Category Archives: Calvin’s Institutes

October 4, 2015 · 7:21 pm

Week 40 of 50 in the Institutes: Picking Up the Slack

I was looking forward to reading the daily blogs on the Reformation 21 website for this week’s assignments in the Institutes (see bottom for schedule).  But, alas!  They were skipped entirely by their Blogging the Institutes initiative back in 2009, and no one ever back-filled them.  I’m not about to attempt to fill their shoes by providing summaries of each section.  I will, instead, provide at least one reflection for each day’s reading assignment, in a meager attempt to pick up the slack left in the rope here.

October 5:  When reading these sections, the plight of Kim Davis kept coming to mind.  What relevant counsel or insight may we glean from Calvin’s definition of conscience, and what it means to bind the conscience?  Calvin had the situation of his own day in mind with regard to the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church concerning worship, so his handling of the topic isn’t as broad as we might hope for here relative to our current events.  The closest he comes seems to be in 4.10.5.  Laws of the magistrate or church are “necessary to be observed” when they are just and good:

Another thing also worthy of observation, and depending on what has been already said, is, that human laws, whether enacted by magistrates or by the Church, are necessary to be observed (I speak of such as are just and good), but do not therefore in themselves bind the conscience, because the whole necessity of observing them respects the general end, and consists not in the things commanded. Very different, however, is the case of those which prescribe a new form of worshipping God, and introduce necessity into things that are free.

So it stands to reason that it is not necessary to observe unjust and bad laws.  After all, we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29; see Calvin’s Commentary on this passage here).  In such cases the conscience is not bound, Calvin would say, because such laws are in conflict with the law of God (since to be in conflict with God’s law puts the matter beyond the pale of being a subject of indifference, or morally neutral).  I vehemently disagree with the position taken by Brad Littlejohn in his post here with regard to supporting Kim Davis’ stance.  Marriage is not a pet issue, and its definition is not something over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction by any fanciful stretch of judicial imagination.  In the end, Littlejohn’s “prudence test” seems little more than a pragmatic, spineless capitulation: don’t make waves, and surrender at the slightest opposition.

October 6:  Calvin pegged man’s penchant for the products of his own imagination and wisdom in 4.10.11 where he discussed the appeal of human traditions, as found in the RCC or anywhere else.  So it should be no surprise that natural man would take offense at being required to worship God in the way He proscribes (i.e., the regulative principle of worship):

Human traditions, he says, deceive by an appearance of wisdom. Whence this show? Just that being framed by men, the human mind recognizes in them that which is its own, and embraces it when recognized more willingly than anything, however good, which is less suitable to its vanity.

October 7: Calvin denies the right of any institution to use the name of “church” if it refuses to follow God’s commands (4.10.17).  How many “churches” today are illegitimate by this definition?

October 8: The surprising thing in these sections is that Calvin leaves no neutral zone for the casual, compliant, don’t-rock-the-boat, non-reflective worshipper where God’s dictates are not observed.  We might expect Calvin to lay the blame for defective worship entirely at the feet of the church leaders, but he doesn’t.  Rather than viewing compliance as a manifestation of humility (man to man), Calvin held such behavior in utter contempt, because every such participant presumes to prescribe how God is to be worshipped (4.10.24), whether he realizes it or not, by his very actions.  It would seem that Calvin placed a premium on personal responsibility in this regard, and that worship was no passive, slight, or inconsequential act. As we might expect, such high regard for the significance of worship on Calvin’s part was rooted in his knowledge of Scripture and the examples made therein of those who took worship lightly (4.10.24):

Many wonder why God threatens so sternly that he will bring astonishment on the people who worship him with the commandments of men, and declares that it is in vain to worship him with the commandments of men. But if they would consider what it is in the matter of religion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, to depend on God alone, they would, at the same time, see that it is not on slight grounds the Lord abominates perverse service of this description, which is offered him at the caprice of the human will. For although there is some show of humility in the obedience of those who obey such laws in worshipping God, yet they are by no means humble, since they prescribe to him the very laws which they observe.

October 9:  In this last reflection for this week’s assignment, I have to take issue with the apparatus of John T. McNeill’s edition of the Institutes we have been using, because the editor put words in Calvin’s mouth in a way that should be readily apparent to the observant reader.  Calvin’s concluding admonition in 4.10.30 with regard to bondage and freedom of church constitutions was to let love be our guide.  The editor then made the following comment in footnote 50 on p. 1208 of the McNeill-Battles edition of the Institutes:

While Calvin warmly approves the kneeling posture in prayer, for reasons both of human tradition and of divine sanction, he finally leaves the choice of posture (with the like manners) to the best interest of the church and the judgment of charity.  A sensible freedom in such secondary matters is illustrated in the reference to women’s headwear in church, in sec. 31, where the limiting factors mentioned are custom, humanity, and the rule of modesty. On this passage, F. Wendel observes that Calvin does not require ‘a servile imitation of the primitive church’ (Wendel, Calvin, pp. 229 f).

