In his discussion of church officers in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (1509-1564) examines Ephesians 4:11, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Calvin observes that only Pastors and Teachers are ordinary and perpetual offices in the church, while Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists are extraordinary and temporary offices which were needed for the initial establishment of the church in the first century. He explains what each of the terms mean and how each of them functioned. These three extraordinary offices “were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.3.4).
But then Calvin makes a perhaps surprising statement. He explains that, while these extraordinary offices were originally instituted for the founding of the church in the first century, the Lord “still occasionally raises them up when the necessity of the times requires.” He further clarifies that although these roles were foundational and temporary, “I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist. The office I nevertheless call extraordinary, because it has no place in churches duly constituted.” (Institutes, ibid.). [1]
What did Calvin mean by this? Is he saying that God might ordain more Apostles adding to the twelve (and Paul)? Is he saying that the miraculous gifts of the Apostles have not actually ceased, but might be given again in certain circumstances? It is important to understand in what way Calvin thought Apostles or Evangelists could be raised up again. Rather than taking this as a general Continuationist statement, if we read Calvin on this matter across his writings we can see he meant something specific that does not challenge or contradict his belief that these offices, properly speaking, and their miraculous gifts are indeed ceased today.
Two Types of “Apostles”
Calvin explicitly distinguishes between two types of “apostles.” First there are the Apostles God used to found the church. These are “the first architects of the Church, to lay its foundations throughout the world” (Institutes 4.3.4), and “those highly favored persons whom Christ exalted to the highest honor. Such were the twelve, to whose number Paul was afterwards added” (com. Eph. 4:11). These men had several unique qualifications: 1. They were followers of Christ’s earthly ministry and eyewitnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22; 10:41). 2. They were immediately chosen by him to be Apostles (Mark 1:14-20; Acts 1:24-26; Acts 9:15-16). 3. They were given supernatural infallible revelation which was written in the New Testament (Luke 10:16; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; 3:16). And 4. They were given the ability to produce signs and wonders (Mark 16:17-20), “the signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12), “in order to give luster to the gospel, while it was new and in a state of obscurity” (com. Mark. 16:17). Nobody can meet these criteria of an Apostle any longer. Calvin’s comments on the miraculous gifts in Mark 16 make this clear: Cessation of the Miraculous Gifts | John Calvin.
The latter type of “apostles, or at least evangelists” Calvin refers to are those who, near to his own day, “were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist” (i.e. Roman Catholic spiritual tyranny). Or as he says in his commentary on Ephesians 4:11, “in those cases where religion has fallen into decay, and evangelists are raised up in an extraordinary manner, to restore the pure doctrine which had been lost.” These were the first Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Knox, etc.
Calvin likely makes this brief digression here to justify the call of the first Reformers in the face of Rome’s frequent challenge. As Calvin’s Genevan successor Francis Turretin (1623-1687) explained the relevance of this controversy:
“Among all the questions which refer to the call of pastors, none is more frequently agitated by Romanists or productive of greater contention than that which relates to the call of our Reformers. Their design is to prove them guilty of schism and to condemn the Reformation inaugurated by them as unlawful and begun without a call.” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology XVIII.xxv.1, vol. 3, p. 235)
The Protestant Reformers were clearly not first century eyewitnesses of Christ, nor immediately chosen by Christ, were not given infallible revelation, nor miraculous gifts. But Calvin’s point is that their work was analogous to apostles or evangelists in terms of their calling; specifically in the scope, necessity, and gifts of their calling as Reformers. There is no valid reason to interpret Calvin as treating the Apostles and the Reformers as univocally the same. The same word is used for two different things that have an analogous relationship. Let us look at the three extraordinary aspects of the calling of the first Reformers.
The Extraordinary Scope of the Reformers’ Ministry.
Similar to the Apostles and Evangelists, many of the Protestant Reformers were not necessarily limited to pastor a single congregation, but had a much more extensive ministry to their nations, magistrates, and the Christian world clouded in Popish darkness. “No fixed limits are given [the Apostles], but the whole world is assigned to be reduced under the obedience of Christ…[they] were sent forth to bring back the world from its revolt to the true obedience of God, and everywhere establish his kingdom by the preaching of the Gospel.” (Institutes, ibid). Notice how Calvin compares the extent of the Apostolic ministry with that of ordinary pastors:
“The Lord created the Apostles, that they might spread the gospel throughout the whole world, and he did not assign to each of them certain limits or parishes, but would have them, wherever they went, to discharge the office of ambassadors among all nations and languages. In this respect there is a difference between them and Pastors, who are, in a manner, tied to their particular churches. For the Pastor has not a commission to preach the gospel over the whole world, but to take care of the church that has been committed to his charge.” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:28).
