The Betrayal — Douglas Bond

One of my all-time favourite movies is Luther, the 2003 film based on the early life of the German Reformer.  It has often seemed to me that those involved with writing and producing this movie had read Heiko Oberman’s Luther: Man Between God and the Devil.  I’ve also often thought that, even if the film takes a few dramatic liberties here and there, Luther’s life lends itself well to that kind of story-telling.  Unlike Calvin.  I’ve long believed that Calvin’s life, interesting though it is, does not have nearly the same drama as Luther’s.  Douglas Bond has convinced me that I’m wrong.  In this novel he succeeds at portraying Calvin’s life in a compelling way.  No, unfortunately Calvin still doesn’t really have a sense of humour (certainly not compared to Luther).  Yes, Bond does take a few small liberties for the sake of the story too.  But overall, I think this historical novel succeeds.  I quite enjoyed it and if ever someone should want to make a film based on Calvin’s life, The Betrayal would be a great basis.  Following the book, one of the things the film would certainly do is set the record straight on Calvin’s role in the burning of Servetus.

Calvin and de Brès

Continuing our celebration of the 450th birthday of the Belgic Confession, here’s another small piece I wrote a couple of years back…

***************

The relationship between John Calvin and Guy (or Guido) de Brès has often been explored.  In his book on the Belgic Confession, Gootjes has a chapter on Calvin and the Confession and this also discusses de Brès’ relationship with Calvin.  He also has all the references to the other research done on this question (Strauss, Rutgers, etc.).  He also reproduces the primary source document which informs us that the library of de Brès included at least one book of Calvin.

Although the Belgic Confession is strongly influenced by Calvin, it is remarkable that in his other writings, de Brès never directly refers to Calvin (at least not that I have been able to determine).  The only exception I have found is in the preface to his 1565 book against the Anabaptists, La racine, source et fondement des Anabaptistes (The Root, Source and Foundation of the Anabaptists).  But even there, he only briefly refers to Calvin and does not quote him.  In fact, the only Reformer mentioned with any frequency is John a Lasco, but only because Menno Simons wrote a book against him.

However, the fingerprints of Calvin are everywhere in the writings of de Brès.  As an example, in La racine, de Brès argues at length against the Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism.  At a certain point, he appears to reproduce the argument of Calvin in Institutes 4.16.8.  The Anabaptists asserted that there was no clear instance of infants being baptized by the apostles.  Calvin replies, “If such arguments were valid, women should similarly be barred from the Lord’s Supper, since we do not read that they were admitted to it in the apostolic age; but here we are content with the rule of faith.”  Likewise, de Brès argued that we defraud or cheat the intention of the Lord when we prohibit infants from being baptized, no less than if we were to bar women from the Lord’s Supper simply because there is no example of them partaking in Scripture.  Now it could be that this argument did not originate with Calvin or it could be that de Brès learned it from someone else (perhaps Pierre Viret or Theodore Beza under whom he studied in Lausanne).  But the similarities do suggest that de Brès was self-consciously following Calvin here.

Some day it would be great to see an extensive study of de Brès to determine more precisely the exact parameters of Calvin’s influence.  Perhaps such a study would help to give us a reasonable idea of what work(s) of Calvin may have been in de Brès’ library.  We may also be able to ascertain whether or not de Brès actually sat under the teaching of Calvin at some point (though it seems likely).  Much research remains to be done in the area of de Brès studies.

Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism

I want to make a few comments on this book, but not a full-fledged review.  This is an excellent doorway into the world of post-Reformation Reformed theologians.  It condenses the best in some of the most recent scholarship, particularly from the Netherlands.  It continues the program of deflating anti-scholastic biases.  For example, the authors illustrate in a number of places ways in which John Calvin employed scholastic methods in his writing and teaching.  Calvin’s issue was never with scholasticism as a method in general, but with the specific theologians of the Sorbonne.  The authors demonstrate how the high orthodox period was not, as is often portrayed, rationalistic, nor did it contain the seeds of the Enlightenment.

One of the important contributions of this volume is to the history of apologetics in this period.  It includes a translation of a disputation from Gisbertus Voetius on “The Use of Reason in Matters of Faith.”  There is also a reading guide to assist the novice in understanding his approach.  Elsewhere Van Asselt briefly surveys the development of “physico-theology,” a form of theology based on the study of nature, developed in response to the pressures of Enlightenment skepticism and atheism.  Fascinating stuff, this.

Richard Muller is usually touted as the go-to man for getting to know the post-Reformation.  Rightly so.  However, novices to this field can sometimes find him difficult to access.  Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism is now the best place to start.  Albert Gootjes deserves our thanks for translating it and Reformation Heritage Books for publishing it.  I’m going to be turning to it often.

Perpetuating Falsehoods in the History of Mission

I’m currently reading this book which is meant as an introduction to cross-cultural ministry for aspiring missionaries.  I’m not all that impressed with it.  For one thing, it perpetuates the old myth that the Reformation had nothing (or little) to do with mission.  One of the reasons for this is that “Calvin maintained that it was God’s, not people’s, duty to reach the lost (election)” (125).  There are no footnotes or endnotes to support this.  It supposedly comes from Kenneth Scott Latourette.  Wherever it comes from, it’s just not so.  My article on John Calvin and mission can be found here.

This reminds me of another myth, the one about William Carey.  John Ryland allegedly said to a young William Carey in 1786:  “Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do so without your aid or mine.”  Missionary zeal was to be crushed with Calvinistic doctrine!  I discussed this in a footnote in my dissertation.  Here’s the footnote in full:

“The popular story is repudiated by Ryland’s son, John Ryland, Junior, who was Carey’s close friend and a fellow member of the Northampton Association, being assistant minister at his father’s church at the time when the incident was supposed to have happened.  ‘I never heard of it till I saw it in print, and cannot give credit to it at all.’  Among the reasons he gives for rejecting its authenticity it is interesting to note that he says, ‘No man prayed and preached about the latter-day glory more than my father.’”  Iain Murray,  The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971), 280. Murray cites as source John Ryland, Life of Andrew Fuller (1816), 175.  For further confirmation, see W. A. Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity: Or the Continuous Existence of Baptist Churches (Dallas, 1894), 417.  Jarrel quotes Ryland’s son as insisting that his father was not even present at the Northampton meeting.

Old myths die hard, also in the history of mission.

Calvin and Bernard: The Name of Jesus is Beautiful!

“Bernard’s admonition is worth remembering:  ‘The name of Jesus is not only light but also food; it is also oil, without which all food of the soul is dry; it is salt, without whose seasoning whatever is set before us is insipid; finally it is honey in the mouth, melody in the ear, rejoicing in the heart, and at the same time medicine.  Every discourse in which his name is not spoken is without savour.’”

Institutes 2.16.1, quoting Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Song of Songs 15.6