which wasfilled with teaching. Early in his career he desired a quiet life ofreading and writing, but he was compelled to take up the pastorate in Geneva.
He saw two offices that had a distinct teaching function. The taskof the teacher was to prepare those who would have the sacred task ofteaching the Word of God. Before he was a preacher in Geneva, he wasinvolved in this teaching task. The preacher was the key agent to whomGod would speak to his people, but the preacher needed to be taught;hence, Calvin was convinced that there needed to be a learned clergy.His singular aim was that the church be properly taught the Word of Godand be protected from error. Here Mohler looked to the Institutes giving a quick overview of their contents, style and usefulness, even in our day.
The need Calvin perceived is a need that continues today, perhapseven more emphatically. Teaching suffuses all that he does, all that heoffers to the church, all that he was.
In all the world, there is only one office higher than the teacherand that is the preacher. Calvin desired to be first a teacher, butonce he became a preacher, he took up this task with a passion. Histheology of preaching begins with his understanding that God speaksthrough his preachers, through the Word. Calvin did not deny natural orgeneral revelation but saw that God speaks through a human voice in aspecial way in the act of preaching. Preaching is not a human inventionbut a means God had already used to speak to his people of old and ameans he would now use again to instruct his church. It is an act ofGod’s kindness and accommodation that he speaks to us through a humanvoice; if he spoke through his own voice, we would be destroyed.
Calvin understood the majesty of preaching because he understood themajesty of God. Calvin’s mode of preaching was verse-by-verse,book-by-book so he would not selectively avoid things he did not wishto teach. In this way God’s people receive all that they need and notjust what the preacher determines the people need. The preacher isneither to add nor subtract from Scripture.
Calvin believed preaching is the Word of God in at least three ways:
- Preaching is the Word of God because it is the exposition of the Bible
- Preaching is the Word of God because the preacher is sent and commissioned by God and given his authority to speak in his name
- Preaching is the Word of God because it is revelation, revealing the treasures of God’s Word.
Calvin looked to three movements in his day, offering both agreementand disagreement with each of them. From these we can see some of theemphases of his ministry.
The enthusiasts - they were right in that they preached thenecessity of the Holy Spirit but wrong in that they said there was noneed for preachers.
The Church of Rome - they were right in that the church is to listenattentively to the preacher but wrong in that the church taught thatChristians did not need to verify the minister’s words according to Scripture.
The fanatics - they were right in that believers are to read theBible on their own but wrong in that they downplayed the need forguidance from teachers and preachers.
Mohler offered these four hallmarks of John Calvin’s preaching:
- Centrality of Scripture
- Systematic exposition
- Simplicity of expression
- Practical application
And here he recommended Steve Lawson’s The Expository Genius of John Calvin as a useful, accurate summary of John Calvin’s teaching ministry.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (22)
Here’s one thing that have never understood about John Calvin. I am myself Reformed in my theology, but I have a difficult time seeing how Christians so highly venerate a man who condemned Michael Servetus to death for being a heretic.
I’m not trying to cause controversy here. I genuinely want to know how this man’s theological system can be so highly exalted while his own personal walk could lead him to see another man put to death for his beliefs.
How is Calvin different from a radical Muslim, though he is regarded to be so godly/God-centered by so many (Piper, Mohler, Sproul, et. al)?
Again, I’m not seeking to be divisive. I will be the first one to say I don’t know everything about this man’s life. I just do not see how one can call himself a Christian and yet condone the death of another man created in the image of God. Would Christ have condoned this?
How is Calvin different from Ted Haggard? I’m sure many who read Tim’s blog would rip both Haggard’s actions and his theology but would in the same breath laud John Calvin. Why?
Please, could someone point me to a balanced, informed critique of Calvin’s life and thought? I would be greatly appreciative.
Stanley,
Chances are what you’ve read about Calvin and Servetus has not been accurate. I say that because you call Calvin “a man who condemned Michael Servetus to death,” which he did not and could not do. That is not to say Calvin was without fault, but that he wasn’t what many have made him to be.
Tim’s article, The Servetus Problem, is a good place to start in correcting these misconceptions.
Thanks, but I was looking for a reference to an actual book. Tim has written a book review about an Abraham Lincoln biography, trying to make him out to be a Christian, based upon bad scholarship/history. When Tim was called on the carpet concerning this by several people, he stated that he was not able to answer the questions because he had sent the book to his sister.
