March 22, 2015 · 5:15 pm

Week 12 of 50 in the Institutes: The First Step Toward Godliness

This week’s assignment affords many vistas for reflection, but I will limit myself to two.  The first is 2.6.4, where Calvin notes that faith in God is faith in Christ, and requires the following admission from his reader:

but what I wish to impress upon my readers in this way is, that the first step in piety is, to acknowledge that God is a Father, to defend, govern, and cherish us, until he brings us to the eternal inheritance of his kingdom; that hence it is plain, as we lately observed, there is no having knowledge of God without Christ, and that, consequently, from the beginning of the world Christ was held forth to all the elect as the object of their faith and confidence. In this sense, Irenæus says, that the Father, who is boundless in himself, is bounded in the Son, because he has accommodated himself to our capacity, lest our minds should be swallowed up by the immensity of his glory (Irenaeus, lib. 4 cap. 8).

Instead of “the first step in piety” as Beveridge rendered it above, the McNeill-Battles edition translates that phrase as ‘the first step toward godliness.”  Calvin’s point, in either translation, is well taken.  One cannot make much progress in sanctification where there is a lack of assurance of salvation.  One Puritan we read compared the doubting Christian to someone who is given a plot of land to farm, but instead of working the ground, he continually goes back and forth to the land office repeatedly, checking to see if his deed is valid.  So when harvest time comes, such a one has a meager return because all the time which should have been spent planting and harvesting was wasted in relentless questioning and doubt.

Such a one needs to learn to look fully unto Him who is an all sufficient Savior (Heb. 7:25), able to save to the uttermost all who come to him, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.  As we sit at Calvin’s feet in 2.7.8 we find this glorious invitation for refuge in Christ:

But while the unrighteousness and condemnation of all are attested by the law, it does not follow (if we make the proper use of it) that we are immediately to give up all hope and rush headlong on despair. No doubt, it has some such effect upon the reprobate, but this is owing to their obstinacy. With the children of God the effect is different. The Apostle testifies that the law pronounces its sentence of condemnation in order “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” (Rom. 3:19).  In another place, however, the same Apostle declares, that “God has concluded them all in unbelief;” not that he might destroy all, or allow all to perish, but that “he might have mercy upon all,” (Rom. 11:32) in other words, that divesting themselves of an absurd opinion of their own virtue, they may perceive how they are wholly dependent on the hand of God; that feeling how naked and destitute they are, they may take refuge in his mercy, rely upon it, and cover themselves up entirely with it; renouncing all righteousness and merit, and clinging to mercy alone, as offered in Christ to all who long and look for it in true faith. In the precepts of the law, God is seen as the rewarder only of perfect righteousness (a righteousness of which all are destitute), and, on the other hand, as the stern avenger of wickedness. But in Christ his countenance beams forth full of grace and gentleness towards poor unworthy sinners.

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Mar. 23:  2.5.18 – 2.6.2

Mar. 24:  2.6.3 – 2.7.1

Mar. 25:  2.7.2 – 2.7.7

Mar. 26: 2.7.8 – 2.7.13

Mar. 27: 2.7.14 – 2.8.1

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as

March 15, 2015 · 3:55 pm

Week 11 of 50 in the Institutes: God is Great, and God is Good

Reflecting on this coming week’s reading assignment in the Institutes brings to mind a simple but profound truth that many of us were taught as part of prayer at mealtime: “God is great, and God is good.”

God is so great that when we consider the question of how God works in men’s hearts (2.4), we must affirm that God, Satan, and man may be active in the same event (2.4.2).  And yet at the same time we must affirm that Satan is not excused in his evil part, nor is man, and neither is God the author of evil.  And how does all this come to pass?  Calvin notes that there is no inconsistency in assigning the same deed to Satan, man, and God because of the distinction in purpose and manner of each party involved, causing God’s righteousness to shine forth blameless (last sentence of 2.4.2).  The Chaldeans pillaging of Job’s possessions (Job 1:21), as Calvin noted, perfectly illustrates this interplay of purpose and manner of acting:

The Lord permits Satan to afflict his servant; and the Chaldeans, who had been chosen as the ministers to execute the deed, he hands over to the impulses of Satan, who, pricking on the already depraved Chaldeans with his poisoned darts, instigates them to commit the crime. They rush furiously on to the unrighteous deed, and become its guilty perpetrators. Here Satan is properly said to act in the reprobate, over whom he exercises his sway, which is that of wickedness. God also is said to act in his own way; because even Satan when he is the instrument of divine wrath, is completely under the command of God, who turns him as he will in the execution of his just judgments.

