Monday, April 24, 2006
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Lesson 28: The Anabaptists
The Anabaptist movement began in 1525 at Zürich, as the radical wing of the Swiss Reformation which had begun there under Zwingli. Zwingli did not go far enough, they believed, and so George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Felix Manz began to agitate for additional reform, including believer's baptism and a "gathered" or "pure" church, i.e. a church where members were there because they truly believed and been baptized, not because of state intervention or mandatory church attendance.
This more radical movement soon got beyond control, and some of its leaders were put to death, and others with their followers were banished.
In January 1525, a public debate was held in Zurich, with Zwingli and his colleague Bullinger facing Grebel and his friends, Manz, Reublin, and Blaurock. The radicals defended their views, denying that infant baptism had any sanction in the Scriptures. The city council ruled in favor of Zwingli and infant baptism.
Meetings of the Anabaptists were forbidden, and parents were ordered to have their infants baptized within eight days if they had not already done so, on pain of expulsion from the city. The response came on January 21 when Grebel, a layman, baptized Blaurock, an ordained priest. Hitherto the Anabaptists had openly opposed infant baptism; now by this fateful step, introduced the practice of believer's baptism.
The Anabaptists also pushed for communism. Its following, recruited especially from the working classes, became considerable, not only in Switzerland, but also in southern Germany and Austria. The Anabaptists' teaching added substantially to the causes of the Peasants' War which broke out (1524) in the very territory where the Anabaptists were influential. At first a revolt against feudal oppression, the Peasants' War became, under the leadership of Muentzer (an Anabaptist leader), a war against all constituted authorities, and an attempt to establish by revolution a utopia, with absolute equality and the community of goods. The defeat of the peasants meant, to a great extent, the dispersion of the Anabaptists. Additionally, some town councils, such as that of Zürich (1526) decreed the severest penalties against their adherents. Still in spite of defeat and constant repression, the Anabaptists thrived and spread across the continent.
The movement seemed somehow to answer a strong religious and social demand, and in spite of persecutions, and of an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 that every Anabaptist should be put to death, it continued to spread. Anabaptists embraced a wide variety of teachings, differing according to their leader or the locality; but the one thing which was common to them all, and which seemed most sharply to distinguish them from other Protestants, was their objection to infant baptism, and their insistence that adult Christians who had been baptized in infancy should be baptized again.
Their interest in the question of baptism was not their primary motivation. Their first concern was in the establishment of a "pure Church", consisting only of true Christians, reformed from the ground up by its strict adherence in every particular to the teachings of Scripture, which they accepted literally and tried faithfully to follow. Thus they believed that followers of Christ should not resist evil, nor bear arms, nor own private property, nor hold civil office, nor resort to law courts, nor take oaths; and their movement was largely a lay movement. In these respects they resembled the Quakers. In fact, the Quakers of England were influenced by their teaching and example. They also believed in separation of Church and State, and stood firmly for freedom of conscience and against religious persecution. In their view of religious knowledge they were mystics, holding that God makes his truth and will known to the souls of men directly, and they relied much upon the guidance of the Spirit.
Both the Lutherans and the Calvinists preserved the church-state liaison. This liaison was taboo with the Anabaptists, and caused a severe strain, especially with Zwingli who, as we noted earlier, not only depended on the state for financial support of his church but also viewed the militia as something of an arm of the church. Since the Catholics, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists all depended on the church-state liaison, the Anabaptist's insistence on the separation of church and state resulted in tensions with all other groups.
The conservative vs. radical label certainly applies to baptism. The Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists all preserved infant baptism, which they believe was the practice of the early church and also the biblical teaching. The Anabaptists, of course, disagreed. From their perspective we have the following:
The Anabaptists applauded the Calvinist rejection of baptismal regeneration, but still believed that the Calvinists were in grave error in baptizing infants. They worried that the Calvinists would inevitably slip into the more serious error of regarding the baptized children as Christians, even as they denied baptismal regeneration. The danger, according to the Anabaptists, was that evangelizing of the children would suffer—their conversion would not be "worked for" by their parents. Even worse, you would soon reach a state Christianity in say, Switzerland, when everyone had been baptized as an infant—that is you would reach a point where you had a nation of alleged Christians.
Calvinists have indeed had a tendency to make this mistake, of assuming the children Christians (as opposed to treating them as if they were Christian, which is something altogether different) and should thank the Anabaptists for their warning and heed their advice to diligently evangelize their own children. Children need to be made aware of there inherent lost position, rather than a presumed position of being converted.
The Anabaptism call for moderate living and wealth distribution also resulted in persecution. It has been said that a "16th century man who did not drink to excess, curse, or abuse his workmen or family could be suspected of being an Anabaptist and thus persecuted." Some estimates are that thousands died in Europe in the sixteenth century.
In Old Testament times, Israel repeatedly strayed from the line, and God would lovingly bring them back, working through His prophets and supernatural intervention. This ended climactically in AD 70, when the Jewish age came to an end and temple worship ceased.
Mankind was "restored" back to the line by The New Testament church, as established through Christ by Peter, Paul, James and the other apostles. It wasn't long, however, until the New Testament church also wandered. We see this in the Roman Catholic Church both in her denial of the biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, as well as in her insistence on extra-biblical doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary.
So the Reformation, as an outpouring of God's grace and providence, pulled Christendom back to the "true" line. Yet differences developed, and so even among the Protestants and least some, if not all, were teaching some false doctrines.
The hope was, of course, that on the essentials the Protestants could maintain unanimity. On reality, this proved to be a false hope.
In one area in particular, the Calvinists, who were the closest to the Anabaptists, nevertheless believed that the Anabaptists were the cause of the separation. It wasn't on the issue of baptism, but the Anabaptist doctrine of the pure church.
A "pure church" is one in which all members are true, believing Christians. This is, of course, a noble and worthy aim. But it should be regarded as a lofty yet unattainable goal. Why? Because as Augustine pointed out, it is not biblical to assume that this goal can ever be achieved. He taught of the visible and invisible church, and that in the visible church there would always be imposters:
In one way, the Anabaptists held to a rather Roman sounding belief in apostolic succession. In this sense, they were not reformers at all.
Other legacies of the Anabaptists include:
This more radical movement soon got beyond control, and some of its leaders were put to death, and others with their followers were banished.
In January 1525, a public debate was held in Zurich, with Zwingli and his colleague Bullinger facing Grebel and his friends, Manz, Reublin, and Blaurock. The radicals defended their views, denying that infant baptism had any sanction in the Scriptures. The city council ruled in favor of Zwingli and infant baptism.
Meetings of the Anabaptists were forbidden, and parents were ordered to have their infants baptized within eight days if they had not already done so, on pain of expulsion from the city. The response came on January 21 when Grebel, a layman, baptized Blaurock, an ordained priest. Hitherto the Anabaptists had openly opposed infant baptism; now by this fateful step, introduced the practice of believer's baptism.
The Anabaptists also pushed for communism. Its following, recruited especially from the working classes, became considerable, not only in Switzerland, but also in southern Germany and Austria. The Anabaptists' teaching added substantially to the causes of the Peasants' War which broke out (1524) in the very territory where the Anabaptists were influential. At first a revolt against feudal oppression, the Peasants' War became, under the leadership of Muentzer (an Anabaptist leader), a war against all constituted authorities, and an attempt to establish by revolution a utopia, with absolute equality and the community of goods. The defeat of the peasants meant, to a great extent, the dispersion of the Anabaptists. Additionally, some town councils, such as that of Zürich (1526) decreed the severest penalties against their adherents. Still in spite of defeat and constant repression, the Anabaptists thrived and spread across the continent.
The movement seemed somehow to answer a strong religious and social demand, and in spite of persecutions, and of an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 that every Anabaptist should be put to death, it continued to spread. Anabaptists embraced a wide variety of teachings, differing according to their leader or the locality; but the one thing which was common to them all, and which seemed most sharply to distinguish them from other Protestants, was their objection to infant baptism, and their insistence that adult Christians who had been baptized in infancy should be baptized again.
Their interest in the question of baptism was not their primary motivation. Their first concern was in the establishment of a "pure Church", consisting only of true Christians, reformed from the ground up by its strict adherence in every particular to the teachings of Scripture, which they accepted literally and tried faithfully to follow. Thus they believed that followers of Christ should not resist evil, nor bear arms, nor own private property, nor hold civil office, nor resort to law courts, nor take oaths; and their movement was largely a lay movement. In these respects they resembled the Quakers. In fact, the Quakers of England were influenced by their teaching and example. They also believed in separation of Church and State, and stood firmly for freedom of conscience and against religious persecution. In their view of religious knowledge they were mystics, holding that God makes his truth and will known to the souls of men directly, and they relied much upon the guidance of the Spirit.
The Five Points of the Anabaptists
- Sola Scriptura—Anabaptists were sometimes more consistent than the other Reformers in their insistence on biblical authority for certain practices in matters of church polity and worship.
- Separation of Church and State—Anabaptists saw the church as the assembly of the redeemed, antithetical to the world. For this reason they advocated separation of church and state.
- Freedom of Conscience—because of the Anabaptists' convictions about the role of the secular state, they believed that the ultimate remedy for heresy was excommunication, not execution. They steadfastly opposed the persecution that was so characteristic of their age. They denied that the state had a right to punish or execute anyone for religious beliefs or teachings. This was a revolutionary notion in the Reformation era.
- Believers' Baptism—The Anabaptists saw no biblical support for infant baptism. (Not all anabaptists made an issue of the mode of baptism, and some practiced sprinkling.)
- Holiness of Life—Anabaptists emphasized the spiritual experience, practical righteousness, and obedience to divine standards. They had no tolerance for those who claimed to be justified by faith while living unfaithful lives. Anabaptists pointed out that Scripture says, "Faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:20). In this regard they were in agreement with the other Protestants. We recall that, in equation form, their collective differences from Rome can be expressed:
Rome: Faith + Works → Salvation
Protestants: Faith → Salvation + Works
The Anabaptists in relation to other Reformers
In the issue of how conservative the various reformation churches are generally breaks down this way: The Lutherans were the most conservative (meaning they deviated from Rome the least), the Anabaptists were the most radical, and the Calvinists in the middle.Both the Lutherans and the Calvinists preserved the church-state liaison. This liaison was taboo with the Anabaptists, and caused a severe strain, especially with Zwingli who, as we noted earlier, not only depended on the state for financial support of his church but also viewed the militia as something of an arm of the church. Since the Catholics, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists all depended on the church-state liaison, the Anabaptist's insistence on the separation of church and state resulted in tensions with all other groups.
The conservative vs. radical label certainly applies to baptism. The Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists all preserved infant baptism, which they believe was the practice of the early church and also the biblical teaching. The Anabaptists, of course, disagreed. From their perspective we have the following:
Now the Anabaptists rejected out-of-hand (as did the Calvinists) that infants were regenerated. The Catholics and Lutherans held to baptismal regeneration (although somewhat different versions.) As such, it made sense that Catholics and Lutherans treated children as Christians.
Calvinists, on the other hand, were a bit of an enigma to the Anabaptists. At this time, it is useful to go into some detail about the positions of the Calvinists and the Baptists.
The Westminster Confession (1646), which can be considered the creed of the Calvinists, says this about baptism:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.While the London Baptist Confession (1689), which adopted most of the text of the Westminster Confession, modified the chapter on Baptism, to read:
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
- Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
- Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
- The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
- Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.
The Anabaptists applauded the Calvinist rejection of baptismal regeneration, but still believed that the Calvinists were in grave error in baptizing infants. They worried that the Calvinists would inevitably slip into the more serious error of regarding the baptized children as Christians, even as they denied baptismal regeneration. The danger, according to the Anabaptists, was that evangelizing of the children would suffer—their conversion would not be "worked for" by their parents. Even worse, you would soon reach a state Christianity in say, Switzerland, when everyone had been baptized as an infant—that is you would reach a point where you had a nation of alleged Christians.
Calvinists have indeed had a tendency to make this mistake, of assuming the children Christians (as opposed to treating them as if they were Christian, which is something altogether different) and should thank the Anabaptists for their warning and heed their advice to diligently evangelize their own children. Children need to be made aware of there inherent lost position, rather than a presumed position of being converted.
Persecution of the Anabaptists
The Protestants under Zwingli were the first to persecute the Reformation Anabaptists. Felix Manz became the first martyr in 1527. On May 20, 1527, Catholic authorities executed Michael Sattler. King Ferdinand declared drowning (called the third baptism) "the best antidote to Anabaptism". This sickening joke—that drowning was appropriate for those who promoted immersion, is one of the sorriest chapters of Christian history.The Anabaptism call for moderate living and wealth distribution also resulted in persecution. It has been said that a "16th century man who did not drink to excess, curse, or abuse his workmen or family could be suspected of being an Anabaptist and thus persecuted." Some estimates are that thousands died in Europe in the sixteenth century.
The long line of the "true" church
God has always had a proper path for his children, so it is indisputable that there is a line from which, in a perfect world, the church would not stray.In Old Testament times, Israel repeatedly strayed from the line, and God would lovingly bring them back, working through His prophets and supernatural intervention. This ended climactically in AD 70, when the Jewish age came to an end and temple worship ceased.
Mankind was "restored" back to the line by The New Testament church, as established through Christ by Peter, Paul, James and the other apostles. It wasn't long, however, until the New Testament church also wandered. We see this in the Roman Catholic Church both in her denial of the biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, as well as in her insistence on extra-biblical doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary.
So the Reformation, as an outpouring of God's grace and providence, pulled Christendom back to the "true" line. Yet differences developed, and so even among the Protestants and least some, if not all, were teaching some false doctrines.
The hope was, of course, that on the essentials the Protestants could maintain unanimity. On reality, this proved to be a false hope.
In one area in particular, the Calvinists, who were the closest to the Anabaptists, nevertheless believed that the Anabaptists were the cause of the separation. It wasn't on the issue of baptism, but the Anabaptist doctrine of the pure church.
