It appears that Lionel from “A Better Covenant” is questioning the great apostle Calvin in his last (no, really, this time it is the last) blog post called “Did Calvin’s Ecclesiology Produce a Faux Flower?” Before you burn Lionel in effigy (since you can’t burn him at the stake any longer), consider his questions carefully:
Did Calvin’s and the Reformers Ecclesiology force them to produce a faux flower? Given the fact that the Church and the State were in a ungodly marriage under the tyranny of the Reformers how could they both force people into Christendom and justify that these individuals, coerced by the sword as they were, were really part of the true Church? How about the invisible/visible church distinction?
So again if everyone in a given locale are in the “Church” (this was the doctrine of these gentleman ungodly as it was)who was genuinely saved? We understand that coercion of faith forced them to justify the erroneous doctrine of baptizing infants. So the questions are quite simple though maybe a bit more complex to answer.
We understand that Calvin’s false ecclesiology forced them to baptize infants so is the “TULIP” also a product of a false ecclesiology driven by the refusal to separate the State from the Kingdom? Also why do we feel that if Calvin was off on so much (and he was) why was he right on this?
John Calvin is a very important figure in Christianity. But, I think its good to examine his works critically, much like we would examine the works of any human. He is not perfect.
Unfortunately, listening to some people talk – especially around the seminary – it appears that we may have as many Calvinians (or the modern version – Piperinians) as Christians.
What do you think? How does Calvin’s ecclesiology affect other parts of his theology?