A careful reading of section 31, however, reveals that Calvin nowhere refers to the issue of women’s headwear in church, but rather to the issue of everyday apparel (4.10.31, bold emphasis added):

Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognize in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbor that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered.

To be sure of Calvin’s position here, I checked his commentary on 1 Cor. 11:2-17.  Therein Calvin takes the stance that head coverings for women in worship are required universally in the church, and not matters left up to individual conscience or cultural settings.  This would seem to be one aspect of worship where God binds the conscience (as Calvin addressed it in 4.10.3 and 4.10.4).  But the majority of evangelicals today do their best to skate around this rather straightforward reading of 1 Cor. 11 to try and make it culturally relative, despite Paul’s rooting of the practice in creation and redemption.

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:  Skipped!

This week’s reading schedule:

Oct. 5:  4.10.3 – 4.10.8

Oct. 6:  4.10.9 – 4.10.15

Oct. 7:  4.10.16 – 4.10.21

Oct. 8: 4.10.22 – 4.10.28

Oct. 9: 4.10.29 – 4.11.1

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as , , ,

September 27, 2015 · 9:30 pm

Week 39 of 50 in the Institutes: The Mark of the Beast

Since last week’s assignment obliged us to consider Calvin’s view of the Antichrist, and since this blog is about my reflections on the weekly assignments, I thought I might as well deal with the subject of the mark of the beast this week.  And lest anyone accuse me of getting on a soapbox, let me quickly cite the section in the Institutes that inspired this reflection: 4.9.9.

Calvin noted therein how various church councils have contradicted each other.  The Council of Constantinople (553), for instance, decided that images in churches should be prohibited and destroyed, but that decree was subsequently reversed by the Council of Nicea (787) two hundred years later.  Calvin concluded that the decree from this latter council “emanated from Satan” (Beveridge translation).  This brings me to my legitimate reflection with respect to the mark of the beast, so here we go.

NEWSFLASH:  Billions already have the mark of the beast, and don’t know it.

How can I say this?  Let’s briefly consider the passage which deals with the matter, Revelation 13:11–14:1-5.  Right off the bat we need to note the contrast that is being made at the end of chapter 13 and the beginning of chapter 14.  The chapter division here isn’t helpful in this regard, because the text is contrasting two kinds of marks: the mark of the beast (13:16) and the mark of God (14:1).  The followers of God number 144,000, which signifies completeness (12 x 12 x 10 x 10 x 10) and the number of the beast is a derisive moniker indicating complete (triple) failure: 666.

I don’t think for a moment that either mark is literal.  Yes, I take the Bible literally, and yes, I believe every jot and tittle of it.  But the Revelation of John is in large part apocalyptic, and the perspective has shifted.  Instead of looking up from earth to make sense of things in heaven above, John writes as one who is looking from heaven to the things happening on earth below, and those events are shrouded in symbols.  Understanding the symbols John employed requires great familiarity with his numerous Old Testament allusions and reference points.

So to keep this as brief as possible, let’s consider the number 666.  Rev. 13:18 reads:  “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.”  (ESV)

I don’t buy the various attempts to identify a particular individual as the beast using various means of gematria.  Many have identified the number with Nero, since the Greek form of Nero’s name transliterated into Hebrew is purportedly 666 (but in a specious way since it requires a defective Hebrew spelling to do so).  In addition to that questionable derivation, the text doesn’t suggest that gematria is appropriate, because if John expected the writer to utilize Hebrew to understand the number, he could have made mention of it as he did in 9:11 and 16:16.  Besides all that, there is no definite article, hence the translation “it is the number of a man”.  The Greek could be understand just as well as “it is the number of man”.  In other words, the issue here is moral discernment, not the solution of complex math problems.

What is the point then?  The number six in Scripture represents incompleteness.  The triple repetition of the number six signifies utter incompleteness, or failure.  As G. K. Beale put it in his commentary on Revelation, “six repeated three times indicates the completeness of sinful incompleteness found in the beast.”  In all his efforts to mimic God, Christ, and the prophetic Spirit of truth (19:10), the beast comes up woefully short.  To have the mark of the beast, then, is to be aligned and in allegiance with him in his futile opposition to God: an utterly hopeless proposition.

