As you may or may not know, October 31st is not only Halloween, it is Reformation Day. It was on that day in 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses,” or points for debate to the castle church door at Wittenburg sparking what would become the Protestant Reformation. Though Luther is widely regarded as the spark of the Reformation, it was John Calvin whom many considered to be the theologian of the Reformation, codifying many of the doctrines that live on to this day in the Protestant Reformed tradition. Yesterday we examined Calvin’s relationship to the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism.” Today I want to examine one of the common charges that comes up with the mention of Calvin’s name.

Mention the name John Calvin to many and they picture a dry, dusty academic who was only concerned with esoteric doctrines removed from practical living. Others will tell you that he was the greatest theologian to have ever lived and still others will tell you with disgust that he was nothing more than a horrible murderer. Murderer? Really? The truth is that few incidents are open to as much speculation and contention as what took place between John Calvin and Michael Servetus.

Though a series of circumstances, Calvin found himself living in Geneva, a city he had originally only intended to pass through on his way to Strasbourg. By request from William Farel, Calvin soon found himself at the center of the religious and legal life of Geneva. Unlike Modern America, the separation of church and state was unknown at this time and though Calvin was part of the clergy, he was also trained as a lawyer and also exerted great civil influence. After being expelled from the city after the issue of excommunication came to a head with man of the city’s elite, Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541.

Upon his return to Geneva, one of Calvin’s first concerns was a series of ordinances that placed the government of the church in Geneva in the hands of the Consistory, whose members were the pastors and lay elders. Since there were give pastors, the lay elders held the majority of the positions in the Consistory, but Calvin’s influence was such that the Consistory usually followed his advice.

Over the next several years, the Consistory and the city government repeatedly clashed. The church, under Calvin’s promptings sought to influence the lives of the city’s citizens, who were also members of the church. By 1553, those who opposed Calvin’s authority in Geneva had come again to power in Geneva and Calvin’s political position was precarious at best.

It was during this time that the famous (or infamous) scene with Michael Servetus took place. Servetus was a Spanish physician whose physiological studies greatly contributed to medical science. But he was also the author of a number of theological treatises. Among other things, he argued that the union of church and state that happened after Constantine’s conversion was a great apostasy. He also vehemently argued against the doctrine of the Trinity and he was being tried as a heretic by the Catholic Inquisition in France. In fact, he had recently escaped from an Inquisition prison when he found himself passing through Geneva and was captured. The only reason he was not executed in France was because he escaped.

Servetus was quickly arrested and as the chief theological official, Calvin prepared a list of thirty-eight charges against him. Some who opposed Calvin’s authority sided with Servetus, arguing that since he had been condemned by the Catholics as a heretic, he should be seen as an ally in the Reformation. In response, the government sought the advice of various Protestant advisers from Switzerland. All who were asked agreed that Servetus was a heretic, not only by Catholic standards but also by Protestant standards. This put an end to the opposition’s case and Servetus was burned to death. Though it matters little to some, Calvin actually argued for a less cruel form of death: beheading.

At the time and now, Servetus’ death was severely criticized. His death has become for many, a symbol of the rigid dogmatism of Geneva under Calvin’s influence. Surely there are grounds to the argument that the judgment was harsh and that Calvin played a large role in the proceedings. However, we must not lose sight of the brutal fact that Geneva was acting no differently than were both Protestant and Catholics all over Europe. During that time, when church and state were often combined, there was little tolerance for heresy and it was often punished by death.

Servetus had already been condemned as a heretic by the French Inquisition which had not burned him only because he had escaped. Those wishing to condemn Calvin as a murderer must extend their criticism, for it is certainly applicable elsewhere. The Catholics had already condemned him to die and advisers from Switzerland were consulted on the matter. Calvin was certainly involved in Servetus’ execution, but to call it murder betrays a weak grasp on historical theology at best and outright slander at worst.

