The remainder of chapter 13 is devoted to a positive case for the Trinity, derived from Scripture. First, Calvin points out that the divine name is not confined to the Father, but is used in Scripture to describe the Son, as well. And although he does not mention him, the same can be said of the Holy Spirit from Acts 5.
He further builds his case by appealing to the unified nature of the trinity, refuting the heretics who fail to make the crucial distinction between "person" and "essence". Indeed, if we were to assert that the godhead was one in essence and three in essence, or one in person and three in person, we would rightly be accused of nonsense and irrationality. But this is not, and has never been the Christian position. Rather, we make a crucial distinction. God is one in essence, but three in person. With this understanding, all accusations of self-refutation and self-contradiction are seen to miss their mark.
As Calvin continues to lay waste to the objections of the heretics, he refutes their contention the subordination of the Son to the Father disproves the Trinity, and that the church Fathers can be appealed to in a refutation of the Trinity. As to the first, the fail to differentiate between "being" and "function". Christ does, in His incarnation, take on a subordinate role, but that says nothing about His divine nature.
When it comes to the Fathers, anyone who wishes to challenge Calvin in regard to patristics is in a battle, indeed. He was a patristic scholar of the first rank, quite familiar with Ireneaus and Tertullian, and therefore able to demolish the efforts of the heretics in their attempt to enlist these Fathers in their cause.
To conclude his discussion of the Trinity, Calvin appeals to the unity of the church. He does so, however, as a Protestant, not as a Catholic. That is, he does not appeal to the unity of the church as that which forms some kind of authoritative tradition, or to put forth some kind of majoritarian argument. After all, Calvin well remembered when Athanasius stood alone against the world in the face the Arius' denial of the deity of the Son. He does not, however, hesitate to bolster his case by setting forth the testimony of the church which ultimately and overwhelmingly, is on the side of Trinitarian orthodoxy.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Chapter 13, Sections 22-23
In these sections, Calvin helpfully enumerates various errors in regard to the Trinity and offers applicable correctives to each. One might think that man would come up with something new in his suppression of the truth, but as we are seeing, the errors which we encounter today are the errors that have always plagued God's people, though they appear in contemporary dress.
Modalism: "Meanwhile, he (Servetus) would hold the persons to be certain external ideas which do not truly subsist in God's essence, but represent God to us in one manifestation or another." This seems to differ, and be more philosophically developed, than the normal, run of the mill form of modalism, but it does seem to be a variation. One might also categorize this as a form of the Sabbellian heresy.
Infusionism: "...the Father, who is truly and properly the sole God, in forming the Son and the Spirit, infused into them his own deity." Here, the Father alone is true God, while the Son and the Spirit are created (formed) beings with whom the Father shares his deity.
The number of heresies which serve to deny Trinitarian truth are by no means confined to these two, and yet, it seems that these were the one's most evident in Calvin's day. In his refutation of these, however, we would be well on our way to a refutation of others, as well.
Modalism: "Meanwhile, he (Servetus) would hold the persons to be certain external ideas which do not truly subsist in God's essence, but represent God to us in one manifestation or another." This seems to differ, and be more philosophically developed, than the normal, run of the mill form of modalism, but it does seem to be a variation. One might also categorize this as a form of the Sabbellian heresy.
Infusionism: "...the Father, who is truly and properly the sole God, in forming the Son and the Spirit, infused into them his own deity." Here, the Father alone is true God, while the Son and the Spirit are created (formed) beings with whom the Father shares his deity.
The number of heresies which serve to deny Trinitarian truth are by no means confined to these two, and yet, it seems that these were the one's most evident in Calvin's day. In his refutation of these, however, we would be well on our way to a refutation of others, as well.
Chapter 13, Sections 21 The Apologist and the Word
I choose to separate out this particular section because as I read, I found myself filing away quote after quote for future use. How the church needs to be reminded of these truths! Rather than make any extended comments, I'll just list some of them hear and let the accumulated effect take hold.
"...let us use great caution that neither our thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself extends."
"...as Hilary says, he is the one fit witness to himself, and is not known except through himself."
"...let us not take it into our heads either to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his word, or to speak anything that is not taken from the Word."
"...let it be remembered that men's minds, when they indulge their curiosity, enter into a labyrinth."
To the law, and to the testimonies!
"...let us use great caution that neither our thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself extends."
"...as Hilary says, he is the one fit witness to himself, and is not known except through himself."
"...let us not take it into our heads either to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his word, or to speak anything that is not taken from the Word."
"...let it be remembered that men's minds, when they indulge their curiosity, enter into a labyrinth."
To the law, and to the testimonies!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Chapter 13, Sections 16-20 Understanding the Trinity
I find it interesting to note how Calvin takes a passage such as Matthew 28:19ff, which some might use to demonstrate separation, and instead uses that same text to demonstrate unity. "God's essence," he says, "resides in three persons." In his discussion of the Oneness of God, we see again, in his use of Eph. 4 and Matt. 28, that Calvin is, above all else, an "exegetical" theologian. Many contemporary theologians could take a lesson from him. Even sound men, today, fail to ground their theological discussions in the authority of the Word, when this, above all else, is what is needed.
Nonetheless, as clearly as the unity of God is set forth in His word, so, too, is the threeness of God set forth. And can we find a better summary of the proper response to these corresponding truths than his quote from Gregory of Nazianzus?
"I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one."
In section 18, we are faced once again with the incongruity between the accusations constantly hurled against the man, and what we find when we read the thoughts of the man himself. Calvin, we're told, is one who does not fear to go beyond Scripture. He is all "system" and "philosophy". And yet, what do we find here?
"Men of old...confessed that the analogies they advanced (to explain the Trinity) were quite inadequate. Thus it is that I shrink from all rashness here...Nevertheless, it is not fitting to suppress the distinction that we observe to be expressed in Scripture."
That sounds, to me, very much like a man who does not wish to go beyond the Scripture, but at the same time, does not want to stop short of understanding all that Scripture does provide.
Oh, that we all would have such a balance!
It is interesting to note Calvin's short discussion of the "filioque" issue in section 18. This is one of the issues which was a cause of the division between East and West a thousand years ago, and remains a source of division between the Eastern Orthodox churches and Rome today. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son? Calvin takes the entire controversy and boils it down to the teaching of one short passage, that being Romans 8:9-11.
"The Son is said to come forth from the Father alone; the Spirit, from the Father and the Son at the same time. This appears in many passages, but nowhere more clearly that in chapter 9 of Romans..."
In regard to the attempt to put too fine a point on particular aspects of Trinitarian doctrine, we would be wise to follow the advice given at the end of section 19 in which Calvin refers us to Augustine "On the Trinity".
"Indeed, it is far safer to stop with that relations which Augustine sets forth than by too subtly penetrating into the sublime mystery to wander through many evanescent speculations."
Nonetheless, as clearly as the unity of God is set forth in His word, so, too, is the threeness of God set forth. And can we find a better summary of the proper response to these corresponding truths than his quote from Gregory of Nazianzus?
"I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one."
In section 18, we are faced once again with the incongruity between the accusations constantly hurled against the man, and what we find when we read the thoughts of the man himself. Calvin, we're told, is one who does not fear to go beyond Scripture. He is all "system" and "philosophy". And yet, what do we find here?
"Men of old...confessed that the analogies they advanced (to explain the Trinity) were quite inadequate. Thus it is that I shrink from all rashness here...Nevertheless, it is not fitting to suppress the distinction that we observe to be expressed in Scripture."
That sounds, to me, very much like a man who does not wish to go beyond the Scripture, but at the same time, does not want to stop short of understanding all that Scripture does provide.
Oh, that we all would have such a balance!
It is interesting to note Calvin's short discussion of the "filioque" issue in section 18. This is one of the issues which was a cause of the division between East and West a thousand years ago, and remains a source of division between the Eastern Orthodox churches and Rome today. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son? Calvin takes the entire controversy and boils it down to the teaching of one short passage, that being Romans 8:9-11.
"The Son is said to come forth from the Father alone; the Spirit, from the Father and the Son at the same time. This appears in many passages, but nowhere more clearly that in chapter 9 of Romans..."
In regard to the attempt to put too fine a point on particular aspects of Trinitarian doctrine, we would be wise to follow the advice given at the end of section 19 in which Calvin refers us to Augustine "On the Trinity".
"Indeed, it is far safer to stop with that relations which Augustine sets forth than by too subtly penetrating into the sublime mystery to wander through many evanescent speculations."
Chapter 13, Sections 14-15: The Deity of the Holy Spirit
In regard to the deity of the Holy Spirit, Calvin sets forth his arguments under two headings: first His work, and second, the express testimony of the Scripture.
Most of us will be familiar with these arguments. The Holy Spirit is seen to be God because He does the work of God. He sends the prophets. His creates. He sustains. He regenerates. He justifies. He sanctifies. And on and on and on. The work of the Holy Spirit is the work of God.
The express testimony of Scripture confirms what His works declare. We are, Paul says, the temple of God. But who dwells in us? The Spirit, we are told. Ananias lies to the Holy Spirit and is said to have lied not to men, but to God. The words of the prophets, which are said in the OT to be the words of God, are, in the NT, attributed to this same Holy Spirit.
Certainly, Calvin's purpose in the Institutes is not to provide a complete theology of any one subject, but I find that there are occasions, this being one, when I wish he would not have so constrained himself.
Most of us will be familiar with these arguments. The Holy Spirit is seen to be God because He does the work of God. He sends the prophets. His creates. He sustains. He regenerates. He justifies. He sanctifies. And on and on and on. The work of the Holy Spirit is the work of God.
