Martin Luther and John Calvin

While the transition from the Ancient to the Medieval world has been generally agreed upon as far as the symbolic date and event goes, the fall of Rome in 476 AD, there is not a generally agreed upon event or date to symbolize the transition from the Medieval to the Modern world. Three major events have been given which are as follows: Columbus’ landing in the Americas in 1492, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, and the fall of Constantinople (the Eastern Roman/ Byzantine Empire) in 1453. As all these events happened around 1500, this has been the line of demarcation historians has traditionally used to divide the Medieval and Modern worlds. Though all these events were significant in the development of the Modern world, one event in particular stands out; that event being the Protestant Reformation. As this was a highly significant event, its two chief proponents, Martin Luther and John Calvin, are highly important philosophers, not only of religion and theology, but also of politics. Thus, both men are included in History of Political Thought with Duncan B. Forrester’s essay focusing on how both men changed the way not only the Church was to be governed, but the state as well. Forrester’s essay tends to focus on the areas where both men agreed, but it also does a marvelous job explaining how both men differed, and how those differences manifested themselves in differing methods of governance.

First off, in order to understand the political thought of Luther and Calvin, it must be understood that both men did not see themselves as political philosophers, but rather as theologians. The reforms they made of the Church though necessitated reforms to the state. For both Luther and Calvin, their thought is centered in the Bible and at the center of their theology is the idea that man is justified by faith alone. For both Luther and Calvin, man must be justified by faith alone as man is seen as being totally depraved. What is meant by total depravity here is not that men can do no good at all, but rather it means that what good men can do is meaningless and pathetic when compared to God. Though this certainly came across as a highly radical idea during their time, it is important to remember that neither Luther nor Calvin thought of themselves as leading a revolution. Instead, they were leading a restoration of the original Christianity of St. Paul and St. Augustine, as the Medieval teaching had become Pelagianism, the idea that man could save himself. They also sought to remove the Aristotelian influence on the Church, which meant that they say reason/ revelation and philosophy/ theology as more distinct that was commonly thought of during their time. Thus, they also sought to undo the Thomist synthesis between these concepts.   

Just as the authority of Medieval Church teaching was deemphasized, the authority of the Bible was deemphasized and was removed from the judgment of the Church as it was the Bible that set the limits of reason. Without the Church counsels that had traditionally guided Christian morality,  a new formulation of ethics had to be constructed, particularly in the light of the idea of Sola Fide, the idea that faith alone could save men and works were meaningless. Thus, the idea was presented that while it was faith and not works that saved men, works were the outgrowth of faith, so those who had good faith would also have good works.   

But perhaps the most important idea Luther and Calvin presented was the idea that men belonged to two kingdoms, the spiritual kingdom and the temporal kingdom. Both of these kingdoms were seen as having differing jurisdictions. For example, man is seen as being totally free in the spiritual kingdom but is totally in bondage in the temporal kingdom. It also should be noted that despite the use of the words “temporal” and “spiritual,” these two kingdoms should not be thought of merely as Church and State. Regardless of the differences between the two kingdoms, God is still seen as the creator and sovereign of both and eventually the two kingdoms will be united, but that time as yet to come. For now, government is totally in the realm of the temporal kingdom and it has been established simply to keep the peace. Also, Luther and Calvin both use the word “Church” in two differing ways. One way refers to the visible Church, which refers to those who are formal members of the Church while the invisible Church refers to the communion of all Christians. It is also here where we begin to see how both men differ as Calvin places more emphasis on the visible Church’s ability to guide people than Luther does. Still, they are united in the belief that the state can reform the Church to put it more in line with the word of God. Another thing that should be avoided when thinking about the doctrine of the two kingdoms is to think of it as basically analogous to the Catholic doctrine of the “two swords.” Such a reading would be incorrect because for both men, there is but one sword, and that sword belongs to the government. This idea is rooted in the belief that the state is needed as no theology can perfectly guide people.

The Fall of Man has a great power over both reformers’ thought as they saw the problems as being rooted in the Fall, and of course it is only though the Fall that such an idea as total depravity makes sense. Still, it is also interesting to note that while Calvin does believe in total depravity, it does not appear as if all is lost as he also seems to see man’s social nature as being one of the last bits of God’s image still in him. Despite Calvin’s admittance of man’s social nature, the idea of total depravity still means that for both men, government is highly important in order to keep people in line. Because of their views on the Church and the state, Luther and Calvin end up fighting a battle on three fronts. Theses battles are as follows: 1) against the radical Anabaptists, who denied any civil control over Christians. 2) Against the Papacy, which took the state’s power. And 3) against certain princes, who took the Church’s power.

It is also important to remember, despite the fact that both men were producing radical formulations of state power, they were careful to avoid being utopian on this matter. It is also on this point where we can see one of the clearest distinctions between Luther and Calvin’s thought. For Luther, there is no distinction between democracy and mob rule and as a mob can never be truly Christian, monarchy is seen as the best form of government. Still, Luther does not have complete faith in the power of monarchy as he also sees absolute monarchy as being in error, thus restraints on the monarchy are needed. For Calvin though, man’s depravity means that government must use checks and balances in order to avoid the twin evils of tyranny and mob rule. For this, Calvin sees a republic as the most appropriate form of government.

Despite the fact that both men do admit that government must have some restraints placed on it, they also see all leadership, even bad leadership and being ultimately given by God and thus must be obeyed. While it is true, God is to be obeyed first and foremost, it is not up to the individual to decide when these two ideas conflict. As a generally rule though, Luther and Calvin both think that disobedience when a temporal leader steps out of his proper realm. It also must be kept in mind that while disobedience is at times justified, resistance is not. These ideas raise the question as to what a Christian should do when faced with great tyranny. For Luther and Calvin, such a Christian has three options. They are as follows: 1) move to be under the rule of a less tyrannical regime, 2) suffer, 3) resist in certain clearly defined circumstances.

Tolerance is another major element in both men’s though as while Luther started off as being fairly tolerant for a man of his era, he became less and less tolerant as his thought developed. Likewise, Calvin thought it was perfectly in the state’s jurisdiction to punish people for blasphemy. This is important as while both men were well aware of Christian persecution in the past, as well as the persecution of themselves and their followers, neither saw that as a justification of the toleration of all opinions.

Another important concept in Luther and Calvin’s political thought is the three forms of law. The three forms of law are as follows: 1) the divine law, dealing with direct revelation from God, 2) the natural law, dealing with that from God which is not the result of direct revelation, and 3) the positive law, which deals with the particular laws of the leader in charge. Ultimately, both men see the natural law as being identical with divine law, a move which radically deemphasized the importance of natural law.

Vocation is also a highly important element of both Luther and Calvin’s thought as all people are seen as having two callings in life, one of God and salvation and one of vocation. Vocation is important as it helps place people more firmly in society, thus statesman is seen as a highly honorable vocation. This also means that a statesman abusing his power also abuses the vocation God gave him, and as such will be punished by God for doing so. From the idea of vocation comes Luther’s idea of “the hero”, an idea which Calvin does not share. For Luther, the hero is a special man who can properly lead a rebellion. Such men though, are extremely rare.  

Duncan D. Forrester’s essay on Martin Luther and John Calvin has been so far more favorite entry in History of Political Philosophy. Forrester is able to brilliantly show how both men agreed on many issues, yet also came to several significant disagreements that manifested themselves in different ways.