I’m looking for more of a scholarly account of Calvin’s life.
I wonder if anyone will be celebrate Ted Haggard’s birthday 500 years from now? So there you go Stanley….that’s one difference! There are others. Best wishes.
Chris
Again, thanks, but I’m actually looking for answers here, not meaningless quips.
Thanks, but I was looking for a reference to an actual book. Tim has written a book review about an Abraham Lincoln biography, trying to make him out to be a Christian, based upon bad scholarship/history. When Tim was called on the carpet concerning this by several people, he stated that he was not able to answer the questions because he had sent the book to his sister.
Speaking of meaninglessness, what on earth does the fact that I loaned a book about Lincoln to my sister have to do with Servetus? Got a bee in your bonnet?
You can look at what Piper has said about Servetus. I believe he covered it quite well just a short time ago. Check out his small book on Calvin.
Stanly,Venerate is a pretty heavy word - I personally do not know anyone who worships Calvin. I wonder if you feel the same way about David and Uriah, and Paul and Stephen as you do about Calvin?
“Speaking of meaninglessness, what on earth does the fact that I loaned a book about Lincoln to my sister have to do with Servetus? Got a bee in your bonnet?”
No, I’m just saying you never defended your points when questioned by many people about the veracity of the book you were defending. Consequently, I was looking for a well-written, scholarly book w/o personal isogesis about the subject.
David:
I agree with you on the basic facts of Servetus and Calvin. While Calvin didn’t sentence him to death as he didn’t have the authority to do so, he did write an entire treatise defending the decision to put people to death for the crime of blasphemy. I don’t have any quotes or anything, but I don’t think Calvin wanted Servetus not to die.
(He did, however, want him to not be burned. He argued for the sword instead.)
Stanley,The Q & A time, blogged later by Tim, dealt with the question of the heretic Servetus. Frankly, it has become a great red herring when debating Calvin.
I’m new to the whole Calvin argument, but I don’t see how it’s a red herring. What seems like a red herring is the straw man argument to which Tim, and others, respond in their efforts to cast Calvin in the best possible light.
The argument is cast as, “Calvin put Servetus to death, therefore Calvin is bad.” It’s easy to refute that argument by simply pointing out that Calvin did not, in fact, put Servetus to death.
On the other hand, he almost certainly would have if he’d been in a position to do so, considering he wrote a lengthy defense of the right and necessity to do just that.
The response to this, of course, is that Calvin was hardly alone in this view at the time. Servetus would have been prosecuted and executed in any number of places, so in this respect Calvin wasn’t unique. Quite so. In this respect Calvin was utterly synchretistic with the un-Christ-like mindset that dominated his culture.
Again, I’m not a historian, but based on some cursory research, someone like Sebastian Castellio seems more praiseworthy.
Servetus was a conscious troublemaker who eventually by coming to Geneva put the entire population of that city in danger. There was a vicious, real war going on. The propaganda that would have been gained by the Roman Catholic Church against Geneva if they hadn’t dealt with Servetus in the way he clearly - in the context of the times - deserved and *was begging for* would have endagered an entire population and the Reformation itself.
Servetus also came to Geneva with the belief he could turn the political community against Calvin and basically take over.
Calvin had a decades-long interaction with Servetus in which Calvin genuinely attempted to engage Servetus and counsel him, and in which Servetus routinely savaged Calvin and was anything but genuine in his interaction with him. What occurred in Geneva was the end of a long story.
What you *can’t see* from your modern context is the *insidiousness* and *traitorous threat* inherent in Servetus’ actions (conscious actions on his part) that in the context of the war from religious tyranny was as dangerous as anything the crazier anabaptists were doing in their parts of the battlefield.
Freedom of conscience and Christian liberty were foundational to what the reformers were fighting for. You can’t expect those rights to be manifest before the war is even won anymore than you could reasonably expect the slaves in America to be freed upon completion of the Revolution of 1776 and the drafting of the Constitution.
The devil loves to inspire the Servetuses of the world to defile anything, anybody, any movement that is fighting for freedom, life, and light against tyranny, death, and darkness. The devil will get his little victories even in the catastrophic defeat to his Kingdom that was the victory of the Reformation.
