Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
The Myth of Christian America  /  MCA (3 of 14): Geneva: The Seedbed of Christian America  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 5
Calvin’s claim that Christ’s moral teaching is essentially the Law of Moses (minus ceremonial law) leads to the idea that every nation can become a new “Israel”; what assumptions about God’s purposes for nations are embedded in that idea, and how would early Christians from the first three centuries have pushed back against it?
Another way to ask: If Jesus’s moral teaching is basically the Law of Moses without the ceremonial parts, why would people think any nation can become a new “Israel”? How might early Christians in the first three centuries have disagreed?

Direct Answer The transcript shows Calvin assumed God relates to whole nations like Old Testament Israel: nations enter covenant through mandatory infant baptism, are governed by the elect, and are blessed or punished materially based on national obedience. Bercot implies early Christians would push back by pointing to Jesus’ kingdom ethic—noncoercive, enemy-love, and unlike using the state to enforce God’s law.

Support from Transcript:

  • Calvin taught “no difference between Christ’s moral teachings and the Law of Moses,” except ceremonial law.
  • Christ’s coming meant the covenant could now be “with every nation on earth. Every country could be a potential Israel.”
  • Geneva was presented as “the model” of how this should work; everyone had to be brought into covenant by infant baptism—“statewide infant baptism was mandatory.”
  • Government’s role: “protect the Church,” “establish and preserve the true Christian faith,” and regulate citizens by God’s moral law (Old Testament moral law).
  • National blessings/curses: obedience brings prosperity and protection from famine/drought/epidemics; disasters mean God is “punishing” the nation.
  • Bercot contrasts early Christians: first three centuries “turned the other cheek,” loved enemies, refused coercive violence—showing a different kingdom posture.
Discussion Follow-ups When Christians talk about a nation being “under judgment,” are they thinking more like Israel’s covenant pattern or like the church as a distinct kingdom people?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next