Thanks for posting that article Stan. It was a pleasure to read, very edifying. I like that it points out the fact that Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva for many years, and had many conflicts with the men who actually did run the city.
John Calvin has to be one of the most maligned and misunderstood men in the history of the church
He was maligned and misunderstood even for the book under discussion: Psychopannychia. In “Two Views of Hell”, Edward William Fudge advances the thesis that Calvin persuaded Luther to reject conditional immortality and set, by this work, the entire reformation on a wrong track. Here is from pages 194, 195:
Many Anabaptists, meanwhile, taught that human beings are entirely mortal, that there is no conscious awareness betweem earthly death and the resurrection. The wicked, they said, will finally perish in hell and cease to exist forever after. John Calvin responded to their teaching with his first theological book, Psychopannychia. In this work Calvin denounces them as “some dregs of Anabaptists” and a “nefarious herd.” Calvin even warns his readers:
“Remember that the Catabaptists (whom, as embodying all kinds of abominations, it is sufficient to have named) are the authors of this famous dogma. Well may we suspect anything that proceeds from such a forge--a forge which has already fabricated, and is daily fabricating, so many monsters”
Calvin quotes from the Bible throughout this vitriolic work. Yet whenever Scripture speaks of the dead as “asleep” or refers to the final “destruction” of the wicked, Calvin always explains that these words do not mean what they appear to mean. Like the church fathers who preceded him, Calvin acknowledges that the soul is created by God and that God is able to destroy it. But when he encounters Scripture that appear to say that God will do just that, Calvin reverts to his traditionalist roots and explains that the texts mean that the soul will never be destroyed but will suffer pain forever.
When Lutherrecognized the intesity of Calvin’s passion on this subject, he drew backand did not pursue his own reservations concerning the immortality of the soul. The result was predictable.
“Soul sleep lost what small chance it might have had to be considered a debatable doctrine, a thing indifferent. Once it was identified solely with the Anabaptists, there was no hope for a hearing before respectable Protestants. . . . Unchallenged by the doctrine of a Reformation church of comparable stature, the view of the churches of Geneva and Zurich (and of Rome) on the nature of the soul had to prevail in England.”
At one of its most important intersections, then, the road to traditionalism was paved with the stones of Reformation politics.
I became accustomed to arminian critics who think that because Calvin is “our pope”, we believe in the five points of calvinism. Fudge’s remarks add a new dimension to the already ugly portrait of Calvin as a dictator. He’s accused of setting the entire reformed churches, including Luther and his followers to the wrong track regarding hell. Perhaps even Calvin would be surprised to hear how he was able to intimidate Luther who was not intimidated even by the pope. For me, what Fugdes writes is a lesson in the following sense: we tend to see ourselves as objective, biblical students, and look at those who disagree with us as biased, driven by personal motivations, subjective. We need constantly to check and re-check our motivations, our presuppositions and test them in conversation with the Bible and other interpreters of it.
While Calvin does use some phrases that sound harsh to our modern ears (and remember, the translation we have all read is in Victorian English), such as “let them answer, if they are not very stupid”, or “paltry quibble”, etc., he does say this in his introduction to the reader, “On again reading this discussion, I observe that, in the heat of argument, some rather severe and harsh expressions have escaped me, which may, perhaps, give offense to delicate ears...” While he readily admits that he has written sometimes harshly, his argument, as Fudge seems to suggest, is not “those Anabaptists came up with it, so don’t believe it!” It is much easier to paint the “tyrant of Geneva” caricature of Calvin and ignore everything he says than it is to actually deal seriously with his arguments from the Scriptures. It’s also funny that Fudge says that Calvin argues that “those passages don’t mean what they say”, when this is exactly the tactic of someone who embraces soul sleep. “He said, ‘TODAY, you will be with me in paradise’ ?! Well, he didn’t mean TODAY...” I couldn’t help but laugh a little bit when Calvin says this though, right after quoting from Revelation 6, “The souls of the dead cry aloud, and white robes are given unto them! O sleeping spirits! what are white robes to you? Are they pillows on which you are to lie down and sleep?”, even though this is probably offensive to people who believe soul sleep to be correct.
Thanks for sharing that Gabriel. I agree with your conclusion, that we must continuously check our motives and presuppositions, since it is all too tempting to go for the ad hominem rather than deal with the argument itself.
In fairness to Edward Fudge, even though he doesn’t accept Calvin’s view on the soul, he does accept Calvins’s 5 points of Tulip, and actually has written some good work against his own Church of Christ denomination who are Arminian.
I don’t agree with everything Calvin wrote either, but I admire the greater part of his work and life.
Maybe I should clarify, I have nothing against Mr. Fudge. I just find his argument to be a bad one. It just seems that many times when people disagree with Calvin theologically it’s time for the “tyrant of Geneva” portrait. Someone doesn’t like predestination? Just bring out the story of Servetus. Someone doesn’t like the sovereignty of God over creation and providence? Just make accusations about Calvin having people flogged publically. Someone doesn’t like his work Psychopannychia? Just say that he intimidated Luther and told people that it was all the Anabaptists’ doing.
