웨슬리는 자신과 종교개혁 신학의 차이만 지나치게 강조하는 부적절한 이해에 반대해 존 뉴턴에게 자신의 신학은 “칼빈과 머리카락 하나 차이” 밖에 없음을 밝힌 바 있다. 그 차이는 무엇을 말하는가? 웨슬리는 설교 “값 없이 주시는 은총”(1739)에서 “구원의 원천이 되는 하나님의 은혜”의 특성을 “받는 모든 사람에게 값없고(free in all), 모든 사람을 위해 값없다”(free for all)라는 두 가지 키워드로 설명했다. 그중 “free for all”은 그리스도는 모든 사람을 위해 죽으셨으나 믿는 자에게 그 은혜가 적용된다는 보편 속 죄론 주장으로, 웨슬리가 칼빈주의 TULIP 교리에 반대했음을 보여준다. 그러나 ”free in all”은, 하나님의 은혜는 “그것을 받는 모든 사람에게 값없 이” 주어질 뿐 “사람의 능력이나 공로 … 선행이나 의로움 … 이룩한 것이나 됨됨이 … 에 달려있지 않음”을 의미하는 것으로, 이 주장에서 웨슬리는 종교개혁자들의 가르침을 온전히 계승한다. 웨슬리가 “free for all”의 주장에서 종교개혁 신학과 다름을 지나치게 강조해 “free in all”에서의 동질성을 간과해서는 안 될 것이다.

Considering the growing importance of the issue of the Christians’ participation into the Politics, this study aims to compare John Calvin(1509-1564)’s political thoughts and his works in Geneva and the political ideas and activities of Abraham Kuyper(1837-1920). According to this research, Abraham Kuyper had re-found Calvin’s political thoughts, and tried to apply these ideas to the modern secularized European society. While Kuyper was struggling against the spirit of the French Revolution after the Napoleon’s regime, the Dutch society was experiencing the radical social segmentation. Under these social circumstances Kuyper was able to succeed in the formation of the Christian “Public Face,” respecting the tolerance and democratic way of thinking. In the sixteenth century Calvin’s political thoughts showed “via media,” walking in the middle way between the conservative Roman Catholics and the radical Anabaptists. Just as Calvin did, Kuyper also followed the “via media” between the conservative wings, following Metternich’s line and the radical socialists. Both Calvin and Kuyper recognized the state as established by God in order to keep the human dignity and peace in the society. Calvin’s political thought was based on the “regnum Dei(the rule of God)” over the Church and the State. In Kuyper’s case, he put his political idea on the “Pro Rege (For the King)” and “Souvereintiteit in Eigen Kring (Sphere Sovereignty)” and the “Common Grace.” Calvin believed that the state and the church must co-work for the human life and the poor in the society, while he struggled the independence of the church from the state. However, in the pillared society of the 19th` century of the Netherlands, Kuyper could make the political thoughts of Calvin in practice through the foundation of the Christian political party based on the Democracy. Thus the Dutch Calvinists and especially Kuyper could bring the Christian value and norm in the secular society.

For a long time John Calvin was understood mainly as theologian, but he understood himself as doctor and pastor. To both ministries he believed that he was directly called by God and performed his ministry with honor and sincerity. Against Cardinal Sadoleto’s sharp questioning on his qualifications as pastor, Calvin declared that his calling came from God and believed his destiny to be similar to that of the Old Testaments Prophets, who were personally and unconditionally called by God, and delivered God’s message by the help of the Spirit. Therefore, unlike the Catholic priests, he became a pastor without endorsement from church authority via an ordination ceremony. As Alexander Ganozy contested, Calvin seemed to consider the calling of the local church and his actual function as pastor to be the most effective way to become a pastor. This may be scandalous to some modern Christians who are familiar with grand ordination ceremonies, but omission of ordination can be understood as a sensible choice for Calvin when the Protestant Reformers already broke with the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Upon returning to Geneva Calvin ministered churches with the fourfold ministry system-pastor, doctor, elder and deacon. Among pastoral duties preaching and teaching the Word was a primary responsibility. However, teaching the Word was not enough; the Word has to be realized in the actual life of believers. Calvin espoused the three marks of believers (notae fidelium) - confession of faith, example of life, regular participation in sacraments-and it is noted in this article that Calvin’s understanding of the pastor’s role is to assist his parishioners to bear those marks. To make this happen pastors cannot work by themselves. The nature of ideal ministry which Calvin advocated in Geneva was collegial and cooperative. He insisted in forming the Geneva Consistory and worked closely with elders in caring, educating, and discipling newly-converted Protestant Genevans. Furthermore, Calvin also started the Company of Pastors in Geneva with the purpose of enhancing pastor’s intellectual and spiritual quality, and further holding each other’s morality in check. In regard to the Company of Pastors this article introduced its five functions largely based upon Robert Kingdon’s observations: (1) examination of pastoral candidates; (2) member’s education; (3) mutual criticism; (4) mission work; (5) almsgiving, especially for French refugees at the time. Although Calvin himself did not go through the ordination ceremony, he devised a procedure and protocol with which a pastor may be examined by the Company and church, and eventually appointed by the city council. Once appointed, the pastor was in close communication and check with fellow pastors of the city and its suburbs. Calvin’s own understanding of himself as pastor and his practices as pastor offer some lessons to modern pastors and churches such as a thorough examination process for pastoral candidates and organized collegial relationships between pastors.