A "pure church" is one in which all members are true, believing Christians. This is, of course, a noble and worthy aim. But it should be regarded as a lofty yet unattainable goal. Why? Because as Augustine pointed out, it is not biblical to assume that this goal can ever be achieved. He taught of the visible and invisible church, and that in the visible church there would always be imposters:
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. 27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' " (Matt. 13:24-30)The parable of the weeds (and Christ's subsequent explanation) confirms that scripture tells us that at the end of history the visible church will contain both sons of God and sons of the devil. This is analogous to an individual's process of sanctification: while it is noble and proper and commanded that we imitate Christ, it is also just as certain and very unbiblical to assume than any human will reach that level of perfection. The apostle Paul, whom any Christian would hold up as the very model of how we should live, still spoke of constantly striving to perfect his own faith. Likewise, while the church should strive for purity, it is not only naïve to teach that it is possible for success, but also unbiblical.
In one way, the Anabaptists held to a rather Roman sounding belief in apostolic succession. In this sense, they were not reformers at all.
Apostolic succession
This is the theory that the Anabaptists were part of an apostolic succession of churches (or church perpetuity) from the time of Christ. That is, there had been a continuity of small groups completely outside the Catholic Church from New Testament times up to 1525, which continues on to today. Proponents of this view point out many common expressions of belief in these Catholic dissenters. The opponents of this theory emphasize that these non-Catholic groups differed from each other, that they held some heretical views, and/or that they had no connection with one another. This view is held by some Baptists, some Mennonites, and a number of "true church" movements.Justification by Faith Alone
Sadly, some of the Anabaptists in many cases rejected the Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone. They denied the forensic nature of justification as explained by Luther and insisted that the only ground on which sinners can be acceptable to God is a "real" righteousness wrought within the justified person."Menno [Simons], and Anabaptists generally, did not accept Luther's forensic doctrine of justification by faith alone because they saw it as an impediment to the true doctrine of a 'lively' faith which issues in holy living." [Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman, 1988), 269].Perhaps it is fair to note that the Anabaptists thought they detected a tendency toward antinomianism in the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. That was what they argued against. But in doing so they undermined the very foundation of the biblical doctrine of justification. They left people to try to devise a righteousness of their own derived from the law, rather than trusting the perfect righteousness of Christ which God imputes to those who believe (cf. Phil. 3:9; Rom. 4:5-6).
Anabaptist Heritage
Not just modern Baptists are the descendants of the Anabaptists. Several existing denominational bodies may be legitimately regarded as the successors of the Continental Anabaptists — Amish, Baptists, Brethren, Hutterites, Mennonites, Bruderhof Communities and Quakers. Some writers prefer to distinguish institutionally lineal descendants (Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites) and spiritual descendants (Baptists, Brethren, Bruderhof, and Quakers). Nevertheless, some historical connections have been demonstrated for all three of these spiritual descendants, though perhaps not as clearly as the notable institutionally lineal descendants. However, although many see the more well known Anabaptist groups (Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites) as ethnic groups, the Anabaptist bodies of today are largely not ethnically descended from the Continental Anabaptists. According to the Mennonite World Conference (MWC), "Today, close to 1,300,000 believers belong to this faith family; at least 60 percent are African, Asian, or Latin American."Other legacies of the Anabaptists include:
- Freedom of religion
- Priesthood of the believer
- Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice
- Ordinances, not sacraments
Lesson 27 John Calvin (1509-1564)
John Calvin was the greatest of Protestant divines, and, after Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on theology. He was born at Noyon in Picardy, France, 10 July, 1509, and died at Geneva, 27 May, 1564.
Although the three great reformers are usually identified as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, John Calvin was really a second generation reformer. He never met Martin Luther and was, by his own reckoning, converted not long before Zwingli's death. By birth, education, and temper Luther and Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, were very different. Luther was a Saxon peasant, his father a miner; Calvin, like Luther in that he was born a Roman Catholic, sprang from the French middle-class. His father was an attorney in Noyon, where he practiced civil and canon law and served as the secretary to the Catholic Bishop. Luther entered an Augustinian monastery, took a monk's vows, was made a priest and ended up marrying a nun. Calvin never was ordained in the Catholic Church; his training was chiefly in law and the humanities; he took no vows and ended up marrying a Baptist. Luther's eloquence made him popular by its force, humor, rudeness, and vulgar style (once boasting about Rome's constant scrutiny of his every move that "If I break
wind in Wittenberg they smell it in Rome." Calvin spoke to the learned at all times, even when preaching before multitudes. His manner is classical; he uses the weapons of a deadly logic and persuades by a teacher's authority. He wrote French as well as Luther wrote German, and like him has been reckoned a pioneer in the modern development of his native tongue.
According to Philip Melancthon, John Calvin was "the theologian of the reformation." This in spite of the fact that Calvin, as a monergist and a predestinarian, who would argue that we had no more to do with our second birth than our first, was in direct opposition to Melancthon's synergistic view of regeneration. Interestingly, Melancthon and Calvin seemed to genuine affection for one another.
Some trivia: Calvin from the famous comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, was named after John Calvin. It is thought that this reflects the young male character's belief in predestination (as justification for his behavior). His stuffed tiger Hobbes gets his name from philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who held a dim view of human nature.
Calvin would make this point over and over: the Reformers were not heretics, and the reformation was actually a restoration of the ancient and forgotten beliefs of the early church. It was the Roman Church that, especially during the medieval period, had drifted into apostasy and heresy.
Like Luther, Calvin was greatly influenced by Augustine and quotes him liberally in his writings. However, Calvin did not view Augustine as inerrant, and considered his views on baptism to be in grave error. Whereas Augustine believed that unbaptized babies who died were bound for hell, Calvin was in the opposite extreme, believing that the newborns of believers were of the elect and perhaps even Christians, and should be withheld from the Lord's Supper only because they could not discern the body of Christ.
Luther and Calvin were in complete agreement on every important theological matter apart from one: the interpretation of the Lord's Supper. Calvin was a Lutheran, and Luther was a Calvinist.
In 1540, in Strasburg, he befriended John Storder and his wife Idelette de Bure. The two were Anabaptists and part of a community of French refugees. They attended as many of Calvin's sermons and lectures that they could. They invited Calvin to their home and warm friendship developed.
Calvin worked endlessly: he took his pastoral duties seriously; he lectured at the University; he enlarged his Institutes from six chapters to seventeen and saw it published. As a disputant, with his clear vision and sound theology as well as his ability to present arguments, he was chosen as deputy for Strasburg in several conferences which strove for political and ecclesiastical unity. In each case the result was a stalemate. The only pleasure Calvin got from the first conference was a meeting with Philip Melancthon, a great joy to both men of God.
The hospitality of the Storders must have been very welcome to him, though he never spoke about money. He loved to think of them, as they styled themselves, his disciples, and he on his side admired their knowledge and love of the truth and 'the simplicity and sanctity of their lives'.
There were but two years of this happy friendship before sorrow came when John Storder fell ill and quickly died from the plague.
Calvin's friends thought he ought to marry and have a home of his own. He wrote to a friend that he would like a wife, specifying: 'The only kind of beauty which can win my soul is a woman who is chaste, not fastidious, economical, patient, and who is likely to interest herself in my health' And that, 'If she answers her reputation she will bring, in personal good qualities, a dowry large enough without any money at all.' It appears as that it was his friends who suggested to him, 'What about Idelette?' and his eyes opened to see her worth. She was about his own age, comely, kindly, and very intelligent. Suddenly he began to court her, and in a very few months married her.
They had not been married more than six months when the first of three pressing invitations came to him to return to Geneva. On September 13, 1531, amid great rejoicing and enthusiastic ovation, Calvin entered Geneva a second time. In this ordeal, God worked a tragedy into a blessing, creating a situation in which the people of Geneva welcomed Calvin and his reform.
Idelette greatly helped Calvin, and when she died 1549 he was devastated. At that point, according to his own words, he threw himself into his work. He wrote a detailed commentary on every bible book except Revelation, which he found to be impenetrable.
Arminius, the originator of a theology opposed to that of Calvin's system, gave an unbiased opinion of Calvin's works, saying:
Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin drew up a Church Order, a set of rules for governing of the church. It was based upon the teaching of Scripture that Christ has ordained four offices in the church: pastors, teachers or professors, elders, and deacons. The cornerstone of Calvin's form of church government was the office of elder. Pastors were to preach and to exhort the people. Elders were men of unusual spiritual insight who supervised the people, and visited and assisted the pastors. Deacons were general servers. Through this type of government, based on the Bible, Calvin was able to instruct and discipline the people spiritually.
Calvin labored to set forth a theocracy that would be an example of Christian life and government, and also be a citadel of evangelical truth that would conquer the power of Rome in all other lands.
Calvin put great emphasis upon Christian education. He knew that the Reformation would only be effective as people knew and obeyed God's Word. He devised a catechetical system for the young which was carried all over Europe.
Calvin's view on baptism is brought to light considering his own baptism and that of his wife.
Servetus, who some believe was castrated at age five, was a Spaniard who opposed Christianity, both in its Roman Catholic and Protestant forms. He denied the Trinity and was the most audacious and even blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century. He opposed the teaching of justification by faith and infant baptism. He was religious and superstitious, but not Christian—more of an astrologist.
Servetus had fled to Geneva from Vienna, France. Before he came to Geneva, he corresponded with Calvin, and Calvin did all he could to help this man see the truth of Christianity, but with no success. Servetus regarded Calvin as the pope of orthodox Protestantism whom he was determined to convert or overthrow. When Servetus first came to Geneva, he tried to align himself with the liberal city council that was somewhat opposed to Calvin. Calvin apparently sensed this danger and was in no mood to permit Servetus to propagate his errors in Geneva. Hence he considered it his duty to make so dangerous a man harmless, and determined to bring him either to recantation or to deserved punishment. Servetus actions were in one sense sedition — because in a theocracy there is a mixture of state and church, his attempt to overthrow the church was an attempt to overthrow the government of Geneva. Servetus was promptly arrested and brought to trial.
Calvin and other pastors in Geneva spent days with Servetus, trying to help him to see the error of his way, but Servetus was as hard as stone. He was convinced that the liberal council would throw Calvin out and let him out of jail.
The trial of Servetus was left to the civil court, which charged him with fundamental heresy, falsehood and blasphemy. The city council at this point was not favorable to Calvin. The libertines hoped to use the Servetus situation as a means of getting Calvin expelled from Geneva. The court's decision was:
Had Servetus been executed in any other way than by fire, his death would have passed almost unnoticed. It should be remembered that Servetus was, at one time, captured by the Inquisition. Had he not made good his escape, he likely would have been executed by the Catholic Church rather than the City Council of Geneva.
Calvin considered Servetus the greatest enemy of the Reformation and honestly believed it to be the right and duty of the state to punish those who offended the church. This act was based on the Old Testament principle of death for heretics
We should not be too hard on Calvin in the matter of Servetus, for the spirit of the day among all, except the Anabaptists, whether Catholic or Protestant, was to put heretics to death. The treatment of heretics was an error of the age, and we dare not judge Calvin by our twentieth century standards. We must remember that Servetus was given a fair court trial, which lasted over two months, and that he was sentenced by the full session of the civil council in accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout Christendom.
It should be noted that no Catholic or Anabaptist was ever executed in Geneva for the sake of his religious conviction.
Calvin's course in regard to Servetus was fully approved by all the leading Reformers of the time. Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Besa all felt that Calvin and Geneva dealt fairly with Servetus. The city council sought the advice of the other cities in Switzerland as to the fate of Servetus and received the following answers:
From Zwingli's city: "No severity is too great to punish such an offense. Our preachers are in total agreement with what Calvin thinks of his doctrine."
From Schaffhausen: "Stop the evil, other-wise his blasphemies, like a crawfish, will eat away the members of Christ!"
From Basel: "Do what lies in your power to convince him of his error. If he persists in his folly, then use the power which is entrusted to you by God to prevent him by force from any further injury to the Church of Christ."
Even Melanchthon stated to Calvin in a letter, "I have read your book in which you clearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus . . . To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man."
Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event, and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth century is entirely out of harmony with modern ideas.
When Servetus was informed of the decision of the council, he was stunned at first, and then began to rant and rave like a mad man. Again, Calvin went to Servetus, hoping to lead him to Christ, and said to him:
"Believe me, never did I have the intention to prosecute you because of some offense against me. Do you remember," he spoke now with a tender voice and not in a tone of reproach, "how, in danger of death, I wanted to meet you in Paris sixteen years ago in order to win you to our Lord? And afterwards when you were a fugitive was I not concerned to show you the right way in letters until you began to hate me because you were offended by my firmness? But let's not talk about me, nor of the past! Are you thinking of asking forgiveness of the everlasting God whom you have blasphemed on so many occasions? Are you thinking of being reconciled to the Son of God?"
Servetus became quite serious and humble as he faced the certainty of death. He asked Calvin to forgive him, and perhaps he asked Christ for forgiveness also. It is recorded that he spent the last twenty-four hours of his life repeating over and over again, "Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!"
Most settlers in the American Mid-Atlantic and New England were Calvinists, including the Puritans and Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam (New York). South Africa was also founded by mostly Dutch Calvinist settlers beginning in the 17th century, who became known as Boers or Afrikaners.
Sierra Leone was largely colonized by Calvinist settlers from Nova Scotia, who were largely Black Loyalists, African Americans who had fought for the British during the Revolutionary War.
Calvin expressed himself on usury in a letter to a friend, Oekolampadius. In this letter, he criticized the use of certain passages of scripture invoked by people opposed to the charging of interest -- he re-interpreted some of these passages, and suggested that others of them had been rendered irrelevant by changed conditions. He also said, though, that money should be lent to people in dire need without hope of interest.
German sociologist Max Weber noted that Protestants, especially Calvinists, played a prominent role in early-20th-century business success. He noted that "business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, [were] overwhelmingly Protestant."