In 2.4.5 where Calvin elaborated more on how Satan also must serve God, he refers the reader back to earlier sections where he previously vindicated God from any blame in his rule and overrule even of Satan. I find 1.18.4 to be particularly helpful here (thanks in no small part to footnote 9 on p. 313 of the McNeill-Battles edition):

If I mistake not, I have already shown clearly how the same act at once betrays the guilt of man, and manifests the righteousness of God. Modest minds will always be satisfied with Augustine’s answer, “Since the Father delivered up the Son, Christ his own body, and Judas his Master, how in such a case is God just, and man guilty, but just because in the one act which they did, the reasons for which they did it are different?” (August. Ep. 48, ad Vincentium). If any are not perfectly satisfied with this explanation—viz. that there is no concurrence between God and man, when by His righteous impulse man does what he ought not to do, let them give heed to what Augustine elsewhere observes: “Who can refrain from trembling at those Judgments when God does according to his pleasure even in the hearts of the wicked, at the same time rendering to them according to their deeds?” (De Grat. et lib. Arbit. ad Valent. c. 20). And certainly, in regard to the treachery of Judas, there is just as little ground to throw the blame of the crime upon God, because He was both pleased that his Son should be delivered up to death, and did deliver him, as to ascribe to Judas the praise of our redemption. Hence Augustine, in another place, truly observes, that when God makes his scrutiny, he looks not to what men could do, or to what they did, but to what they wished to do, thus taking account of their will and purpose. Those to whom this seems harsh had better consider how far their captiousness is entitled to any toleration, while, on the ground of its exceeding their capacity, they reject a matter which is clearly taught by Scripture, and complain of the enunciation of truths, which, if they were not useful to be known, God never would have ordered his prophets and apostles to teach. Our true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered. Those who indulge their petulance, a petulance manifestly directed against God, are undeserving of a longer refutation.

I close by passing along a “shield” from the Lord’s panoply which I have found to be fully capable of absorbing every fiery dart of Satan which seeks to call into question God’s goodness:   “The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and kind in all His deeds.”  (Psalm 145:17, NASB)

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Mar. 16:  2.4.1 – 2.4.6

Mar. 17:  2.4.7 – 2.5.3

Mar. 18:  2.5.4 – 2.5.8

Mar. 19: 2.5.9 – 2.5.12

Mar. 20: 2.5.13 – 2.5.17

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as , ,

March 8, 2015 · 6:02 pm

Week 10 of 50 in the Institutes: Calvin, Owen & Sanctification

Before putting down my thoughts on the upcoming week’s reading assignments in the Institutes, I like to peruse the Reformation 21 blogs to see if the assigned blogger back in 2009 addressed any of the issues that stood out to me (to save time such can I can merely point to them).  Those with rapid recall of everything we have read to this point may begin to have some consternation by this coming Friday when you read 2.3.11 in the Institutes and mentally compare it to what John Owen had to say in Mortification of Sin. So as point man for the group, let me try to save you a headache, or at least a little consternation.

First let’s go back to the following passage from On the Mortification of Sin, where Owen answers the question of why a person is exhorted to mortify sin, if such mortification is the work of the Spirit (at the end of chapter 3):

Secondly. If this be the work of the Spirit alone, how is it that we are exhorted to it? — seeing the Spirit of God only can do it, let the work be left wholly to him.

[1.] It is no otherwise the work of the Spirit but as all graces and good works which are in us are his. He “works in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure,” Phil. ii.13; he works “all our works in us,”  Isa. xxvi. 12, — “the work of faith with power,” 2 Thess 1. 11, Col. ii. 12; he causes us to pray, and is a “Spirit of supplication,” Rom. viii. 26, Zech. xii. 10; and yet we are exhorted, and are to be exhorted, to all these.

[2.] He doth not so work our mortification in us as not to keep it still an act of our obedience. The Holy Ghost works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience. He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections, agreeably to their own natures; he works in us and with us, not against us or without us; so that his assistance is an encouragement as to the facilitating of the work, and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself.