By way of contrast, the followers of God have a different mark on their foreheads: their Father’s name (14:1).  For my part, I think the 144,000 in Rev. 14 represent all the people of God throughout all the ages (a great multitude which no man can number, in keeping with Rev. 7:9), and not a literal number.  Some think the significance of the number is seen in the fact that it is 12 (the number of perfection) squared times 10 (the number of completion) cubed.  Believers have their Father’s name on their forehead as a symbol of their allegiance to Him, and of having the seal of his protection (Rev. 7:1-8)

In the final analysis, then, everyone bears a mark: either that of the Father or of the beast.  The mark one bears becomes manifest by what a person thinks (head) and what a person does (hand). And this brings me to my parting thought.

Any individual, organization, or government that opposes the gospel of Jesus Christ is, by definition, anti-Christ, and manifests the spirit of the Antichrist.  There have been various manifestations of this spirit throughout history, going all the way back to the first century and even back to the time of Moses’ encounters with Pharaoh.  Paul characterized those who opposed the gospel in his day as being those who oppose all mankind, and in so doing may say they commit crimes against humanity:

“For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea.  For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus Christ and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind  by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved – so as always to fill up the measure of their sins.  But God’s wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Th. 2:14-16, ESV)

Any form of “political correctness” which opposes Jesus Christ and his gospel is, to borrow Calvin’s phrase, a decree from Satan, and beastly in its very nature.  So the key question for everyone to consider carefully is not, “What’s in your wallet?”, but rather, “What’s on your forehead?”

For further study, I recommend, for starters:

G. K. Beale’s Revelation Commentary (long version)

G. K. Beale’s Revelation: A Shorter Commentary

A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times

Article: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Sep. 28: 4.8.1 – 4.8.7

Sep. 29: 4.8.8 – 4.8.12

Sep. 30: 4.8.13 – 4.9.3

Oct. 1: 4.9.4 – 4.9.11

Oct. 2: 4.9.12 – 4.10.2

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as

September 20, 2015 · 6:23 pm

Week 38 of 50 in the Institutes: Holiness to the Lord

Why can’t we all just get along?  That phrase commonly surfaces whenever moral and doctrinal matters begin to be considered with any depth.  The issues Calvin raised more than four centuries ago in regard to papal supremacy still remain as sticking points to this day between Protestants and Catholics.  And as Rick Phillips pointed out in the September 25 blog (see link below), Calvin was “far from the politically correct emphasis on ‘charity above all’ in today’s doctrinal disputes!”

We will do well here to pause and ask ourselves why it was that Calvin was so worked up about papal supremacy that he devoted so much space to it in the Institutes.  Phillips credited this zeal on Calvin’s part to a belief that life and death issues were at stake, and so they were.  But I think another reason can be posited as well, namely, Calvin’s view of God and zeal for his glory.  I assert this because when he goes for the “jugular” in these sections (as Phillips puts it)  in 4.7.24 when identifying the Roman pontiff as the Antichrist, Calvin has the honor and glory of God foremost in view:

To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man. Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.

I think I’m safe in saying that few Reformed Protestants today will identify the Pope as the Antichrist.  The Reformers and Puritans are not renown for their exegetical insights in this regard.  But the spirit of Antichrist exists wherever Christ is opposed, and Calvin and the Reformers astutely discerned acute opposition to the gospel and Christ firmly ensconced in the institutional church of their day.  So out of zeal for the Lord and his truth they railed against the corruption they encountered, perhaps sometimes with less charity than required (Eph. 4:15, “speaking the truth in love”).  But at the end of the day they never forgot the holiness of the Lord, and that is the malady of our modern age.

This past week when gay marriage was in the headlines, one bystander was featured with a sign that said, “God loves. . . period!”  Well, that isn’t the whole truth.  Nowhere in the Scriptures do we read: “Love, love, love is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his love.”  What we do find, instead, is: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.”  (Isa. 6:3)  God, we see, is characterized as the thrice holy God.

Yes, the Lord is gracious, and he accepts penitent sinners just as they are.  But his grace doesn’t leave them as they are.  In redeeming Adam’s sinful, fallen race, he conforms his people to the image of his Son in holiness.  The idea that “God loves. . . period”  has it the other way around.  But rather than conforming the Creator to the image of the corrupt creature (abandoning His holiness and becoming corrupt Himself), God instead maintains his own holiness and in salvation transforms the fallen creature into a new self, created after God in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).  Anything else makes a mockery of the inscription on the High Priest’s brow, “Holiness to the Lord” (Ex. 28:36), in that every believer in Christ now comprises a royal priesthood (1 Pe. 2:9).  It was this affront to the Lord’s holiness that so incensed Calvin.  May we be faithful to the Lord in our generation as well, always speaking the truth in love, and never abandoning either.