While we may not agree with what was done, Calvin was acting squarely within his tradition. It was commonplace, not just for church and state to blend together, but for those those deemed heretics to be put to death. While we no longer put heretics to death (we sell their books alongside everyone else’s), neither do we take doctrinal precision as seriously. Servetus’ death reminds us just how seriously Calvin, the French Inquisition and others took Scripture and their fidelity to it. While we may not defend their methods, we can commend their zeal, even if you feel it was overboard, misplaced or both.

But just as we cannot fully condemn Calvin for his role in Servetus’ death, neither can we gloss over it as though it is unimportant. The death of anyone must always be taken seriously and this incident ought to cause us to think deeply about the relationship between church and state, particularly in light of the New Covenant. But we must strive to be good students of history, actually looking at the facts rather than accepting opinions.

As we celebrate Reformation Day, me take both God and His Word seriously, learning from those who have gone before us, both from their successes and their mistakes.

• Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
• Read The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez.
• Learn about the Reformation Day Symposium at Challies.com.

The late Jerry Falwell, on Friday the 13th, April, 2007, in a Liberty University chapel service, called Calvinism heresy. The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology defines heresy as: “a belief or teaching contradicting Scripture and Christian theology.” Ergun Caner, current Liberty president once said: “Calvinists are worse than Muslims.”

What is this causing such ire? I thought we were Christians, why take a name other than Christ’s? Who is Calvin that he has an “ism” and what does this “ism” have to do with the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism,” which others call the “Doctrines of Grace?” As we approach Reformation Day, I thought it might be helpful to examine a bit of the history behind these famous (or infamous) “Five Points.”

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses,” or points for debate, on the door of the castle church at Wittenburg sparking what would later come to be known as the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church taught that not only could they dispense grace, they could sell it in what they called indulgences. This sparked Luther’s historic move and he wanted to publicly debate that and other issues.

Luther didn’t intend to leave Catholicism, he wanted to reform it from within. That’s why it was known as the Reformation and why you hear of Reformed theology and “Protestant” because they were protesting the abuses and doctrinal errors of the Catholic Church. Luther died in 1546 in Esleben, the city of his birth. Though Luther is considered the spark of the Reformation, it was John Calvin who is considered to be the theologian of the Reformation, codifying many of its doctrines.

Calvin was born in Noyon, France in 1509. Exactly how Calvin came to break with Rome is unknown. Unlike Luther, he wrote little about his soul’s turmoil. But he did resign his ecclesiastical posts in 1534, wanting to quietly study the Scriptures and write about his faith. Some of these writings became The Institutes of the Christian Religion a two-volume treatise on a wide variety of doctrines. Through a variety of circumstances, Calvin found himself in Geneva furthering the Reformation. He wrote, preached and lectured in Geneva and saw his own theological shadow loom large over the growing Protestant landscape. Calvin died in 1564. But how did we move from Calvin to Calvinism, especially the “Five Points” that have come, for many, to summarize Reformed doctrine?

After Calvin’s death, much Protestant theology became centered in the Netherlands. Jacob Hermandzoon whose name was Latinized into Jacob (or sometimes James) Arminius, a distinguished Dutch pastor and professor whose theological training agreed with Calvin and the theology of the Reformation, soon found himself at the center of a theological storm. He was trained in part by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva but soon returned to Holland where he gained recognition for his preaching in Amsterdam. Because of his good theological reputation, the church leadership of Amsterdam asked him to refute the opinions of Dirck Koornhert, who particularly rejected the Reformed doctrine of predestination,. Arminius studied his writings and, with a view to refuting Koornhert, compared them to Scripture, early Christian theology and Reformed Theology, and after a struggle of conscience, he said that Koornhert was right.

