Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
How Calvin has influenced WORLD Magazine
A video commentary by WORLD Editor in Chief Marvin Olasky, courtesy of Desiring God and its upcoming National Conference, “With Calvin in the Theater of God”:
EDITOR’S NOTE: In the July 4 issue of WORLD Marvin wrote a feature on how a 500th birthday biography of Calvin shows a complex man with a singular belief who delivered the church from medievalism, a review of some worthwhile books investigating the life of Calvin, and a column on how Calvin was a champion of liberty.
RELATED VIDEOS:
Why Marvin Olasky?
What Calvin teaches us about writing
Calvin and Servetus
Calvin and politics
Topic: Commentary, Video
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top22 Comments to “How Calvin has influenced WORLD Magazine”
The whole episode with Servetus to me brought to mind the infamous “Night of the Long Knives” wherein the Nazis wiped out all those heretical leftwing homo Nazis. Those would’ve been the Nazis who thought National Socialism was really committed to progressive socialism. Calvin like the Nazis needed to make sure everyone was on the same sheet of music which he of course had composed, scored arranged.
Report comment to moderator
It is good to hear that this inspiration from Calvin’s life (to put a biblical world view into practice in the totality of life rather than in retreat from life) is behind the editorial policies and goals of World Magazine.
The last sentence in this presentation, however, says “We try to cover the waterfront and THAT is a decidedly Calvinistic way of doing things.” I’m not sure Editor Olasky meant to say that. Maybe it could be phrased as “That is the way Calvin would have done it.” But Calvinism per se isn’t what he, the editor, was talking about.
However, Calvin also didn’t mind the “government” being used to put biblical principles and truths into practice–a decidedly un-modern way of doing things. I think a compromise might be for “the faith” to hold government accountable but not for government to hold “the faith” accountable. So, in terms of editorial policy, maybe we should see the faith informing the news but not the news coloring our view of the faith.
As for whether or not World Magazine is living up to this commitment, I am finding that occassionally I would like more in depth interviews with experts rather than to slightly too thin coverage of journalists. Calvin also provides us with a role model of “thoroughness”.
Report comment to moderator
“The Calvinist way of doing things” -
There is no mention of Jesus Christ, not even once, yet Calvin is mentioned over and over again. Christ died for our sins, is not HIS way more important? – but instead it’s Calvin’s “way of doing things” – a very disappointing piece, especially when World Magazine makes it clear in their Mission statement:
Committed to the Bible is a perfect idea, but Calvin? – why isn’t Calvin mentioned in the “Mission statement” if its Calvin’s way of doing things which propels World Magazine? This is the first time I’ve read or been told that the Magazine is done in such a way as to mirror Calvin’s “way of doing things.” –
Very sad commentary!
Report comment to moderator
Once again Victoria’s vitriolic anti-Calvinism comes to the fore. Tired of riding that horse into the ground yet Victoria? Have you ever read Calvin’s Institutes, Commentaries, or Tracts? Or are you just repeating what others have said? By ht way, Calvin was “committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.”
Report comment to moderator
*the*
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER –
You calling Calvin a Nazi? You give him power in Geneva that he did not have. He was not a member of the governing bodies and he was not a citizen of Geneva, but an expatriate Frenchman. He was a pastor and teacher who’s influence was through preaching, not through political power.
Report comment to moderator
Ivan – 4
YOU WRITE: … “Have you ever read Calvin’s Institutes, Commentaries, or Tracts?”
Yes!
Report comment to moderator
Calvin had great authority in Geneva – Many saw and referred to this city as the Rome of Protestant faith, and Calvin as the Pope of the city – the quote below is made by Calvin, who obviously felt his authority to have great clout.
Report comment to moderator
If that is so, if he in fact was committed to the Bible in the beginning, why did he take another course to become so hateful as to have a man exterminated? There is nothing in the Bible which justifies such hate.
What we see today is a large number of people who support such a person, find ways to justify his behavior. If a pastor or church leader today commits such sin, as adultery, homosexuality or any other sin, they are ousted from their position – If Calvin was sorry for what he did, why didn’t he repent?
Even within the very churches today which support Calvin will not allow a minister to continue who has been found to commit adultery – even though he is sorrowful and repentant for what he’s done. Why is that?
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA – You write as if Calvin acted unilaterally in the Servetus affair – he did not; all of Christendom was against Servetus for his blasphemous anti-Trinitarian views – he was marked by everyone, not just Calvin. A number of other Swiss cities joined in the condemnation and verdict on Servetus, not just Geneva. TL Parker’s biography of Calvin indicates Calvin sought to meet with Servetus, at great peril to himself, to persuade Servetus of his errors. Servetus was a no show – are those the actions of a hateful man? God hates those who are opposed to him; do you reject God for hating? As for Calvin and repentance – you’ll have to ask him. I know of no one ‘justifying’ his behavior, but seeking to put it in historical context; something you seem to refuse to do.
Your question about present day pastors sinning has to be answered on a case by case basis, not in a general answer. My Presbytery looks at the sin, the quality of repentance, and a number of other things before restoring a man, if indeed they believe he should be restored to pastoral office. A pastor who commits adultery would probably not be restored.
Report comment to moderator
Ivan, you’ve made my point – he wouldn’t be restored, yet you honor a man was very jubilant over the extermination of another man, with not one word on record that he ever asked forgiveness, or repented to those he was supposed to teach -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I think a bit of spiritual schizophrenia helps in debates like this one. THat is, to separate issues from each other and deal with them in isolation. (I’m talking about “debate”, not “thinking” about these issues.)