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Sep. 21: 4.6.17 – 4.7.4

Sep. 22: 4.7.5 – 4.7.10

Sep. 23: 4.7.11 – 4.7.17

Sep. 24: 4.7.18 – 4.7.22

Sep. 25: 4.7.23 – 4.7.30

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as

September 13, 2015 · 8:59 pm

Week 37 of 50 in the Institutes: Thanks to Phil Ryken

After taking issue with the blogs by Paul Helms last week, I will just tip my hat to the Reformation 21 blogger, Phil Ryken, for this week’s assignments.  Ryken did a nice job summarizing these sections in the Institutes, and I have nothing to add, for a change.  Labor Day wore me out, I suppose!

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Sep. 14: 4.5.2 – 4.5.7

Sep. 15: 4.5.8 – 4.5.15

Sep. 16: 4.5.16 – 4.6.3

Sep. 17: 4.6.4 – 4.6.9

Sep. 17: 4.6.10 – 4.6.16

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

September 6, 2015 · 9:39 pm

Week 36 of 50 in the Institutes: Helm’s Leap

I find myself conflicted with regard to which direction to take for this week’s blog entry.  Since it is Labor Day weekend, I’m going to throw caution to the wind and go in both directions (one serious and one not so serious), so hold on, and keep your hands inside the carriage until the ride comes to a complete stop.

First, I found myself wondering what was going on in Paul Helm’s life when he wrote blogs 174-177 back in 2009 (links at bottom from Reformation 21 Blogs Through the Insitutes)!  He seems to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed four days in a row, at least where Calvin is concerned.  For instance, in blog 174 (Sept. 8), he observed:  “A read through these sections makes it clear that the establishing and preservation of order is a main Calvinian criterion for the various ecclesiastical rules he proposes at this point.”

I hardly think Calvin deserves such censure, because at the beginning of chapter 3 of book 4, Calvin declared:  “We are now to speak of the order in which the Lord has been pleased that his Church should be governed.”  Then true to form, Calvin proceeded to cite Scripture as he made his case for the form of church polity he advocated.  So while it may be true that Calvin liked order, the order he sought to maintain was the order he understood to be ordained by God in his Word.  Paul Helm leapt over this ongoing commitment to sola scriptura on Calvin’s part, and hence the title for today’s entry.

But Helm wasn’t through leaping.  His final comment in blog 174 was a leap off the page via an undeveloped topic sentence:  “But although church order is necessary, it is not sufficient, of course: a cemetery is the very model of orderliness.”  To end abruptly with such a statement abandons the reader only to guess what conclusions about Calvin or Calvinism Helm was implying, none of which are favorable as far as I can tell.  And it isn’t like 4.3.8 – 4.3.15 comprise all of the Institutes!  So Helm’s parting comment seems like a cheap shot, unbecoming a man of his position.  His other three entries for this week’s assignment had less egregious jabs at Calvin which nevertheless left me wanting more substantive interaction with the text (less leaping and more depth).

Second, reading these sections of the Institutes made me thankful for Presbyterian church polity.  Having come from settings where there was wide latitude given both to pastors and congregations with independent, congregational forms of church government, I can appreciate the checks and balances which a Presbyterian form of government affords.  Calvin’s citation of Cyprian seems like an astute observation of God’s providence with regard to the selection of officers when this model of church government is employed (4.3.15, emphasis added):

Rightly, therefore, does Cyprian contend for it as of divine authority, that the priest be chosen in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public judgment and testimony, (Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 3). Indeed, we see that by the command of the Lord, the practice in electing the Levitical priests was to bring them forward in view of the people before consecration. Nor is Matthias enrolled among the number of the apostles, nor are the seven deacons elected in any other way, than at the sight and approval of the people (Acts 6:2). “Those examples,” says Cyprian, “show that the ordination of a priest behoved not to take place, unless under the consciousness of the people assisting, so that ordination was just and legitimate which was vouched by the testimony of all.” We see, then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the consent and approbation of the people. Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult.

Finally, on a much less serious note, the above method of recognizing and installing ministers stands head and shoulders above the account I heard Dennis Swanberg give years ago, back when cassette tapes were still predominant (and YouTube didn’t exist).  Swanberg, now a Christian comedian/pastor (don’t ask me to explain, and mention here is by no means an endorsement), shared how he knew he was called to the ministry.  When he was a child, one day his parents left him at home while they ran an errand.  Before they left, they told him he couldn’t watch television while they were gone.  So, of course, as soon as they left Dennis turned on the TV.  They had a gravel driveway, so the instant he heard his parents turn into the driveway, he turned off the television.  But in those days, televisions weren’t instant off and on.  When you turned off the set, the picture would go off but a dot would remain in the center of the screen for a few moments before finally disappearing (remember that?).  Well, Dennis forgot about the dot, so while he was anxiously waiting for it to disappear before his parents came into the house he prayed, “Oh, God, get rid of that dot!  If you get rid of that dot, God, I’ll become a preacher!”  Dennis said the dot went away that day, and he’s been called ever since!

You may safely exit the vehicle now!

