No. 32. >> Okay. I'm sold on the value. So let me get us started. In reading and discussing theology I've heard the word Calvinism used a lot. I know the name John Calvin. And I've heard him described as Reformed. But what does that mean? Could you tell us more about him? And was he a contemporary of Luther? >>DR. LAWRENCE R. RAST, JR.: Well, David, you've put your finger on something very important here. In fact, oftentimes at the seminary students will use the word Reformed just kind of as a throw-away for everybody who is Protestant but not Lutheran. And I don't think that does justice to this particular tradition. What you have in the Reformed tradition is a thoughtful theological position that is very consistent, perhaps in some ways too consistent. One that's developed over time. One that has as its basis in the minds of its framers a biblical legitimacy. And one that has had a tremendous impact on the shape of Christianity in the United States. So having said that by way of introduction, what do we mean when we talk about the Reformed tradition? In fact, can we say there is "The Reformed tradition?" Well, in terms of comparative symbolics, first of all, we have to be clear about one thing. The Reformed tradition has a variety of texts to which it turns. Unlike Lutheranism where you have a very consolidated set of texts in the Book of Concord, Reformed churches around Europe tended to have more localized texts. So there are texts from the Netherlands. From Germany. From England. From France. From Switzerland and so forth. Significant texts that are definitional for various communities but never were compiled into one book like Lutherans did. And part of the reason for that can be found with its founders, with the people who really began the Reformed tradition. We can list out a bunch. But we'll simply emphasize two. One whom you brought up, namely John Calvin. But one who came before Calvin namely Ulrich Zwingli. Ulrich Zwingli was enormously important for the development of the Reformed tradition through his work first as a priest and then as a reformer in Zurich Switzerland. There he articulated the principle, the formal principle of Scripture alone over against the Roman Catholic three-fold tradition. Zwingli said: We'll use Scripture and nothing more to develop our position. As he pursued that formal principle, what came out of it were increasing concerns over a variety of Roman Catholic teachings. In fact, he went so far as to say that the teaching regarding the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar was, in fact, erroneous. This would lead to some real crisis points with the Lutherans. Now, it's true, Lutherans and Roman Catholics had some important differences in regard to the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. While they both accepted it, the means of that presence or the mode of that presence was understood very differently. Roman Catholics believed in Transubstantiation. That is by virtue of the priestly action of speaking the verba ***ocus corpus mayem, that the bread in the sacrament was literally changed into the body of Christ. And while the accidents remained, the substance had changed. While it still looked and tasted like bread, it had actually become only the body of Christ. The same thing being true of the chalice and the wine it held. That being transubstantiated into the blood of Christ. There no longer being any wine present, though the accidents, taste and smell of wine, remained. Luther disagreed arguing instead for a sacramental presence of Christ. Oftentimes we express that in terms in, with and under the forms of bread and wine. Zwingli found both of these positions problematic. And in fact, said the Supper of the Lord is primarily symbolical. And by virtue of the representation of the bread and wine, that evokes in our minds a cognitive process that creates a kind of memory. Now, there's a presence of sort of Christ in that memory. But in the end it is simply that cognitive process. Not a real presence of the glorified Christ. As a result, when Luther and when Zwinglians met in 1529 at the Marburg Colloquy they could not come to agreement on that point. They agreed on many other things. But on that point they remained divided. Zwingli himself would die two years later in 1531 in battle against the Roman Catholics. And at that point leadership in the Reformed tradition was in something of a vacuumed state. Who would fill Zwingli's shoes? The man who did was John Calvin. Calvin articulated a theological position already in 1536 in his most famous work "The Institutes," "The Institutes of the Christian Religion." He revised that book several times over the course of his remaining life. And in fact, it grew and became larger over time. And continues to be an important resource for understanding the Reformed tradition. Now, with Calvin, there's a little bit of different emphasis that you find on two particular points. True, he would say the formal principle, the basis for everything he believed, taught, confessed, would be the Scriptures. The once again formal principle being sola scriptura. But the manner in then which he drew forth from that Scripture led him to some different conclusions. For example, when it came to the question of the Lord's Supper and the presence of Christ in the sacrament, a burning issue between Reformed and Lutherans, and certainly between Protestants and Catholics, Calvin offered a different explanation than Zwingli had. And it's important to keep these two clear. Where Zwingli largely focused on the symbolic representation, Calvin talked about a spiritual presence. A real spiritual presence. Perhaps a spiritual real presence. Nonetheless, Calvin would say that by virtue of participation in the dominical meal, established by the Lord himself, our faith is excited and drawn up to heaven where we feed upon Christ in our hearts by faith. It is a real participation of the believer with Christ feeding upon him. But it happened primarily spiritually through faith. In some ways you might think that Calvin was trying to shoot the gap, if you will, between Zwingli's more representative approach and Luther's more real sacramental approach. You might say he was trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Nonetheless, the Lutherans never found this satisfying, this explanation of Calvin satisfying. Saying that it still compromised the clear words of Scripture: This is my body. And that it was unnecessarily philosophical and confusing and really didn't communicate well to the common people. Better, said the Lutherans, to take Christ at his Word. When Christ says: This is my body, it is, indeed. This is my blood; it is, indeed. Just as Luther had sprawled on the table back in Marburg in 1529: Est Is. So Calvin had a different perspective than Zwingli in regard to the Sacrament of the Altar and the presence of Christ. He also opened up a door that would be enormously important for the Reformed tradition. Now, in this respect Zwingli had already spoken much about the sovereignty of God. Calvin takes that and builds upon it. And then offers opportunities for those who follow him to build upon it even more. What I mean is this: In one of the later editions of his "Institutes of the Christian Religion," Calvin begins towards the latter part of the book to consider the question of election or predestination. Calvin was deeply trained in law. And thought like a lawyer. As a result, he tended to bring a very rational approach to his theological endeavors. And as a result of that, believed that if one were to posit something on one side, it would necessarily have a result on the other side. Thus, for example, when one began to talk about the Doctrine of Election, that's God's choosing of some for salvation, Calvin began to extrapolate from that that one should also have the converse. Namely, that God at the very least did not choose some or at the very most purposefully reprobated or condemned others. Now, he speculated on this point but really didn't want to bring it to the center of his theology. He said: What we want to focus on is the majesty of God. His monergistic work in human salvation. That he alone is the one who begins, continues and completes human salvation. We don't want to pry too much into these hidden matters. Yet, he said, there is that terrible decree. Now, he tried to temper it. And especially his followers would try to temper this language by talking about God's action in covenanting with human beings. But there was that important shift. And in the wake of Calvin's work, there would be followers who would take this to its radical end. In fact, later on in the 16th Century there would be those who would develop and frame their entire theology around the question of God's unconditional election and reprobation. And this would come to define later Calvinism. Now, the reason that's so important for us is that that particular understanding of Calvinism would characterize the Puritans when they came here to the American colonies in the 1630 vicinity. And that would shape in large part the character of American Christianity over the course of the 1700s and then produce a violent reaction in the early 1800s as a theological transition occurred taking Christianity in the United States in many ways into an entirely new direction. So Calvinism may be a little bit different than what Calvin taught. Certainly with different emphases than what Zwingli taught. But nonetheless, under a broader heading called the Reformed tradition. And that broader heading of the Reformed tradition has many expressions. In fact, many of the groups we've already talked about here in the United States have that Reformed tradition as their roots. The Church of England. The Baptists. The Presbyterians. The Methodists in their own way. All tracing their roots back in one way or another to this Reformed tradition. The manner in which that takes concrete shape we'll need to talk about so we can get to the heart of how this shapes American Christianity.