With reference to the believer’s duty to mortify sin (Romans 8:13), Owen clearly affirmed the responsibility of man, and the idea that God doesn’t do this work “against us or without us”.  Compare this to Calvin’s remarks in 2.3.11 in regard to our efforts to cooperate in sanctification or perseverance:

As to the common saying, that after we have given admission to the first grace, our efforts co-operate with subsequent grace, this is my answer:—If it is meant that after we are once subdued by the power of the Lord to the obedience of righteousness, we proceed voluntarily, and are inclined to follow the movement of grace, I have nothing to object. For it is most certain, that where the grace of God reigns, there is also this readiness to obey. And whence this readiness, but just that the Spirit of God being everywhere consistent with himself, after first begetting a principle of obedience, cherishes and strengthens it for perseverance? If, again, it is meant that man is able of himself to be a fellow-labourer with the grace of God, I hold it to be a most pestilential delusion.

Putting these two passages side by side without careful consideration might leave the casual reader scratching his head and wondering: “So who’s right, Calvin or Owen?”  The answer is both, and I don’t think they are truly contradicting one another (read above excerpt more closely).  How could they, since they were both called “the theologian of the Holy Spirit” in their respective generations?

Louis Berkhof comes in handy here, in the following excerpt from his Systematic Theology, in the section on sanctification (note: we are talking about sanctification here, NOT justification):

It [sanctification] is a work of God in which believers co-operate.  When it is said that man takes part in the work of sanctification, this does not mean that man is an independent agent in the work, so as to make it partly the work of God and partly the work of man; but merely, that God effects the work in part through the instrumentality of man as a rational being, by requiring of him prayerful and intelligent co-operation with the Spirit.  That man must co-operate with the Spirit of God follows: (a) from the repeated warning against evils and temptations, which clearly imply that man must be active in avoiding the pitfalls of life, Rom. 12:9, 16, 17; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:16-23; and (b) from the constant exhortations to holy living.  These imply that the believer must be diligent in the employment of means at his command for the moral and spiritual improvement of his life, Micah 6:8; John 15:2, 8, 16; Rom. 8:12, 13; 12:1, 2, 17; Gal. 6:7, 8, 15.

So the resolution lies in the affirmation of both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.  Both Owen and Calvin cited Philippians 2:13 when dealing with this issue, which is one of the most remarkable passages in all of Scripture with regard to the affirmation of both of these non-contradictory doctrines.  John Murray had an excellent interpretation of Phil. 2:12-13 (as cited by Moises Silva in his commentary on Philippians):

God’s working in us is not suspended because we work, nor our working suspended because God works.  Neither is the relation strictly one of cooperation as if God did his part and we did ours so that the conjunction or coordination of both produced the required result.  God works and we also work.  But the relation is that because God works we work. All working out of salvation on our part is the effect of God’s working in us. . . . We have here not only the explanation of all acceptable activity on our part but we also have the incentive to our willing and working. . . . The more persistently active we are in working, the more persuaded we may be that all the energizing grace and power is of God.

Now if you still have a headache, I recommend aspirin at this point!

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Mar. 9:  2.2.18 – 2.2.23

Mar. 10:  2.2.24 – 2.2.27

Mar. 11:  2.3.1 – 2.3.4

Mar. 12: 2.3.5 – 2.3.9

Mar. 13: 2.3.10 – 2.3.14

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

March 1, 2015 · 4:36 pm

Week 9 of 50 in the Institutes: Humility, Humility, Humility

The opening lines of 2.2.11 nicely summarize the proper attitude which should characterize fallen man:

I have always been exceedingly delighted with the words of Chrysostom, “The foundation of our philosophy is humility;” and still more with those of Augustine, “As the orator, The French is, “Demosthene orateur Grec;”—the Greek orator Demosthenes. when asked, What is the first precept in eloquence? answered, Delivery: What is the second? Delivery: What the third? Delivery: so, if you ask me in regard to the precepts of the Christian Religion, I will answer, first, second, and third, Humility.” By humility he means not when a man, with a consciousness of some virtue, refrains from pride, but when he truly feels that he has no refuge but in humility. This is clear from another passage, “Let no man,” says he, “flatter himself: of himself he is a devil: his happiness he owes entirely to God. What have you of your own but sin? Take your sin which is your own; for righteousness is of God.”

This reminds me of the saying of Martin Luther, that man’s only contribution to salvation is sin!  All too often, however, man attempts to usurp the glory of God by trying to stake a claim to various forms of self-righteousness, while minimizing or denying altogether culpability for sin.  I’m also reminded of Thomas Brooks’ quote of a Mr. Hooper, who said, “Lord, I am hell, but you are heaven!”

