Kicked out of Geneva

If Geneva were around, I'd definitely get kicked out.  And not just me, but a whole host of contemporary evangelicals too.

Even disregarding the nasty ordeal with Servetus, if you disagreed with Calvin's theology, you were history.  In many ways then, Calvin seems to have taken on papal power over a small Swiss town.  And "decent Christian folk" such as (some of) you and me would be "ex-communicated".

I say this as one who has enormous and deep respect for Calvin.  Re-reading the Institutes, I am overwhelmed by his rhetorical and theological power.  And happily, I agree with almost everything he writes--especially when he focuses on the unity with Christ.




The problem is that there are a few doctrinal claims I would reject or at least suspend judgment, and therein lies the difficulty.  For instance, though I do accept one form of predestination, I definitely reject Calvin's version--and like Jerome Bolsec, I would likely then have Calvin's wrath and rage directed at me, to the point that unless I adhered to the "Church" (or to the teachings of the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Geneva, drafted by Calvin), then I would no longer be in communion with the "Church" (the scare quotes are because by it, he does not mean Rome--what he does mean by it is a bit amorphous, but for the most part, I take it that he means agreeing with him).

In fact, predestination is just one of those issues.  There are a whole host of other issues that I and other contemporary evangelicals would probably deny, and by Calvin's lights, we would not be genuine members of the "Church".  In the end, it seems that Calvin became a pope unto himself--lacking the humility and compassion that I as an evangelical look for in a pastor and a theologian.

The problem is that evangelicals have this sense of interpreting Scripture on one's own (well, technically, not on one's own but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), and thus it is natural for there to be disagreements--many of these being what some call the "inessentials" to the Christian faith.  But for Calvin, no such disagreement is tolerable.  But if Calvin subscribes to Sola Scriptura, then what determines whether his interpretation is better than anyone else's interpretation?  Is it determined by the best hermeneutics, grounded in the historical-critical methodology of current Biblical scholarship?  Is it determined by how much the Holy Spirit speaks to us in some deeper, mystical way?  The problem is, whatever it would be, it seems there is grounds for deep disagreement with both Calvin and orthodoxy (in some broad sense, say adherence to the Apostle's creed, Nicene creed, etc.).  That is, those who have tried their best to follow God and love Jesus, and who have utilized modern Biblical scholarship and listened to the prompting of the Holy Spirit have come up with many doctrinal claims that are contrary to what was taught by Calvin and orthodoxy.  So how can Calvin or any other proponent of Sola Scriptura chastise or declare as being in error any of the claims from these folks if they are using the same data and methodology?

I know Jesus-lovin' folk who read their Bible on a daily basis, have been through "conservative" (read:  fundamentalist) seminaries, but who have, in their best attempt to understand Scripture, walked away believing that God is not Trinitarian in some orthodox conception or that Jesus is not fully divine in some orthodox conception.  I see no way in which Calvin or other proponents of Sola Scriptura can declare their position as in error given the similarity of data and methodology.  But almost every day I hear some evangelical, especially within Reformed circles, decrying the beliefs of these "heretics"--but I take it that their claim is mostly baseless.

This is not to say I am one of these folks.  I hold to virtually every orthodox conception (maybe naively, but hopefully not).  I just don't see how proponents of Sola Scriptura, be they Calvin or contemporary evangelicals, can legitimately declare these folks who abandon the orthodox conceptions as no longer being Christian or unfaithful to Scripture.  I take it that they are only being unfaithful to Scripture if there is some further feature that determines one interpretation as "better" (in some sense--though I admit this is ambiguous) than others--and there are those who do have some additional feature, viz. Tradition and the Magisterium.

If I am in error, dear brothers and sisters, please correct me here.  I am a happy evangelical--but my evangelicalism seems to be drawing me away from the dominant forms of Protestantism.

I now turn from the magisterial Reformers, and turn my sight on some more recent evangelicals.  God be with me, and with us all.