Arminius soon became professor at the University of Leiden in 1603 and his opinions became a matter of public debate. A colleague, Francis Gomarus, held to predestination in the strictest sense and the two soon clashed. The issue was not if the bible teaches predestination, they agreed that it does; they debated the basis of predestination. For Arminius, it was God’s foreknowledge of those who would have faith in Christ, while Gomarus held that faith itself was the result of predestination. At the height of controversy, in 1609, Arminius died and political and economic considerations were soon added to the controversy. The Dutch struggle for independence from Spain was long and bitter and independence was not assured. Many merchants wanted improved relations with Spain but were opposed by the clergy who feared that ties to Spain threatened doctrinal purity. The clergy sided with Reformed Theology, while the merchants with Arminius.

In 1610, the Arminians issued five points of doctrine to be adopted official church positions. This was called a “Remonstrance” and those issuing it soon became known as the “Remonstrants.” The first ambiguously defines predestination, affirming that God determined before the foundation of the world that those who believe in Christ will be saved. The second, that Jesus died for all people, although only believers receive the benefit of His passion. The third denies the charge of Pelagianism, that people were basically good in the eyes of God. In response, they said that people can do nothing good on their own and that God’s grace is absolutely necessary. The fourth rejects both Arminius and Gomarus, saying that people can resist grace and the last argues that it is possible to fall from Grace, or to “lose” salvation.

In 1618, the Dutch Estates General called an assembly to review these points and end the debate. At this time, the idea of a separation of church and state had not yet been implemented, so it was the Estates General calling for a review of doctrine. That assembly, the Synod of Dort, met from November 1618, to May 1619 and included 27 delegates from Great Britain, Switzerland and Germany with almost 70 Dutch delegates, of which nearly half were clergy or professors of theology. The first sessions were devoted to administrative matters and ordered a new Dutch translation of the Bible. But the main purpose was the ongoing doctrinal and economic dispute. The Synod condemned Arminianism, offering five points of their own in response, which have become known as the hallmarks of orthodox Calvinism (though Calvin himself was dead, his influence lived on). Though they were given in a different order, we recognize them by the acronym TULIP.

• TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Not that we are as bad as we could be, but human nature was so corrupted at the Fall that we cannot and do not come to God on our own. Genesis 6:5 tells us that after the Fall, every intention of the thoughts of our hearts is evil, only continually. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that we can’t trust our own hearts. Jeremiah 13:23 says that like a leopard cannot change its spots or an Ethiopian the color of his skin, we who are accustomed to doing evil cannot do good.

Romans 3:9-12: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

• UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

God’s choosing of the predestined is not based on God’s foreknowledge of our response but the inscrutable will of God.

John 6:44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Romans 9:15-16: For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

• LIMITED ATONEMENT/PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

Not that Christ’s atoning work was deficient, but that Christ died with a specific eye to save the elect. In John 10, Jesus says that He gives His life for His own sheep and in Ephesians 5:25, Paul says that Christ gave up His life for the church:

John 10:26: you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

• IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

When God draws us to salvation, we will respond. Romans 9:19 asks: “Who can resist His will?”

Isaiah 43:13: Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?

• PERSEVERANCE/PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS

Those whom God chooses will persevere in grace and will not fall from it. Although this perseverance is not the work of the believer, but of God, it gives us trust in salvation and steadfastness in doing good even though we still wrestle against the power of indwelling sin.

Romans 8:35-39: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Immediately after the Synod of Dort, severe measures were taken against the Remonstrants, including a sentence of death and a life imprisonment. Almost a hundred Arminian ministers were ordered to leave the country or face life in prison and those attending Arminian churches faced huge fines.

What can we draw from this? There are several aspects to consider, regardless of whether or not you are convinced of the “Five Points of Calvinism,” each of which centers on the idea of our relationship to doctrine. Surely there are more, but here are ten points of consideration, some with further mediation:

• Our doctrine must be God-centered

Whether or not you agree with the “Five Points of Calvinism,” it is important that you see that there was an intentionality to keep a high view of God rather than man at the center.