I’m not trying to start an argument here, just pointing out that it’s easier to make ad hominem arguments than to deal with the real issues at hand. I don’t agree with everything Calvin wrote either, and I have no delusions that he was some kind of perfect sinless person. He was just as much in need of the grace of God as any of us. I just find Mr. Fudge’s argument in this case to be very superficial, kind of like poisoning the well so that if one reads the passages Calvin brings up in defense of his position, they will have no effect.
In fairness to Edward Fudge, even though he doesn’t accept Calvin’s view on the soul, he does accept Calvins’s 5 points of Tulip, and actually has written some good work against his own Church of Christ denomination who are Arminian.
I don’t agree with everything Calvin wrote either, but I admire the greater part of his work and life.
Oh, Stan, just disagreeing with Calvin does not automatically means maligning Calvin. It’s healthy to disagree even with great men’s of faith, it’s a sign that we don’t look at them as being infallible. Fudge’s argument is surprising because, especially because he had accepted TULIP, he’s using the same argument that Soli Deo Gloria put forth as “it’s time for the “tyrant of Geneva” portrait”. As a 5 point Calvinist, I hardly believe that Fudge had not felt how weak this argument was used against himself, in order to discredit his own position. Still he’s willing to use the same argument without a blink.
I find the argument a weak one, and it raises a flag regarding the position of anyone who uses it. I would not use it if I can instead point to the internal flaws of the position I disagree with. Fudge’s accusation that those who believe in eternal hell argue that “those passages don’t mean what they say” repeats itself as a mantra, and Soli Deo Gloria pointed already to the weakness of this argument.
What I learned is indeed to be careful in not assuming too quickly that the person with whom I disagree is biased versus “i’m objective”. We all have biases, blind spots, and hermeneutical presuppositions that color our understanding of the Bible. Being aware of our own lens and checking them against the Bible itself is a reasonable position.
The five-points of Calvinism are predicated upon the non-negotiable foundational truth of the dualistic nature of man; namely, body and soul. Thus, Edward Fudge doesn’t really believe what he says he does. The regenerated heart doesn’t sacrilegiously sing or exclaim, “It is well with my BREATH.” Importantly, the traditional view about the nature of man coheres well with other biblical teachings--including the Gospel itself. Getting the Gospel right should be our top priority.
Excellent point, Dennis! You can’t even have the beginning of TULIP ("Total Depravity") without an actual, totally dead spirit that is at enmity with God, and in bondage to sin, being dead to God but very much alive to sin. Otherwise, we would simply be able to make a “choice” for salvation naturally (Pelagianism). And not even Arminianism teaches that! But that is what the teaching of soul-/spirit-lessness (materialism) leads to. And we can see this very clearly in materialist religions such as Seventh-day Adventism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
That’s a great point Dennis. How exactly does “breath” become regenerated? If there is no personal immaterial part of man, how is he “spiritually dead” in the first place? I’m not sure if Mr. Fudge holds to the same dogmatic “breath” interpretation as Adventists, but your thoughts on this have serious implications as to the possibility of the Adventist church ever embracing a Biblical soteriology (I wasn’t holding my breath).
On a side note, my wife attended the first of our new members classes today at our church. I hope to be able to attend the rest of them with her when I get home. One notable point: the only requirement to be a member is belief in the Gospel. What a novel idea!
When Scripture uses fire concerning hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be--not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.
The only thing I could say for sure is that hell means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to be hell...When Scripture uses fire concerning hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it’s going to be--not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.” (Interview with Billy Graham, “Of Angels, Devils and Messages from God,” Time magazine, November 15, 1993, p. 74)
John Calvin has to be one of the most maligned and misunderstood men in the history of the church
Stan
And as a follow-up to the above article, I would like to invite you to listen to one of the greatest gospel sermons regarding John Calvin, but this sermon goes far beyond the gospel ministry of Calvin and shows how practical the gospel is and how God is contnuing to save mightily.
I was outside last night playing with the dog after I got back from putting Marti back into the hospital, and being a little down, I had my I-phone outside with me and was able to hear this gospel sermon. By the time the sermon was over, I was both in tears and praising God for his goodness and mercy!
John Calvin has to be one of the most maligned and misunderstood men in the history of the church
Stan
And as a follow-up to the above article, I would like to invite you to listen to one of the greatest gospel sermons regarding John Calvin, but this sermon goes far beyond the gospel ministry of Calvin and shows how practical the gospel is and how God is contnuing to save mightily.
I was outside last night playing with the dog after I got back from putting Marti back into the hospital, and being a little down, I had my I-phone outside with me and was able to hear this gospel sermon. By the time the sermon was over, I was both in tears and praising God for his goodness and mercy!
The speaker Julius Kim interweaves a wonderful story of intrigue with an incredible experience from his own life. This sermon has rejuvenated my zeal for Reformation faith.
