The First Q&A Session, Part One

Drs. Duncan, Ferguson, Lawson, and Mohler participated in a Q&A forum at the end of the mini-conference on John Calvin. I took notes on nine of the submited questions and will split this up into two parts.

1) Why is Calvin important 500 years later? He was the first great biblical exegete of the church. Other theologians contributed greatly, of course, but Calvin had a genius for explaining the Bible. His time in history was key, for the Reformation was the greatest movement forward for Christianity since the beginning. The opportunity for dissemination of ideas through print and movement of people across national and geographical lines was unprecedented. This produced a multiplication effect. Calvin, as we've previously seen, had a tremendous institutional legacy. Calvin did theology with his life at stake [referring to the implied threat if Rome ever got her hands on him]. We face many of the same challenges today, by the way. He prepared able men who took his teachings to many others.

2) Where should laypeople start to learn about Calvin? His sermons are easy to read. The Institutes are very pastoral. Try his sermons on Galatians and Ephesians. Read the dedicatory letter at the start of the Institutes. Ferguson's lecture on Calvin's commentary on Romans and the commentary itself.

3) What is generally not known about Calvin? According to Ferguson, his favorite game was "Keys" [I'd always heard it was a form of ninepins]. The suffering of the man--virtually every day was something to be endured. Illnesses and infirmities. Emotional and relational difficulties. Yet the joyfulness of his piety is readily apparent. The general historical portrayal of the man found in popular writings is often incorrect. He was not the "tyrant of Geneva." He launched a mission movement, very uncharacteristic of Christian teachers and theologians of his day. He had the dedication of his friends. Remarkable for the strenuousness of the opposition and ugliness of the hate directed toward him in his life.

4) What about Servetus? Michael Servetus was a heretic who would have been condemned anywhere in Europe. He was warned not to come to Geneva. Calvin personally tried to dissuade him. He came anyway, was tried and condemned. Calvin tried to obtain a more merciful form of execution--beheading rather than being burned at the stake. In his answer, Mohler tried to put the matter in its historical context. Servetus was guilty of the equivalent of treason. Heresy is a threat to all of society but the government is not the correct agent for dealing with this. At the time, there was near-universal acceptance of the unitary model of church and state; by comparison, we are used to a radical separation model, making it very difficult for us to understand 16th-century thinking on this matter. Calvin was not the prosecutor for the case against Servetus; at the time, he was not even a citizen of Geneva. The men on the consistory were his political enemies and sought to embarrass him. Servetus begged to stay in Geneva because anywhere in France it would have been far worse for him.

Permit me to editorialize and provide some additional facts regarding the Servetus affair: Opinions on what to do about him were solicited from all the major Swiss cities, and the universal consensus was that he be condemned. Other reformers, even those with a mild reputation such as Philip Melancthon, were similarly firm. He already had the death sentence in France; anywhere within Roman Catholic authority he was a dead man. Was this the right way to deal with theological error? No, and it took Christian Europe a long time to come to grips with the fundamental inconsistency. Yet Calvin takes enormous criticism for the lone example of Servetus when far, far worse went on elsewhere. This again raises the issue of why this man was subject to such intense opposition and hostility and I would look to the gospels for the answer.