World Magazine apparently was at least partially inspired to directly approach world events from a Christian perspective by Calvin’s efforts to put his understanding of the Faith into a form that could be the basis for a government. By itself, this is probably vague enough to be OK.
That World staff or Presbyterians in general could not condemn Calvin for “going with the crowd” (of Theocratic empires in his time) is a separate issue. When one realizes that Servetus was executed for only two of the many accusations of heresy against him–trinitary confusion and infant baptism–it is hard to comprehend anyone defending this action. It was the Inquisition, after all, that started this “case” against Servetus. Yet Presbyterians today defend infant baptism. Can any honest believer remain affiliated with such a heresy? Sadly, the answer is “yes”.
So I believe you are on the right track to view World Magazine slightly askance for stepping into such theological hogwash by blindly praising Calvin and refusing to condemn his errors. But my experience shows that all of us are 80-90 percent wrong and we spend our time arguing about the 10 percent that we’ve got right.
So I don’t think we’ll get much honest re-examination of Calvin (or Augustine) here. Especially since official Christianity at the time was OK with drowning even teenage girls who were baptised again.
Report comment to moderator
I do not agree in regards to “80-90 percent wrong” – if that were true concerning the Scripture, there would be little reason to spend years in study which I have – we are told in Scripture to: – - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 – - – - Your reference to Calvin is indeed true, but it also brings into questions his beliefs of Scripture and how he aligned them to his behavior to excuse what he did.
The part which is right is extremely important – those who blindly follow a doctrine which has been used to spread Eternal Security is dangerous, for that reason I believe the purpose for ignoring Calvin’s admitted guilt in the death of Servetus encompasses OSAS doctrine. On this basis I believe strongly that those who want to know what the Word of GOD says must take this as a red flag, to study and understand that Christ HIMSELF spoke about ‘falling away’ and so did Paul in Galatians 5, Ephesians 5 and 2 Peter 2: 18-22.
Clarity regarding OSAS and the pitfalls which follow, using the phrase “Christian liberty” often give the so called Calvinist a security blanket which doesn’t exist – most obviously in the discussion here regarding Calvin/Servetus –
You might be right, however we aren’t called to consider those who reject GOD’s Word, but to strive for those who will search out the truth for themselves, giving them the tools (Scripture) – one never knows who might reconsider, and discover something by thorough examination.
Report comment to moderator
Perseverance of the Saints is not a carte blanche to do whatever you want. Neither is the doctrine of Christian Liberty. If that’s what you have been led to believe it teaches then you are mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
Ringbearer,
I study the Scriptures – it is through study that we come to understanding as the HOLY Spirit leads. I haven’t “been led to believe” anything, I have spent a long time in the Bible, that is how we really come to an understanding, NOT relying on commentaries and other peoples doctrine instead of the WORD.
Report comment to moderator
I like how you imply that others haven’t studied the scriptures, or that reading commentaries is incompatible with studying the scriptures.
Report comment to moderator
Have a nice evening Ringbearer -
Report comment to moderator
I don’t say Scriptures or our understanding of them is 80 percent wrong–I only say the arguments we have about religion are 80 percent wrong. Most of any discussion about Calvinism, for example, is about logic and “religion” and not scriptures.
Report comment to moderator
Captain Faris,
I grant you that it isn’t about Scripture, however when you cite “logic” that doesn’t measure in very often either. Doctrine should be based solely on Scripture NOT logic –
Which “arguments we we have about religion are 80 percent wrong?”
I am affiliated with an Evangelical Church – do you mind my asking what church you are affiliated with?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Captain, that should have been one “we” -
Report comment to moderator
VIctoria,
I tried to imply that “logic” is also a very poor authority to base any doctrine on–I’m with you on valuing Scripture Alone, though the Lutherans departed from it starting with Martin.
I, too, have had little regard for the commentaries and the councils and the Patristics since seminary 30+ years ago. But I like to study them to see where they depart from scriptures. I study Bible mainly in the original languages but find that better linguists than me are just a fallible as, uh, say maybe Calvin.
But you and I probably agree that the weakness of Calivinism lies in its layers of abstraction away from plain scriptural truths. Logic and language are piled up until no one knows what they are talking about. I also agree that OSAS pontificators are just as mired down in their logic and language; however, I see clear interpretations for all those “insecurity” passages you cite that still do not demand that we assume a saved person can lose his or her salvation.
But I’m only a retired Middle East intelligence analyst so what do I know.
Apart from Calviin’s discernment problems (regarding theocracy and heresy) I’m more troubled by his assertion that “glory” is a zero-sum-game and that any glory we enjoy must somehow be “stolen” from God. Scriptures tell us that “then each man’s praise will come to him from God.” What if he runs out before he gets to me? (joke)
World Magazine’s editors, however, are so mainstream that they can ignore us minnows in the brook. I’m sure they just call us legalists or fundamentalists and move on. Yet we can still read World Mag and find encouragement despite their disdain–and, dare I say, “heresies”.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve enjoyed this conversation but it reminds me a little of the stereotypical Jewish folks “debating.” World Mag attempts, often successfully, to engage people who are not Biblical scholars. I’m glad for the presence of King’s College too; every inch (including blogs) is God’s. Believers are broken but redeemed vessels in bringing glory to God. In fact, even our brokenness and that of unbelievers ultimately brings Him glory. We will stumble and fail but the Lord is merciful and faithful.
(These video clips are excellent way of connecting by the way. Keep up the good work M.O. and others.)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!