Conversations with Steinmetz on Calvin (Part One)

I am currently reading David Steinmetz’s book Calvin in Context, which was recently reissued in a second edition. Steinmetz is a great scholar, and the book is quite good. I highly recommend it. At any rate, I thought that I might write about a few chapters from the book. Today, I want to write about an episode from Calvin’s life that Steinmetz discusses in the introduction.

In 1541, a conference between Catholics and Protestants was held in Regensburg. (The conference is often called "the Colloquy of Regensburg.") At this conference, Catholic and Protestant leaders tried to resolve a number of theological debates. They were not very successful. The Protestants were under great pressure, and two Protestant leaders – namely, Philipp Melancthon and Martin Bucer – were prepared to compromise with the Catholics on the doctrine of transubstantiation. Calvin attended the conference, and he was dismayed by the willingness of Melanchthon and Bucer to compromise on this issue. Steinmetz quotes a letter from Calvin to the Reformed leader William Farel in which Calvin complains about Melancthon and Bucer. Here is the relevant portion of the letter:

So far as I could understand, if we could be content with only a half Christ we might easily come to understand one another. Philip [Melanchthon] and Bucer have drawn up ambiguous and insincere formulas concerning transubstantiation, to try whether they could satisfy the opposite party by yielding nothing. I could not agree to this device, although they have, as they conceive, reasonable grounds for doing so, for they hope that in a short time it would so happen that they would begin to see more clearly if the matter of doctrine shall be left an open question for the present; therefore they rather wish to skip over it, and do not dread that equivocation in matters of conscience, than which nothing can possibly be more hurtful. I can promise, however, both to yourself and to all the pious, that both are animated with the best intentions, and have no other object in view than promoting the kingdom of Christ. Nor can you desire anything on the part of either of them which they do not faithfully and steadily perform, except that in their method of proceeding they accommodate themselves too much to the time. (14)

I believe that this letter provides Christians with a good model for handling theological disagreements. Calvin makes it very clear that he disapproved of Melancthon and Bucer’s attempts at compromise. I am not sure exactly how Calvin viewed Melanchthon and Bucer’s personal views on the eucharist at the time of the conference, but one thing is clear – Calvin certainly did not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation; and, he felt that it was wrong, and even dangerous, for Melancthon and Bucer to compromise on this doctrine in any way with the Catholic authorities. At the same time, Calvin was willing to testify to the faith and character of Melanchthon and Bucer despite their actions. In fact, Calvin went so far as to promise that they were men of true faith. And, we should remember that the stakes were quite high. It wasn’t as if Melanchthon and Bucer were two ordinary believers who were willing to compromise on a point of doctrine at their local church – they were leaders of the new evangelical movement, and they were fighting for the very life of the Protestant Reformation. This makes Calvin’s patience and understanding all the more impressive.

Calvin shows us that it is fully possible to disagree with other believers about important matters of doctrine while loving and respecting them as brothers and sisters in Christ. For me, this is just one of many reasons why we should spend some time learning about Calvin. He has much to teach us.