In the section just prior to this one above (2.2.10), Calvin leaves his reader in no doubt that, without humility, there is no salvation.  After surveying several passages which expose man’s spiritually destitute and hopeless state apart from God (Jer. 17:5; Psa. 147:10-11; Isa. 40:29-31; James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5; Prov. 3:34; Isa. 44:3; 55:1), he described the blessed state of the poor in spirit thusly:

These passages declare, that none are admitted to enjoy the blessings of God save those who are pining under a sense of their own poverty.

So to be full of one’s self, in the popular expression, is to be a son of perdition.  Better by far to be emptied of self, and abide in Christ, which happens only by grace, and say: More of Him, and less of me.  Or as John the Baptist put it: He must increase, but I must decrease.

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

 Mar. 2:  2.1.5 – 2.1.8

Mar. 3:  2.1.9 – 2.2.3

Mar. 4:  2.2.4 – 2.2.7

Mar. 5: 2.2.8 – 2.2.11

Mar. 6: 2.2.12 – 2.2.17

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

February 22, 2015 · 10:09 pm

Week 8 of 50 in the Institutes: The Unity of God’s Will

Toward the end of last week’s post I provided a link to a series of blogs by J. Todd Billings titled: Divine Providence: Occupying the Mysterious Middle. In the second installment Billings distanced himself from Calvin with regard to the active/permissive will of God, noting: “On this point, I disagree with John Calvin’s rejection of the ‘active/permissive’ will of God distinction – instead, I side with Reformed confessions such as the Belgic, Westminster, Dort, and others which affirm that broadly catholic distinction.)”

Billings’ comment was intriguing to me: is there a rift between Calvin and the Reformed confessions on the active/permissive will of God?  I was eager to take up this week’s assignment in the Institutes to find out.

Calvin leaves his reader in no doubt about his view on the subject.  In 1.18.3 Calvin repudiates any notion of disunity in anything God wills (emphasis added):

Their first objection—that if nothing happens without the will of God, he must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret counsel what he has openly forbidden in his law—is easily disposed of. But before I reply to it, I would again remind my readers, that this cavil is directed not against me, but against the Holy Spirit, who certainly dictated this confession to that holy man Job, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away,” when, after being plundered by robbers, he acknowledges that their injustice and mischief was a just chastisement from God. And what says the Scripture elsewhere? The sons of Eli “hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them,” (1 Sam. 2:25). Another prophet also exclaims, “Our God is in the heavens: he has done whatsoever he has pleased,” (Ps. 115:3). I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Is. 45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amos 3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises his Judgments willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him (Deut. 19:5), so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired “to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done,” (Acts 4:28). And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing.

Calvin avoids monocausal fatalism, however, in his affirmation that God’s providence does not relieve man from responsibility (1.17.3), nor does it excuse him from due prudence (1.17.4), nor does it excuse man’s sin (1.17.5), nor does it disregard intermediate or secondary causes (1.17.9), nor does it make God the author of evil (1.18.4).  I found myself agreeing with Calvin’s handling of the doctrine of providence, in that his Scripture proofs were undeniable.

So this left me wondering: where does Calvin’s view conflict with the Reformed confessions Billings mentioned (Belgic, Westiminster, Dort)?  Unfortunately, Billings didn’t cite any specific sections.  During my brief survey this afternoon, I wasn’t able to substantiate any such rift.

For example, in chapter 5 section 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith which deals with providence, we read (emphasis added):

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendedth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends.”

Article 13 of the Belgic Confession dealing with divine providence affirms that God is not the author of evil, but there is no pronounced distinction between the active and permissive will of God such as Billings might lead one to expect.  Article 13 contends that great comfort is found in the knowledge that God “so restrains the devil and all our enemies that, without His will and permission, they cannot hurt us.”

As for the Canons of Dort, the first head dealing with divine predestination, Article 18 sounded similar to Calvin in its citation of Rom. 9:20: To those who murmur at the free grace of election and just severity of reprobation, we answer with the apostle, ‘Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’

There was no prominent distinguishing between the active/permissive will of God when dealing with reprobation in Article 15 either.  If anything, the positive decree of reprobation was underscored, all the while affirming that God is not the author of sin.

