Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 1

The chapter claims Calvin “shaped Scripture to fit his theological system”; where do you see that happening in the examples Bercot gives (oaths, nonresistance, loving enemies), and what does that imply about the kind of God Calvin’s system needed God to be?

Another way to ask: The chapter says Calvin made Scripture fit his own system. Where do you see that in Bercot’s examples (oaths, nonresistance, loving enemies), and what kind of God does Calvin’s system seem to need?

Direct Answer Bercot shows Calvin taking Jesus’ plain commands and reinterpreting them so they don’t require radical obedience, which lets Calvin’s larger system stay intact. That implies Calvin’s system needed a God whose Son’s words can be “explained away” when they don’t fit what Calvin thinks must be true.

Support from Transcript:

On oaths, Jesus says, “do not swear at all,” but Calvin says people are “led by the phrase ‘not at all’” into a “false notion,” and concludes, “it does not follow that it is unlawful to swear when necessity demands it.”
Bercot comments Calvin’s reasoning is really “Augustine speaking, not Jesus,” implying the system is propped up by inherited theology.
On nonresistance, Jesus says, “do not resist an evil person…turn the other,” but Calvin says Christ didn’t mean to “encourage” aggressors and criticizes taking the wording literally as “nitpicking about words.”
On loving enemies, Jesus commands “Love your enemies…do good…pray for,” but Calvin says Christ “does not introduce new laws,” only corrects the scribes.
Bercot draws the implication: if war was allowable under the law, “it still is allowable to Christians.”

Discussion Follow-ups What kind of “system” would make Jesus’ commands feel dangerous if taken at face value? Why might someone prefer a God whose commands are adjustable by necessity?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 1 of 10