Every minister of the gospel serves the whole visible church, and although ordinarily tied to their own particular church, God may extraordinarily call some to a broader ministry beyond a local congregation. This was evidently the case with the Reformers at a time when the gospel was urgently needed all throughout Christendom.
The Extraordinary Necessity of the Reformers’ Ministry.
In his Necessity of Reforming the Church, Calvin wrote, “Now, it cannot, without effrontery, be denied, that when our Reformers appeared, the world was more than ever smitten with this blindness [of idolatry and external show]. It was therefore absolutely necessary to urge men with these prophetical rebukes, and draw them off, as by force, from that infatuation.” (Tracts & Letters, vol. 1, p. 151). So because of the severe corruption of the church, the leaders of the Protestant Reformation “were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist.” But nevertheless this calling and work was “extraordinary, because it has no place in churches duly constituted.” (Institutes, ibid.). Turretin elaborates and clarifies on this distinction:
“We must distinguish between a church constituted and to be constituted or reformed; and the ordinary way from a case of extreme necessity. In a constituted church, we think the sanctioned order ought to be retained, so that all things may be done decently in the church and disorder and confusion avoided. But in a church to be restored, we are not always to wait for the ordinary call, but any private person can, in a case of extreme and unavoidable necessity, enter upon the work of reformation.” (IET XVIII.xxv.11, vol. 3, p. 239).
Leveraging this same distinction between a constituted and orderly church vs. a church in need of reformation, John Brown of Wamphray (1610-1679) connects the distinction between two types of mediate callings, one “ordinary” and one “singular and rare.” In a constituted and orderly church there is an ordinary manner of calling to the ministry. But in a disorderly church in need of reformation God may call men to the ministry in an extraordinary (yet mediate) way:
“There is one call immediate by God, and Christ, without the intervening of man. There is another mediate, which though also of God, yet it is by the intervention of some deed of man and so is said to be by man. The first is attributed unto the Apostles and some others whom Christ immediately sent forth; adjoining that call of Matthias (Acts 1), which, as to the person, on whom the lot fell, was immediately from God. The other unto other church officers, appointed to their office by them, and so forth in succeeding generations, according to the way and method set down in the Word. The mediate call is that which we are now to enquire after, and to look for; seeing the immediate call is ceased with these extraordinary persons, who were called by it, and were withal endued with extraordinary gifts (as we see Mat. 10:1; 2 Cor. 12:12); or had some other extraordinary thing in their mission, which did abundantly evince it to be immediately divine. We may note further that there is a mediate call, which may be called singular and rare, or not very ordinary; as when a church is in erecting, and not yet constituted, and all things are out of order; so that, through necessity, many, or several things requisite in an orderly call, must be passed by and dispensed with. And there is a mediate call, which is ordinary, and is usually to be followed, according to the rules set down in the Word.” (Quakerism the Pathway to Paganism, pp. 368-369).
Out of “extreme and unavoidable necessity,” the Protestant Reformers were called by God to lead the church out of its “Babylonian Captivity,” as Luther called it. Turretin continues:
“[The Protestant Reformers] saw the church of Rome laboring under innumerable deadly corruptions, which they could not profess without immediate danger to salvation. No reformation was to be expected from the rulers of the church, from whom the errors flowed and who contended fiercely for them; and so far from wishing to think about a reformation, they persecuted with fire and the sword those who undertook to seek it and dared to oppose themselves to the encroaching errors. The voice of God himself who imposed this necessity [on the Reformers] was also annexing: both by the general command to follow and confess the truth and rebuke falsehood in every time and place and in every class of men; and by the special command to come out of Babylon (Rev. 18:4) and withdraw from the communion of the erring (2 Cor. 6:16-17).” (IET XVIII.xxv.13, vol. 3, pp. 239-240)
The Extraordinary Gifts of the Reformers.