In his Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof discusses the customary usage of the “permissive” will of God, but notes how even that customary usage is not passive:

“It is customary to speak of the decree of God respective moral evil as permissive.  By His decree God rendered the sinful actions of man infallibly certain without deciding to effectuate them by acting immediately upon and in the finite will.  This means that God does not positively work in man ‘both to will and to do,’ when man goes contrary to His revealed will.  It should be carefully noted, however, that this permissive decree does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will.  It is a decree which renders the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will; and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self-determination.”

So after a brief survey, it seems to me that the rift Billings has referenced between Calvin and the Reformed confessions with respect to the permissive will of God is nonexistent.  But I don’t think it is necessary to establish such a rift in order to avoid monocausal fatalism.  Calvin avoided it by his careful handling of Scripture, seeking to go no farther than the text warrants, but humbly accepting what it clearly teaches.  Calvin could also agree with Billings that God hates sin.  Calvin had a high regard and great appreciation for the Psalms, such that he could pray them right along with Billings in the midst of any number of troubling and afflictive providences.

When I asked an older and wiser friend about this purported rift between Calvin and the Reformed confessions, he astutely observed that “the perfect reflection of monocausal fatalism is not to be found in any branch of Reformed or Puritan thought, but rather in the theology of Islam.”

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Feb. 23:  1.17.3 – 1.17.7

Feb. 24:  1.17.8 – 1.17.11

Feb. 25:  1.17.12 – 1.18.2

Feb. 26:  1.18.3 – 1.18.4

Feb. 27:  2.1.1 – 2.1.4

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

February 15, 2015 · 4:54 pm

Week 7 of 50 in the Institutes: Theism, Providence, and the Abyss

I remember listening to a talk given by R. C. Sproul wherein he recounted an occasion when he was asked to speak to a certain group, which was apparently eager to seize upon any bit of Reformed theology he might present in order to call it into question.  Interestingly enough, Sproul put forward chapter three section one of the Westminster Confession of Faith for their consideration:

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Sproul then asked his audience if they believed that statement.  After some exchange he went on to say that the opening phrase (God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass) is a statement of theism, and not a special doctrine of Reformed theology.  While few if any, in that particular group, wanted to be considered Reformed in any way, all considered themselves to be theists, as opposed to atheists.

The God of the Bible is not presented as a local deity, unlike those of pagan mythology which had limited realms (sun, sea, fertility, thunderbolt, etc.). The God of the Bible is declared to be the creator of the heavens and the earth.  As such, he reigns with absolute authority over everything, such that he has unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass.  In other words, reality is what God has ordained it to be, and not any man perceives it to be.

Providence comes from the Latin, prōvidēre, which, taking the word roots, yields “to see beforehand”.  Calvin pointed out that this is not what is meant by the term, however, in that God does not look down through time and see in advance what will happen and put his approval on it like a spectator.  Rather, providence refers to God’s active governing of the universe (1.16.4, Beveridge’s translation, available online):

First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helms and overrules all events. Hence his providence extends not less to the hand than to the eye.  When Abraham said to his son, God will provide (Gen. 22:8), he meant not merely to assert that the future event was foreknown to Gods but to resign the management of an unknown business to the will of Him whose province it is to bring perplexed and dubious matters to a happy result. Hence it appears that providence consists in action.

The WCF echoes Calvin’s view of God’s absolute rule over all things.  And Calvin calls for humility and adoration in 1.17.2 as one considers what Battles translated as the “abyss” where Calvin referred to the secret things of God (Beveridge rendered it as “deep”):

It is true, indeed, that in the law and the gospel are comprehended mysteries which far transcend the measure of our sense; but since God, to enable his people to understand those mysteries which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens their minds with a spirit of understanding, they are now no longer a deep, but a path in which they can walk safely—a lamp to guide their feet—a light of life—a school of clear and certain truth. But the admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep, because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored.

I’m interested in coming to Calvin’s treatment of the active/passive will of God.  J. Todd Billings recently posted a related blog on the Reformation 21 website which you may find interesting, wherein he wades out a little into the abyss.

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Feb. 16:  1.15.1 – 1.15.3

Feb. 17:  1.15.4 – 1.15.7

Feb. 18:  1.15.8 – 1.16.3

Feb. 19:  1.16.4 – 1.16.8

Feb. 20:  1.16.9 – 1.17.2

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

February 8, 2015 · 4:12 pm

Week 6 of 50 in the Institutes: The Chicken or the Egg?

As point man in our reading group, I stay a week ahead of the daily assignments so as to provide my reflections in advance.

