The Many Faces of Calvin

In recognition of the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth, Modern Reformation editors have solicited essays from a number of authorities on Calvin's life and work. Not all of our writers are "Calvinists" (that is, they would not all necessarily agree with him or follow in his theological footsteps), but each has identified a particular point of Calvin's thought that helps contribute to an overall perspective of Calvin's influence in his time and ours. We're grateful to these writers, some of whom might not normally appear in our pages, for lending us their own words as we contemplate the many faces of John Calvin.

Why do Calvinists claim Luther (at least to a point), and why do some Lutherans ignore (or even condemn) Calvin? To put it more narrowly, why does Calvinism seem more inclined to recognize the work of Luther than Lutheranism to recognize the work of Calvin? The answer is simple, at least historically speaking: Calvin "needed" Luther, but Luther didn't "need" Calvin.

Now, please, don't get too worked up over this statement! Please note my qualifier-"historically." Luther was a first-generation Reformer; Calvin helped transition the Reformation into a second generation. Simple chronology distinguished the work and defined the relationship between the two men.

There is, of course, more to it than that. Politically, the Peace of Augsburg (1555) formalized the principle of cuius regio eius religo-"whose the realm, his the religion"-within the Holy Roman Empire. This effectively forced the Reformed in Germany to claim the Lutheran tradition and its Augsburg Confession, at least in edited form. By the 1560s, with the publication of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Lutherans were increasingly suspicious of Reformed departures from the unaltered Augsburg Confession. By 1580 and the publication of the Book of Concord, the Lutherans had staked out their theological ground. And, as the Formula of Concord (1577) makes clear, the Lutherans viewed the Reformed tradition (including those outside of Germany by this time) with at least as much suspicion as Roman Catholicism.

And so how do we address the breach? Lutheranism and the Reformed tradition clearly share a common background over against Roman Catholicism. But are they simply different branches of the same path, or are we talking about entirely different roads?

Luther and Calvin never met and there is no meaningful correspondence extant between the two. Still, the two men were aware of and spoke favorably about each other's work. Luther reported that he had read Calvin "with singular enjoyment." For his part, Calvin believed that Luther was "a remarkable apostle of Christ" through whom "the purity of the gospel has been restored in our time."

There was much that the two held in common. A deep commitment to the Bible as the sole authority for teaching in the church resulted in a rich corpus of biblical commentaries. Both emphasized the reality of original sin and its effects on human efforts to win salvation. They agreed that human beings contribute nothing to their salvation. God works monergistically-salvation is a divine act of grace received through faith because of Christ. Many in the Reformed tradition also note Luther's strong commitment, as expressed in his Bondage of the Will, to the Augustinian tradition. Further, Calvin's first edition of the Institutes (1536) shows unmistakable evidence of Luther's catechisms.

And yet, pronounced differences existed between the two. Interpreters of Luther are divided over his understanding of the place of the law in the life of the Christian. For Calvin there is no question. The third use is clearly defined and defended as the "best instrument for them to learn more thoroughly each the nature of the Lord's will to which they aspire, and to confirm them in the understanding of it" (Inst. 2.7.12).

While both Luther and Calvin affirmed the efficacy of the Word and the Sacraments, their understandings differed markedly. On the Sacrament of the altar, both men affirmed that Christ is present in the Sacrament. However, where Luther affirmed a sacramental presence of Christ, sometimes described as "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine, Calvin affirmed Christ's spiritual presence. Calvin rejected Luther's position, convinced that it "exaggerated" the claims of the Scripture. Calvin believed that Christ "is always among his own people," feeding them "with his own body, the communion of which he bestows upon them by the power of his Spirit" (Inst. 4.17.18).

On baptism, Karen Spierling's recent Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva: The Shaping of a Community, 1536-1564 (Westminster John Knox, 2009) is a helpful treatment of Calvin's views. As noted, Calvin upheld original sin, but for him baptism neither specifically addressed the root problem of original sin nor did it grant forgiveness of sins. Calvin baptized infants because the Word of God commanded it as a way of incorporating them into the community of the church. The church then provided the setting in which knowledge of the faith might be nurtured and the individual's calling and election might become sure.

For Luther, baptism is God's act whereby he gives the gift of faith, which then receives the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection. Put another way, baptism is essentially christological for Luther-the place where the saving righteousness of Christ is applied to sinners. It is God's act through water and the Word of God that works "forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believe" (Small Catechism). For Luther, baptism is the enacted gospel. "Ah, dear Christians, let us not value and administer this unspeakable gift so indolently and indifferently; for baptism is our only comfort and admits to every blessing of God and to the communion of the saints" (Luther Works, 53:103).

The differences between Luther and Calvin are there. Are they, however, simply a matter of emphasis? Are they located in a different hermeneutic? Though he had a deep and abiding respect for Luther-perhaps even saw himself as a "conscious debtor"-Calvin pushed the Reformation beyond Luther, even while he sought to remain authentic to Luther's purpose. For Calvin, however, authenticity did not demand unequivocal agreement with Luther's exegetical or doctrinal conclusions. Rather, one must follow along the path of reformation that Luther had rediscovered. As Brian Gerrish has put it, "Luther, for Calvin, was not an oracle, but a pathfinder-a pioneer, in whose footsteps we follow and whose trail has to be pushed on further. We hurry on, still today, in the path he opened up." They worked in the same context, and even shared the road at times, though the paths they pursued sometimes led them in different directions.