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
Monday, February 23, 2009
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)