For a summary and references that may be of interest see, e.g., http://www.calvin.edu/meeter/resources/servetus.htm
Here they are:Books
Bainton, Roland H. Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus (1511-1553). Boston : Beacon Press, 1953.
Friedman, Jerome. Michael Servetus: a Case Study in Total Heresy . Geneva : Droz, 1978.
Fulton, John F. Michael Servetus: Humanist and Martyr ( New York : Herbert Reichner, 1953.
Goldstone, Lawrence and Nancy. Out of the Flames . New York : Broadway Books, 2002.
Hillar, Marian. The Case of Michael Servetus (1511-1553): the Turning Point in the Struggle for Freedom of Conscience. Lewisburg: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997 .
__________. Michael Servetus Intellectual Giant, Humanist, and Martyr . Lanham: University Press of America , 2002.
Servetus, Michael. Christianismi Restitutio and Other Writings . Birmingham : The Classics of Medicine Library, 1989.
___________. The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity . Cambridge , Harvard University Press, 1932.
Articles
Kayayan, Eric. “The Case of Michel Servetus.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 8, no. 2 (1992): 117-46.
Kingdon, Robert. “Social Control and Political Control in Calvin’s Geneva .” In Die Reformation in Deutschland und Europa:Interpretationen und Debatten , edited by Hans R. Guggisberg, 521-32. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 1993.
Pettegree, Andrew. “Michael Servetus and the Limits of Tolerance.” History Today 40 (1990): 40-45.
Also there’s always the old-school: check your library.
I am not sure if this thread is still active.But I think it is safe to say that almost every single Christian in that day would have thought that it was right to condemn Servetus to death. That includes all that have participated on this thread.
Tom-
Castellio argued against it, and he was a reformer in Basel. Then again, even Castellio didn’t advocate tolerance for those who deny God entirely.
Some like to look back on a time like this and view it as a sort of golden age, where there was less sexual immorality, sounder doctrine, etc. I look back and see a society where the vast majority of believers had murder in their hearts. As you said, “almost every sigle Christian in that day would have thought that it was right to condemn Servetus to death.” That’s a pretty stinging indictment of “almost every single Christian in that day”.
JPH, it’s very, very difficult for a person living today to not project things already won into the past. Also, it is very, very difficult to discern how different Servetus was. He was not just a guy with different views. He was a person who was actively trying to control the direction of the Reformation. He was operating in high orbits. He had been dogging Calvin for decades for instance. Servetus was a unique case. That Servetus was the only person put to death in Geneva for heresy during Calvin’s time is telling.
People of today have a very difficult problem seeing the vicious war aspect of the Reformation. You read about personalities, about doctrine, a little about people being put to death, etc. It’s all an academic exercise for you. In real time it was a real war, and in a real time, real war acts such that Servetus was committing gave off waves of effect that modern day people can’t see let alone *feel.*
Patience for this ongoing Servetus canard should be at zero at this point. People have been disabused of it enough for the truth to be known.
Seriously? Are you really defending the execution because there was a “war” of beliefs going on at the time?
It would be wrong now, and it was wrong then. I don’t so much care how jacked up Servetus’s beliefs were, or how vociferously he may have been attacking Calvin.
Your emotional reaction betrays your inability to see history in context. Think of it this way: an American city is continually put at risk of nuclear annihilation by the same terrorist. He is put to death.
If you are unable to see how the entire population of Geneva and other Protestant cities were put in danger by heresy in the course of that real war then you just simply need to develop a higher level of understanding.
I also notice you put war in scare quotes, and you qualify it as war “of beliefs” as if secular sword and fire were not involved. As if torture, imprisonment, death on battlefield and in public square were not involved.
I suspect your knowledge of this time of history is lacking. Self-justify in response - if you will - all you want, but your words and attitude give you away.
If I got emotional, it’s not because of what happened to Servetus 500 years ago, it’s because someone who claims to be a believer today actually agrees it was the right thing to do.
The ends do not justify the means. Genevans would not have been put in any real, physical danger if they’d simply banished Servetus. He was murdered, plain and simple, buy civil magistrates that abused their legitimate power. And Calvin defended them.
Did it silence Servetus’s blasphemy? Sure. But that has no bearing on whether his execution was right or wrong.
Yeah. That should be “by” civil magistrates. Ooops.
>He was murdered, plain and simple,
A lawyful trial, conviction, and carrying out of the sentence is not murder.