The following passage in 1.14.1 reminded me of a conversation I had many years ago (emphasis added):

In fine, let us remember that that invisible God, whose wisdom, power, and justice, are incomprehensible, is set before us in the history of Moses as in a mirror, in which his living image is reflected. For as an eye, either dimmed by age or weakened by any other cause, sees nothing distinctly without the aid of glasses, so (such is our imbecility) if Scripture does not direct us in our inquiries after God, we immediately turn vain in our imaginations. Those who now indulge their petulance, and refuse to take warning, will learn, when too late, how much better it had been reverently to regard the secret counsels of God, than to belch forth blasphemies which pollute the face of heaven. Justly does Augustine complain that God is insulted whenever any higher reason than his will is demanded. He also in another place wisely reminds us that it is just as improper to raise questions about infinite periods of time as about infinite space.

I was having a conversation with a chemical engineer on staff at a chemical company where I was working as a summer intern during college.  He wasn’t a believer, and we were discussing the age of the universe.  We were considering the account given in Genesis 1-2 which, on the face of it, doesn’t allude to eons of time involved in creation.  This engineer pointed out how the vastness of the universe itself was prime evidence that everything began billions of years ago, because, after all, we know that the nearest star is over four light years away, and the diameter of the universe is (now) believed to be 93 billion light years.  He further contended that, if God had created the universe and it in fact wasn’t as old as it appeared to be, then such a “god” was deceptive, and a deceiver himself.

That assertion is an insult to God, as Calvin pointed out in 1.14.1 (highlighted above), in that it seeks to subject God’s will to man’s, and requires God to limit his ways to man’s.  Besides this, my friend’s assertion was fallacious on two accounts.  In the first instance, if God cannot make anything except by natural means, he cannot create anything, since the first law of thermodynamics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  But if God is God, he can suspend natural, physical laws (even before they exist) to create the universe and everything in it however he may desire.  My friend was saying, in a sense, God can’t create a full grown chicken, only the egg (or less), because if he creates a full grown chicken, he is a deceiver because it will appear that the chicken is older than it really is.

And this brings up the second fallacy of my friend’s contention.  God hasn’t been deceptive in any way about his creation, because of special revelation.  In addition to the heavens declaring his glory, he has spoken in his Word and revealed “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.  Bible scholars disagree about what fits into that account (days are ages, etc.,), and many seek to read into it long eons of time.  Calvin went the other direction, rightly noting that God could have created the entire universe in a moment, if he so desired (1.14.22):

Moreover, as I lately observed, the Lord himself, by the very order of creation, has demonstrated that he created all things for the sake of man. Nor is it unimportant to observe, that he divided the formation of the world into six days, though it had been in no respect more difficult to complete the whole work, in all its parts, in one moment than by a gradual progression. But he was pleased to display his providence and paternal care towards us in this, that before he formed man, he provided whatever he foresaw would be useful and salutary to him.

So it is not with glee but rather with appreciation of Calvin’s sense of humor that I close with his reference to Augustine’s Confessions, in 1.14.1:

It was a shrewd saying of a good old man, who when some one pertly asked in derision what God did before the world was created, answered he made a hell for the inquisitive (August. Confess., lib. 11 c. 12). This reproof, not less weighty than severe, should repress the tickling wantonness which urges many to indulge in vicious and hurtful speculation.

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes:

Feb. 9:  1.13.26 – 1.13.29

Feb. 10:  1.14.1 – 1.14.5 

Feb. 11:  1.14.6 –  1.14.11

Feb. 12:  1.14.12 – 1.14.18

Feb. 13:  1.14.19 – 1.14.22

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as ,

February 1, 2015 · 5:11 pm

Week 5 of 50 in the Institutes: Pondering the Trinity with Calvin and Morris

I have misplaced my file with notes from a book by Henry Morris which contained the best illustration of the Trinity I have ever encountered.  Most illustrations get a failing grade in that they either separate the essence of the three Persons, or they maintain the common essence but obliterate any distinction, but Morris’ use of the universe seems safe enough.

Let’s begin with Calvin’s very succinct summary of the doctrine of the Trinity in 1.13.4 (emphasis added):

Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that each has his peculiar subsistence.

Further in 1.13.5 we read similarly:

Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop his empty prattle.