The express testimony of Scripture confirms what His works declare. We are, Paul says, the temple of God. But who dwells in us? The Spirit, we are told. Ananias lies to the Holy Spirit and is said to have lied not to men, but to God. The words of the prophets, which are said in the OT to be the words of God, are, in the NT, attributed to this same Holy Spirit.
Certainly, Calvin's purpose in the Institutes is not to provide a complete theology of any one subject, but I find that there are occasions, this being one, when I wish he would not have so constrained himself.
Chapter 13, Sections 7-13: The Deity of Christ
Here we find Dr. Calvin's exegetical skills on full display as he interprets the Scripture in regard to the person of the Son. Whether it be John 1:1, the Psalms, the historical books or the prophets, he makes the case for Christ's deity from every portion of God's revealed word. I found his exegesis of Judges 6 and 7 particularly cogent.
No matter how Servetus "yelped" (I particularly liked that bit), nor how our contemporaries might wish to explain it away, the biblical case for the deity of Christ is simply unassailable, and I doubt that many could be found to defend that deity with such clarity and thoroughness, and in such short compass, as Calvin does here.
Certainly, we applaud, and praise God, for all those who seek to set forth the truth of Christ's divine nature. But if one were to look for a short, but powerful and cogent defense, one could do no better than to turn to these sections of the Institutes. It would do us well to mark them for future reference.
No matter how Servetus "yelped" (I particularly liked that bit), nor how our contemporaries might wish to explain it away, the biblical case for the deity of Christ is simply unassailable, and I doubt that many could be found to defend that deity with such clarity and thoroughness, and in such short compass, as Calvin does here.
Certainly, we applaud, and praise God, for all those who seek to set forth the truth of Christ's divine nature. But if one were to look for a short, but powerful and cogent defense, one could do no better than to turn to these sections of the Institutes. It would do us well to mark them for future reference.
Chapter 13, Sections 1-6
Can anyone say, "Jehovah's Witnesses"?
As Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity, he provides what I found to be a very helpful discussion on the nature and use of theological terminology. In section 1, of chapter 13, we have Calvin's famous utterance about the necessary condescension of God, as He "lisps" in speaking to us. This is necessary, of course, due to the fact that God is so far above His creation. If we are to understand anything that He has to say to us, He must speak as an adult speaks to a small child. Of course, even at that, we must admit that the difference between Einstein and an infant is as nothing compared to the difference between Einstein and his Creator.
As Calvin moves into his actual discussion of the Trinity, these first sections serve to us as both a lesson and a warning. They are a lesson in actual theological practice, and a warning against superstition masquerading as spirituality.
In regard to theological practice, Calvin well describes the value of what we might call "extra-biblical" terminology. By this we refer not to "unbiblical" terminology, which would be opposed to the teaching of Scripture. Rather, we refer to terminology which defines and explains biblical truth in such a way as to exclude error. This, indeed, is how creeds, confessions, and statements of faith function. Calvin helpfully offers the examples of Arius and Sabellius for our consideration. Though Arius would affirm statements such as "Christ is God and the Son of God", he would at the same time affirm that Christ was created. He would therefore, in a manner typical of false teachers, utilize biblical terminology while filling that terminology with unbiblical meaning.
This is precisely how seminaries, and then denominations, apostasized in the early 20th century, and it is precisely why the term evangelical has become effectively meaningless in our own day.
To prevent this, the church has gone outside of Scripture in order to find terminology which will not only serve to explain Scripture, such as "Trinity", but also to circumscribe truth. That is, to draw a line around the truth in order to distinguish it from falsehood.
Calvin's example in regard to Arius, is instructive. Arius, like the contemporary Arians who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, would not hesitate to say that Christ is god. But when the term "consubstantial", (of the same substance), was used, Arius was effectively unmasked as the deceiver that he was.
This is always the modus operandi of false teachers. They will seek to portray themselves as safely within the bounds of orthodoxy, knowing all the while that they are not.
J. Gresham Machen spoke of this in his excellent book, "Christianity and Liberalism". He said that he came to have great respect for the higher critical scholars under whom he studied in Germany, even though they were unorthodox, and did not believe in the inspiration and authority of the Scripture. He nevertheless found them to be pious and honest men, worthy of respect. He did not feel the same way about liberal scholars here in America. He found them dishonest and duplicitous, for they would utilize orthodox terminology, claiming loyalty to the orthodox creeds, knowing full well that they did not believe what the creeds were intended to mean, but were, in their own minds, redefining them to suit their unorthodox understanding.
We experience the same phenomena today in our evangelical circles. "Yes, of course I believe that God is sovereign and omniscient", we're told, while the person making that claim, in the very next breath, denies God's exhaustive foreknowledge claiming that the future is "open".
Calvin shows us once again that there is nothing new under the sun.
As Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity, he provides what I found to be a very helpful discussion on the nature and use of theological terminology. In section 1, of chapter 13, we have Calvin's famous utterance about the necessary condescension of God, as He "lisps" in speaking to us. This is necessary, of course, due to the fact that God is so far above His creation. If we are to understand anything that He has to say to us, He must speak as an adult speaks to a small child. Of course, even at that, we must admit that the difference between Einstein and an infant is as nothing compared to the difference between Einstein and his Creator.
As Calvin moves into his actual discussion of the Trinity, these first sections serve to us as both a lesson and a warning. They are a lesson in actual theological practice, and a warning against superstition masquerading as spirituality.
In regard to theological practice, Calvin well describes the value of what we might call "extra-biblical" terminology. By this we refer not to "unbiblical" terminology, which would be opposed to the teaching of Scripture. Rather, we refer to terminology which defines and explains biblical truth in such a way as to exclude error. This, indeed, is how creeds, confessions, and statements of faith function. Calvin helpfully offers the examples of Arius and Sabellius for our consideration. Though Arius would affirm statements such as "Christ is God and the Son of God", he would at the same time affirm that Christ was created. He would therefore, in a manner typical of false teachers, utilize biblical terminology while filling that terminology with unbiblical meaning.
This is precisely how seminaries, and then denominations, apostasized in the early 20th century, and it is precisely why the term evangelical has become effectively meaningless in our own day.
To prevent this, the church has gone outside of Scripture in order to find terminology which will not only serve to explain Scripture, such as "Trinity", but also to circumscribe truth. That is, to draw a line around the truth in order to distinguish it from falsehood.
Calvin's example in regard to Arius, is instructive. Arius, like the contemporary Arians who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, would not hesitate to say that Christ is god. But when the term "consubstantial", (of the same substance), was used, Arius was effectively unmasked as the deceiver that he was.
This is always the modus operandi of false teachers. They will seek to portray themselves as safely within the bounds of orthodoxy, knowing all the while that they are not.
J. Gresham Machen spoke of this in his excellent book, "Christianity and Liberalism". He said that he came to have great respect for the higher critical scholars under whom he studied in Germany, even though they were unorthodox, and did not believe in the inspiration and authority of the Scripture. He nevertheless found them to be pious and honest men, worthy of respect. He did not feel the same way about liberal scholars here in America. He found them dishonest and duplicitous, for they would utilize orthodox terminology, claiming loyalty to the orthodox creeds, knowing full well that they did not believe what the creeds were intended to mean, but were, in their own minds, redefining them to suit their unorthodox understanding.
We experience the same phenomena today in our evangelical circles. "Yes, of course I believe that God is sovereign and omniscient", we're told, while the person making that claim, in the very next breath, denies God's exhaustive foreknowledge claiming that the future is "open".
Calvin shows us once again that there is nothing new under the sun.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Book I, Chapters 11-12
Sorry for not keeping up better. I'm hoping that with Revelation completed, and the start of the next series a few weeks out, I'll be able to get the blog a bit more up to date.
I probably sound like a broken record, but I must say that in regard to these chapters on idolatry, Calvin once again demonstrates his timelessness. What struck me most, I suppose, is that the arguments of Rome in favor of the use of images have not changed in the last 400 years. They continue to lean upon the artificial and untenable distinction between "latria" and "dulia"/"worship" and "reverence".
Calvin's arguments are as persuasive and useful today as when they were written. They are so simple, and yet so powerful. When man makes an idol, he is, of necessity, the god over that idol. Images are said to be useful for teaching, but they teach falsely (Jer. 10:8). Images serve to remove the fear of God and add error concerning Him. Images take the minds of men away from the study of the truth. The ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only "images" given to the church. And on and on he goes.
His argument in regard to the use of images for teaching really made me stop and think. Why would anyone need to be taught by images? Because they have been made stupid by images. Wow. Is this not what is happening today in so many pulpits? Preachers simplify the great truths of Scripture so as to focus solely on the most simple among us. "Felt needs" take the place of doctrine. As a result, the overall level of theological literacy plummets. What we need, rather, is to raise up the simple to maturity.
On one last note, don't you just love the directness of Calvin's speech? I had to laugh when I read this...
"Hence it is perfectly clear that those who try to defend images of god and the saints with the example of those cherubim are raving madmen."
But John. What do you really think? lol
I probably sound like a broken record, but I must say that in regard to these chapters on idolatry, Calvin once again demonstrates his timelessness. What struck me most, I suppose, is that the arguments of Rome in favor of the use of images have not changed in the last 400 years. They continue to lean upon the artificial and untenable distinction between "latria" and "dulia"/"worship" and "reverence".
Calvin's arguments are as persuasive and useful today as when they were written. They are so simple, and yet so powerful. When man makes an idol, he is, of necessity, the god over that idol. Images are said to be useful for teaching, but they teach falsely (Jer. 10:8). Images serve to remove the fear of God and add error concerning Him. Images take the minds of men away from the study of the truth. The ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only "images" given to the church. And on and on he goes.