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

No assignment for Sept. 7th – Labor Day!

Sep. 8: 4.3.8 – 4.3.15

Sep. 9: 4.3.16 – 4.4.4

Sep. 10: 4.4.5 – 4.4.10

Sep. 11: 4.4.11 – 4.5

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as

August 30, 2015 · 4:28 pm

Week 35 of 50 in the Institutes: Five Cautions to the Schismatic

I want to call attention again to Calvin’s ecumenical tone which continues to spill over into this week’s assignment.  In 4.1.16, Calvin exposes the pride and ill-advised zeal for righteousness of any who would seek to justify withdrawal from the church because of its defects, whenever the church still preaches the word and ministers the sacraments:

Still, however, even the good are sometimes affected by this inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, though we shall find that this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself, and true zeal for it. Accordingly, those who are the most forward, and, as it were, leaders in producing revolt from the Church, have, for the most part, no other motive than to display their own superiority by despising all other men.

Calvin then quoted Augustine at length:

Well and wisely, therefore, does Augustine say, “Seeing that pious reason and the mode of ecclesiastical discipline ought specially to regard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, which the Apostle enjoins us to keep, by bearing with one another (for if we keep it not, the application of medicine is not only superfluous, but pernicious, and therefore proves to be no medicine); those bad sons who, not from hatred of other men’s iniquities, but zeal for their own contentions, attempt altogether to draw away, or at least to divide, weak brethren ensnared by the glare of their name, while swollen with pride, stuffed with petulance, insidiously calumnious, and turbulently seditious, use the cloak of a rigorous severity, that they may not seem devoid of the light of truth, and pervert to sacrilegious schism, and purposes of excision, those things which are enjoined in the Holy Scriptures (due regard being had to sincere love, and the unity of peace), to correct a brother’s faults by the appliance of a moderate cure” (August. Cont. Parmen. cap. 1).

He then added his own counsel on the matter, and concluded with five cautions or reflections for those considering withdrawal from the church in such an ill-advised manner:

To the pious and placid his advice is, mercifully to correct what they can, and to bear patiently with what they cannot correct, in love lamenting and mourning until God either reform or correct, or at the harvest root up the tares, and scatter the chaff (Ibid. cap. 2). Let all the godly study to provide themselves with these weapons, lest, while they deem themselves strenuous and ardent defenders of righteousness, they revolt from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only kingdom of righteousness. For as God has been pleased that the communion of his Church shall be maintained in this external society, any one who, from hatred of the ungodly, violates the bond of this society, enters on a downward course, in which he incurs great danger of cutting himself off from the communion of saints. Let them reflect, that in a numerous body there are several who may escape their notice, and yet are truly righteous and innocent in the eyes of the Lord. Let them reflect, that of those who seem diseased, there are many who are far from taking pleasure or flattering themselves in their faults, and who, ever and anon aroused by a serious fear of the Lord, aspire to greater integrity. Let them reflect, that they have no right to pass judgment on a man for one act, since the holiest sometimes make the most grievous fall. Let them reflect, that in the ministry of the word and participation of the sacraments, the power to collect the Church is too great to be deprived of all its efficacy, by the fault of some ungodly men. Lastly, let them reflect, that in estimating the Church, divine is of more force than human judgment.

 

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Aug. 31: 4.1.15 – 4.1.21

Sep. 1: 4.1.22 – 4.1.29

Sep. 2: 4.2.1 – 4.2.5

Sep. 3: 4.2.6 – 4.2.12

Sep. 4: 4.3.1 – 4.3.7

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

August 23, 2015 · 4:37 pm

Week 34 of 50 in the Institutes (Part 2 of 2): Calvin, the Ecumenist

There was so much to feast on in this week’s assignment, I had to make two entries.

We cross over into book four this week, where Calvin takes up the broad topic  of “the external means or aids by which God invites us into the society of Christ and holds us therein.”  When dealing with the notion of the visible church as the mother of believers, Calvin takes a very dim view of those who forsake the ministry and education provided thereby (4.1.5, bold emphasis added):

Hence it follows, that all who reject the spiritual food of the soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of hunger and famine. God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality of his gospel, as Paul reminds us, “Faith cometh by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). God reserves to himself the power of maintaining it, but it is by the preaching of the gospel, as Paul also declares, that he brings it forth and unfolds it. With this view, it pleased him in ancient times that sacred meetings should be held in the sanctuary, that consent in faith might be nourished by doctrine proceeding from the lips of the priest. Those magnificent titles, as when the temple is called God’s rest, his sanctuary, his habitation, and when he is said to dwell between the cherubims (Ps 32:13, 14; 80:1), are used for no other purpose than to procure respect, love, reverence, and dignity to the ministry of heavenly doctrine, to which otherwise the appearance of an insignificant human being might be in no slight degree derogatory.