• Our doctrine does not define us; Christ does
• Our doctrine must be consistent
• We cannot say “Don’t give me doctrine, just give me Jesus”
• We are expected to consider challenging doctrines

One of the things that keeps people away from discussions about doctrines like these is that they can be intimidating and we often shrink from challenges. But Scripture expects us to rise to the challenge. Ephesians 4:14 says that we must know doctrine so that we aren’t fooled and tossed around likes waves in the sea:

Hebrews 5:12-14: For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

The writer to the Hebrews says that, just like a child moves from milk to solid food, we must, in our Christian lives, move from the elementary principles to the more advanced. This means that we must be much in Scripture, we must be much about the business of thinking hard about hard Scriptures. This flies in the face of so much of what passes for Modern Christianity which tries to downplay difficult doctrines and tries hard to make everyone feel comfortable. It’s not comfortable to be stretched, but that’s exactly what needs to happen because when we’re stretched, we change. This of course, takes for granted that doctrine is important:

2 Timothy 1:13: Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

This is part of our job as churches, to provide ways and encouragement for people to move, from the elementary principles to ever-increasing things of difficulty. This means not only intellectually, but we are to be making progress in our fight against sin. We need to be thinking about Scripture, persisting in memorization, reading difficult books, thinking more about the things of God and fighting more against sin.

• Our lives and our doctrine cannot be separated

Notice that in the developments leading up to the Synod of Dort, people’s theological convictions affected every other area of life. Theological convictions were intertwined with political and economic considerations. In 1 Timothy 4:16, emphasizing this, Paul tells Timothy: keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching.

As much as we try, what we believe about God and the Bible and sin and salvation and everything in between, has tremendous implications on the rest of life. We need to overcome the notion that we are segmented people, as though we can believe one thing one area of life without it affecting other areas. We are whole people and our lives cannot be segmented.

• We must strive to love even those with whom we disagree
• We must strive for humble orthodoxy

It can be a dangerous thing when people begin to believe certain doctrines passionately. It can be a good thing, but it can also be the cause of much division because for many, theological precision is accompanied with pride. There are necessary issues over which we break fellowship. These are what we call issues of orthodoxy. If you get them wrong, you will not be saved. The deity of Christ and the Trinity are prime examples. However, many of the issues that get us most upset are more matters of personal preference than questions of orthodoxy. As we take care to make sure our doctrine is correct, we must also take great pains to make sure our hearts are not puffed up. Paul warns us that:

1 Corinthians 13:1-2: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Paul says that he could have all knowledge, but without love, it is for nothing. I wonder how many of us who have spent much time wrestling with difficult theological issues need to hear that startling truth again? In case there’s any question, Paul says:

2 Timothy 2:23-26: Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

We must develop the wisdom and discernment to know the difference between orthodoxy and foolish, ignorant controversies. We must not be quarrelsome, correcting in gentleness with the hopes that God would grant our opponents repentance. When was the last time you were in a doctrinal debate and prayed for your opponent’s repentance? Our doctrine must drive us to love God deeper which in turn should cause us to love others more fully.

• We must keep a long-term perspective

It was 102 years after Luther nailed his points to the door and 55 years after Calvin’s death that the Synod of Dort codified the Five Points. We want instant gratification and yet it doesn’t always happen. We wrestle with difficult doctrines not just for the immediate church, but also for generations to come.

As we approach Reformation Day, we do well to consider the lasting doctrinal implications of the Reformation but we must also consider the lasting practical lessons for there are many. On an issue such as the “Five Points of Calvinism” that can be quite contentious, we do well to keep in mind that doctrine is meant to teach us about and increase our love for God. On issues that do not compromise orthodoxy, we must be generous and humble. We must be sensitive that others who love the Lord as much as we do just might disagree. As we celebrate our doctrinal heritage, may be celebrate our God even more.

• Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
• Read The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner
• Read Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul
• Read The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez.
• Learn about the Reformation Day Symposium at Challies.com.