Although the three great reformers are usually identified as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, John Calvin was really a second generation reformer. He never met Martin Luther and was, by his own reckoning, converted not long before Zwingli's death. By birth, education, and temper Luther and Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, were very different. Luther was a Saxon peasant, his father a miner; Calvin, like Luther in that he was born a Roman Catholic, sprang from the French middle-class. His father was an attorney in Noyon, where he practiced civil and canon law and served as the secretary to the Catholic Bishop. Luther entered an Augustinian monastery, took a monk's vows, was made a priest and ended up marrying a nun. Calvin never was ordained in the Catholic Church; his training was chiefly in law and the humanities; he took no vows and ended up marrying a Baptist. Luther's eloquence made him popular by its force, humor, rudeness, and vulgar style (once boasting about Rome's constant scrutiny of his every move that "If I break
wind in Wittenberg they smell it in Rome." Calvin spoke to the learned at all times, even when preaching before multitudes. His manner is classical; he uses the weapons of a deadly logic and persuades by a teacher's authority. He wrote French as well as Luther wrote German, and like him has been reckoned a pioneer in the modern development of his native tongue.
According to Philip Melancthon, John Calvin was "the theologian of the reformation." This in spite of the fact that Calvin, as a monergist and a predestinarian, who would argue that we had no more to do with our second birth than our first, was in direct opposition to Melancthon's synergistic view of regeneration. Interestingly, Melancthon and Calvin seemed to genuine affection for one another.
Some trivia: Calvin from the famous comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, was named after John Calvin. It is thought that this reflects the young male character's belief in predestination (as justification for his behavior). His stuffed tiger Hobbes gets his name from philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who held a dim view of human nature.
The Institutes of the Christian Religion
In 1536 the near reformer Erasmus died. In Belgium, the English martyr William Tyndale was strangled and burned for translating the bible into English. And in Geneva, twenty-six John Calvin released the first edition of his systematic The Institutes of the Christian Religion. It is acclaimed by many as the greatest theological work (uninspired by the Holy Spirit) of all time. A few years earlier Calvin had been awakened by the Lutheran movement. The Protestants were under persecution in France, and interestingly enough Calvin dedicated Institutes to Francis I, King of France, attempting to explain to his king that his theology was not an innovation, and certainly not a heresy, but a return to classic, biblical Christianity. He also implored the king to take action to restrain the persecutions.Calvin would make this point over and over: the Reformers were not heretics, and the reformation was actually a restoration of the ancient and forgotten beliefs of the early church. It was the Roman Church that, especially during the medieval period, had drifted into apostasy and heresy.
Like Luther, Calvin was greatly influenced by Augustine and quotes him liberally in his writings. However, Calvin did not view Augustine as inerrant, and considered his views on baptism to be in grave error. Whereas Augustine believed that unbaptized babies who died were bound for hell, Calvin was in the opposite extreme, believing that the newborns of believers were of the elect and perhaps even Christians, and should be withheld from the Lord's Supper only because they could not discern the body of Christ.
Luther and Calvin were in complete agreement on every important theological matter apart from one: the interpretation of the Lord's Supper. Calvin was a Lutheran, and Luther was a Calvinist.
Calvin is established in Geneva
After many vicissitudes, and avoiding persecution, Calvin ended up in Geneva. From 1536 to 1538 Calvin had great authority there. This was his first attempt at reform, but he pushed the reform too quickly. The city council banished Calvin and fellow reformer and friend, William Farel. The two went to Strasburg for three years were he preached at a Huguenot church. This was undoubtedly a great time of discouragement for Calvin. He later returns, solidifying his position in the city. He died triumphant in peace in 1654, just as the Council of Trent was ending.In 1540, in Strasburg, he befriended John Storder and his wife Idelette de Bure. The two were Anabaptists and part of a community of French refugees. They attended as many of Calvin's sermons and lectures that they could. They invited Calvin to their home and warm friendship developed.
Calvin worked endlessly: he took his pastoral duties seriously; he lectured at the University; he enlarged his Institutes from six chapters to seventeen and saw it published. As a disputant, with his clear vision and sound theology as well as his ability to present arguments, he was chosen as deputy for Strasburg in several conferences which strove for political and ecclesiastical unity. In each case the result was a stalemate. The only pleasure Calvin got from the first conference was a meeting with Philip Melancthon, a great joy to both men of God.
The hospitality of the Storders must have been very welcome to him, though he never spoke about money. He loved to think of them, as they styled themselves, his disciples, and he on his side admired their knowledge and love of the truth and 'the simplicity and sanctity of their lives'.
There were but two years of this happy friendship before sorrow came when John Storder fell ill and quickly died from the plague.
Calvin's friends thought he ought to marry and have a home of his own. He wrote to a friend that he would like a wife, specifying: 'The only kind of beauty which can win my soul is a woman who is chaste, not fastidious, economical, patient, and who is likely to interest herself in my health' And that, 'If she answers her reputation she will bring, in personal good qualities, a dowry large enough without any money at all.' It appears as that it was his friends who suggested to him, 'What about Idelette?' and his eyes opened to see her worth. She was about his own age, comely, kindly, and very intelligent. Suddenly he began to court her, and in a very few months married her.
They had not been married more than six months when the first of three pressing invitations came to him to return to Geneva. On September 13, 1531, amid great rejoicing and enthusiastic ovation, Calvin entered Geneva a second time. In this ordeal, God worked a tragedy into a blessing, creating a situation in which the people of Geneva welcomed Calvin and his reform.
Idelette greatly helped Calvin, and when she died 1549 he was devastated. At that point, according to his own words, he threw himself into his work. He wrote a detailed commentary on every bible book except Revelation, which he found to be impenetrable.
Arminius, the originator of a theology opposed to that of Calvin's system, gave an unbiased opinion of Calvin's works, saying:
"Next to the study of the Scriptures, I exhort my pupils to pursue Calvin's commentaries."It is easy to see the wonderful providence of God in bringing John Calvin back to Geneva. This free and independent city with its democratic institutions was at that time, of all the places in the world, the most admirably fitted to be the scene of the great reformatory labors of Calvin. The great Scottish reformer John Knox would call Geneva under John Calvin the most Christian city in history.
Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin drew up a Church Order, a set of rules for governing of the church. It was based upon the teaching of Scripture that Christ has ordained four offices in the church: pastors, teachers or professors, elders, and deacons. The cornerstone of Calvin's form of church government was the office of elder. Pastors were to preach and to exhort the people. Elders were men of unusual spiritual insight who supervised the people, and visited and assisted the pastors. Deacons were general servers. Through this type of government, based on the Bible, Calvin was able to instruct and discipline the people spiritually.
Calvin labored to set forth a theocracy that would be an example of Christian life and government, and also be a citadel of evangelical truth that would conquer the power of Rome in all other lands.
Calvin put great emphasis upon Christian education. He knew that the Reformation would only be effective as people knew and obeyed God's Word. He devised a catechetical system for the young which was carried all over Europe.
Calvin's view on baptism is brought to light considering his own baptism and that of his wife.
- Calvin believed that he was converted in his early twenties, upon hearing the theology arising from the Lutheran Reformation. He had been a lifelong Catholic.
- As a Catholic, he had been baptized by sprinkling at infancy.
- Although not a believer until his twenties, he viewed his and all baptisms as a sign of the sealing by the Holy Spirit. No matter that it took over too decades before he was illuminated—his baptism as a Catholic was legitimate. He did get baptized again.
- His wife had been baptized by immersion as an Anabaptist. After she and her former husband became disciples of John Calvin, she was not baptized again. Her baptism, like his own, was considered legitimate.
- Calvin's first born son was baptized as an infant. His other children died in infancy, before they were baptized.
The Burning of Servetus
The one event in Calvin's life that has cast a shadow over his name, and which has left him charged of intolerance and persecution is the burning of the heretic Servetus.Servetus, who some believe was castrated at age five, was a Spaniard who opposed Christianity, both in its Roman Catholic and Protestant forms. He denied the Trinity and was the most audacious and even blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century. He opposed the teaching of justification by faith and infant baptism. He was religious and superstitious, but not Christian—more of an astrologist.
Servetus had fled to Geneva from Vienna, France. Before he came to Geneva, he corresponded with Calvin, and Calvin did all he could to help this man see the truth of Christianity, but with no success. Servetus regarded Calvin as the pope of orthodox Protestantism whom he was determined to convert or overthrow. When Servetus first came to Geneva, he tried to align himself with the liberal city council that was somewhat opposed to Calvin. Calvin apparently sensed this danger and was in no mood to permit Servetus to propagate his errors in Geneva. Hence he considered it his duty to make so dangerous a man harmless, and determined to bring him either to recantation or to deserved punishment. Servetus actions were in one sense sedition — because in a theocracy there is a mixture of state and church, his attempt to overthrow the church was an attempt to overthrow the government of Geneva. Servetus was promptly arrested and brought to trial.
Calvin and other pastors in Geneva spent days with Servetus, trying to help him to see the error of his way, but Servetus was as hard as stone. He was convinced that the liberal council would throw Calvin out and let him out of jail.
The trial of Servetus was left to the civil court, which charged him with fundamental heresy, falsehood and blasphemy. The city council at this point was not favorable to Calvin. The libertines hoped to use the Servetus situation as a means of getting Calvin expelled from Geneva. The court's decision was:
"Inasmuch as you, Michael Servetus of Villanueva in the Spanish kingdom of Aragon, have been accused of terrible blasphemies against the holy Trinity, against the Son of God and other principles of the Christian faith, whereas you have called the Trinity a devil and a monster with three heads, whereas you went about to destroy poor souls by your horrifying mockery of the honor and majesty of God, too wicked to be mentioned, whereas refusing to be taught in any way, you called Christian atheists and magicians, whereas, whereas, whereas . . .The verdict was "guilty," and the sentence punishment by fire. Calvin, agreeing that Servetus should be put to death, opposed the state's method of execution and pleaded for the sword to be substituted for the fire. The council refused Calvin's request. The final responsibility for the burning rested with the city council, not Calvin.
"We, the mayor and judges of this city, having been called to the duty of preserving the church of God from schism and seduction, and to free Christians of such pestilence, decree that you, Michael Servetus, be led to the place of Champel and be bound to a stake and with your book be burned to ashes, a warning to all who blaspheme God."
Had Servetus been executed in any other way than by fire, his death would have passed almost unnoticed. It should be remembered that Servetus was, at one time, captured by the Inquisition. Had he not made good his escape, he likely would have been executed by the Catholic Church rather than the City Council of Geneva.
Calvin considered Servetus the greatest enemy of the Reformation and honestly believed it to be the right and duty of the state to punish those who offended the church. This act was based on the Old Testament principle of death for heretics
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. (Lev. 24:16).Calvin also felt himself providentially called to purify the church of all corruptions, and to his dying day he neither changed his views nor regretted his conduct toward Servetus.
We should not be too hard on Calvin in the matter of Servetus, for the spirit of the day among all, except the Anabaptists, whether Catholic or Protestant, was to put heretics to death. The treatment of heretics was an error of the age, and we dare not judge Calvin by our twentieth century standards. We must remember that Servetus was given a fair court trial, which lasted over two months, and that he was sentenced by the full session of the civil council in accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout Christendom.
It should be noted that no Catholic or Anabaptist was ever executed in Geneva for the sake of his religious conviction.
Calvin's course in regard to Servetus was fully approved by all the leading Reformers of the time. Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Besa all felt that Calvin and Geneva dealt fairly with Servetus. The city council sought the advice of the other cities in Switzerland as to the fate of Servetus and received the following answers:
From Zwingli's city: "No severity is too great to punish such an offense. Our preachers are in total agreement with what Calvin thinks of his doctrine."
From Schaffhausen: "Stop the evil, other-wise his blasphemies, like a crawfish, will eat away the members of Christ!"
From Basel: "Do what lies in your power to convince him of his error. If he persists in his folly, then use the power which is entrusted to you by God to prevent him by force from any further injury to the Church of Christ."
Even Melanchthon stated to Calvin in a letter, "I have read your book in which you clearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus . . . To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man."
Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event, and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth century is entirely out of harmony with modern ideas.
When Servetus was informed of the decision of the council, he was stunned at first, and then began to rant and rave like a mad man. Again, Calvin went to Servetus, hoping to lead him to Christ, and said to him:
"Believe me, never did I have the intention to prosecute you because of some offense against me. Do you remember," he spoke now with a tender voice and not in a tone of reproach, "how, in danger of death, I wanted to meet you in Paris sixteen years ago in order to win you to our Lord? And afterwards when you were a fugitive was I not concerned to show you the right way in letters until you began to hate me because you were offended by my firmness? But let's not talk about me, nor of the past! Are you thinking of asking forgiveness of the everlasting God whom you have blasphemed on so many occasions? Are you thinking of being reconciled to the Son of God?"
Servetus became quite serious and humble as he faced the certainty of death. He asked Calvin to forgive him, and perhaps he asked Christ for forgiveness also. It is recorded that he spent the last twenty-four hours of his life repeating over and over again, "Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!"
The Spread of Calvinism
As much as Calvin's practice in Geneva, his publications spread his ideas of a correctly reformed church to many parts of Europe. Calvinism became the theological system of the majority in Scotland, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany and was influential in France, Hungary (especially in Transylvania) and Poland.Most settlers in the American Mid-Atlantic and New England were Calvinists, including the Puritans and Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam (New York). South Africa was also founded by mostly Dutch Calvinist settlers beginning in the 17th century, who became known as Boers or Afrikaners.
Sierra Leone was largely colonized by Calvinist settlers from Nova Scotia, who were largely Black Loyalists, African Americans who had fought for the British during the Revolutionary War.
Usury, Capitalism, and the Protestant Work Ethic
One school of thought about Calvinism is that it brought with it a revolt against the medieval condemnation of usury (lending money and charging interest), helping to set the stage for the development of capitalism in northern Europe. Furthering the cause of economic development was the widespread idea that a sign of being elect was good citizenship and hard work—the so-called Protestant Work Ethic.Calvin expressed himself on usury in a letter to a friend, Oekolampadius. In this letter, he criticized the use of certain passages of scripture invoked by people opposed to the charging of interest -- he re-interpreted some of these passages, and suggested that others of them had been rendered irrelevant by changed conditions. He also said, though, that money should be lent to people in dire need without hope of interest.
