Why I like Calvin

I will just let old Jacob Arminius speak for me...

"After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other ... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read ... For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers -- so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all" -Jacobus Arminius

Calvin on Women

Calvin’s view of theological anthropology concerning women differed from Luther’s in a subtle way. Luther believed that a woman’s subjection was not something that was from the beginning, but was something brought about by the fall. The woman was created to help man rule, but after the fall all she has experienced is domination. As Ruether notes, “ Unlike Luther, who sees the fall as depriving women of a role in the government of public affairs in which she would originally had shared, Calvin attributes women’s exclusion from government to the original divine ordinance in which sovereignty in domestic and state affairs was given exclusively to the male. This same order of creation means that women are not to preach or teach in church.” (Women and Redemption pg. 124)
Calvin does, however, believe that women are equal to men in everyway except in the role of government. So Intellectually, spiritually, morally, etc. women are on the same footing he says concerning man, “Truly there are many things in this corrupted nature which may induce contempt; but if you rightly weigh all circumstances, man is, among other creatures a certain preeminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness, so that he is deservedly called by the ancients "a world in miniature.” (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis Chapter 1:26) he then says elsewhere when evaluating whether women are also included in the imago dei, “Why, even children know that women are included in the term!” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.13.3. John T. Mcneil ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 479) Thus we see that Calvin in almost every way views men and women on the same level according to the image of God, but the office or duty of government is not something women where created to participate in. (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis Chapter1:26). Calvin also believed that if women ever ruled a nation it was God’s way of punishing the men for not adequately fulfilling their roles. (Ruether Women and Redemption pg. 125)
Women where also not allowed to speak or teach in church unless there was an emergency(Women and Redemption pg. 125). Calvin rejects Luther’s view the Adam was only first by primogeniture, that is being first born, Calvin declared that women where created equal but secondarily in authority from the beginning. This excludes women from church office, as Calvin says, “He Paul assigned two reasons why women should be subject to men: because not only did God enact this law, but he also inflicted it as a punishment on the woman.” (Calvin quoted in Women and Redemption/Ruether pg. 124-125)
Of course one cannot exclude from this discussion Calvin’s belief in determinism. For Calvin a persons freedom only depended if the person did what they wanted to do, it is not necessary for that person to be able to do other wise, only that the person wants to do an action or has the desire to do an action. Before the fall women’s hearts would have been turned toward God, but now they are only worried about usurping the power of the husband. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in paradise, Adam would have loved his wife and exercised his authority with Grace, but now this no longer happens because men are driven by a desire to abuse their authority. Calvin believed that men and women’s problem stemmed from their mutual rebellion against God, both Adam and Eve where responsible for the same sin, disobedience. This sin is what has caused the lack of functioning in marriage.
For Calvin it can be seen that women have rules that have been laid down by God from the beginning. Ruether notes three statuses of women in Calvin’s theology, “ 1) an inner quality of soul as image of God; 2) an external subjugation in matters of government, both of being established in God’s original order of creation; and 3) a worsening of women’s subjugation into servitude in the Fall in which women are forced to accede to submission that would originally have been voluntary.” Contrary to what many Feminist writers have written neither Calvin, nor Luther would have seen abuse by men or women to be a good thing. They saw it stemming from the universal curse of sin that was brought on by human disobedience, but it was not something that God would allow to go on forever, but would remedy in his own time.

