John Calvin:
Father of Principled Pluralism
The Day The Reformation Died

John Calvin has been described by many as the true founding father of American democracy. True enough, but not in the sense most Christians might hope.

The seeds of American government -- both the strengths and the fatal weaknesses -- may be found in the chapter on “Civil Government” in Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” When we search for the doctrine of Calvin on Civil Government, we find, “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.”

The Good

John Calvin lays out the purpose of civil government as essentially two-fold: 1) to defend the majesty of God and blasphemy against his name and truth, and 2) “it prevents the public peace from being disturbed. As American government has abandoned its first duty, it quite naturally perverts its second duty as a necessary consequence. When God’s truth is denied in the public sphere, injustice and tyranny are the inevitable result. (p1488)

Calvin picks up this theme again in paragraph 9 (p1495) when he condemns “the folly of those who would neglect the concern for God and would give attention only to rendering justice among men.” He gives examples of Old Testament kings who restored the worship of God.

John Calvin rightly sets forth the establishment of civil government in the authority of God. Civil rulers are referred to as “gods,” indicating their dignity as his representatives in the execution of justice. He cites Deuteronomy Chapter One, a key passage for our understanding of civil government and a commentary on the Court of Moses at Exodus 18. In v.13 the people nominated their rulers, but they were vested with authority from God, via Moses. Then they pass judgment for God, without partiality to man. (p1489)

It follows that the magistrate must serve as a faithful deputy of God. God will give them wisdom for the task of judgment and they deserve the respect of men. John Calvin stressed the latter point to counter Anabaptist misuse of Jesus’ words to deny civil government at Lk 22:25,26: “the kings of the Gentiles lord it over them… but not so with you….” Thus, the magistrate is authorized to bear the sword for capital punishment (p1497).

Calvin advocates a mixed form of government, stating that “I will not deny that aristocracy, or a system compounded of aristocracy and democracy, far excels all others…” (p1493). This comports with the principle of establishment, described above, in which people and prince cooperate in the vesting of civil authority. In fact, Calvin cites the principles of Ex. 18:13-26 and Deut. 1:9-17 as the true source of liberty. (p1494).

John Calvin calls for a proper balance between severity in judgment and clemency. (p1499). This echoes those passages in the “Law of the Covenant” (Ex. 21-23) where a “ransom” may be substituted for capital punishment at the discretion of the judge and victim. This was reflected in the American aversion to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Calvin condemns Anabaptist pacifism, building a case for “lawful war” from both Old and New Testaments. He notes that Jesus various encounters with Roman Army officials never included the command to cast down their arms. (p1500)

Likewise, civil government may exact “lawful revenues.” But he cautions that “tributes are nothing but supports of public necessity…to impose them upon the common folk without cause is tyrannical extortion.” (p1501)

The Bad

John Calvin draws an unnatural distinction between the spiritual and the secular when he states that “Christ’s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.” (p1486). Here he seems to go beyond the Biblical principle of separation of church and state and reverts to Luther’s “two-kingdom” theory.

This tortured definition of separation prevails in America today. Would it not be more accurate to state that Christ’s spiritual kingdom encompasses the civil jurisdiction?

The footnote on p1502 states that “John Calvin wholly rejects the notion of a theocracy based on the judicial laws of the Old Testament.” The word “theocracy” by definition refers to the “rule of God,” which Calvin thereby rejected. The late Greg Bahnsen referred to this as “The Day The Reformation Died.” Here are the offending statements

1. “For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations.”

2. “Therefore, as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain. But if this is true, surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love….”

3. “Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule [natural law], bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law or among themselves.”

4. “For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain. “

5. “For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere…”

The Ugly

The outcome of Calvin’s doctrine of civil law has been ugly indeed. The footnote on p1505 admits that “The present section emphasizes the point that positive law rightly relies on natural law and equity, and requires penalties adapted to nations and conditions, without dependence on Old Testament legislation.” How would this differ from situational ethics?

Calvin grossly underestimated the depravity of the human heart when it comes to codification of law. For example, we find him making such preposterous statements as, "All codes equally avenge murder with blood, but with different kinds of death...Yet we see how, with such diversity, all laws tend to the same end. For, together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which God's eternal law has condemned, namely murder, theft, adultery, and false witness."

The naivete of these statements is immediately obvious to the modern observer. In the West today we find laws everywhere condoning the murder of the unborn, sodomy, no-fault divorce and more. The government itself is almost universally engaged in legalized theft.

Calvin’s casting aside the law of God in favor of “natural law”, “positive law”, the “law of nations” and the ambiguous “law of love” has proven to be fatal. This is the theology of pluralism that was adopted by the maverick Roger Williams in Rhode Island and eventually by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

We see its deadly effect in every facet of American life and culture today. We dare not repeat this fatal error the next time God gives us the opportunity for Reformation.