German sociologist Max Weber noted that Protestants, especially Calvinists, played a prominent role in early-20th-century business success. He noted that "business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, [were] overwhelmingly Protestant."
Lesson 26 Colloquy of Marburg (1529)
The Colloquy of Marburg is the name given to a conference of divines held in 1529 in the interests of the unity of Protestant Germany. Differences of opinion concerning the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper had arisen among the Protestants. Prince Philip of Hesse, recognized the political importance of achieving unity among all German Protestants. At one point it seemed that there was a basis for a provisional alliance in the shape of a formula drawn up by Bucer (who greatly influenced Calvin, and had an ecumenical spirit) in dealing with the Lord’s Supper. But it was obvious that a permanent coalition could not be expected unless some definite understanding on the debated point could be attained between the Swiss and German arms of the Reformation, so Philip dispatched to Zwingli an invitation to a colloquy, and received his prompt acquiescence.
The Colloquy of Marburg is no doubt the saddest event of the Reformation. If one views the Reformation as the greatest outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church since Pentecost, then it is hard to see the ultimate failure of The Colloquy of Marburg as anything less than the work of Satan. Normally we should think of Satan, against the church, as on the defensive. We are told by Jesus that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church—and gates are defensive in nature. Still, Satan does go on the offensive, especially one can safely assume at a time of revival.
The proceedings opened on October 1, 1529. It seemed wise, at first, to prevent direct debates between Luther and Zwingli, as both seemed to be too fiery. Thus the colloquy opened with conferences between Luther and Zwingli’s lieutenant, John Oecolampadius, and between Luther’s second in command, Philip Melancthon and Zwingli.
The Lutherans and Zwinglians agreed on everything, across the board, except one. The interpretation of Christ’s words “this is my body,” (Matt. 26:26) when instituting the Lord’s Supper. On all other aspects of the sacrament (ordinance) they agreed: That Christ commanded it, that it was of profound significance and importance to the spiritual life of the believer, and that is must be approached with great reverence. They agreed the Rome was in grave error in its policy of withholding the cup from the laity. But on the details of the interpretation, they could not agree. Luther held to consubstantiation and Zwingli to a memorial view.
Summarizing these views:
As regards this main point of contention, no agreement was reached. The Articles of Marburg, which summarize the results of the colloquy, contain the doctrine of the Trinity, of the personality of Christ, of faith and justification, of the Scriptures, of good works, of confession, of government, of tradition, and of infant baptism. The fifteenth article, treating of the Lords Supper, defines the ground common to both parties even in this debatable region, recognizing the necessity of participation in both kinds (bread and wine), and rejecting the sacrifice of the Mass. It then proceeds to fix the point of difference in the fact that no agreement had been reached on the question whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the bread and wine. Nevertheless, the adherents of each doctrine are recommended to display Christian charity to those of the other. These articles were signed by the ten official members of the colloquy: Luther, Jonas, Melancthon, Osiander, Agricola, Brenz, Oecolampadius, Bucer. Hedio and Zwingli. The personal contact between Luther and Zwingli led to no mental rapprochement between the two; but in the following year the Articles of Marburg did good service as one of the preliminaries to the Augsburg Confession (1530), and remain a valuable document for the fundamental principles common to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.
The sad part was, that while Luther signed, he actual spirit was of this mind: to Luther, his view on the Lord’s Supper, which maintained that the Christ was present corporeally, was non negotiable. He would agree that while Christ is the true vine (John 15:1), you did not pick grapes from him. And he would agree that while Christ is the door, he did not contain hinges. He insisted, however, that “this is my body,” was meant to be taken literally. Any other view, according to Luther, was heresy. There was to be no unity between the Swiss and German Reformations.
So we see, in spite of his signature, that the Augsburg confession of 1530, the first of the great Reformed confessions, contains these two articles (the first I include only because of its interest to Baptists)
Article IX: Of Baptism
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
It is not easy to understand why Luther took such a stand. Even assuming his view is correct, it seems that his reaction indicated that Zwingli deliberately distorted Christ’s message concerning the Lord’s Supper. After all, as Baptists we may think the Presbyterians are wrong in baptizing children, but I think most would view the mistake as an innocent mistake, and we would not claim that fellowship is precluded, or that the Presbyterians are heretical. If our pastor ever became persuaded that infant baptism was biblical, then I suspect he’d be baptizing infants by the following week. Similarly with the manner in which Presbyterians view Baptists.
Luther, however, did not see Zwingli as in “innocent error.” His words were quite harsh. At one point, Zwingli argued, "Jesus also said I am the vine," and "I am the door," but we understand what He was saying. Luther replied, "I don’t know, but if Christ told me to eat dung I would do it knowing that it was good for me."
Although Zwingli declared with tears in His eyes that there were none with whom he should like better to make common cause than the men of Wittenburg (Luther and his followers), Luther was hard and unyielding. “You are of another spirit than we,” he said. The story goes that Luther refused to shake Zwingli’s hand; but instead wrote the words: ‘This is My Body’ (hoc est corpus meum), on the velvet of table before him and stormed out.
Later we see an ironic postscript to this debate. It comes in the form of Calvin’s view of the Lord’s supper, which we’ll call the dynamic view. John Calvin taught that Jesus’ presence in the bread and wine was real, but only spiritual, not corporeally. According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is far from memorial. Ironically, later, Luther (definitely) and Zwingli (possibly) later read Calvin’s writings on the Lord’s Supper and seemed to agree with Calvin’s views.
Some have speculated that it was Philip Melancthon who pressured Luther. The reason is that Luther, to a small extent, and Melancthon, to a much greater extent, held some hope of reconciliation with Rome. If so, Melancthon might have reasoned that compromise with Zwingli’s view on the Lord’s Supper would have squashed any hope of a reunification.
Philip Melancthon was born Philip Schwartzerd at Bretten in Swabia, the son of George and Barbara Schwartzerd. His earliest education was supervised by his father and grandfather and, after their deaths in 1508, was directed by his grandmother's brother, the famous jurist and Hebrew scholar Johann Reuchlin. Schwartzerd means "black earth," and Reuchlin is said to have been so impressed with his grandnephew's scholarly talents that he insisted that Philip use the Greek form of "black earth," hence the name Melancthon. The young Melancthon studied at Pforzheim and Heidelberg, receiving a bachelor of arts degree from the latter in 1511. He took his master's degree at Tübingen in 1514 and began to lecture there on Latin and Greek literature.
Melancthon was already present at the first serious dispute between Luther and Rome, the 1519 Debates in Leipzig. During the debate with Johannes Eck, the astute Papal theologian, Melancthon wrote little notes to Luther citing Bible passages contradicting the preeminent position of the Pope--the contended issue in the debate.
Luther, the prophet among the Reformers, worked tirelessly on his new theology, but he often lacked a systemized approach. In 1521 Melancthon took over this task, writing the first valid summary of reformed theology (fifteen years before Calvin would pen his) the "Loci Communes" (Common Places). Luther felt so enthusiastic about this book that he even wanted to include it in the Bible.
Although the reformers did not receive what they had desired from Charles, they did have biblical articles of faith that remain the standard confession for conservative Lutheran Churches to this day. The events at Augsburg laid the groundwork for Protestant victories in the future.
While Luther was alive, it seemed to be the case that Melancthon regarded him with such awe that he never would disagree with him, at least in public. Melancthon once stated: "I would rather die than be separated from this man." Nevertheless, Melancthon had considerable influence, and probably was the power behind the failure, at Marburg, to achieve unification between the Swiss and German Reformations.
Melancthon never agreed with Luther’s strong predestinarianism, but he never argued with his hero. Melancthon, as it turned out, was more of a clone of Erasmus (the renaissance near-reformer) than of Luther. But on this matter he refrained from engaging in debate with Luther. Still, in hindsight it is clear that while Luther was teaching predestination as a central verity, Melancthon viewed the doctrine as a threat to evangelism and an unacceptable form of fatalism.
Luther died in 1546, after which Melancthon openly broke with Luther and began inching the church back to a semi-Pelagian position.
A drift from Luther is denied by the Orthodox Lutheran Church—which still venerates Martin Luther to a degree that far exceeds how Calvinistic churches view John Calvin. Indeed, in many ways the conservative Lutherans are among the most conservative Christians anywhere. For example, there has been more of a move in Calvinistic churches toward liberalization, for example in the roles of women, than in conservative Lutheran churches.
This paradoxical shift—away from Luther on a doctrine that he felt so vital—the doctrine of predestination—while at the same time steadfastly standing by Luther on virtually everything else (even where Luther erred) is the legacy of Philip Melancthon.
Actually, Melancthon tried to shift the Lutherans away from Luther in two areas. In the less important area, he met violent opposition and failed. In the more important area, he succeeded.
Melancthon attempted to inch the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, the consubstantiation view, closer to Calvin’s dynamic view. That is, from the idea of a real corporeal presence during the Lord’s Supper to a real, spiritual presence that was a means of grace—i.e. it was far from Zwingli’s memorial view (in which the believer did everything) to a supernatural view (in which God dispensed grace, as it were.) In a way, this was probably a radical change in Melancthon’s view—for he always seemed to have an eye toward reconciliation with Rome.
At any rate, on this effort he failed. His views on the Lord’s Supper made the Lutheran faithful suspicious, and he was accused of being a crypto-Calvinist.
To this day, although the term consubstantiation is not used, Lutherans proclaim essentially the same doctrine, and still teach of a corporeal presence of the Lord during the Eucharist.
The Century Dictionary defines it as follows:
It is in contrast to synergism which the Century Dictionary defines as
So what evidence to the Lutherans present? It is fairly weak, and it is entirely circumstantial. There are no writings to which they can point in which Luther retracts or softens his view on predestination. Indeed, he wrote such a definitive tome on the subject that had he changed his view he surely would have made a great deal of noise in doing so.
The evidence that the Lutheran Church proclaims is that, in the last years of his life, Luther stopped writing about predestination, and preaching about it, and instead focused his energy on the sacraments. Given that the sacraments involve human activity it is reasonable, according the Lutherans, to suppose that Luther softened his view on monergism.
However, the truth is simply that the lay of the land was such for Luther, during his latter years, that the issues he dealt with were with the commands rather than the decrees of God. What was man’s obligation and responsibility to God, and how should man approach the sacraments in a worthy manner. There simply was Lutheran controversy, during his lifetime, on the doctrine of predestination, other that what was apparently brewing in Melancthon’s heart.
For Calvin, it will be just the opposite. In his later years, he faced stern opposition to predestination, and so had a need to address the topic more and more as time marched on. This is part of the reason why the doctrine is erroneously associated much more with Calvin than with Luther.
The bottom line is that the Lutheran Church made two serious errors in following (or not) Martin Luther. They chose to stay with Luther where he erred, on the doctrine of consubstantiation, and chose to deviate from him in a far more important matter relating to the nature of our salvation.
In choosing between Luther and Melancthon, they followed Luther in his Eucharistic error, and followed Melancthon in his sotierlogical error.
The Colloquy of Marburg is no doubt the saddest event of the Reformation. If one views the Reformation as the greatest outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church since Pentecost, then it is hard to see the ultimate failure of The Colloquy of Marburg as anything less than the work of Satan. Normally we should think of Satan, against the church, as on the defensive. We are told by Jesus that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church—and gates are defensive in nature. Still, Satan does go on the offensive, especially one can safely assume at a time of revival.
The proceedings opened on October 1, 1529. It seemed wise, at first, to prevent direct debates between Luther and Zwingli, as both seemed to be too fiery. Thus the colloquy opened with conferences between Luther and Zwingli’s lieutenant, John Oecolampadius, and between Luther’s second in command, Philip Melancthon and Zwingli.
The Lutherans and Zwinglians agreed on everything, across the board, except one. The interpretation of Christ’s words “this is my body,” (Matt. 26:26) when instituting the Lord’s Supper. On all other aspects of the sacrament (ordinance) they agreed: That Christ commanded it, that it was of profound significance and importance to the spiritual life of the believer, and that is must be approached with great reverence. They agreed the Rome was in grave error in its policy of withholding the cup from the laity. But on the details of the interpretation, they could not agree. Luther held to consubstantiation and Zwingli to a memorial view.
Summarizing these views:
- Transubstantiation (Rome): the elements actually change into the body of blood of Christ.
- Consubstantiation (Luther): There is a corporeal presence of Christ in the elements, although the elements themselves do not change.
- Memorial (Zwingli): Nothing happens to the elements; the Eucharist memorializes Christ’s sacrifice.
As regards this main point of contention, no agreement was reached. The Articles of Marburg, which summarize the results of the colloquy, contain the doctrine of the Trinity, of the personality of Christ, of faith and justification, of the Scriptures, of good works, of confession, of government, of tradition, and of infant baptism. The fifteenth article, treating of the Lords Supper, defines the ground common to both parties even in this debatable region, recognizing the necessity of participation in both kinds (bread and wine), and rejecting the sacrifice of the Mass. It then proceeds to fix the point of difference in the fact that no agreement had been reached on the question whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the bread and wine. Nevertheless, the adherents of each doctrine are recommended to display Christian charity to those of the other. These articles were signed by the ten official members of the colloquy: Luther, Jonas, Melancthon, Osiander, Agricola, Brenz, Oecolampadius, Bucer. Hedio and Zwingli. The personal contact between Luther and Zwingli led to no mental rapprochement between the two; but in the following year the Articles of Marburg did good service as one of the preliminaries to the Augsburg Confession (1530), and remain a valuable document for the fundamental principles common to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.
The sad part was, that while Luther signed, he actual spirit was of this mind: to Luther, his view on the Lord’s Supper, which maintained that the Christ was present corporeally, was non negotiable. He would agree that while Christ is the true vine (John 15:1), you did not pick grapes from him. And he would agree that while Christ is the door, he did not contain hinges. He insisted, however, that “this is my body,” was meant to be taken literally. Any other view, according to Luther, was heresy. There was to be no unity between the Swiss and German Reformations.