Luther and Women

Luther lit the match that started the fire that became the reformation. He held straight- forward positions on most doctrines. Searching through his various theological writings and sermons can discover his position towards women.
Christian theology breaks down its worldview into different doctrines, and the one of the most crucial is theological anthropology. Theological anthropology is the study of man and his relation to God and to his fellow men, and women.
When considering the human condition and all of its good and evil, Luther and Calvin drew off of the doctrine of Original sin and developed it to encompass a doctrine that the later Synod of Dort would call Total Depravity. These two doctrines not only answered the most important question of mankind’s position before God, but also the very essence of what it is to be human. Encompassed in this also the questions concerning the differences between men and women were answered.
Luther based his thoughts concerning women and men on the idea of the imago dei, which is found in Genesis 3, which was developed by later thinkers and expanded upon. Essential to the imago dei is the belief that man is created in the image of God, meaning that man was given certain faculties such that in a limited way he reflects God’s attributes. This for the reformers was foundational, and unless critics are willing to deal with this part of the Reformers thought then any critique of their supposed sexism fails. Luther believed that Adam, the head of fallen humanity, was along with his wife perfect in their original creation. In this state of bliss man and woman would have known God intimately, there would have been no malice human beings, and the intellect would not have been fallen. The fall or original disobedience of Adam and Eve ruined God’s good creation. (Pg. 117 Women and Redemption)
Luther sees a difference of role in men and women, but the image of God is the same. He says, “ …for the woman appears to be somewhat
When Adam an Eve fell God instituted specific punishments that would fit their crime adequately. Before the fall Adam and Eve would have shared the God given dominion in perfect harmony and love that had been bestowed upon them, but instead they chose to disobey God and with that comes punishment As Rosemary Radford Ruether says, “In the fallen world into which Adam and Eve were expelled, they and the whole creation have lost their former perfection. Every power given by God is now hideously deformed. Adam is punished by hard labor in a thorny earth, while Eve experiences great suffering in what was her primary expression of blessing childbearing. She now falls under the domination of her husband… even in paradise, the punishment of domination means that what was formerly an acceptable companionship of greater and lesser now becomes a burdensome servitude.” (Rutheford pg. 119) Whether or not Rutheford’s interpretation of Luther as believing that Eve was ontologically inferior is correct, it is still true that companionship was denigrated into domination.
Luther considered the domination of men over women was Eve’s punishment because of the fall. Luther says that “The rule remains with the husband, and the wife is compelled to obey him by God’s command. He rules the home, and the state, wages war, defends his possession, tills the soil, and plants. The wife, on the other hand, is like a nail driven into the wall, she sits at home…” (Luther quoted in Women and Redemption pg. 120). It also follows from this and other passages that Luther believes that men are to rule in the church also. Women are not to speak, and to remain quiet in church gatherings. (Women and Redemption pg. 121)
Luther has much to say in the household, and this is where one may assume is teachings had impact for the good. Luther in his writings on marriage and the household is rather candid in his declaration that the authority of the husband is not to be abused, but also that the place of the woman is in the home. Luther, believing that believers are new creations, thought that Christian men should treat their wives differently than the pagan. He also believes that marriage had one purpose before the fall, but two after. Before the fall marriage was for companionship, but afterwards it is for companionship, and to restrain the lustfulness of the human heart. (LW 632-633) An articulated view of marriage can be seen in much of Luther’s writings when He says, “Therefore a married man should have regard for such a sacrament, honor it as sacred, and behave properly in marital obligations, so that those things which originate in the lust of the flesh do not occur as they do in the world of brute beasts.” (Pg. 633 Luther’s Works) He also says, “man should realize that by giving himself to his wife completely, and her to him that the man is not to “make a filthy sow’s sty of one’s marriage.”
Luther believed that a woman had a proper function in life where she would work best, and that place was in the home, he says, “What was said about the estate of marriage, however, should also be applied to widows and unmarried women, for they also belong to the domestic sphere.” (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper LW pg. 55)
Luther’s views maybe summarized as men rule the world outside the home, as well as inside, but the woman was to raise the child, and support the husband or be his helper. This state of affairs was not what the world was supposed to be but through the fall the woman lost her right to rule with the husband, and now is punished by being in subjection to her husband. Luther also was against any abuse of the man’s power he often quotes Paul’s language in Ephesians that men should not be harsh with their wives. Modern readers may find Luther sexist or chauvinistic, but it must be kept in mind that Luther is as much a part of his time period as we are, and this must be said for the next theologian that is to be examined, John Calvin.

Isaiah 45:7 not a good text to use, in order to prove God as the author of evil.

This passage is often used as a proof text to prove that God causes evil. I know the Calvinist answer will be that God never causes evil, he just ordains all things. If you want to be logically inconsistent that is your decision, but this passage does not teach "strong determinism" here is why,

"I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity (shalom) and create disaster (ra);
I, the Lord, do all these things."

The context of this passage is God illustrating how He has raised up Cyrus to do his bidding. Of course this is seen as in an international political light, which shows that God is the one true and living God of all the earth.
If we pay attention to the parallelism in this passage, and the language we will see why God makes this statement against the nations. The forming of light, and creating darkness in the first line, corresponds to the Shalom and Ra reference in the next sentence. Shalom is taken as peace or prosperity not "goodness" in some metaphysical sense, I would argue that Ra must linguistically be the opposite of Shalom, so it would be better to translate it disaster or calamity. Of course this is not a random or arbitrary action by God, but a punishment on the nations in particular Babylon via Cyrus.
Of course we know that Peace, or prosperity may not always be a good thing, especially when a nation is wicked. Therefore it is not an airtight case on the part of the Calvinist to take this passage to mean evil in a general all incompassing sense.
This text should be used only to argue that in certain circumstances God uses his power to create calamity for the purposes of punishing disobedient persons, or nations as this passage in its wider context will show.
I think that the confusion is that when biblical students see the word "ra" they automatically think of moral or ontological evil, instead of realizing that there maybe a rather wide range of meanings in context. We should remember, as Wittingstein argued, that words only get meaning from wider contexts.