His argument in regard to the use of images for teaching really made me stop and think. Why would anyone need to be taught by images? Because they have been made stupid by images. Wow. Is this not what is happening today in so many pulpits? Preachers simplify the great truths of Scripture so as to focus solely on the most simple among us. "Felt needs" take the place of doctrine. As a result, the overall level of theological literacy plummets. What we need, rather, is to raise up the simple to maturity.
On one last note, don't you just love the directness of Calvin's speech? I had to laugh when I read this...
"Hence it is perfectly clear that those who try to defend images of god and the saints with the example of those cherubim are raving madmen."
But John. What do you really think? lol
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Book I, Chapters 6-10
Calvin wrote this in his conclusion to Chapter 5,
"...it is very true that we are not at all sufficiently instructed by this bare and simple testimony which the creatures render splendidly to the glory of God."
That is, General Revelation isn't enough. We need more specific testimony concerning God, ourselves, and our relationship to Him. For that, Scripture is necessary, and it is to Scripture, which Calvin calls, "that better help" that he next turns.
It doesn't not take him long to refute what his editors said of his view of Scripture in the Introduction. Calvin believes that God does not use merely "mute teachers" (General Rev.), "but also opens his own most hallowed lips." That sounds very much like a statement of verbal inspiration.
Once again, Calvin shows himself to be an exegetical theologian, as he looks to the Psalms as the basis of his instruction.
It is here, in Calvin's doctrine of Scripture, that we see for the first time a clear picture of his historical context as he addresses the relationship between the church and Scripture, while setting forth a strong statement of Sola Scriptura. It is the Scripture which stands over the Church, rather than Rome's position of the Church over Scripture. This too, is founded upon Scripture, as Calvin appeals to Ephesians 2:20.
We also find Calvin's Presuppositional apologetic at this point, when he argues that the Scriptures are self-authenticating.
"Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste."
His contention, in this respect, is that the ultimate proof of Divine authorship of Scripture lies not in arguments, ala, Josh McDowell, but rather in the witness of the Holy Spirit. Chapter 8, section 5 is an excellent statement of the Presuppositional position, although, I wonder if he does not take it too far when he says that "it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning."
Even Van Til and Bahnsen saw a place for evidence, though certainly not a primary place. Paul himself, "reasoned" with those he sought to reach. Perhaps, though, Calvin is saying precisely this, that we do not subject Scripture to proof and reasoning in such a way that our reason sits in judgment over the Scripture. The more I read him, the more I think that this is most likely what he intended. He does, after all, go on in Chapter 8 to discuss "proofs" of the credibility of Scripture, such as its orderliness, Divine character, and its harmony.
Having mentioned Josh McDowell in passing, he was brought to mind in another context in regard to Chapter 8, section 9. Calvin mentions those in his own day who denied the Mosaic authorship of the Mosaic books, and denied that the prophets who are named in Scripture are the actual authors of their own books. We tend to think that these challenges arose in the 19th century with German higher criticism, but apparently, they have been around longer than that. What I found interesting is that Calvin used the same argument against them that later apologists like McDowell and others would use. Namely, that if you call the Scripture into doubt, then you fall into a skepticism from which we must doubt Plato and Aristotle and Cicero, etc.
Once again, I am impressed by the fact that we moderns aren't so clever after all. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
"...it is very true that we are not at all sufficiently instructed by this bare and simple testimony which the creatures render splendidly to the glory of God."
That is, General Revelation isn't enough. We need more specific testimony concerning God, ourselves, and our relationship to Him. For that, Scripture is necessary, and it is to Scripture, which Calvin calls, "that better help" that he next turns.
It doesn't not take him long to refute what his editors said of his view of Scripture in the Introduction. Calvin believes that God does not use merely "mute teachers" (General Rev.), "but also opens his own most hallowed lips." That sounds very much like a statement of verbal inspiration.
Once again, Calvin shows himself to be an exegetical theologian, as he looks to the Psalms as the basis of his instruction.
It is here, in Calvin's doctrine of Scripture, that we see for the first time a clear picture of his historical context as he addresses the relationship between the church and Scripture, while setting forth a strong statement of Sola Scriptura. It is the Scripture which stands over the Church, rather than Rome's position of the Church over Scripture. This too, is founded upon Scripture, as Calvin appeals to Ephesians 2:20.
We also find Calvin's Presuppositional apologetic at this point, when he argues that the Scriptures are self-authenticating.
"Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste."
His contention, in this respect, is that the ultimate proof of Divine authorship of Scripture lies not in arguments, ala, Josh McDowell, but rather in the witness of the Holy Spirit. Chapter 8, section 5 is an excellent statement of the Presuppositional position, although, I wonder if he does not take it too far when he says that "it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning."
Even Van Til and Bahnsen saw a place for evidence, though certainly not a primary place. Paul himself, "reasoned" with those he sought to reach. Perhaps, though, Calvin is saying precisely this, that we do not subject Scripture to proof and reasoning in such a way that our reason sits in judgment over the Scripture. The more I read him, the more I think that this is most likely what he intended. He does, after all, go on in Chapter 8 to discuss "proofs" of the credibility of Scripture, such as its orderliness, Divine character, and its harmony.
Having mentioned Josh McDowell in passing, he was brought to mind in another context in regard to Chapter 8, section 9. Calvin mentions those in his own day who denied the Mosaic authorship of the Mosaic books, and denied that the prophets who are named in Scripture are the actual authors of their own books. We tend to think that these challenges arose in the 19th century with German higher criticism, but apparently, they have been around longer than that. What I found interesting is that Calvin used the same argument against them that later apologists like McDowell and others would use. Namely, that if you call the Scripture into doubt, then you fall into a skepticism from which we must doubt Plato and Aristotle and Cicero, etc.
Once again, I am impressed by the fact that we moderns aren't so clever after all. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Footnotes
I hope that you're taking the time to at least glance at the footnotes as you read. There are some wonderful nuggets there. I think particularly of these quotes from Aquinas and Augustine, respectively...
"The final felicity (happiness) of man consists only in the contemplation of God," and
"When I seek Thee, I seek a happy life."
Do those statements, as well as Calvin's own, "The final goal of a blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God", not put one in mind of the Westminster Catechism?
"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."
We can sometimes be tempted to think that the writers and documents and ideas that we are familiar with came as a lightening bolt out of the blue. Calvin has reminded me again and again that even great thinkers are influenced by those who came before.
"The final felicity (happiness) of man consists only in the contemplation of God," and
"When I seek Thee, I seek a happy life."
Do those statements, as well as Calvin's own, "The final goal of a blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God", not put one in mind of the Westminster Catechism?
"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."
We can sometimes be tempted to think that the writers and documents and ideas that we are familiar with came as a lightening bolt out of the blue. Calvin has reminded me again and again that even great thinkers are influenced by those who came before.
Book I, Chapter 5
Calvin's commentary on Romans 1 continues in the longest chapter so far, in which he deals with the fact of natural evidence for God, as well as the nature of it. God has made Himself known in myriads of ways, such as His providence and sovereignty, and in the creation of man himself. As a result of this, though learned men may see more of that revelation, the simplest of men can see enough, so that all men are without excuse.
Once again, I'm stunned by Calvin's timelessness. I read statements such as the following...
"How detestable, I ask you, is this madness: that man, finding God in his body and soul a hundred times, on this very pretense of excellence denies that there is a God?"
...and the faces of Dawkins and Hitchens and the like appear in my mind.
Or this,
"As if the universe, which was founded as a spectacle of God's glory, were its own creator!"
He even anticipates the language of modern day secularists and that of eastern philosophies.
"See, of what value to beget and nourish godliness in men's hearts is that jejune speculation about the universal mind which animates and quickens the world!"
I was disappointed, however, to find in a footnote on p. 59, that the editors, still don't really get Calvin when it comes to his view of Scripture and Scriptures influence upon him. In fact, they get it precisely backwards.
"This comment by Calvin on his method, which was added to the Institutes in 1559, makes clear that he is here arguing solely on the basis of human reason, and that such Biblical allusions as he makes are comparative and confirmatory, not constitutive of his argument."
I fail to see how they arrive at this conclusion from the statement to which they attach this footnote. What they editors fail to see is that everything Calvin has said is using Scripture as the foundation and authority of his argument. As I've said before, this entire section concerning General Revelation is no more than an exposition of Romans 1. That they miss this speaks more of their own presuppositions than it does Calvin's.
Perhaps the high point of this chapter for me, was Calvin's discussion of the purpose for which we seek the knowledge of God, which is, if I can paraphrase, not to grasp Him, as if that was an end in itself, but to adore him.
I'll mention just one last thing, for now, that struck me here in chapter 5. In section 12, in which he speaks of men's superstitions as a means of their suppression of the truth, he likens man's mind to a labyrinth, saying "that it is no wonder that individual nations were drawn aside into various falsehoods..."
I find it interesting that Calvin uses the labyrinth imagery in this negative way, when in our day, the labyrinth is being utilized in the "worship" of some churches in the "Emergent" movement. Strange, indeed.
Once again, I'm stunned by Calvin's timelessness. I read statements such as the following...
"How detestable, I ask you, is this madness: that man, finding God in his body and soul a hundred times, on this very pretense of excellence denies that there is a God?"
...and the faces of Dawkins and Hitchens and the like appear in my mind.
Or this,
"As if the universe, which was founded as a spectacle of God's glory, were its own creator!"
He even anticipates the language of modern day secularists and that of eastern philosophies.
"See, of what value to beget and nourish godliness in men's hearts is that jejune speculation about the universal mind which animates and quickens the world!"
I was disappointed, however, to find in a footnote on p. 59, that the editors, still don't really get Calvin when it comes to his view of Scripture and Scriptures influence upon him. In fact, they get it precisely backwards.
"This comment by Calvin on his method, which was added to the Institutes in 1559, makes clear that he is here arguing solely on the basis of human reason, and that such Biblical allusions as he makes are comparative and confirmatory, not constitutive of his argument."