So we see, in spite of his signature, that the Augsburg confession of 1530, the first of the great Reformed confessions, contains these two articles (the first I include only because of its interest to Baptists)
Article IX: Of Baptism
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
It is not easy to understand why Luther took such a stand. Even assuming his view is correct, it seems that his reaction indicated that Zwingli deliberately distorted Christ’s message concerning the Lord’s Supper. After all, as Baptists we may think the Presbyterians are wrong in baptizing children, but I think most would view the mistake as an innocent mistake, and we would not claim that fellowship is precluded, or that the Presbyterians are heretical. If our pastor ever became persuaded that infant baptism was biblical, then I suspect he’d be baptizing infants by the following week. Similarly with the manner in which Presbyterians view Baptists.
Luther, however, did not see Zwingli as in “innocent error.” His words were quite harsh. At one point, Zwingli argued, "Jesus also said I am the vine," and "I am the door," but we understand what He was saying. Luther replied, "I don’t know, but if Christ told me to eat dung I would do it knowing that it was good for me."
Although Zwingli declared with tears in His eyes that there were none with whom he should like better to make common cause than the men of Wittenburg (Luther and his followers), Luther was hard and unyielding. “You are of another spirit than we,” he said. The story goes that Luther refused to shake Zwingli’s hand; but instead wrote the words: ‘This is My Body’ (hoc est corpus meum), on the velvet of table before him and stormed out.
Later we see an ironic postscript to this debate. It comes in the form of Calvin’s view of the Lord’s supper, which we’ll call the dynamic view. John Calvin taught that Jesus’ presence in the bread and wine was real, but only spiritual, not corporeally. According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is far from memorial. Ironically, later, Luther (definitely) and Zwingli (possibly) later read Calvin’s writings on the Lord’s Supper and seemed to agree with Calvin’s views.
Some have speculated that it was Philip Melancthon who pressured Luther. The reason is that Luther, to a small extent, and Melancthon, to a much greater extent, held some hope of reconciliation with Rome. If so, Melancthon might have reasoned that compromise with Zwingli’s view on the Lord’s Supper would have squashed any hope of a reunification.
Philip Melancthon (1497-1560)
The German scholar and humanist Philip Melancthon (1497-1560) was the chief systematic theologian of the early Reformation and principal author of the famous Augsburg Confession of 1530.Philip Melancthon was born Philip Schwartzerd at Bretten in Swabia, the son of George and Barbara Schwartzerd. His earliest education was supervised by his father and grandfather and, after their deaths in 1508, was directed by his grandmother's brother, the famous jurist and Hebrew scholar Johann Reuchlin. Schwartzerd means "black earth," and Reuchlin is said to have been so impressed with his grandnephew's scholarly talents that he insisted that Philip use the Greek form of "black earth," hence the name Melancthon. The young Melancthon studied at Pforzheim and Heidelberg, receiving a bachelor of arts degree from the latter in 1511. He took his master's degree at Tübingen in 1514 and began to lecture there on Latin and Greek literature.
Melancthon was already present at the first serious dispute between Luther and Rome, the 1519 Debates in Leipzig. During the debate with Johannes Eck, the astute Papal theologian, Melancthon wrote little notes to Luther citing Bible passages contradicting the preeminent position of the Pope--the contended issue in the debate.
Luther, the prophet among the Reformers, worked tirelessly on his new theology, but he often lacked a systemized approach. In 1521 Melancthon took over this task, writing the first valid summary of reformed theology (fifteen years before Calvin would pen his) the "Loci Communes" (Common Places). Luther felt so enthusiastic about this book that he even wanted to include it in the Bible.
The Diet of Augsburg
In 1530 the emperor Charles V convened the Diet of Augsburg. The threat of the Turks was great and the situation between Rome and those seeking reform was bringing disunity and weakness to Europe. Melancthon and the German princes wanted Charles and the Diet to grant them freedom to preach biblical doctrines and to worship with legal status. Melancthon drew up the famous Augsburg confession, and on June 25, 1530, the document was read aloud at the Diet. Many were astonished when they heard the graceful way Melancthon presented the propositions (most of the statements were positive affirmations of faith rather than attacks on the papacy).Although the reformers did not receive what they had desired from Charles, they did have biblical articles of faith that remain the standard confession for conservative Lutheran Churches to this day. The events at Augsburg laid the groundwork for Protestant victories in the future.
While Luther was alive, it seemed to be the case that Melancthon regarded him with such awe that he never would disagree with him, at least in public. Melancthon once stated: "I would rather die than be separated from this man." Nevertheless, Melancthon had considerable influence, and probably was the power behind the failure, at Marburg, to achieve unification between the Swiss and German Reformations.
Melancthon never agreed with Luther’s strong predestinarianism, but he never argued with his hero. Melancthon, as it turned out, was more of a clone of Erasmus (the renaissance near-reformer) than of Luther. But on this matter he refrained from engaging in debate with Luther. Still, in hindsight it is clear that while Luther was teaching predestination as a central verity, Melancthon viewed the doctrine as a threat to evangelism and an unacceptable form of fatalism.
Luther died in 1546, after which Melancthon openly broke with Luther and began inching the church back to a semi-Pelagian position.
A drift from Luther is denied by the Orthodox Lutheran Church—which still venerates Martin Luther to a degree that far exceeds how Calvinistic churches view John Calvin. Indeed, in many ways the conservative Lutherans are among the most conservative Christians anywhere. For example, there has been more of a move in Calvinistic churches toward liberalization, for example in the roles of women, than in conservative Lutheran churches.
This paradoxical shift—away from Luther on a doctrine that he felt so vital—the doctrine of predestination—while at the same time steadfastly standing by Luther on virtually everything else (even where Luther erred) is the legacy of Philip Melancthon.
Actually, Melancthon tried to shift the Lutherans away from Luther in two areas. In the less important area, he met violent opposition and failed. In the more important area, he succeeded.
Melancthon attempted to inch the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, the consubstantiation view, closer to Calvin’s dynamic view. That is, from the idea of a real corporeal presence during the Lord’s Supper to a real, spiritual presence that was a means of grace—i.e. it was far from Zwingli’s memorial view (in which the believer did everything) to a supernatural view (in which God dispensed grace, as it were.) In a way, this was probably a radical change in Melancthon’s view—for he always seemed to have an eye toward reconciliation with Rome.
At any rate, on this effort he failed. His views on the Lord’s Supper made the Lutheran faithful suspicious, and he was accused of being a crypto-Calvinist.
To this day, although the term consubstantiation is not used, Lutherans proclaim essentially the same doctrine, and still teach of a corporeal presence of the Lord during the Eucharist.
Luther was Monergistic, Melancthon was Synergistic
In regeneration (monergism), the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ independent of any cooperation from our unregenerate human nature. He quickens us through the outward call cast forth by the preaching of His Word, disarms our innate hostility, removes our blindness, illumines our mind, creates understanding, turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh -- giving rise to a delight in His Word -- all that we might, with our renewed affections, willingly & gladly embrace Christ.The Century Dictionary defines it as follows:
"In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."It means that the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly comes to through regeneration -- and if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, he/she ignore the teaching of the Apostles, for Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
It is in contrast to synergism which the Century Dictionary defines as
"...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."Luther, like Calvin to follow, was monergistic to the core. In his catechism, Luther wrote:
I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and preserves it in union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church he daily and abundantly forgives all my sins, and the sins of all believers, and on the last day he will raise me and all the dead and will grant eternal life to me and to all who believe in Christ. This is most certainly true.Now, to be sure, the Lutheran version of synergism is not the same as the typical, semi-Pelagianism of most modern evangelicals. It can be put this way:
- Reformed View: Regeneration, which is irresistible, precedes faith.
- Evangelical View: Faith precedes regeneration
- Lutheran View: Regeneration precedes faith, but that regeneration is resistible
The Lutherans Disagree
The Lutherans claim they are faithful to Martin Luther in all aspects. How is it that done? It is done by claiming that late in his life Luther changed his position. They will concede that when Luther wrote his greatest book, Bondage of the Will, in 1525, he was a stout predestinarian. It’s hardly an arguable point, since the book speaks for itself as one of the great works proclaiming the doctrine in clarity.So what evidence to the Lutherans present? It is fairly weak, and it is entirely circumstantial. There are no writings to which they can point in which Luther retracts or softens his view on predestination. Indeed, he wrote such a definitive tome on the subject that had he changed his view he surely would have made a great deal of noise in doing so.
The evidence that the Lutheran Church proclaims is that, in the last years of his life, Luther stopped writing about predestination, and preaching about it, and instead focused his energy on the sacraments. Given that the sacraments involve human activity it is reasonable, according the Lutherans, to suppose that Luther softened his view on monergism.
However, the truth is simply that the lay of the land was such for Luther, during his latter years, that the issues he dealt with were with the commands rather than the decrees of God. What was man’s obligation and responsibility to God, and how should man approach the sacraments in a worthy manner. There simply was Lutheran controversy, during his lifetime, on the doctrine of predestination, other that what was apparently brewing in Melancthon’s heart.
For Calvin, it will be just the opposite. In his later years, he faced stern opposition to predestination, and so had a need to address the topic more and more as time marched on. This is part of the reason why the doctrine is erroneously associated much more with Calvin than with Luther.
The bottom line is that the Lutheran Church made two serious errors in following (or not) Martin Luther. They chose to stay with Luther where he erred, on the doctrine of consubstantiation, and chose to deviate from him in a far more important matter relating to the nature of our salvation.
In choosing between Luther and Melancthon, they followed Luther in his Eucharistic error, and followed Melancthon in his sotierlogical error.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Lesson 25: Zwingli
Ulrich Zwingli was born at Wildhaus in Switzerland, January 1, 1484, the same year as Martin Luther.
He died on October 11 1531. Luther lived fifteen years longer.
While Luther, in many ways, had a medieval upbringing and education, Zwingli was in a product of the renaissance. He received his early education at Wesen under the guidance of an uncle. For his advanced studies he went to Berne. He matriculated at the University in 1500. Two years later he returned to Basle where he devoted himself to the study of theology. In 1506 he completed his studies and a Master of Theology. Shortly before his graduation the parish of Glarus had selected him as its pastor.
As pastor of Glarus from 1506 to 1516, the continuation of his humanistic studies was one of Zwingli's chief occupations. He studied Greek, read the Classics and the Fathers of the Church, and entered into discussions with the Humanists of the time, most notably Erasmus, the almost-reformer who would also dialog with Luther. He also taught, though his public life he was most notable for his political activity. In the Italian campaigns of 1513 and 1515 he served as army chaplain. His earliest writings are all concerned with politics, with his first book being a biblical criticisms of Swiss social conditions. These works, which reveal Zwingli as the devoted adherent and champion of the papal party, won him the friendship of the powerful Swiss cardinal Matthew Schinner and an annual pension of fifty gulden from the pope. In fact, his papal support was so strong that his position in Glarus became untenable when the French party became predominant there in 1516, and so Zwingli left Galrus for Einsiedeln. 1
Towards the end of 1518, when the post of preacher at Münster became vacant, Zwingli, at the invitation of a friend, applied. Like many other clerics, Zwingli was suspected of violating celibacy. These reports made his position there difficult. When his friend questioned him on this point Zwingli wrote from Einsiedeln that it was not, as had been asserted, a respectable girl, but a common strumpet with whom he had been intimate. His friends in Zurich succeeded in suppressing these reports, and on 11 Dec., 1518, the chapter elected Zwingli by a great majority. He was then thirty-five years old. 2
At this point, it is doubtful that Zwingli was even converted. It is clear that with a record of personal conduct that was far from unimpeachable, Zwingli preferred to engage in secular and political debates rather than pursuing new doctrine. That was about to change. The year was 1519; Luther had already nailed his 95 theses to the castle church.
Many men are converted after they are ordained. Luther himself seems to be such an example, as was John Wesley. In addition, it would seem to be through reading the word that these men were finally drawn to God in a saving manner. For Augustine and Luther it was the book of Romans. For Jonathan Edwards it was 1 Tim. 1:17,
Zwingli quickly attracted large audiences to the cathedral by expounding the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures chapter by chapter. These oral translations of the original Scriptures broke sharply with church tradition. Previously priests had based their sermons on interpretations of the Vulgate and on the writings of the Fathers of the Church. In 1519 an admirer placed a printing press at the reformer's disposal, and his bold new ideas spread far beyond the confines of Zürich.
During the same year Zwingli read for the first time the writings of his contemporary, Luther. Heartened by Luther's stand against the Church, Zwingli in 1520 persuaded the Zürich council to forbid all religious teachings without foundation in the Scriptures. Among these teachings was the church stricture against eating meat during Lent. In 1522 a group of his followers deliberately broke the rule and were arrested. Zwingli vigorously defended the lawbreakers, who were released with token punishment.
Proceeding step by step, with the assent of the Zürich magistracy, he nevertheless alarmed the local hierarchy, who appealed to their bishop at Constance. The bishop sent to Zürich an investigation committee which sat Apr. 7-9, 1522, but was powerless against the manifest satisfaction of the citizens with Zwingli's position.
The Bishop of Constance’s concern is hardly surprising. The Catholic Church was always quick to respond when signs of spiritual life appear. Warnings were issued, but Zwingli’s unique claim as a reformer and a patriot made him untouchable.
Next came a bolder step. Zwingli he prepared 65 theses, or articles of faith (nothing like the 95 theses of Luther, which were almost entirely on a single topic: indulgences). Zwingli's theses covered all the points of the gospel. In accordance with the Swiss custom of public debate, a meeting was held in the town hall of Zürich on January 29, 1523. All the clergy were invited. However, there was no real debate, only a dialogue between Zwingli and the vicar-general of Constance. The decision of the magistracy was that the doctrines Zwingli had preached were enjoined on all priests in the canton. This was real schism. 3
A second discussion, which was held during Oct. 26-28, 1523. The decisions of the magistracy after this discussion were radical. They removed the images and pictures out of the churches, made the vernacular the language of the religious services and simplified the Lord’s Supper.
