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.