I fail to see how they arrive at this conclusion from the statement to which they attach this footnote. What they editors fail to see is that everything Calvin has said is using Scripture as the foundation and authority of his argument. As I've said before, this entire section concerning General Revelation is no more than an exposition of Romans 1. That they miss this speaks more of their own presuppositions than it does Calvin's.
Perhaps the high point of this chapter for me, was Calvin's discussion of the purpose for which we seek the knowledge of God, which is, if I can paraphrase, not to grasp Him, as if that was an end in itself, but to adore him.
I'll mention just one last thing, for now, that struck me here in chapter 5. In section 12, in which he speaks of men's superstitions as a means of their suppression of the truth, he likens man's mind to a labyrinth, saying "that it is no wonder that individual nations were drawn aside into various falsehoods..."
I find it interesting that Calvin uses the labyrinth imagery in this negative way, when in our day, the labyrinth is being utilized in the "worship" of some churches in the "Emergent" movement. Strange, indeed.
Monday, February 2, 2009
So, How's It Coming?
Are you catching up? I'm still about a week behind in my reading, having completed chapter 10 of Book I this morning. According to our reading schedule, we should be in the middle of chapter 13. Ah, well. That's what we get for starting late. I hope to get the blogs up to the reading over the next couple of weeks, but just wanted to give you all a word of encouragement. Don't fall into the trap of viewing this quest in some kind of legalistic fashion. The goal is not to finish. The goal is attained in the journey itself. And if you haven't yet made the progress you might have hoped, that's ok. Keep going. I have found it to be well worth the effort.
Have you noticed, yet, how so much of what he writes sounds as if he's addressing issues facing us today? Consider just a couple of statements from my reading this morning.
"I know what certain rascals bawl out in corners in order to display the keenness of their wit in assailing God's truth. For they ask, 'Who assures us that the books that we read under the names of Moses and the prophets were written by them? They even dare to question whether there was a Moses. Yet, if anyone were to call in doubt whether there ever was a Plato, an Aristotle, or a Cicero, who would not say that such folly ought to be chastised with the fist or the lash?"
The higher critics of the 18th and 19th centuries thought themselves to be innovators, but the challenges to the Scriptures they were putting forth were nothing new. Calvin was dealing with them in the 16th century. And how did he refute them? He used the same kind of argumentation that most of our contemporaries think people like Josh McDowell came up with.
Does the following sound familiar?
"Furthermore, those who, having forsaken Scripture, imagine some way or other of reaching God, ought to be thought of as not so much gripped by error as carried away with frenzy. For of late, certain giddy men have arisen who, with great haughtiness exalting the teaching office of the Spirit, despise all reading and laugh at the simplicity of those who, as they express it, still follow the dead and killing letter."
It is not difficult to hear a critique of some aspects of the charismatic movement and neo-orthodoxy in those words. Solomon is once again proved true...there is nothing new under the sun.
Don't be daunted. There's good stuff up ahead!
Have you noticed, yet, how so much of what he writes sounds as if he's addressing issues facing us today? Consider just a couple of statements from my reading this morning.
"I know what certain rascals bawl out in corners in order to display the keenness of their wit in assailing God's truth. For they ask, 'Who assures us that the books that we read under the names of Moses and the prophets were written by them? They even dare to question whether there was a Moses. Yet, if anyone were to call in doubt whether there ever was a Plato, an Aristotle, or a Cicero, who would not say that such folly ought to be chastised with the fist or the lash?"
The higher critics of the 18th and 19th centuries thought themselves to be innovators, but the challenges to the Scriptures they were putting forth were nothing new. Calvin was dealing with them in the 16th century. And how did he refute them? He used the same kind of argumentation that most of our contemporaries think people like Josh McDowell came up with.
Does the following sound familiar?
"Furthermore, those who, having forsaken Scripture, imagine some way or other of reaching God, ought to be thought of as not so much gripped by error as carried away with frenzy. For of late, certain giddy men have arisen who, with great haughtiness exalting the teaching office of the Spirit, despise all reading and laugh at the simplicity of those who, as they express it, still follow the dead and killing letter."
It is not difficult to hear a critique of some aspects of the charismatic movement and neo-orthodoxy in those words. Solomon is once again proved true...there is nothing new under the sun.
Don't be daunted. There's good stuff up ahead!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Book I, Chapters 1-4
In these initial posts dealing with the Institutes proper, I'll briefly cover all five chapters dealing with what we can generally refer to as the knowledge of God through General Revelation. Chapters 1-4 will be covered here, and Chapter 5 in a separate post.
As one reads through these first five chapters of the Institutes, one senses that without too much trouble, Calvin could have published this section separately under the title: "A Commentary on Romans 1".
After Chapter One, which in itself could be a commentary on Is. 6, and the need to know God before we can rightly know ourselves, that is precisely what we have. Calvin is, without specifically saying so, exegeting that great chapter in which Paul describes man's suppression of the truth and the substitution of that truth for the lies of idolatry by which he demonstrates himself to be a fool under the judgment of God.
In Chapter two Calvin sets forth his understanding of the knowledge of God, which is not only the mere knowledge of His existence, but also that which enables us to glorify Him. But, following Romans 1, Calvin also sets forth the limitations of our ability to know Him in His general revelation, noting that because of the fall, we are unable to "know" God fully, that is, in a salvific sense, apart from the further revelation that comes in Christ. Finally, Calvin speaks of what the knowledge of God should accomplish, and these accomplishments are two-fold. First, the knowledge of God should lead us to fear and reverence. Secondly, it should lead us to thankfulness, once we have learned who He is and what He has done. This, too, is from Romans 1. Paul there asserts that those who have suppressed the truth of God, "neither give thanks".
There is one particular sentence that i must mention before leaving Chapter 2. The last line of the first section, seems to me to have been, at least in part, the basis of the first question of the Westminster Catechism.
Q1: What is the Cheif end of man?
A: To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
Calvin: "Unless they establish their complete happiness in Him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to Him."
As Chapter 3 begins, we find a statement that could very well be utilized in describing the basis of Presuppositional Apologetics. Once again, the idea is taken directly from Romans 1.
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty."
What also struck me in these chapters is how prescient Calvin seems to be. There are statements here that lead me to think that God somehow provided Calvin with advanced (ok, VERY advanced) copies of some of the New Atheist books that have come out over the past few years.
"Therefore, it is utterly vain for some men to say that religion was invented by the subtlety and the craft of a few to hold the simple folk in thrall by this device..."
"How destestable, i ask you, is this madness: that man, finding God in his body and soul a hundred times, on this very pretense of excellence denies that there is a god?"
He could very well be describing Dawkins and Hitchens.
I thought what Calvin says here in Chap. 3 regarding the distinction between various aspects of religion and religion itself is very helpful in the realm of apologetics. He makes the point that "clever men" have, indeed, invented various religious "things" by which people are taken advantage of. But this would not have been effective unless an innate religiosity, the knowledge of God, was already present within them. That is helpful when confronted by one who seeks to make much of the fact that there are so many different religions and different religious practices.
Calvin's orderly mind is once again displayed for us in Chapter 4, as he puts forth various means by which men suppress the truth. He mentions several, including superstition, the conscious turning away from God, the makin of gods in our own image, and hypocrisy.
All of this is quite good, but I was particularly struck with one particular statement of his in section 3, which, it seems to me is an excellent description of the foundation for the Regulative Principle of Worship. The RPW is that principle which states that only those aspects of worship which God has specifically set forth in His word, are to be included in our corporate worship of Him and anything God has not commanded, is to be excluded from our worship.
Although Calvin doesn't call it the RPW, certainly the logic behind it is found in his words...
"...all who set up their own false rites to God worship and adore their own rantings."
The footnote to this section adds, "The rejection of human invention in worship is a consistent theme of Calvin against both paganism and the Roman Church."
In that same section, we once again see the timelessness of Calvin's thought. Can one read...
"Thus is overthrown the vain defense with which many are wont to gloss over their superstition. For they think that any zeal for religion, however preposterous, is sufficient..."
...and not think of the contemporary equivilent, "As long as you're sincere..."
As one reads through these first five chapters of the Institutes, one senses that without too much trouble, Calvin could have published this section separately under the title: "A Commentary on Romans 1".
After Chapter One, which in itself could be a commentary on Is. 6, and the need to know God before we can rightly know ourselves, that is precisely what we have. Calvin is, without specifically saying so, exegeting that great chapter in which Paul describes man's suppression of the truth and the substitution of that truth for the lies of idolatry by which he demonstrates himself to be a fool under the judgment of God.
In Chapter two Calvin sets forth his understanding of the knowledge of God, which is not only the mere knowledge of His existence, but also that which enables us to glorify Him. But, following Romans 1, Calvin also sets forth the limitations of our ability to know Him in His general revelation, noting that because of the fall, we are unable to "know" God fully, that is, in a salvific sense, apart from the further revelation that comes in Christ. Finally, Calvin speaks of what the knowledge of God should accomplish, and these accomplishments are two-fold. First, the knowledge of God should lead us to fear and reverence. Secondly, it should lead us to thankfulness, once we have learned who He is and what He has done. This, too, is from Romans 1. Paul there asserts that those who have suppressed the truth of God, "neither give thanks".
There is one particular sentence that i must mention before leaving Chapter 2. The last line of the first section, seems to me to have been, at least in part, the basis of the first question of the Westminster Catechism.
Q1: What is the Cheif end of man?
A: To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
Calvin: "Unless they establish their complete happiness in Him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to Him."
As Chapter 3 begins, we find a statement that could very well be utilized in describing the basis of Presuppositional Apologetics. Once again, the idea is taken directly from Romans 1.