Pope Adrian VI, angered by Zwingli's behavior, forbade him the pulpit and asked the Zürich council to repudiate him as a heretic. In January 1523, Zwingli appeared before the council. He asserted the supremacy of scripture over church dogma, attacked the worship of images, relics, and saints, and denounced the sacramental view of the Eucharist and enforced celibacy as well. After deliberation, the council upheld Zwingli by withdrawing the Zürich canton from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constance; it also affirmed its previous ban against preaching not founded on the Scriptures. By taking these steps the council officially adopted the Reformation. Zwingli in 1524 marked his new status by marrying Anna Reinhard, a widow with whom he had lived openly.
By the end of 1524 church life in Zürich was quite different in many of its outward manifestations from that in any other Swiss city. The convents for men and women had been abolished, and music had been silenced in the churches, a strange initiative for one so fond of music as Zwingli. (Sadly he trashed the great organ in Zurich’s cathedral.)
The Mass alone remained, and that was so wrapped up with the life of the people that he hesitated to destroy it before the people were fully prepared to accept a substitute. At last it was decreed that on Thursday of Holy Week, Apr. 13, 1525, the Lord's Supper would be for the first time observed according to the liturgy Zwingli had composed. On that eventful day men and women sat on opposite sides of the table which extended down the middle aisle, and were served with bread upon wooden platters and wine out of wooden beakers. The contrast to the former custom was shocking to many, yet the new way was accepted. With this radical break with the past the Reformation in Zurich may be said to have been completed.
Under the Reformation, Zürich became a theocracy ruled by Zwingli and a Christian magistrate. Sweeping reforms were instituted, among them the conversion of monasteries into hospitals, the removal of religious images, and the elimination of Mass and confession. Eventually Zwingli taught that devout Christians have need of neither pope nor church.
It must be stressed that Zwingli’s reformation was independent of Luther’s. That is, Zwingli did not ride Luther’s coattails.
Grebel and Manz believed that church membership should be voluntary, and to this end proposed the shocking notion of the separation of church and state, i.e. not “state” church. The government, they felt, served one purpose and the church, another.
Grebel and Manz also held that the New Testament teaches pacifism, which ruled out believers participating in any sort of military service or condoning capital punishment. This was in opposition to Zwingli, who was a politician and a supporter of the Swiss military. Grebel and Mainz viewed the state as evil, while Zwingli saw that his military was a necessary form of protection against the forces of the Catholic Church.
But the issue that caused the greatest stir was that of infant baptism. The Roman Church, in its state-sponsored mandate to assimilate all citizens, received newborns into church membership by way of baptism. Grebel and Manz, however, found no precedent for infant baptism in scripture. Instead, they argued, baptism was a symbolic act that should be undertaken voluntarily by adult believers as a sign of their faith. Since infants could not decide to believe, it was meaningless to baptize them. Accordingly, in 1525, Grebel took the daring step of rebaptizing an adult believer in his group, and others quickly followed. They were dubbed Anabaptists, or “rebaptizers”, a term that was meant to be derogatory. We will discuss the Anabaptists more in a later class.
Meanwhile, Zwingli carried his crusade to cantons other than Zürich. In all, six cantons were converted to the Reformation. The remaining five, known as the Forest Cantons, remained staunchly Catholic. The antagonisms between Catholic and Protestant cantons created a serious split within the Swiss confederation.
In 1529 the hostility between the cantons flared into open civil war. On October 10, 1531, Zwingli, acting as chaplain and standard-bearer for the Protestant forces, was wounded at Kappel am Albis and later put to death by the victorious troops of the Forest Cantons. After Zwingli's death the Reformation made no further headway in Switzerland; the country is still half Catholic, half Protestant.
Interestingly, Zwingli and Luther came to the doctrine by different paths. Luther was convicted of it, at least at first, in an emotional manner: his deep awareness of his own sinfulness pushed him into it. He realized that he was too corrupt to do anything to contribute to his own salvation.
Zwingli, on the other hand, arrived at the doctrine in a scholarly manner. His habit of verse-by-verse preaching opened his eyes to the doctrine as he encountered passage after passage that seemed to support that view.
Since predestination is so identified with “being reformed,” it is worthwhile to revisit the doctrine at this time. In short, it can be stated this way:
The Arminian view is that God will make an offer, through presentation of the Gospel, but the receiver of the offer must, at least at some minimal level, accept the offer of his own volition—which means the offer can be rejected as well.
The reformed view is that if God knocks you will open the door. The Arminian view is you must choose to open the door.
The reformed view is that you are dead to sins, without a pulse, and can do nothing to please God, and are in such a depraved state you do not have the ability to accept him (apart from grace). The Arminian view is that the sinner is gravely ill but has enough reserve strength to choose whether to consume or spit out the medicine that God places in his mouth.
The reformed view is that, without election, no one would be saved because no one would make the choice to follow Christ.
Reformed still witness because Christ commands them to and because it is a privilege to be an agent of the efficacious call to another believer. Arminians witness because Christ commands them to and because they feel a responsibility to give as many as possible the chance to accept, and to lead them to make the proper choice (while giving the credit and Glory to God). Calvinists do not feel as much personal responsibility as Arminians when someone doesn’t respond positively. Arminians, to their great credit, are generally more zealous in their witnessing.
Calvinists who say “why bother to witness” are guilty of ignoring the Great Commission and in fact are not really Calvinists, they are practicing one form of Hyper-Calvinism.
It is important to note that election does not mean that you have necessarily received salvation, only that it is inevitable that you will at some point, and that process is almost always carried out through evangelism.
You have to remember that everyone deserves hell, and God would be perfectly just and fair to send us all there. Those who are saved receive mercy, and mercy is a free gift, and gifts can be given to anyone at the giver’s pleasure.
Even if we look at “fairness” in the sense that people want to apply it, well then Calvinism is unfairly singled out as being unfair. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are “unfair”. In Calvinism, only some are of the elect, the rest are damned; it would have been better if they had not been born.
In Arminianism, some hear the Gospel and have a chance to respond, but millions die without hearing it and are damned. It would have better if they had not been born.
Calvinism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of some and the rest don’t have a chance. Arminianism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of nobody, but anyone hearing the Gospel has a chance.
In Calvinism, it is not possible that Christ died in vain. In Arminianism, in principle everyone could reject the offer leaving Christ with no people to call His own. His death would have been for naught.
Calvinism can be viewed as a covenant among the three members of the Godhead, each of which then plays a critical role in salvation. The Father chose some to be saved and given to the Son. The Son did what was necessary to redeem the chosen. The Spirit works within the elect to bring about sanctification.
1 The Catholic Encyclopedia.
2 Ibid.
3 Teacher’s Paradise
He died on October 11 1531. Luther lived fifteen years longer.
While Luther, in many ways, had a medieval upbringing and education, Zwingli was in a product of the renaissance. He received his early education at Wesen under the guidance of an uncle. For his advanced studies he went to Berne. He matriculated at the University in 1500. Two years later he returned to Basle where he devoted himself to the study of theology. In 1506 he completed his studies and a Master of Theology. Shortly before his graduation the parish of Glarus had selected him as its pastor.
As pastor of Glarus from 1506 to 1516, the continuation of his humanistic studies was one of Zwingli's chief occupations. He studied Greek, read the Classics and the Fathers of the Church, and entered into discussions with the Humanists of the time, most notably Erasmus, the almost-reformer who would also dialog with Luther. He also taught, though his public life he was most notable for his political activity. In the Italian campaigns of 1513 and 1515 he served as army chaplain. His earliest writings are all concerned with politics, with his first book being a biblical criticisms of Swiss social conditions. These works, which reveal Zwingli as the devoted adherent and champion of the papal party, won him the friendship of the powerful Swiss cardinal Matthew Schinner and an annual pension of fifty gulden from the pope. In fact, his papal support was so strong that his position in Glarus became untenable when the French party became predominant there in 1516, and so Zwingli left Galrus for Einsiedeln. 1
Towards the end of 1518, when the post of preacher at Münster became vacant, Zwingli, at the invitation of a friend, applied. Like many other clerics, Zwingli was suspected of violating celibacy. These reports made his position there difficult. When his friend questioned him on this point Zwingli wrote from Einsiedeln that it was not, as had been asserted, a respectable girl, but a common strumpet with whom he had been intimate. His friends in Zurich succeeded in suppressing these reports, and on 11 Dec., 1518, the chapter elected Zwingli by a great majority. He was then thirty-five years old. 2
At this point, it is doubtful that Zwingli was even converted. It is clear that with a record of personal conduct that was far from unimpeachable, Zwingli preferred to engage in secular and political debates rather than pursuing new doctrine. That was about to change. The year was 1519; Luther had already nailed his 95 theses to the castle church.
Many men are converted after they are ordained. Luther himself seems to be such an example, as was John Wesley. In addition, it would seem to be through reading the word that these men were finally drawn to God in a saving manner. For Augustine and Luther it was the book of Romans. For Jonathan Edwards it was 1 Tim. 1:17,
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Tim. 1:17)For Zwingli, it appears to be when he began a systematic, verse by verse study of the gospel of Matthew.
Difficulties with the Roman Catholic Church Begin
Zwingli’s fame spread through German Switzerland and southern Germany. He was admired not only for his sermons but for his patriotism, having opposed the practice of hiring the Swiss army to any one other than the pope as mercenaries. When an indulgence salesman named Bernhardin Samson appeared in the canton (1519), Zwingli successfully opposed him, and Rome recalled Samson. When the plague broke out in Zurich in 1520, Zwingli labored so tirelessly among his people that he fell sick himself and almost died. He used the position won by his devotion and independence to advance reform, but very cautiously and by attacking externals first.Zwingli quickly attracted large audiences to the cathedral by expounding the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures chapter by chapter. These oral translations of the original Scriptures broke sharply with church tradition. Previously priests had based their sermons on interpretations of the Vulgate and on the writings of the Fathers of the Church. In 1519 an admirer placed a printing press at the reformer's disposal, and his bold new ideas spread far beyond the confines of Zürich.
During the same year Zwingli read for the first time the writings of his contemporary, Luther. Heartened by Luther's stand against the Church, Zwingli in 1520 persuaded the Zürich council to forbid all religious teachings without foundation in the Scriptures. Among these teachings was the church stricture against eating meat during Lent. In 1522 a group of his followers deliberately broke the rule and were arrested. Zwingli vigorously defended the lawbreakers, who were released with token punishment.
Proceeding step by step, with the assent of the Zürich magistracy, he nevertheless alarmed the local hierarchy, who appealed to their bishop at Constance. The bishop sent to Zürich an investigation committee which sat Apr. 7-9, 1522, but was powerless against the manifest satisfaction of the citizens with Zwingli's position.
The Bishop of Constance’s concern is hardly surprising. The Catholic Church was always quick to respond when signs of spiritual life appear. Warnings were issued, but Zwingli’s unique claim as a reformer and a patriot made him untouchable.
Next came a bolder step. Zwingli he prepared 65 theses, or articles of faith (nothing like the 95 theses of Luther, which were almost entirely on a single topic: indulgences). Zwingli's theses covered all the points of the gospel. In accordance with the Swiss custom of public debate, a meeting was held in the town hall of Zürich on January 29, 1523. All the clergy were invited. However, there was no real debate, only a dialogue between Zwingli and the vicar-general of Constance. The decision of the magistracy was that the doctrines Zwingli had preached were enjoined on all priests in the canton. This was real schism. 3
A second discussion, which was held during Oct. 26-28, 1523. The decisions of the magistracy after this discussion were radical. They removed the images and pictures out of the churches, made the vernacular the language of the religious services and simplified the Lord’s Supper.
Pope Adrian VI, angered by Zwingli's behavior, forbade him the pulpit and asked the Zürich council to repudiate him as a heretic. In January 1523, Zwingli appeared before the council. He asserted the supremacy of scripture over church dogma, attacked the worship of images, relics, and saints, and denounced the sacramental view of the Eucharist and enforced celibacy as well. After deliberation, the council upheld Zwingli by withdrawing the Zürich canton from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constance; it also affirmed its previous ban against preaching not founded on the Scriptures. By taking these steps the council officially adopted the Reformation. Zwingli in 1524 marked his new status by marrying Anna Reinhard, a widow with whom he had lived openly.
By the end of 1524 church life in Zürich was quite different in many of its outward manifestations from that in any other Swiss city. The convents for men and women had been abolished, and music had been silenced in the churches, a strange initiative for one so fond of music as Zwingli. (Sadly he trashed the great organ in Zurich’s cathedral.)
The Mass alone remained, and that was so wrapped up with the life of the people that he hesitated to destroy it before the people were fully prepared to accept a substitute. At last it was decreed that on Thursday of Holy Week, Apr. 13, 1525, the Lord's Supper would be for the first time observed according to the liturgy Zwingli had composed. On that eventful day men and women sat on opposite sides of the table which extended down the middle aisle, and were served with bread upon wooden platters and wine out of wooden beakers. The contrast to the former custom was shocking to many, yet the new way was accepted. With this radical break with the past the Reformation in Zurich may be said to have been completed.
Under the Reformation, Zürich became a theocracy ruled by Zwingli and a Christian magistrate. Sweeping reforms were instituted, among them the conversion of monasteries into hospitals, the removal of religious images, and the elimination of Mass and confession. Eventually Zwingli taught that devout Christians have need of neither pope nor church.
It must be stressed that Zwingli’s reformation was independent of Luther’s. That is, Zwingli did not ride Luther’s coattails.
Zwingli and the Anabaptists
Among Zwingli’s followers in Zürich were Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz. Both agreed with the reforms proposed by Zwingli and Luther, but soon became convinced that neither Zwingli or Luther went far enough. What they wished for was a return to the simpler ways of the earliest first-century believers as depicted in the New Testament. The modern church had strayed far from this ideal, they felt, and needed much more than reform—it needed a complete rethinking of its basic tenets.Grebel and Manz believed that church membership should be voluntary, and to this end proposed the shocking notion of the separation of church and state, i.e. not “state” church. The government, they felt, served one purpose and the church, another.
