File 36. >> Well, Nick has mentioned that he has spent time examining Calvin's theology, but I have to admit that I haven't. Yet I certainly know that his teachings have had an enormous influence on Christianity today. What is it that Calvin taught? How does Calvin's theology compare to Luther's? >> There's a great deal of overlap between Calvin and Luther. Calvin was a strong believer in the sole authority of the scriptures. He believes in salvation through grace alone. He also has high regard for justification by faith. So in many respects, when you read Calvin as, for example, his reply to Cardinal Sadoleto you would say, "Oh, this is great stuff from a Lutheran perspective." Nonetheless, there are particular points where we'd have to say Calvin and Luther differ, and from an overall perspective, I would like to say that I think the emphasis between the two men and their theology is different. It doesn't take too long to read Martin Luther and to realize that for Luther, the gospel is absolutely central. The doctrine that God, for the sake of Christ, forgives us our sins completely and freely, and that we appropriate this solely by faith in Jesus Christ, that is the central doctrine of the Christian religion for Martin Luther and those who follow him. Now, Calvin holds to that doctrine, but when you read, for example, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," I think much more prominent in Calvin's theology than justification is his doctrine of God. We sometimes describe it as the sovereignty of God. The idea that God is absolutely in charge of everything. Now, this is a Christian truth, but the way Calvin uses this Christian truth is such that you get the impression that for Calvin, this is the central doctrine, and other doctrines kind of come out of that and apply to it, but it's the doctrine of God that's of central importance to him. I think a very good way of seeing this is in taking a look at Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Now, you know that Calvin is kind of famous for his doctrine of predestination. In one sense, that's fair, because Calvin taught it and defended it when people opposed it. On the other hand, we don't want to give the impression that Calvin is the only one in Christian history who had a doctrine of predestination. Calvin, for example, always believed that he was simply teaching what St. Augustin taught about predestination. And of course both men would have argued that they were teaching what Paul taught about predestination in Romans and Ephesians and elsewhere. But be that as it May, Calvin certainly did teach predestination, and in his description of predestination, we can clearly see the importance of the sovereignty of God. Now, by predestination, we simply mean the idea that from all eternity, God has determined the eternal destiny of people. Now, there are different ways of describing this, but Calvin's way of describing it is certainly straightforward and rather dramatic. Let me quote Calvin for you on predestination. "We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man, for all are not created in equal condition. Rather, eternal life is fore ordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death." From Calvin's perspective, therefore, predestination applies to every individual person. Predestination is God's completely undetermined, unconditional decision for all eternity to send some people to heaven and other people to hell. This decision is unconditional and it is absolute. It is not anything that the human being can affect or change or determine. It's God's decision, entirely God's decision. Now, that's the sovereignty of God in John Calvin. Now, this was an issue that later on Lutherans would contest with Calvin, and although we recognize that there is a biblical doctrine of predestination, we hold that this is only applies to those who are going to heaven. That God, indeed, has chosen from all eternity those who are going to be saved. But those who are going to be damned are damned on account of themselves, on account of their refusal, on account first of all, on account of their sins, but then on account of their refusal to listen and to heed the word of God. Let me quote the Formula of Concord to you as a way of in contrast to Calvin here on predestination. Here's the Lutheran doctrine: "Predestination is concerned only with the children of God. It is the cause of their salvation, for he alone brings it about and ordains everything that belongs to it." But then it goes on. "The cause of condemnation is that men do not hear the word of God at all, but willfully despise it, or, if they do hear the word, they pay no attention to it. The fault does not lie in God or in his election, but in their own wickedness." So Lutherans, in contrast to Calvin, hold that salvation, including election, is entirely the responsibility of God, but that damnation is our own responsibility and our own fault. Where for Calvin, his doctrine of God is such that God decides absolutely, from all eternity, both. Both heaven and both hell. That's the that's the doctrine of the sovereignty of God that I'm talking about. Well, besides the doctrine of God, there are other points at which Calvinism differs from Lutheranism, and I think probably the other most famous kind of episode in this regard has to do with the doctrine of the sacraments. Again, especially the doctrine of the Lord's supper. Now, we talked before about what Ulrich Zwingli had to say about the Lord's supper and how he held that it was simply a memorial meal; that it somewhat represented or reminded people of what God had done for them in Christ at the time of his passion. Calvin's not like that. Calvin is not a Zwingli. Calvin tries to take a position between Luther and Zwingli, and he really holds to a doctrine of spiritual presence or spiritual communion. And with in Calvin's thinking, what this means is that when people go to communion, if they are believers, then God in a mysterious way enables them spiritually to communicate with the body and blood of Jesus. Now, like Zwingli, Calvin holds that the body of Jesus can be in but one place, and that one place is in heaven. After the ascension, Jesus is in heaven and his body can be nowhere else but that one place. Nevertheless, because of what the New Testament says about the Lord's supper, Calvin believed that by the power of the spirit, believers have a kind of real communion with the body and blood of Jesus. This is spiritual, as opposed to Luther's doctrine of the real presence. So as I say, Calvin is about halfway between Luther and Zwingli. Once again, however, a key point distinguishing the Lutherans from the Calvinists on this question is the answer to the question: What is it that the unbeliever receives? If an unbeliever goes to communion, what does he receive? Because Calvin believes that the body and blood are offered and received through faith, rather than with the mouth, with the tongue and the teeth. Calvin would say that the unbeliever receives nothing except bread and wine. Lutherans, however, insist that because Jesus said, "This is my body, this is my blood," all who attend the supper receive the body and blood. It takes faith for that body and blood to be of benefit, but apart from faith, the body and blood are still there. Jesus' word does not depend upon our faith. So this is another important point of distinction between Calvin and Luther. Yet another important point of distinction, in terms of Calvin's theology, is one that we've already talked about a little bit, and that is to be his his consideration of the relationship between church and state. Not so much what he had to say about the church, but what he had to say about the state. Because Calvin believed that it was the responsibility of the state to establish and maintain true religion. You probably recall that Luther articulated something known as his two kingdoms doctrine; that there is the church, the kingdom of the right, in which God rules his people through the gospel that changes lives and affects faith and the Christian existence, but then there is also the state which God has established for the suppression of evil. Here God works through the law. Well, Calvin brings the state really close to the church by insisting that it's the job of the Christian state to establish and maintain true religion. And now one more point that distinguishes Luther from Calvinists in terms of theology, and that has to be Calvin's understanding of the law. You know that Lutherans distinguish three functions of the law: The law as a curb to keep men from the gross oprus (ph) of evil; the law as a mirror to show us our sin; the law as a rule that is a guide for Christian living. Of these three, however, the most important for Lutherans is the second, the law that shows us our sin, and so it drives us to Christ as our Savior. For Calvin, that's not the case. Calvin holds the same three functions, but for him, the most important is the third use of the law, the law as a rule, a guide, even a motivation for Christian living. This is a question of emphasis, but it does affect the way you preach and teach. So in churches that go back to Luther, we would expect sermons to concentrate on the gospel message of the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ. That's the key, and that's what transforms the individual. In a Calvinist church, that might be there, or it might not, because there are other things that Calvin has in mind. In particular, this idea that the whole point of the Christian religion is that we might lead a God pleasing life, and so you'd have a lot more emphasis upon Christian morality, Christian society, and even building up a Christian nation. So although the two churches and the two traditions do have a lot in common, there are these very important themes that distinguish Calvinist religion from the Lutheran faith.