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty."
What also struck me in these chapters is how prescient Calvin seems to be. There are statements here that lead me to think that God somehow provided Calvin with advanced (ok, VERY advanced) copies of some of the New Atheist books that have come out over the past few years.
"Therefore, it is utterly vain for some men to say that religion was invented by the subtlety and the craft of a few to hold the simple folk in thrall by this device..."
"How destestable, i ask you, is this madness: that man, finding God in his body and soul a hundred times, on this very pretense of excellence denies that there is a god?"
He could very well be describing Dawkins and Hitchens.
I thought what Calvin says here in Chap. 3 regarding the distinction between various aspects of religion and religion itself is very helpful in the realm of apologetics. He makes the point that "clever men" have, indeed, invented various religious "things" by which people are taken advantage of. But this would not have been effective unless an innate religiosity, the knowledge of God, was already present within them. That is helpful when confronted by one who seeks to make much of the fact that there are so many different religions and different religious practices.
Calvin's orderly mind is once again displayed for us in Chapter 4, as he puts forth various means by which men suppress the truth. He mentions several, including superstition, the conscious turning away from God, the makin of gods in our own image, and hypocrisy.
All of this is quite good, but I was particularly struck with one particular statement of his in section 3, which, it seems to me is an excellent description of the foundation for the Regulative Principle of Worship. The RPW is that principle which states that only those aspects of worship which God has specifically set forth in His word, are to be included in our corporate worship of Him and anything God has not commanded, is to be excluded from our worship.
Although Calvin doesn't call it the RPW, certainly the logic behind it is found in his words...
"...all who set up their own false rites to God worship and adore their own rantings."
The footnote to this section adds, "The rejection of human invention in worship is a consistent theme of Calvin against both paganism and the Roman Church."
In that same section, we once again see the timelessness of Calvin's thought. Can one read...
"Thus is overthrown the vain defense with which many are wont to gloss over their superstition. For they think that any zeal for religion, however preposterous, is sufficient..."
...and not think of the contemporary equivilent, "As long as you're sincere..."
Monday, January 26, 2009
Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France, Section 6-8
What constitutes a true church? This is Calvin's question in Section 6 of his preface to the King. Rome claims that the church must have a continuous visible manifestation. The challenge of Rome to the Reformers was this: Since the Reformers are making the claim to have restored the gospel and the biblical form and understanding of the church, they must be claiming that the church had ceased to exist between the time of the New Testament and the coming of the Reformation. They base this claim on their contention that the form of the church is always apparent and observable, and they assert, furthermore, that the visible form of the church is manifest in the Church of Rome.
Calvin, however, views the visibility of the church as something which is not intrinsic to the nature of the church. There are, he asserts, other marks which attest to the authenticity of a church.
The marks of the church, Calvin says, consist of the pure preaching of God's word and the lawful administration of the sacraments. In the body of the ICR, he will add to these two a third: the properly administered discipline of the church. But for now, he deals only with the Word and Sacraments.
"They rage," Calvin says of Rome, "if the church cannot always be pointed to with the finger."
He then goes on to provide biblical evidence that there have been many instances in Scripture in which such a thing was not possible. From Elijah, to the time of Christ, and throughout the church's history in particular times and places, it has been impossible to point to the church and say, "There it is." That does not mean that it did not exist.
Calvin also raises the possibility that in some cases, the lack of a visible church may, in fact, be a form of God's judgment.
"...since the Lord alone 'knows who are his [II Tim. 2:19], let us leave to him the fact that he sometimes removes from men's sight the external signs by which the church is known. That is, i confess, a dreadful visitation of God upon the earth. But if men's impiety deserves it, why do we strive to oppose God's just vengeance?"
The last accusation that he addresses comes in Section 7 of the Prefatory Address. The accusers pointed to the upheaval which was presently resulting from the rise of the Reformation. Rather, Calvin asserts, the true cause of upheaval and tumult should be recognized as Satan's opposition to the Word of God.
"Here is, as it were, a certain characteristic of the divine Word, that it never comes forth while Satan is at rest and sleeping. This is the surest and most trustworthy mark to distinguish it from lying doctrines..."
Calvin then provides a very helpful summary of biblical examples demonstrating that whenever the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed, Satan rises up in opposition.
Finally, Calvin concludes his address to the King by exhorting Francis not to be moved by the false accusations of the opponents of the Reformation. Rather than persecuting Protestants for being Protestants, Calvin pleads with the King to examine the lives of those currently facing his persecution. If he does so, he will find men and women whose lives are characterized by "chastity, generosity, mercy, continence, patience, modesty, and all the other virtues."
So sure is Calvin of this result, that he correctly encourages to the king to deal justly with any who can be found to have "raised a tumult under the pretext of the gospel," though he avers that "hitherto no such persons have been found in your realm." But if ever such a one arises, Calvin says, "there are laws and legal penalties by which they may be severely restrained according to their deserts. only let not the gospel of God be blasphemed in the meantime because of the wickedness of infamous men."
Calvin concludes his address to the King with a prayer that would be appropriate for us to pray, in regard to our elected authorities, as well...
"May the Lord, the King of Kings, establish your throne in righteousness [cf. Prov. 25:5], and your dominion in equity, most illustrious King."
Calvin, however, views the visibility of the church as something which is not intrinsic to the nature of the church. There are, he asserts, other marks which attest to the authenticity of a church.
The marks of the church, Calvin says, consist of the pure preaching of God's word and the lawful administration of the sacraments. In the body of the ICR, he will add to these two a third: the properly administered discipline of the church. But for now, he deals only with the Word and Sacraments.
"They rage," Calvin says of Rome, "if the church cannot always be pointed to with the finger."
He then goes on to provide biblical evidence that there have been many instances in Scripture in which such a thing was not possible. From Elijah, to the time of Christ, and throughout the church's history in particular times and places, it has been impossible to point to the church and say, "There it is." That does not mean that it did not exist.
Calvin also raises the possibility that in some cases, the lack of a visible church may, in fact, be a form of God's judgment.
"...since the Lord alone 'knows who are his [II Tim. 2:19], let us leave to him the fact that he sometimes removes from men's sight the external signs by which the church is known. That is, i confess, a dreadful visitation of God upon the earth. But if men's impiety deserves it, why do we strive to oppose God's just vengeance?"
The last accusation that he addresses comes in Section 7 of the Prefatory Address. The accusers pointed to the upheaval which was presently resulting from the rise of the Reformation. Rather, Calvin asserts, the true cause of upheaval and tumult should be recognized as Satan's opposition to the Word of God.
"Here is, as it were, a certain characteristic of the divine Word, that it never comes forth while Satan is at rest and sleeping. This is the surest and most trustworthy mark to distinguish it from lying doctrines..."
Calvin then provides a very helpful summary of biblical examples demonstrating that whenever the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed, Satan rises up in opposition.
Finally, Calvin concludes his address to the King by exhorting Francis not to be moved by the false accusations of the opponents of the Reformation. Rather than persecuting Protestants for being Protestants, Calvin pleads with the King to examine the lives of those currently facing his persecution. If he does so, he will find men and women whose lives are characterized by "chastity, generosity, mercy, continence, patience, modesty, and all the other virtues."
So sure is Calvin of this result, that he correctly encourages to the king to deal justly with any who can be found to have "raised a tumult under the pretext of the gospel," though he avers that "hitherto no such persons have been found in your realm." But if ever such a one arises, Calvin says, "there are laws and legal penalties by which they may be severely restrained according to their deserts. only let not the gospel of God be blasphemed in the meantime because of the wickedness of infamous men."
Calvin concludes his address to the King with a prayer that would be appropriate for us to pray, in regard to our elected authorities, as well...
"May the Lord, the King of Kings, establish your throne in righteousness [cf. Prov. 25:5], and your dominion in equity, most illustrious King."
Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France, Section 4 & 5
Another charge that was leveled against the reformers goes along with the idea of "novelty" which Calvin discussed in Section 3. This, however, is a bit more specific. It is the claim that the church fathers oppose Reformation teaching.
Calvin's answer to this charge is, I think, right on target and reveals his skill not only as a patristic scholar (that is, a scholar of the church fathers), which he most certainly was, but also his skill as a controversialist. He well understands how to turn an opponent's arguments back upon him.
It is as if Calvin is issuing a challenge to Rome. "You want to talk about the Fathers? Fine. I'll meet you on your own ground." And he does.
The Fathers taught against the church accumulating wealth for herself. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against the imposition of man-made laws upon the people of God. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against images in the church. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against prayers for the dead. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against Transubstantiation. Why don' t you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against withholding the cup from the Lord's people. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against clerical celibacy. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught the supremacy of the authority of Scripture. Why don't you listen to them?
The truth is, Calvin concludes, that Rome rejects the Fathers!
Can evidence be gleaned from some church fathers for some of the above mentioned doctrines? Certainly. But the argument from Rome is couched in terms of the "universal teaching of the Fathers." Calvin's argument is that there is no such thing, and that as regards these particular issues and many others, Rome followed the wrong Fathers!
Neither does he fail to bring us back to the ultimate issue, which is the authority of Scripture, not the Fathers.
"All the fathers with one heart have abhorred and with one voice have detested the fact that God's Holy Word has been contaminated by the subtleties of sophists and involved in the squabbles of dialecticians."
Flowing from this argument, Calvin asserts in Section 5 that their appeal to the Fathers is really an appeal to "custom". This is Calvin's refutation against the argument that "We've always done it this way."
"...evil custom," he says, "is nothing but a kind of public pestilence in which men do not perish the less though they fall with the multitude."
Once again he throws the accusations of his accusers back upon them. Calvin will stand on the authority of Scripture and leave the authority of "We've always done it this way," to Rome.