Calvin deftly strips away the underlying pride of those who would seek to go-it-alone with little appreciation for the church (4.1.5):

Pride, or fastidiousness, or emulation, induces many to persuade themselves that they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in private, and thus to despise public meetings, and deem preaching superfluous. But since as much as in them lies they loose or burst the sacred bond of unity, none of them escapes the just punishment of this impious divorce, but become fascinated with pestiferous errors, and the foulest delusions.

Calvin, with what many will find to be a surprisingly ecumenical spirit, maintained that the church is not to be forsaken, however defective as long as the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments continue (4.1.10).  And as for the excuse that there are hypocrites in the church, Calvin had this rebuff (bold emphasis added):

Others, again, sin in this respect, not so much from that insane pride as from inconsiderate zeal. Seeing that among those to whom the gospel is preached, the fruit produced is not in accordance with the doctrine, they forthwith conclude that there no church exists. The offence is indeed well founded, and it is one to which in this most unhappy age we give far too much occasion. It is impossible to excuse our accursed sluggishness, which the Lord will not leave unpunished, as he is already beginning sharply to chastise us. Woe then to us who, by our dissolute licence of wickedness, cause weak consciences to be wounded! Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn, by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly. They allege that the Church of God is holy. But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken, but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a field which, planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn. Let them hear, in fine, that it is a thrashing-floor in which the collected wheat lies concealed under the chaff, until, cleansed by the fanners and the sieve, it is at length laid up in the granary. If the Lord declares that the Church will labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the day of judgment, it is in vain to look for a church altogether free from blemish (Mt. 13).

Of course we know that Calvin drew the line over the lack of faithful preaching and proper administration of the sacraments when it came to the Catholic church.  His ecumenism thus had its boundaries.  But many so-called “Calvinists” today would benefit greatly by imbuing Calvin’s teaching here.  Would that I had read this section of the Institutes decades ago!

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes (again):

Aug. 24: 3:25.7 – 3.25.8

Aug. 25: 3.25.9 – 3.25.12

Aug. 26: 4.1.1 – 4.1.4

Aug. 27: 4.1.5 – 4.1.8

Aug. 28: 4.1.9 – 4.1.14

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as , ,

August 23, 2015 · 4:28 pm

Week 34 of 50 in the Institutes (Part 1 of 2): An Insightful Inversion

Since this blog is about my reflections on theological writings by dead guys (mostly Puritans along with the occasional Reformer, such as Calvin), I’m going to take a brief stroll down memory lane.  If you don’t want to accompany me on this brief excursion, you may skip down to the next paragraph.  I suspect some of you have made a pilgrimage similar to mine anyway.  Those who have may recall a song from the days of hymnals with shaped notes, “I’ll Have a New Body (I’ll Have a New Life)”.  Those who aren’t familiar with that hymn may listen to it here (if you dare).  In the Independent Baptist church I grew up in, we had a tenor who liked to be a little mischievous on occasion, and when it came to the phrase “I’ll have a new body, praise the Lord, I’ll have a new life, life, O yes”, he would change it up as follows:  “I’ll have a new body, praise the Lord, I’ll have a new wife, life, O yes!”  You had to listen carefully to catch his subtle change, and he would usually give himself away by an unusually large smile when he did it.

I share that because the words of that hymn immediately came to mind when I read 3.25.7 of the Institutes, because therein Calvin demonstrates how wrong they are!  Instead of a new body, every glorified saint receives a resurrected body.  After showing the error of those who would deny the immortality of the soul, Calvin turns his attention to another error, namely, the idea that saints receive new bodies, which is inconceivable or else the head (Christ) and the members will not match (3.25.7, bold emphasis added):