Similar to the Apostles and Evangelists, the Protestant Reformers also “were endowed with extraordinary gifts.” What kind of gifts? Turretin clarifies,
“Not that they were wholly miraculous and supernatural, such as in the apostolic church, since these pertained to the church to be founded. But still they were special and extraordinary inasmuch as they were much above the mode and measure of those times, in which a more than Cimmerian darkness of error and vice spread over the heavens of the church and the minds of her rulers. For who does not wonder at the profound erudition, the accuracy of judgment, the most ardent zeal, the admirable faith, the invincible constancy, the most intense love, the singular purity of life and morals and the other innumerable gifts by which [the Reformers] shone above others and proved that they were vessels of election separated by God to this extraordinary work? These were indeed the authentic seals of their divine call.” (IET XVIII.xxv.14, vol. 3, p. 240) [2]
The Ordinary and Extraordinary Aspects of the Reformers’ Calling.
Turretin continues that “the call of the Reformers can be called ordinary and extraordinary in different respects.” Regarding their office, they were ordinary ministers of the gospel. Their doctrine was also ordinary; they did not preach anything new that was not handed down by the Apostles in Scripture. Nor was their job “to raise up a new church, but to reform one corrupted and to correct a depraved worship, and to restore it to the primeval institution of Christ and the apostles.” The Reformers exercised the perpetual and indispensable right of professing the truth and rejecting errors and they exercised the duty “of following Christ and withdrawing from false teachers according to his command.” They observed “the ordinary functions of the word and the administration of sacraments,” but not in the corrupt and disordered way that Rome had for so long observed them—so in that sense the work of the Reformers may be called extraordinary. Restoring a corrupted church to its original purity is truly an extraordinary thing and may be considered to be analogous to what the Apostles and Evangelists did when they originally planted the Church. In the work of reformation “there was something extraordinary inasmuch as the people needed extraordinary and unusual help in purging the doctrine and worship from the adhering errors.” (IET XVIII.xxv.16, vol. 3, pp. 240-241).
Conclusion
Finally, Turretin warns that we should not take Calvin’s language to be contradictory:
“Since therefore according to various relations, this call can rightly be said to be both ordinary and extraordinary, it ought not on this account to seem strange if our divines speak in different ways according to those various relations: some calling it ordinary; others extraordinary in different respects, the truth of the thing always remaining the same. If ordinary is understood properly as that which is consistent with the order primarily and divinely instituted, the call of the Reformers is well said to be ordinary; but if it is taken equivocally for what has been received publicly by inveterate custom (whatever that may have been), it can be said to be extraordinary because it differed widely from that custom and manner which had grown up in the church of Rome. But we deny that this custom was a lawful order, since it is pure disorder which prevailed in that church under the appearance of order.” (IET XVIII.xxv.16, vol. 3, p. 241).
[1] Similar to Calvin, the Scottish Second Book of Discipline (1578) states, “There are three extraordinary functions: the office of the apostle, of the evangelist, and of the prophet, which are not perpetual, and now have ceased in the kirk of God, except when he pleased extraordinarily for a time to stir some of them up again.” (section 2.6). Note that the Westminster Form of Presbyterial Church Government (1645) removes the language of God stirring them up again. “Of the Officers of the Church. The officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his church, and the perfecting of the saints, are, some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, which are ceased. Others ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church-governors, and deacons.” This language is more clear and precise, and less prone to misinterpretation about the nature of these offices.
[2] Francis Turretin continues, “Not every extraordinary call ought to be confirmed by miracles, for various prophets and John the Baptist, who were extraordinarily called, wrought no miracles; but only that extraordinary call which is said to be such with regard to a new doctrine or a new office, such as the call of Moses and the apostles because they made the ancient worship antiquated and instituted a new. But when the same doctrine, which was before delivered, is retained and purged, there is no need of miracles, because the same miracles by which it was confirmed before still conduce to its confirmation. Such, however, was the call of the Reformers. They did not bring in a new doctrine, but purged the doctrine of Christ, corrupted by the errors of men. Hence Gregory (the Great): “Those signs were necessary in the beginning of the church, so that the multitude might grow to faith, it was to be nourished by miracles because even we, when we plant a vineyard, so long as we pour water upon it, until we see the trees become firm in the earth and if they have once fixed their roots, the irrigation will cease” (“Sermon 29 [4],” Homiliarum in Evangelia [PL 76.1215]). Thus miracles are required in a worship to be instituted, but not when it is treated only concerning a worship to be restored; when the church is to be erected and founded primarily and not when it is only to be reformed and purged from its defilement. Besides, the wonderful success which God gave to the labors of the Reformers has the relation of a miracle, by which God plainly declared that such a call as accomplished so great a work must have proceeded from him.” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology XVIII.xxv.17, vol. 3, p. 241).