Calvin's answer to this charge is, I think, right on target and reveals his skill not only as a patristic scholar (that is, a scholar of the church fathers), which he most certainly was, but also his skill as a controversialist. He well understands how to turn an opponent's arguments back upon him.
It is as if Calvin is issuing a challenge to Rome. "You want to talk about the Fathers? Fine. I'll meet you on your own ground." And he does.
The Fathers taught against the church accumulating wealth for herself. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against the imposition of man-made laws upon the people of God. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against images in the church. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against prayers for the dead. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against Transubstantiation. Why don' t you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against withholding the cup from the Lord's people. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught against clerical celibacy. Why don't you listen to them?
The Fathers taught the supremacy of the authority of Scripture. Why don't you listen to them?
The truth is, Calvin concludes, that Rome rejects the Fathers!
Can evidence be gleaned from some church fathers for some of the above mentioned doctrines? Certainly. But the argument from Rome is couched in terms of the "universal teaching of the Fathers." Calvin's argument is that there is no such thing, and that as regards these particular issues and many others, Rome followed the wrong Fathers!
Neither does he fail to bring us back to the ultimate issue, which is the authority of Scripture, not the Fathers.
"All the fathers with one heart have abhorred and with one voice have detested the fact that God's Holy Word has been contaminated by the subtleties of sophists and involved in the squabbles of dialecticians."
Flowing from this argument, Calvin asserts in Section 5 that their appeal to the Fathers is really an appeal to "custom". This is Calvin's refutation against the argument that "We've always done it this way."
"...evil custom," he says, "is nothing but a kind of public pestilence in which men do not perish the less though they fall with the multitude."
Once again he throws the accusations of his accusers back upon them. Calvin will stand on the authority of Scripture and leave the authority of "We've always done it this way," to Rome.
Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France, Section 3
As Calvin begins to lay out the specifics of his case, he does so in a very orderly and logical progression. It is here that we get our first glimpse into the workings of that great mind which will lead us in such a systematic way through the theology of the Institutes.
He begins Section 3 by setting forth the charges which are being brought against the Protestants and refuting each in turn. This is the negative aspect of his case. He is not yet setting forth his views in a positive fashion, but rather defending himself and Protestantism against the calumnies of the opposition.
There are three specific charges that are dealt with.
The initial refutation addresses the charge that the doctrines of the Reformation are a novelty. Calvin pulls no punches as he responds.
"First, by calling it 'new' they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty. Indeed, I do not at all doubt that it is new to them, since to them both Christ himself and his gospel are new."
Notice that Calvin does not put forth a defense of any specific or several reformation doctrines. Rather, without saying so directly, he equates reformation doctrine with the Sacred Word. At the same time, he turns the tables on the accusers, rightly asserting that they know neither Christ nor the gospel, and therefore are unable to discern what is novelty and what is truth.
The second accusation asserts that the doctrines of the reformation are "doubtful and uncertain". This accusation, Calvin responds, likewise flows from the ignorance of the accusers. No one, Calvin argues, would face martyrdom as the French Protestants do, had they doubt and uncertainty rather than assurance.
And finally, the enemies of the reformation appeal to the supposed lack of miracles in the Reformation churches, as proof that their doctrines are not true. In response, Calvin asserts that his opponents simply do not understand miracles nor their purpose.
"In demanding miracles of us, they act dishonestly. For we are not forging some new gospel, but are retaining that very gospel whose truth all the miracles that Jesus Christ and his disciples ever wrought serve to confirm."
In other words, the purpose of miracles was to confirm the truth of the gospel and the authority of those who proclaimed it. That was accomplished by Christ and the apostles and was never intended to continue from age to age. Once the gospel and the apostolic witness to it were established, that purpose for miracles was no longer relevant. This brings Calvin back to his previous contention. The gospel of the reformers is nothing other than the gospel of Christ and the apostles. It was miraculously authenticated by them, and since the gospel has not changed, there is no further need for additional authentication now. He also brings forth the fact that heretics, specifically the Donatists, have always appealed to miracles in defense of their error. If Rome wants to argue for truth on the bases of ongoing miracles, they place themselves in difficult situation. The argument, if valid, would not only refute the Protestants, but support the heretics.
He says, "The Donatists of old overwhelmed the simplicity of teh multitude with this battering-ram: that they were mighty in miracles. We, therefore, now answer our adversaries as Augustine then answered the Dontatists: The Lord made us wary of these miracle workers when he predicted that false prophets with lying signs and prodigies would come to draw even the elect (if possible) into error [Matt. 24:24]."
I should also note that Calvin does not deny continued miraculous occurrence. His argument, rather, is against using miracles as a test of truth and authority. He says in the last paragraph of Section 3...
"Well, we are not entirely lacking in miracles, and those very certain and not subject to mockery. On the contrary, those 'miracles' which our adversaries point to in their own support are sheer delusions of Satan, for they draw the people away from the true worship of their God to vanity [cf. Deut. 31:2ff]."
To what miracles does he refer? I don't know. He is drawing a distinction in kind and quality, however. The miracles attested to by Rome are the miracles of Satanic deception and superstition. The miracles to which Calvin makes reference are "certain and not subject to mockery." We are familiar with the wild miraculous assertions of medieval Rome. I am not aware of any such stories coming from the reformers. It is possible that Calvin is referencing something like the miracle of regeneration or the miracle of lives changed through the gospel. Or perhaps he really is speaking of events that we would more readily associate with "miracles". He does not say. If anyone has any information concerning the 16th century reformation church and miraculous claims, please share it with us.
He begins Section 3 by setting forth the charges which are being brought against the Protestants and refuting each in turn. This is the negative aspect of his case. He is not yet setting forth his views in a positive fashion, but rather defending himself and Protestantism against the calumnies of the opposition.
There are three specific charges that are dealt with.
The initial refutation addresses the charge that the doctrines of the Reformation are a novelty. Calvin pulls no punches as he responds.
"First, by calling it 'new' they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty. Indeed, I do not at all doubt that it is new to them, since to them both Christ himself and his gospel are new."
Notice that Calvin does not put forth a defense of any specific or several reformation doctrines. Rather, without saying so directly, he equates reformation doctrine with the Sacred Word. At the same time, he turns the tables on the accusers, rightly asserting that they know neither Christ nor the gospel, and therefore are unable to discern what is novelty and what is truth.
The second accusation asserts that the doctrines of the reformation are "doubtful and uncertain". This accusation, Calvin responds, likewise flows from the ignorance of the accusers. No one, Calvin argues, would face martyrdom as the French Protestants do, had they doubt and uncertainty rather than assurance.
And finally, the enemies of the reformation appeal to the supposed lack of miracles in the Reformation churches, as proof that their doctrines are not true. In response, Calvin asserts that his opponents simply do not understand miracles nor their purpose.
"In demanding miracles of us, they act dishonestly. For we are not forging some new gospel, but are retaining that very gospel whose truth all the miracles that Jesus Christ and his disciples ever wrought serve to confirm."
In other words, the purpose of miracles was to confirm the truth of the gospel and the authority of those who proclaimed it. That was accomplished by Christ and the apostles and was never intended to continue from age to age. Once the gospel and the apostolic witness to it were established, that purpose for miracles was no longer relevant. This brings Calvin back to his previous contention. The gospel of the reformers is nothing other than the gospel of Christ and the apostles. It was miraculously authenticated by them, and since the gospel has not changed, there is no further need for additional authentication now. He also brings forth the fact that heretics, specifically the Donatists, have always appealed to miracles in defense of their error. If Rome wants to argue for truth on the bases of ongoing miracles, they place themselves in difficult situation. The argument, if valid, would not only refute the Protestants, but support the heretics.
He says, "The Donatists of old overwhelmed the simplicity of teh multitude with this battering-ram: that they were mighty in miracles. We, therefore, now answer our adversaries as Augustine then answered the Dontatists: The Lord made us wary of these miracle workers when he predicted that false prophets with lying signs and prodigies would come to draw even the elect (if possible) into error [Matt. 24:24]."
I should also note that Calvin does not deny continued miraculous occurrence. His argument, rather, is against using miracles as a test of truth and authority. He says in the last paragraph of Section 3...
"Well, we are not entirely lacking in miracles, and those very certain and not subject to mockery. On the contrary, those 'miracles' which our adversaries point to in their own support are sheer delusions of Satan, for they draw the people away from the true worship of their God to vanity [cf. Deut. 31:2ff]."
To what miracles does he refer? I don't know. He is drawing a distinction in kind and quality, however. The miracles attested to by Rome are the miracles of Satanic deception and superstition. The miracles to which Calvin makes reference are "certain and not subject to mockery." We are familiar with the wild miraculous assertions of medieval Rome. I am not aware of any such stories coming from the reformers. It is possible that Calvin is referencing something like the miracle of regeneration or the miracle of lives changed through the gospel. Or perhaps he really is speaking of events that we would more readily associate with "miracles". He does not say. If anyone has any information concerning the 16th century reformation church and miraculous claims, please share it with us.
Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France, Section 1 & 2
When Calvin wrote his Institutes, a great persecution had broken out in his home country of France. King Francis encouraged and supported this persecution of French Protestants and it was a cause of great grief and concern to Calvin. Animated by these troubles, he took it upon himself to address this preface directly to the King in hopes of setting forth a defense of the Reformation against those who had stirred up the King's heart against it. Others before him, such as Zwingli, had written similar addressed to royalty, and Calvin apparently thought it a good idea.
The Prefatory Address is divided up into 8 sections. In the first, Calvin describes his purpose in writing, in light of the persecutions. His original intent for the Institutes was to "transmit certain rudiments by which those who are touched with any zeal for religion might be shaped to true godliness." But as word of the severity of the French persecution reached him, he considered a second purpose. "...it seemed to me that i should be doing something worth-while if I both gave instruction to them and made confession before you with the same work."