Equally monstrous is the error of those who imagine that the soul, instead of resuming the body with which it is now clothed, will obtain a new and different body. Nothing can be more futile than the reason given by the Manichees—viz. that it were incongruous for impure flesh to rise again: as if there were no impurity in the soul; and yet this does not exclude it from the hope of heavenly life. It is just as if they were to say, that what is infected by the taint of sin cannot be divinely purified; for I now say nothing to the delirious dream that flesh is naturally impure as having been created by the devil. I only maintain, that nothing in us at present, which is unworthy of heaven, is any obstacle to the resurrection. But, first, Paul enjoins believers to purify themselves from “all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” (2 Cor. 7:1 the judgment which is to follow, that every one shall “receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad,” (2 Cor. 5:10). With this accords what he says to the Corinthians, “That the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body,” (2 Cor. 4:10). For which reason he elsewhere says, “I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Thess. 5:23). He says “body” as well as “spirit and soul,” and no wonder; for it were most absurd that bodies which God has dedicated to himself as temples should fall into corruption without hope of resurrection. What? are they not also the members of Christ? Does he not pray that God would sanctify every part of them, and enjoin them to celebrate his name with their tongues, lift up pure hands, and offer sacrifices? That part of man, therefore, which the heavenly Judge so highly honors, what madness is it for any mortal man to reduce to dust without hope of revival?. . . Moreover, if we are to receive new bodies, where will be the conformity [that is, matching ] of the Head and the members? Christ rose again. Was it by forming for himself a new body? Nay, he had foretold, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” (John 2:19). The mortal body which he had formerly carried he again received; for it would not have availed us much if a new body had been substituted, and that which had been offered in expiatory sacrifice been destroyed. We must, therefore, attend to that connection which the Apostle celebrates, that we rise because Christ rose (1 Cor. 15:12); nothing being less probable than that the flesh in which we bear about the dying of Christ, shall have no share in the resurrection of Christ. This was even manifested by a striking example, when, at the resurrection of Christ, many bodies of the saints came forth from their graves. For it cannot be denied that this was a prelude, or rather earnest, of the final resurrection for which we hope, such as already existed in Enoch and Elijah, whom Tertullian calls candidates for resurrection, because, exempted from corruption, both in body and soul, they were received into the custody of God.

At the beginning of the next section (3.25.8), Calvin talked at some length about the significance of rites honoring the body.  He pointed out that the etymology of the word “cemetery” (sleeping place) underscores the truth of the nature of the resurrection.  Scripture, Calvin contends, constantly “exhorts us in Scripture to hope for the resurrection of our flesh.” The sacraments also point to the reality of the resurrection:

For this reason Baptism is, according to Paul, a seal of our future resurrection; and in like manner the holy Supper invites us confidently to expect it, when with our mouths we receive the symbols of spiritual grace. And certainly the whole exhortation of Paul, “Yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto God,” (Rom. 6:13), would be frigid, did he not add, as he does in another passage, “He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies,” (Rom. 8:11). For what would it avail to apply feet, hands, eyes, and tongues, to the service of God, did not these afterwards participate in the benefit and reward? This Paul expressly confirms when he says, “The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God has both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power,” (1 Cor. 6:13, 14).

At the end of the section (3.25.8), Calvin went on to describe what the manner of the resurrection involved, saying that it would be a resurrection in the same body we now bear, but that the “quality” will be different.  His emphasis, in terms of sheer number of words, however, was on the continuity, rather than the discontinuity between the two states, because of the errors he felt compelled to correct in his day.  In so doing, his treatment of the subject constitutes a very interesting inversion, with primary emphasis on the sameness of the body now and hereafter.

Could it be that the hymn writer of that old “convention” song unwittingly imbibed a spirit of Gnosticism which has subtly been passed along to everyone who has ever heard that song (and made popular way back in the day by Hank Williams)?  After all, why bother so much with holiness and sanctification here if every believer gets a new body hereafter (and maybe even a new wife!)?

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Aug. 24: 3:25.7 – 3.25.8

Aug. 25: 3.25.9 – 3.25.12

Aug. 26: 4.1.1 – 4.1.4

Aug. 27: 4.1.5 – 4.1.8

Aug. 28: 4.1.9 – 4.1.14

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

August 16, 2015 · 5:20 pm

Week 33 of 50 in the Institutes: The Right and Wrong Way of Seeking Assurance

In 3.24.4 Calvin describes the great peril a soul hazards when seeking assurance “outside the way” (McNeill-Battles rendering), or “out of the proper way” (Beveridge) by seeking to inquire into the secret things of God:

Among the temptations with which Satan assaults believers, none is greater or more perilous, than when disquieting them with doubts as to their election, he at the same time stimulates them with a depraved desire of inquiring after it out of the proper way.  By inquiring out of the proper way, I mean when puny man endeavors to penetrate to the hidden recesses of the divine wisdom, and goes back even to the remotest eternity, in order that he may understand what final determination God has made with regard to him. In this way he plunges headlong into an immense abyss, involves himself in numberless inextricable snares, and buries himself in the thickest darkness. For it is right that the stupidity of the human mind should be punished with fearful destruction, whenever it attempts to rise in its own strength to the height of divine wisdom. And this temptation is the more fatal, that it is the temptation to which of all others almost all of us are most prone. For there is scarcely a mind in which the thought does not sometimes rise, Whence your salvation but from the election of God? But what proof have you of your election? When once this thought has taken possession of any individual, it keeps him perpetually miserable, subjects him to dire torment, or throws him into a state of complete stupor. I cannot wish a stronger proof of the depraved ideas, which men of this description form of predestination, than experience itself furnishes, since the mind cannot be infected by a more pestilential error than that which disturbs the conscience, and deprives it of peace and tranquillity in regard to God. Therefore, as we dread shipwreck, we must avoid this rock, which is fatal to every one who strikes upon it.