Grebel and Manz also held that the New Testament teaches pacifism, which ruled out believers participating in any sort of military service or condoning capital punishment. This was in opposition to Zwingli, who was a politician and a supporter of the Swiss military. Grebel and Mainz viewed the state as evil, while Zwingli saw that his military was a necessary form of protection against the forces of the Catholic Church.
But the issue that caused the greatest stir was that of infant baptism. The Roman Church, in its state-sponsored mandate to assimilate all citizens, received newborns into church membership by way of baptism. Grebel and Manz, however, found no precedent for infant baptism in scripture. Instead, they argued, baptism was a symbolic act that should be undertaken voluntarily by adult believers as a sign of their faith. Since infants could not decide to believe, it was meaningless to baptize them. Accordingly, in 1525, Grebel took the daring step of rebaptizing an adult believer in his group, and others quickly followed. They were dubbed Anabaptists, or “rebaptizers”, a term that was meant to be derogatory. We will discuss the Anabaptists more in a later class.
Zwingli and Luther
In 1529 friends of Martin Luther and Zwingli, concerned over doctrinal and political differences that had developed between the two Protestant leaders, arranged a meeting between them. At this meeting, held in Marburg an der Lahn and known since as the Marburg Colloquy, Luther and Zwingli clashed over the Lord's Supper; Zwingli denied any real connection between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. (Recall Luther’s consubstantiation view.) He believed that at the celebration of the Supper, which recalls to worshipers the words and deeds of the Lord, Christ is with them by the power of the Holy Spirit. According to Zwingli, the bread and wine recall the Last Supper, but no metaphysical change takes place in them. The conference failed to reconcile the two leaders.Meanwhile, Zwingli carried his crusade to cantons other than Zürich. In all, six cantons were converted to the Reformation. The remaining five, known as the Forest Cantons, remained staunchly Catholic. The antagonisms between Catholic and Protestant cantons created a serious split within the Swiss confederation.
In 1529 the hostility between the cantons flared into open civil war. On October 10, 1531, Zwingli, acting as chaplain and standard-bearer for the Protestant forces, was wounded at Kappel am Albis and later put to death by the victorious troops of the Forest Cantons. After Zwingli's death the Reformation made no further headway in Switzerland; the country is still half Catholic, half Protestant.
A Brief Discourse on Predestination
Both Luther and Zwingli were strong teachers of predestination. Predestination is a foundational plank in Reformed theology. It is not the only plank, but one cannot really be said to be of a reformed theology without affirming the doctrine.Interestingly, Zwingli and Luther came to the doctrine by different paths. Luther was convicted of it, at least at first, in an emotional manner: his deep awareness of his own sinfulness pushed him into it. He realized that he was too corrupt to do anything to contribute to his own salvation.
Zwingli, on the other hand, arrived at the doctrine in a scholarly manner. His habit of verse-by-verse preaching opened his eyes to the doctrine as he encountered passage after passage that seemed to support that view.
Since predestination is so identified with “being reformed,” it is worthwhile to revisit the doctrine at this time. In short, it can be stated this way:
Before the foundation of time, God chose certain (future) men (and women) to be saved. Not for anything that he foresaw that these particular individuals (the “elect”) would do that was meritorious, but solely for His own pleasure in fulfillment of His perfect will. He decided to show mercy on some. The rest receive justice, i.e., the eternal damnation that all sinners deserve.The reformed view is that many will receive the Gospel call, but only the elect will respond positively. (That is, only the elect receive an efficacious call). This call cannot be rejected. Everything is by grace.
The Arminian view is that God will make an offer, through presentation of the Gospel, but the receiver of the offer must, at least at some minimal level, accept the offer of his own volition—which means the offer can be rejected as well.
The reformed view is that if God knocks you will open the door. The Arminian view is you must choose to open the door.
The reformed view is that you are dead to sins, without a pulse, and can do nothing to please God, and are in such a depraved state you do not have the ability to accept him (apart from grace). The Arminian view is that the sinner is gravely ill but has enough reserve strength to choose whether to consume or spit out the medicine that God places in his mouth.
The reformed view is that, without election, no one would be saved because no one would make the choice to follow Christ.
Reformed still witness because Christ commands them to and because it is a privilege to be an agent of the efficacious call to another believer. Arminians witness because Christ commands them to and because they feel a responsibility to give as many as possible the chance to accept, and to lead them to make the proper choice (while giving the credit and Glory to God). Calvinists do not feel as much personal responsibility as Arminians when someone doesn’t respond positively. Arminians, to their great credit, are generally more zealous in their witnessing.
Calvinists who say “why bother to witness” are guilty of ignoring the Great Commission and in fact are not really Calvinists, they are practicing one form of Hyper-Calvinism.
It is important to note that election does not mean that you have necessarily received salvation, only that it is inevitable that you will at some point, and that process is almost always carried out through evangelism.
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. (2 Tim. 2:10, NASB)
That’s not Fair!
There are almost always one of two responses from someone the first time they hear about Calvinistic predestination. One response is something like “cool, I can do whatever I want since I am either one of the elect or not. Might as well eat, drink, and be merry.” This is a serious heresy called antinomianism. Paul handles that in no uncertain terms in several places, for example in Romans:What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (Rom. 6:15-16, NASB)The second, and more common criticism is that it’s not fair.
You have to remember that everyone deserves hell, and God would be perfectly just and fair to send us all there. Those who are saved receive mercy, and mercy is a free gift, and gifts can be given to anyone at the giver’s pleasure.
Even if we look at “fairness” in the sense that people want to apply it, well then Calvinism is unfairly singled out as being unfair. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are “unfair”. In Calvinism, only some are of the elect, the rest are damned; it would have been better if they had not been born.
In Arminianism, some hear the Gospel and have a chance to respond, but millions die without hearing it and are damned. It would have better if they had not been born.
Calvinism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of some and the rest don’t have a chance. Arminianism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of nobody, but anyone hearing the Gospel has a chance.
In Calvinism, it is not possible that Christ died in vain. In Arminianism, in principle everyone could reject the offer leaving Christ with no people to call His own. His death would have been for naught.
Calvinism can be viewed as a covenant among the three members of the Godhead, each of which then plays a critical role in salvation. The Father chose some to be saved and given to the Son. The Son did what was necessary to redeem the chosen. The Spirit works within the elect to bring about sanctification.
Scriptural Support
And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord , in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Ex. 33:19, NASB) )
How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You To dwell in Your courts. We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple. (Ps. 65:4, NASB)
"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Mat. 22:14, NASB)
"And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Mat. 24:31, NASB)
now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? (Luke 18:7, NASB)
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ( John 6:44, NASB)
You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. (John 15:16, NASB)
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)
Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; (Rom. 8:33, NASB)
for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Rom 9:11-13, NASB)
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Rom 9:16, NASB)
And Isaiah is very bold and says, " I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME." (Rom. 10:20, NASB)
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love (Eph. 1:4, NASB)
For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Th. 5:9, NASB)
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Th. 2:13-14 1:1, NASB)
Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,
(Titus 1:1, NASB)
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, … who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be (sprinkled with His blood: …. (1 Pet. 1:1-2)
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (Rev. 13:8, NASB)
… And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. (Rev. 17:8, NASB)
1 The Catholic Encyclopedia.
2 Ibid.
3 Teacher’s Paradise
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Lesson 24 Martin Luther (1483-1546) Part Two
Luther’s debate with Eck on the question of papal supremacy took place in Leipzig in July 1519. On points, Eck won the debate by maneuvering Luther into saying that John Huss, a condemned heretic, had been partly condemned in an unrighteous manner.
Luther, however, scored many points. He pointed out that the Eastern Greek Church had never acknowledged the supremacy of the bishops of Rome. Yet, it was admitted by all, that the Eastern Church was Christian. The papacy faced a dilemma. How could the pope claim supremacy over all the churches, and yet a large part of the Church, recognized as Christian, not honor that claim? In addition, Luther noted that the great ecumenical councils of the early centuries did not teach the supremacy of the papacy.
Following the Leipzig debate, support of Luther solidified. His motive all along was to bring needed change to the Roman Catholic Church, not to leave it. But now Luther had publicly rejected the supremacy of the pope and the infallibility of the Church councils. The Leipzig debate crystallized the fact that irreconcilable differences existed between Luther and the Roman Catholic Church.
The papal bull had this preamble:
The bull went on to condemn forty-one propositions attributed to Luther. It was not his evangelical principles which were attacked but only his oppositions to the practices of the Roman Church. Finally, the bull ordered that all of Luther's writings be burned. One of the propositions of Luther which it condemned was Luther’s position that “certain articles of John Huss condemned at the Council of Constance are most Christian, true, and evangelical, which the universal Church cannot condemn.” Luther replied:
Publishing the papal bull in Germany became the responsibility of Luther’s nemesis, Eck. It turned out to be a difficult task. Very few places would publish it, and what copies that managed to get produced were often seized by students and destroyed.
Meanwhile, Luther busied himself with writing. As an immediate response, he published a tract: Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist. This he followed with “The Three Great Reformation Treatises,” The first was To the Christian Nobility of Germany, which was a call to do away with Rome’s abuses. The second was The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in which Luther demonstrated the error in the notion that man could only be saved through a priest and the Roman sacramental system. The third, The Liberty of a Christian Man, was a short but influential book on Christian living.
Luther also decided to respond in kind to Rome’s order to burn his books. On December 10, 1520, a large crowd gathered outside the walls of Wittenberg. Under Luther’s direction they burned the books of canon law as well as the papal bull.
Recall that the pope had hoped and lobbied for the election of Luther’s protector, Frederick the Wise, as Emperor. He failed (Frederick did not want to shoulder the expenses that came along with the imperial office.) Instead Frederick threw his support behind the Charles, King of Spain, who was elected and became known as Charles V. The pope requested, and Charles agreed, to summon Luther to the Diet of Worms.
Protected by an offer of safe-conduct, Luther left for Worms on April 2, 1521, convinced that he would never return. His journey was like a victory parade with crowds lining the street, waving and cheering as he passed by.
At four o’clock in the after noon on April 17, Luther appeared before the diet. Before the Emperor, noblemen, and the papal prosecutor stood a poor and powerless priest, the son of peasants. Charles V was twenty-one and dressed in splendor. Luther was thirty-seven, and wore the robes of an Augustinian monk.
An official asked Luther, pointing to a stack of books and pamphlets, “Are these your writings, and do you wish to retract them?” Luther spoke, first repeating the two questions. He answered yes to the first question, and asked to be given twenty-four hours to consider his answer to the second. Luther’s request for twenty-four hours was not a sign of wavering but a sly political move. The papal delegation wanted an immediate decision and tried to persuade Charles V to deny the request. Charles, on the other hand, did not want to appear as a papal puppet, so he granted Luther’s request. Luther, in effect, helped Charles to assert imperial authority over papal wishes.
The following day, April 18, Luther returned. He spoke at length, after which the Emperor demanded a plain, straightforward answer to whether Luther would recant. To this Luther gave his famous response:
There is a small gate in the wall of Worms. By that gate, Luther left worms on the night of April 26. The gate is now known as Luther’s gate.
Luther traveled toward home, at times stopping to preach (which he had been forbidden to do.) On May 4, after preaching and enjoying dinner, he set out on the road. In the forest, five masked riders kidnapped him from his carriage and took him to Eisenach. This was done on the order of Frederick the Wise, who knew Luther would be seized when his safe conduct expired. Luther stayed in Frederick’s protection for ten months, before returning to Wittenberg to deal with excesses in reformational behavior.
Luther had transformed the world by holding fast to a doctrine known as Justification by Faith Alone, or sola fide. It is useful to look at this in detail.
The problem is not that our sins are not forgiven. The problem is that the price of admission to heaven is an unblemished record. And once one has sinned, the record can never be expunged. Christ said “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13). The (mythical) righteous man has no need of justification.
Justification is like being acquitted of a crime, though not because the accused is innocent, but because an innocent third party (Christ) has made a satisfactory restitution to the offended (God). We get off on some clever legal maneuvering.
So exactly how does this happen? There is a substantive difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Reformed view.
RCC: Justification is by faith.
Reformers: Justification is by faith alone.
However, there is another big question here, above and beyond the nontrivial insistence on the word alone. To wit, how does justification happen? And here we find another substantive difference between the RCC and the Reformers. It is not “just” the “aloneness” of justification, but also that way it happens.
The question is whether we can actually become righteousness (and are therefore acceptable to God) or whether God treats us as if we were righteous. The former is the view of the RCC, the latter of the Reformers.
Neither side holds the position that any sort of justification can occur apart from Grace (that is the heresy of Pelagianism). Both the RCC and Reformed position is that grace is necessary for justification. There is a difference as to whether it is sufficient.
Calvin wrote, summarizing the reformer’s view:
This makes it clear that the Reformed view is that man himself does not have inherent righteousness even after justification. The righteousness with which we present ourselves to a Holy God is by imputation; it is not inherent or infused into us. It is symmetric with the view that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross and he was punished as if they were His own even though they were not.
Contrast Calvin’s view with what Rome declared at the Council of Trent:
The RCC disputes the Reformed view of Justification and holds that if we must be righteous before God then we must have a true, internal righteousness which, though accomplished through grace, is nevertheless “ours”.
The RCC and the Reformed views on justification are very different-- different enough to be the primary cause of the Reformation. It is very important to appreciate that these differences are not superficial (some have said that the only difference is the Reformers and the RCC interchange the meanings of Justification and Sanctification). There are additional ramifications when it comes to other doctrines such as predestination, perseverance, the atonement, original sin, types of merit, purgatory, and virtually all other salvation related topics. Whether or not these differences are substantive enough in our eyes to warrant the greatest schism in the history of Christianity, they were without question considered very important to both the Reformers and Rome.
When Paul talks about justification, primarily in the book of Romans, he never states explicitly that justification is by faith alone. However, what is not explicit is nevertheless abundantly clear.