He then goes on in this first section to describe his view of the causes of persecution. As is often the case when subjects speak to their monarchs, the speech we find here on the part of Calvin goes beyond simple respect. Calvin writes in such a way as to give Francis every benefit of the doubt, assuming him to be a good and honorable man who, if he only knew the facts of the matter, would demonstrate a different attitude toward his Protestant people. Whether Calvin really believed this about the King is certainly questionable. It would certainly not help his cause to write in any other tone, however, and it is a Christian virtue to assume the best of a man no matter what personal reservations may be held.
And so Calvin sets forth his case. There are those who, by falsehoods, subtleties, and slanders, have turned the King's heart against his loyal Protestant subjects, and Calvin's desire is to set forth the truth. This he proceeds to undertake in the remainder of the Prefatory.
He begins this process in section 2, A Plea for the Persecuted Evangelicals, by setting forth, in brief, his views as to the responsibilities of a King.
Calvin asserts, "Indeed, this consideration makes a true King: to recognize himself a minister of God in governing his kingdom. Now, that king who in ruling over his realm does not serve God's glory exercises not kingly rule but brigandage."
I'd be interested to have your input on this. How does Calvin define a "true King", for instance. Does he equate "true" with "legitimate", or does he have something else in mind? How are we to reconcile Calvin's vision of a "true" king with Paul's discussion of civil government in Rom. 13?
We'll be delving into this more deeply when Calvin deals with Civil Government in his very last section of the Institutes. At that time, I'll be curious to see if Calvin provides a rational for his placement of that discussion. But for now, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on the quote above.
The Prefatory Address is divided up into 8 sections. In the first, Calvin describes his purpose in writing, in light of the persecutions. His original intent for the Institutes was to "transmit certain rudiments by which those who are touched with any zeal for religion might be shaped to true godliness." But as word of the severity of the French persecution reached him, he considered a second purpose. "...it seemed to me that i should be doing something worth-while if I both gave instruction to them and made confession before you with the same work."
He then goes on in this first section to describe his view of the causes of persecution. As is often the case when subjects speak to their monarchs, the speech we find here on the part of Calvin goes beyond simple respect. Calvin writes in such a way as to give Francis every benefit of the doubt, assuming him to be a good and honorable man who, if he only knew the facts of the matter, would demonstrate a different attitude toward his Protestant people. Whether Calvin really believed this about the King is certainly questionable. It would certainly not help his cause to write in any other tone, however, and it is a Christian virtue to assume the best of a man no matter what personal reservations may be held.
And so Calvin sets forth his case. There are those who, by falsehoods, subtleties, and slanders, have turned the King's heart against his loyal Protestant subjects, and Calvin's desire is to set forth the truth. This he proceeds to undertake in the remainder of the Prefatory.
He begins this process in section 2, A Plea for the Persecuted Evangelicals, by setting forth, in brief, his views as to the responsibilities of a King.
Calvin asserts, "Indeed, this consideration makes a true King: to recognize himself a minister of God in governing his kingdom. Now, that king who in ruling over his realm does not serve God's glory exercises not kingly rule but brigandage."
I'd be interested to have your input on this. How does Calvin define a "true King", for instance. Does he equate "true" with "legitimate", or does he have something else in mind? How are we to reconcile Calvin's vision of a "true" king with Paul's discussion of civil government in Rom. 13?
We'll be delving into this more deeply when Calvin deals with Civil Government in his very last section of the Institutes. At that time, I'll be curious to see if Calvin provides a rational for his placement of that discussion. But for now, I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on the quote above.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Subject Matter of the Present Work
In my comments regarding the short preface, "John Calvin to the Reader," I quoted a statement from Calvin in which he described as one of his purposes in writing the Institutes being to prepare men for the ministry of the Word. It seems to me that this might engender unnecessary hesitation in the heart of one who might have considered undertaking a study of the Institutes. To be sure, that was one of Calvin's objectives, but it was not the only use which was contemplated by him.
In the second short prefatory article entitled, "Subject Matter of the Present Work," Calvin expresses the hope that even "simple people" will profit from his labors. He writes,
"Perhaps the duty of those who have received from God fuller light than others is to help simple folk at this point, and as it were to lend them a hand, in order to guide them and help them to find the sum of what God meant to teach us in his Word."
Once again, the humility of Calvin stands forth in contrast to the caricatures of him which have been put forth by others. The only reason that some are more advanced in the things of God than others, is because God has given them "fuller light."
He also sets forth something of his philosophy in regard to the later usefulness of the ICR. It was his purpose, he says, to set forth these foundational teachings, so that later, when he writes his commentaries, he will have no need for long theological digressions, but rather will be able to accomplish a desired brevity.
"Thus, if henceforth our Lord gives me the means and opportunity of writing some commentaries, i shall use the greatest possible brevity, because there will be no need for long digressions, seeing that I have here treated at length almost all the articles pertaining to Christianity."
And so, be encouraged by the words of the author himself,
"Thus, I exhort all those who have reverence for the Lord's Word, to read it, and to impress it diligently upon their memory, if they wish to have, first, a sum of Christian doctrine, and, secondly, a way to benefit greatly from reading the Old as well as the New Testament....Above all, I must urge him to have recourse to Scripture in order to weigh the testimonies that I adduce from it."
Let us be sure to heed Dr. Calvin's exhortation.
In the second short prefatory article entitled, "Subject Matter of the Present Work," Calvin expresses the hope that even "simple people" will profit from his labors. He writes,
"Perhaps the duty of those who have received from God fuller light than others is to help simple folk at this point, and as it were to lend them a hand, in order to guide them and help them to find the sum of what God meant to teach us in his Word."
Once again, the humility of Calvin stands forth in contrast to the caricatures of him which have been put forth by others. The only reason that some are more advanced in the things of God than others, is because God has given them "fuller light."
He also sets forth something of his philosophy in regard to the later usefulness of the ICR. It was his purpose, he says, to set forth these foundational teachings, so that later, when he writes his commentaries, he will have no need for long theological digressions, but rather will be able to accomplish a desired brevity.
"Thus, if henceforth our Lord gives me the means and opportunity of writing some commentaries, i shall use the greatest possible brevity, because there will be no need for long digressions, seeing that I have here treated at length almost all the articles pertaining to Christianity."
And so, be encouraged by the words of the author himself,
"Thus, I exhort all those who have reverence for the Lord's Word, to read it, and to impress it diligently upon their memory, if they wish to have, first, a sum of Christian doctrine, and, secondly, a way to benefit greatly from reading the Old as well as the New Testament....Above all, I must urge him to have recourse to Scripture in order to weigh the testimonies that I adduce from it."
Let us be sure to heed Dr. Calvin's exhortation.
The Value of Writing
At the end of "...to the Reader," Calvin quotes a line from one of Augustine's letters that resonates with me, and which I would commend to you, as well, as a means of coming to own that which we study.
"I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write."
It has certainly been my experience that writing as I read serves to both ingrain in my mind that which I read, and to clarify my own thought in regard to what I read. I would encourage you to avoid being a "passive reader." Better to enter into a dialogue with the author. Question. Affirm. Argue.
Our goal in reading through the ICR is not to be able to parrot Calvin, but to grow in our knowledge and apprehension of biblical truth. This will occur not only as we receive what Calvin has to say, but as we evaluate it by the standard of God's word. When Dec. 31 arrives, I would hope that each of us will have said at some point over the course of the past year, "I think Calvin had it wrong, here."
"I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write."
It has certainly been my experience that writing as I read serves to both ingrain in my mind that which I read, and to clarify my own thought in regard to what I read. I would encourage you to avoid being a "passive reader." Better to enter into a dialogue with the author. Question. Affirm. Argue.
Our goal in reading through the ICR is not to be able to parrot Calvin, but to grow in our knowledge and apprehension of biblical truth. This will occur not only as we receive what Calvin has to say, but as we evaluate it by the standard of God's word. When Dec. 31 arrives, I would hope that each of us will have said at some point over the course of the past year, "I think Calvin had it wrong, here."
To the Reader
The primary preface to the Institutes is the "Prefatory Address to King Francis." But in the 1559 edition of the ICR Calvin includes another short preface entitled "John Calvin to the Reader," which is one of those rare portions of Calvin's writings in which he reveals to us something of the man himself, and his purpose in producing the Institutes.
One of Calvin's theological descendants, Jonathan Edwards, wrote in his Resolutions: "Resolved: To live with all my might, while I do live." Clearly, Calvin himself had resolved to do just that. In "...to the Reader," Calvin describes the illness he suffered through while preparing this edition of the ICR for publication.
"In any event, I can furnish a very clear testimony of my great zeal and effort to carry out this task for God's church. Last winter when I thought the quartan fever (a form of malaria) was summoning me to my death, the more the disease pressed upon me the less I spared myself, until I could leave a book behind me that might, in some measure, repay the generous invitation of godly men."
As we will find when we come to his preface to the King, one of Calvin's purposes in producing the ICR was to provide a confession of the Reformed faith which might serve to refute the slanders and libels then being spoken into the ears of Francis I. But that purpose seems to have arisen only after Calvin had begun to produce the Institutes, as word of the horrific persecution of the French Protestants came to him. His initial and primary purpose was to provide an instrument by which men might be equipped for the ministry of the Word. Indeed, this would be a focal point of Calvin's ministry for the rest of his life.
"Moreover, it has been my purpose in this labor to prepare and instruct candidates in sacred theology for the reading of the divine Word, in order that they may be able both to have easy access to it and to advance in it without stumbling."
