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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)