When we say justification is by faith alone, it is understood that the faith itself is by grace. So grace is not excluded, obviously, from the restriction: faith alone.
That leaves only one other thing that could possibly contribute to justification: keeping the law, or works. Thus we have three possibilities:
So if Paul wants to teach sola fide he has two possible basic strategies at his disposal: He could affirm it explicitly, or he could eliminate option 2, justification by faith and works, so that only sola fide remains as a possibility.
That is exactly what Paul does. He eliminates works as a contributing factor. If works do not contribute to justification, then the only thing left is faith, and faith alone.
There are really only three possibilities.
In discussing this, it is vital to remember the context in which Paul and James speak of justification. Paul is laying out a treatise of the forensic view of justification, forensic because we are declared "legally" righteous before God by claiming Christ's perfect righteousness as our own. Paul is always discussing the theological ground for justification, which is faith and faith alone.
James' epistle is a much more practical, down-to-earth, in-your-face exhortation. James is addressing a dead orthodoxy and its cousin, antinomianism. James, unlike Paul, is not teaching first principle apologetics on the theological ground of justification, but its practical and inevitable manifestation.
This is most clear in the conflicting discussions of father Abraham. Paul refers to Gen. 15:6, where Abraham is made (credited) with righteousness because he believed. James refers to an event much later, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
The fact that Paul and James refer to Abraham's justification as occurring at different times, and as the result of different events, either worsens the dilemma or, as I believe, is additional evidence that Paul and James are talking about different things.
Note further what James wrote: Abraham was considered righteous (NIV) for offering Isaac. Considered by whom? God does not consider, God knows a man’s state. God knew Abraham was righteous because He made him (credited him) righteous earlier in his life. Abraham’s obedience made his justification manifest to himself, to Isaac, and most importantly to all of us. That is what James meant. For further evidence (and not dependent on the use of considered in the NIV) we note that James clearly views it as a display of righteousness (or justification), not the actual act of being justified, by also referring, in James 2:23, to Abraham’s ground for justification: faith.
In this view, James' teaching is clearly understood and in no way in conflict with Paul’s teaching of sola fide. James is telling us that if there is no fruit (works), then we are not justified, because justification (though by faith alone) always bears fruit. Both Paul and Jesus agree, teaching that, for example, a good tree is known by its good fruit (Matt. 12:33). God already knows which tree is good. Man does not know, except by the fruit, which then glorifies God.
Luther, however, scored many points. He pointed out that the Eastern Greek Church had never acknowledged the supremacy of the bishops of Rome. Yet, it was admitted by all, that the Eastern Church was Christian. The papacy faced a dilemma. How could the pope claim supremacy over all the churches, and yet a large part of the Church, recognized as Christian, not honor that claim? In addition, Luther noted that the great ecumenical councils of the early centuries did not teach the supremacy of the papacy.
Following the Leipzig debate, support of Luther solidified. His motive all along was to bring needed change to the Roman Catholic Church, not to leave it. But now Luther had publicly rejected the supremacy of the pope and the infallibility of the Church councils. The Leipzig debate crystallized the fact that irreconcilable differences existed between Luther and the Roman Catholic Church.
Excommunication
On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo ratified and signed the bull that officially excommunicated Luther. He also ordered that all of Luther’s writing be burned.The papal bull had this preamble:
Arise, O Lord, plead Thine own cause; remember how the foolish man reproacheth Thee daily; the foxes are wasting Thy vineyard which Thou hast given to Thy Vicar Peter; the boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it.
The bull went on to condemn forty-one propositions attributed to Luther. It was not his evangelical principles which were attacked but only his oppositions to the practices of the Roman Church. Finally, the bull ordered that all of Luther's writings be burned. One of the propositions of Luther which it condemned was Luther’s position that “certain articles of John Huss condemned at the Council of Constance are most Christian, true, and evangelical, which the universal Church cannot condemn.” Luther replied:
I was wrong. I retract the statement that certain articles of John Huss are evangelical. I say now, “Not some but all the articles of John Huss were condemned by Antichrist and his apostles in the synagogue of Satan.” And to your face, most holy Vicar of God, I say freely that all the condemned articles of John Huss are evangelical and Christian, and yours are downright impious and diabolical.
Publishing the papal bull in Germany became the responsibility of Luther’s nemesis, Eck. It turned out to be a difficult task. Very few places would publish it, and what copies that managed to get produced were often seized by students and destroyed.
Meanwhile, Luther busied himself with writing. As an immediate response, he published a tract: Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist. This he followed with “The Three Great Reformation Treatises,” The first was To the Christian Nobility of Germany, which was a call to do away with Rome’s abuses. The second was The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in which Luther demonstrated the error in the notion that man could only be saved through a priest and the Roman sacramental system. The third, The Liberty of a Christian Man, was a short but influential book on Christian living.
Luther also decided to respond in kind to Rome’s order to burn his books. On December 10, 1520, a large crowd gathered outside the walls of Wittenberg. Under Luther’s direction they burned the books of canon law as well as the papal bull.
The Diet of Worms
Pope Leo had done all he could do. After excommunication, the Church had official played its best ecclesiastical hand. The only thing left is to turn to the secular arm, which meant to seek Luther’s execution.Recall that the pope had hoped and lobbied for the election of Luther’s protector, Frederick the Wise, as Emperor. He failed (Frederick did not want to shoulder the expenses that came along with the imperial office.) Instead Frederick threw his support behind the Charles, King of Spain, who was elected and became known as Charles V. The pope requested, and Charles agreed, to summon Luther to the Diet of Worms.
Protected by an offer of safe-conduct, Luther left for Worms on April 2, 1521, convinced that he would never return. His journey was like a victory parade with crowds lining the street, waving and cheering as he passed by.
At four o’clock in the after noon on April 17, Luther appeared before the diet. Before the Emperor, noblemen, and the papal prosecutor stood a poor and powerless priest, the son of peasants. Charles V was twenty-one and dressed in splendor. Luther was thirty-seven, and wore the robes of an Augustinian monk.
An official asked Luther, pointing to a stack of books and pamphlets, “Are these your writings, and do you wish to retract them?” Luther spoke, first repeating the two questions. He answered yes to the first question, and asked to be given twenty-four hours to consider his answer to the second. Luther’s request for twenty-four hours was not a sign of wavering but a sly political move. The papal delegation wanted an immediate decision and tried to persuade Charles V to deny the request. Charles, on the other hand, did not want to appear as a papal puppet, so he granted Luther’s request. Luther, in effect, helped Charles to assert imperial authority over papal wishes.
The following day, April 18, Luther returned. He spoke at length, after which the Emperor demanded a plain, straightforward answer to whether Luther would recant. To this Luther gave his famous response:
If the Emperor desires a plain answer, I will give it to him. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. God help me. I cannot do otherwise.The Emperor gave a sign that the meeting was over. Luther turned and left the tribunal. A few days later, Luther was ordered to leave Worms and return to Wittenberg. The plan was, after the promise of safe conduct was nominally provided, that Luther would be seized and put to death as a heretic.
There is a small gate in the wall of Worms. By that gate, Luther left worms on the night of April 26. The gate is now known as Luther’s gate.
Luther traveled toward home, at times stopping to preach (which he had been forbidden to do.) On May 4, after preaching and enjoying dinner, he set out on the road. In the forest, five masked riders kidnapped him from his carriage and took him to Eisenach. This was done on the order of Frederick the Wise, who knew Luther would be seized when his safe conduct expired. Luther stayed in Frederick’s protection for ten months, before returning to Wittenberg to deal with excesses in reformational behavior.
Luther had transformed the world by holding fast to a doctrine known as Justification by Faith Alone, or sola fide. It is useful to look at this in detail.
By Imputation or Infusion?
The great mystery of salvation is justification. How are we made acceptable to a Holy and perfect God who demands an unattainable perfect compliance with His law? Clearly we can never, on our own, meet such a demand.The problem is not that our sins are not forgiven. The problem is that the price of admission to heaven is an unblemished record. And once one has sinned, the record can never be expunged. Christ said “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13). The (mythical) righteous man has no need of justification.
Justification is like being acquitted of a crime, though not because the accused is innocent, but because an innocent third party (Christ) has made a satisfactory restitution to the offended (God). We get off on some clever legal maneuvering.
So exactly how does this happen? There is a substantive difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Reformed view.
More than a quibble over the word “alone”
The difference between the Roman Catholic view of Justification is sometimes cast as the “mere” addition of the word alone:RCC: Justification is by faith.
Reformers: Justification is by faith alone.
However, there is another big question here, above and beyond the nontrivial insistence on the word alone. To wit, how does justification happen? And here we find another substantive difference between the RCC and the Reformers. It is not “just” the “aloneness” of justification, but also that way it happens.
The question is whether we can actually become righteousness (and are therefore acceptable to God) or whether God treats us as if we were righteous. The former is the view of the RCC, the latter of the Reformers.
Neither side holds the position that any sort of justification can occur apart from Grace (that is the heresy of Pelagianism). Both the RCC and Reformed position is that grace is necessary for justification. There is a difference as to whether it is sufficient.
Calvin wrote, summarizing the reformer’s view:
Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.Calvin also writes that the justified is “deemed righteous” and “regarded not as a sinner.”
This makes it clear that the Reformed view is that man himself does not have inherent righteousness even after justification. The righteousness with which we present ourselves to a Holy God is by imputation; it is not inherent or infused into us. It is symmetric with the view that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross and he was punished as if they were His own even though they were not.
Contrast Calvin’s view with what Rome declared at the Council of Trent:
… the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.We see here a very different view from Calvin’s. The RCC view is that we are justified not by an imputation but by an infusion. We acquire inherent righteousness, initially from the instrumental cause: baptism. Justification also requires cooperation. Furthermore, the state of being justified can be lost through the commission of sin and must be restored by another sacrament: penance. This is turns leads to the idea of congruous merit that is so alien to the reformed view and that Luther so despised.
The RCC disputes the Reformed view of Justification and holds that if we must be righteous before God then we must have a true, internal righteousness which, though accomplished through grace, is nevertheless “ours”.
The RCC and the Reformed views on justification are very different-- different enough to be the primary cause of the Reformation. It is very important to appreciate that these differences are not superficial (some have said that the only difference is the Reformers and the RCC interchange the meanings of Justification and Sanctification). There are additional ramifications when it comes to other doctrines such as predestination, perseverance, the atonement, original sin, types of merit, purgatory, and virtually all other salvation related topics. Whether or not these differences are substantive enough in our eyes to warrant the greatest schism in the history of Christianity, they were without question considered very important to both the Reformers and Rome.
Sola Fide
The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is often attacked on two fronts. The first is the fact that the phrase never appears in scripture, except in the epistle of James, in which it appears to be refuted, which is the second and more difficult front of the attack.When Paul talks about justification, primarily in the book of Romans, he never states explicitly that justification is by faith alone. However, what is not explicit is nevertheless abundantly clear.
When we say justification is by faith alone, it is understood that the faith itself is by grace. So grace is not excluded, obviously, from the restriction: faith alone.
That leaves only one other thing that could possibly contribute to justification: keeping the law, or works. Thus we have three possibilities:
- Justification is by works alone.
- Justification is by faith and works.
- Justification is by faith alone, sola fide.
So if Paul wants to teach sola fide he has two possible basic strategies at his disposal: He could affirm it explicitly, or he could eliminate option 2, justification by faith and works, so that only sola fide remains as a possibility.
That is exactly what Paul does. He eliminates works as a contributing factor. If works do not contribute to justification, then the only thing left is faith, and faith alone.
26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.In light of these passages (and the book of Romans as a whole) one sees how weak the argument is that Paul does not teach sola fide simply because he never names the doctrine that he so clearly espouses.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Rom. 3: 36-28)
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. (Rom. 4:2)
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:16)
The James Problem
This refers to the often quoted apparent refutation ofsola fide:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2:21:24)Here is the dilemma in a nutshell:
- Paul teaches that justification is by faith alone.
- Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith (Rom. 4:2). So does Moses (Gen. 15:6).
- James seemingly denies sola fide, especially in James 2:24.
- James teaches that Abraham was considered righteous for offering Isaac (James 2:21).
There are really only three possibilities.
- James is wrong.
- Paul is wrong.
- James and Paul are talking about different things.
In discussing this, it is vital to remember the context in which Paul and James speak of justification. Paul is laying out a treatise of the forensic view of justification, forensic because we are declared "legally" righteous before God by claiming Christ's perfect righteousness as our own. Paul is always discussing the theological ground for justification, which is faith and faith alone.
James' epistle is a much more practical, down-to-earth, in-your-face exhortation. James is addressing a dead orthodoxy and its cousin, antinomianism. James, unlike Paul, is not teaching first principle apologetics on the theological ground of justification, but its practical and inevitable manifestation.
This is most clear in the conflicting discussions of father Abraham. Paul refers to Gen. 15:6, where Abraham is made (credited) with righteousness because he believed. James refers to an event much later, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
The fact that Paul and James refer to Abraham's justification as occurring at different times, and as the result of different events, either worsens the dilemma or, as I believe, is additional evidence that Paul and James are talking about different things.
Note further what James wrote: Abraham was considered righteous (NIV) for offering Isaac. Considered by whom? God does not consider, God knows a man’s state. God knew Abraham was righteous because He made him (credited him) righteous earlier in his life. Abraham’s obedience made his justification manifest to himself, to Isaac, and most importantly to all of us. That is what James meant. For further evidence (and not dependent on the use of considered in the NIV) we note that James clearly views it as a display of righteousness (or justification), not the actual act of being justified, by also referring, in James 2:23, to Abraham’s ground for justification: faith.
In this view, James' teaching is clearly understood and in no way in conflict with Paul’s teaching of sola fide. James is telling us that if there is no fruit (works), then we are not justified, because justification (though by faith alone) always bears fruit. Both Paul and Jesus agree, teaching that, for example, a good tree is known by its good fruit (Matt. 12:33). God already knows which tree is good. Man does not know, except by the fruit, which then glorifies God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