Instead of seeking to pry into the secret things of God, Calvin counsels his readers to seek assurance in Christ alone by resting on the promises found in Him (3.24.5), that is, the revealed things:

For though a belief of our election animates us to involve God, yet when we frame our prayers, it were preposterous to obtrude it upon God, or to stipulate in this way, “O Lord, if I am elected, hear me.” He would have us to rest satisfied with his promises, and not to inquire elsewhere whether or not he is disposed to hear us. We shall thus be disentangled from many snares, if we know how to make a right use of what is rightly written; but let us not inconsiderately wrest it to purposes different from that to which it ought to be confined.

By a right use and reliance upon the promises of God to receive all who come to him for mercy, the believer may safely navigate the perilous waters of predestination and find comfort and consolation therein, knowing that salvation is of the Lord:

And though the discussion of predestination is regarded as a perilous sea, yet in sailing over it the navigation is calm and safe, nay pleasant, provided we do not voluntarily court danger. For as a fatal abyss engulfs those who, to be assured of their election, pry into the eternal counsel of God without the word, yet those who investigate it rightly, and in the order in which it is exhibited in the word, reap from it rich fruits of consolation.The_calm_after_the_storm_-_Port_Lincoln_-_South_Australia_(Explored)

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Aug. 17: 3:24.1 – 3.24.5

Aug. 18: 3.24.6 – 3.24.11

Aug. 19: 3.24.12 – 3.24.17

Aug. 20: 3.25.1 – 3.25.3

Aug. 21: 3.25.4 – 3.25.6

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

August 9, 2015 · 8:58 pm

Week 32 of 50 in the Institutes: Objections Against Election In Calvin’s Day and Ours

In 3.23 of the Institutes, Calvin responds to five objections to the doctrine of election which were common in his day, but by no means unique to it.  Just this morning, for instance, someone asked me about the doctrine of double-predestination, or reprobation, passing along some objections he had received from an acquaintance who dismissed the doctrine out of hand.

Calvin himself took a lot of flak in his day for his teaching on predestination, in no small measure due to misperceptions about his views.  Jerome Bolsec (d. 1584) contended that Calvin’s doctrine made God the blame for sin’s entrance in the world.  Bolsec’s zeal in opposing Calvin and other ministers on the subject wound up getting him banned from Geneva by the city council.  When Jean Trolliet later picked up where Bolsec left off, the city council read the Institutes for itself and concluded that Calvin’s views were fully biblical (try to imagine a government body doing that today!).  [Source: Herman J. Selderhuis, John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 192]

So before rejecting Calvin’s views on predestination, the prudent course is to give him a full hearing, because he was a careful student of Scripture.

Right off the bat even before responding to the usual objections, Calvin addressed the repugnancy, common in his day and ours, of the whole concept of reprobation, or double predestination.  Calvin had the insight to recognize that the bone of contention was not really with reprobation itself, but rather with the doctrine of election and a misguided attempt to rescue God from a charge of inequity.  But as Calvin noted, for there can be no election without reprobation (3.23.1):

Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children. Nor is it possible to tolerate the petulance of men, in refusing to be restrained by the word of God, in regard to his incomprehensible counsel, which even angels adore.

Calvin went on to say, in light of Romans 9:22-23, that: it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God.” 

And now we consider the objections to the doctrine of election, common then and now (a Reader’s Digest summary version):

Objection #1: The doctrine of election makes God a tyrant.
Answer: The Lord’s will is the cause of all things, God is just toward the reprobate, and God’s hidden decrees are not to be searched out, but marveled at in obedience.

Objection #2: The doctrine of election takes guilt and responsibility away from man.
Answer: The reprobate want an excuse for sinning, and seek to find such an excuse in the secret counsel of God, but their sin springs from their own nature, and they are hence accountable and guilty before God.

Objection #3: The doctrine of election leads to the view that God shows partiality.
Answer: The fact that God chooses one and rejects another arises not from regard for the man (i.e., his riches, power, pedigree, etc.) but solely from His own mercy.

Objection #4: The doctrine of election destroys all zeal for an upright life.
Answer: The goal of election is holiness, and so it ought to arouse and goad a person to set his mind on holiness rather than use it for an excuse for doing evil, or nothing at all.

Objection #5: The doctrine of election makes all admonitions meaningless.
Answer: Scripture teaches both man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty, and rightly preaching the gospel must include both.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Aug. 10: 3:22.4 – 3.22.7

Aug. 11: 3.22.8 – 3.22.11

Aug. 12: 3.23.1 – 3.23.5

Aug. 13: 3.23.6 – 3.23.10

Aug. 14: 3.23.11 – 3.23.14
(Skipped – no blog entry)

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,