One of Calvin's theological descendants, Jonathan Edwards, wrote in his Resolutions: "Resolved: To live with all my might, while I do live." Clearly, Calvin himself had resolved to do just that. In "...to the Reader," Calvin describes the illness he suffered through while preparing this edition of the ICR for publication.
"In any event, I can furnish a very clear testimony of my great zeal and effort to carry out this task for God's church. Last winter when I thought the quartan fever (a form of malaria) was summoning me to my death, the more the disease pressed upon me the less I spared myself, until I could leave a book behind me that might, in some measure, repay the generous invitation of godly men."
As we will find when we come to his preface to the King, one of Calvin's purposes in producing the ICR was to provide a confession of the Reformed faith which might serve to refute the slanders and libels then being spoken into the ears of Francis I. But that purpose seems to have arisen only after Calvin had begun to produce the Institutes, as word of the horrific persecution of the French Protestants came to him. His initial and primary purpose was to provide an instrument by which men might be equipped for the ministry of the Word. Indeed, this would be a focal point of Calvin's ministry for the rest of his life.
"Moreover, it has been my purpose in this labor to prepare and instruct candidates in sacred theology for the reading of the divine Word, in order that they may be able both to have easy access to it and to advance in it without stumbling."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Institutes of the Christian Religion (ICR) - Introduction
Though you may be in the habit of skipping over Introductions in order to get right into "The Book," you would be well-served to take a different course in this case. The introduction to the Battles/McNeil edition is divided up into 15 sections and is well wort at least a skim, if not a full read. Beginning with a very brief biographical section focusing on the life of Calvin as it relates to the writing of the ICR, the authors then move on to discuss the Institutes themselves. We learn not only about how and when Calvin came to initiate the project, but the production of the ICR is also placed within the context of the historical events of the day, particularly those involving the Reformation in France and the great persecution of God's people at the hands of King Francis I. This is the background to Calvin's Prefatory Address to King Francis I, in which he writes to the King in the hopes that the ICR would serve as a witness to the truth which might ease the King's animosity toward the Reformed church in France.
The author's continue to trace the development of the ICR from the relatively brief six-chapter work originally published in 1536 to the full, expanded version which came only after many future revisions. We also learn of the influence of the ICR throughout Europe as it is translated not only into French from the original Latin, but very quickly into Spanish, Italian, Dutch, German, Czech, Hungarian, English and even, some scholars believe, Arabic. These translations were all produced in the 16th century, or very early in the 17th.
From section VIII of the introduction on, the Introduction provides a summary of the Institutes themselves, and for the most part, the authors do an admirable job. Now and then, they'll throw in a juicy quote from some of Calvin's other writings, as well. I particularly like this, from the Preface to the Commentary on the Psalms, "God subdued my heart to teachableness." Those words strike me as the expression of a man who would be unrecognizable to those who seek to make Calvin out to be some kind of monstrous dictator.
The character of Calvin also is revealed in the words of the authors when they describe him as follows...
"He was not, we may say, a theologian by profession, but a deeply religious man who possessed a genius for orderly thinking and obeyed the impulse to write out the implications of his faith. He calls his book not a summa theologiae but a summa pietatis."
One caution needs to be given, however. One should always be aware, when it is possible, of the background and theological committments of the authors which one intends to read. The editors of this edition, as you can read on the inside title page, are not exactly icons of evangelicalism. One was a president of the World Council of Churches. one was a professor at both the University of Chicago and at Union Seminary in New York, both bastions of theological liberalism, often a radical variety at that. The third is described at an early and influential member of the WCC as well as a President of Union Seminary.
That is not to say that their scholarship cannot be profitable. As I've already indicated, this Introducion is very excellent, for the most part. But one does need to be careful. There are times, particularly when dealing with Calvin's view of Scripture, when the editors tend to impute their own views to the great Reformer. For instance, on page liv, they write, "Yet he is not concerned to assert what in later controversy has been spoken of as "verbal inerrancy." His whole emphasis is thrown on the message or content of Scripture rather than on the words."
That statement is ridiculous on its face. First, Calvin did not need to argue for verbal inerrancy. No one in his day doubted it. Secondly, this dichotomy they try to make between the message or content of Scripture and the words of Scripture is beyond absurd. One does not have a message or content apart from words. Furthermore, anyone who reads Calvin's exegetical work will stand amazed at that statement. No serious exegete, much less one of Calvin's caliber, would ever propose such a thing.
In the next post, we'll move onto the words of Calvin himself.
The author's continue to trace the development of the ICR from the relatively brief six-chapter work originally published in 1536 to the full, expanded version which came only after many future revisions. We also learn of the influence of the ICR throughout Europe as it is translated not only into French from the original Latin, but very quickly into Spanish, Italian, Dutch, German, Czech, Hungarian, English and even, some scholars believe, Arabic. These translations were all produced in the 16th century, or very early in the 17th.
From section VIII of the introduction on, the Introduction provides a summary of the Institutes themselves, and for the most part, the authors do an admirable job. Now and then, they'll throw in a juicy quote from some of Calvin's other writings, as well. I particularly like this, from the Preface to the Commentary on the Psalms, "God subdued my heart to teachableness." Those words strike me as the expression of a man who would be unrecognizable to those who seek to make Calvin out to be some kind of monstrous dictator.
The character of Calvin also is revealed in the words of the authors when they describe him as follows...
"He was not, we may say, a theologian by profession, but a deeply religious man who possessed a genius for orderly thinking and obeyed the impulse to write out the implications of his faith. He calls his book not a summa theologiae but a summa pietatis."
One caution needs to be given, however. One should always be aware, when it is possible, of the background and theological committments of the authors which one intends to read. The editors of this edition, as you can read on the inside title page, are not exactly icons of evangelicalism. One was a president of the World Council of Churches. one was a professor at both the University of Chicago and at Union Seminary in New York, both bastions of theological liberalism, often a radical variety at that. The third is described at an early and influential member of the WCC as well as a President of Union Seminary.
That is not to say that their scholarship cannot be profitable. As I've already indicated, this Introducion is very excellent, for the most part. But one does need to be careful. There are times, particularly when dealing with Calvin's view of Scripture, when the editors tend to impute their own views to the great Reformer. For instance, on page liv, they write, "Yet he is not concerned to assert what in later controversy has been spoken of as "verbal inerrancy." His whole emphasis is thrown on the message or content of Scripture rather than on the words."
That statement is ridiculous on its face. First, Calvin did not need to argue for verbal inerrancy. No one in his day doubted it. Secondly, this dichotomy they try to make between the message or content of Scripture and the words of Scripture is beyond absurd. One does not have a message or content apart from words. Furthermore, anyone who reads Calvin's exegetical work will stand amazed at that statement. No serious exegete, much less one of Calvin's caliber, would ever propose such a thing.
In the next post, we'll move onto the words of Calvin himself.
The Calvin Cake
Check this out. This is actually a birthday cake in the form of a volume of the Institutes. How could one possible cut into, and eat, such a beautiful thing? To see more go here:
The Calvin Cake
Ready, Set, Read
Well, we're getting a bit of a late start, but not so late that you won't be able to catch up. The reading schedule we will use will take us through only 4 or 5 pages a day, so its not an overwhelming process. If one can set aside a bit of time at the start, it should only take a few days to a week to get on track with the scheduled readings.
We should take care of some housekeeping issues right from the beginning, I suppose.
First, the text that I'll be using as we travel this road together will be the Ford Lewis Battles translation, edited by John T. McNeil. This is, by the judgment of those who know, not only the most recent, but also the best English translation of Calvin's Institutes available. Westminster John Knox Press has published a wonderful 2 volume edition of excellent quality. It's selling on Monergism.com for about $51.00 plus tax, shipping, etc. which is the best I've found. This edition will last several lifetimes. If anyone would like me to get them a copy, please let me know.
If you'd rather not shell out that kind of money, you can find the Beveridge translation at a cheaper price, or, cheaper yet, find an online version and read along that way. The Beveridge edition is from the mid-1800's, and so the language is a bit more difficult, but anyone who goes that route should not have much problem understanding the text.
We will be following a reading schedule made available by Princeton Theological Seminary, and available for download here:
http://www.ptsem.edu/news/Egreetings/test/institutes.pdf
As for this blog, my intent is to use this as a means of mutual edification and discussion of what we're reading, as we read. I won't commt to posting every day, but I'll seek to post several times a week, after which we will use the "comments" section to interact regarding whatever we're finding in the readings.
So, if you're going to read along, or just keep an eye on this blog, welcome. I trust the coming year will be both challenging and edifying.
We should take care of some housekeeping issues right from the beginning, I suppose.
First, the text that I'll be using as we travel this road together will be the Ford Lewis Battles translation, edited by John T. McNeil. This is, by the judgment of those who know, not only the most recent, but also the best English translation of Calvin's Institutes available. Westminster John Knox Press has published a wonderful 2 volume edition of excellent quality. It's selling on Monergism.com for about $51.00 plus tax, shipping, etc. which is the best I've found. This edition will last several lifetimes. If anyone would like me to get them a copy, please let me know.
If you'd rather not shell out that kind of money, you can find the Beveridge translation at a cheaper price, or, cheaper yet, find an online version and read along that way. The Beveridge edition is from the mid-1800's, and so the language is a bit more difficult, but anyone who goes that route should not have much problem understanding the text.
We will be following a reading schedule made available by Princeton Theological Seminary, and available for download here:
http://www.ptsem.edu/news/Egreetings/test/institutes.pdf
As for this blog, my intent is to use this as a means of mutual edification and discussion of what we're reading, as we read. I won't commt to posting every day, but I'll seek to post several times a week, after which we will use the "comments" section to interact regarding whatever we're finding in the readings.
So, if you're going to read along, or just keep an eye on this blog, welcome. I trust the coming year will be both challenging and edifying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)