So at the risk of providing what Calvin described as an occasion “of calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the unlearned” (1.13.18), I’m going to share my recollection of the way Henry Morris thought the universe itself functions as the best illustration of the Trinity (see his book, Studies in the Bible and Science, for the full treatment, and forgive any misstatements on my part if you have the pleasure of locating a copy of the book, since I’m going by memory).

Morris observed that everything in the universe consists of three aspects: space, time, and matter. Space he related primarily to the Father, time primarily to the Spirit, and matter primarily to the Son. But he didn’t stop there, because in each one he found a trinity of trinities. Space has three dimensions of length, width, and height. Time consists of past, present, and future. Matter consists of energy in motion manifested by phenomena (the hardest one to explain).

Now I need to interject a bit of Calvin’s Institutes here, where he characterized the distinctions expressed in Scripture in regard to the persons of the Trinity (1.13.18):

This distinction is, that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit.

Combining Morris’ illustration with Calvin’s distinctions, we may consider the trinity of trinities in the universe. Space (Father) is the beginning of action, where all matter (Son) is arranged, and experienced through time (Spirit). And yet space consists of three dimensions: length, width, and height. Just as no man has seen God at any time (John 1:18), so no man has seen a line at any time (having only length but no width), even so the Son of God has declared him (length plus width), and this manifestation includes depth or height (by the Spirit). Morris applied the formula for volume here, noting that 1 ft x 1 ft x 1 ft = 1 cubic foot, not three (not three gods).

Morris associated time with the Holy Spirit in that we experience the universe over time. The Father he related to the unseen future, the source of all time. The present, where the unseen future becomes manifest moment by moment, he related to the Son. The past is our cumulative experience of time, which he related to the Holy Spirit. One second in the future equals one second in the present and one second in the past, so here again we have one essence with distinctions.

Matter is the hardest one to explain, but why should we be surprised when it relates to the second person of the Trinity! He employed Einstein’s theory of relativity to show the relationship between energy (Father) and matter (Son) through phenomena (Spirit).

By now, if you can’t appreciate the remark Sinclair Ferguson’s then middle-school-aged son made when learning about the Trinity (“Daddy, this makes my head hurt”), you haven’t been paying attention.  I’m glad Rick Phillips included that little tidbit in his blog!

Follow this link for more on Morris’ illustration, but still lacking the detail found in the book (if I could only find my notes!).

Links to Reformation 21 blogs through the Institutes: (all by Rick Phillips this week)

Feb. 2:  1.13.4 – 1.13.7

Feb. 3:  1.13.8 – 1.13.12

Feb. 4:  1.13.13 – 1.13.17 

Feb. 5:  1.13.18 – 1.13.22

Feb. 6:  1.13.23 – 1.13.25

Leave a comment

Filed under Calvin's Institutes

Tagged as , ,

January 28, 2015 · 8:04 pm

Midweek Rambling: The Crook In the Lot – Contrasting Pride & Humility

It wouldn’t be right to go a whole year on a site founded on the premise of promoting Puritan writings without citing one every now and then (even if we are reading Calvin’s Institutes most of 2015!).  I know I find it hard to go very long without reading something by the Puritans, and this week I found myself returning to one that is on my top 10 list: Thomas Boston’s The Crook in the Lot.

To those who may not be familiar with this little jewel, the title isn’t referring to a criminal on a small piece of real estate.  Boston uses that phrase to refer to afflicting incidents and circumstances in life, which everyone encounters without exception.  This short but powerful little book consists of seven sermons: three on Eccl. 7:13, one on Prov. 16:19, and three on 1 Pet. 5:6.  The excerpt below is from the one on Prov. 16:19 (“Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.”  -KJV), and the book is accessible online at CCEL (emphasis added):

III. I am to confirm the doctrine, or the decision of the text, that the case of the former is better than that of the latter. It is better to be in a low afflicted condition, with the spirit humbled and brought down to the lot, than to be of a proud and high spirit, getting the lot brought up to it, and matters going according to one’s mind. This will appear from the following considerations.

1. Humility is so far preferable to pride, that in no circumstances whatever its preferableness can fail. Let all the afflictions in the world attend the humble spirit, and all the prosperity in the world attend pride, humility will still have the better. As gold in a dunghill is more excellent than so much lead in a cabinet, For,

(1.) Humility is a part of the image of God. Pride is the master-piece of the image of the devil. Let us view Him who was the express image of the Father’s person, and we shall behold Him meek and lowly in heart. None more afflicted, yet His spirit perfectly brought down to His lot. ‘He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. ” That is a shining part of the Divine image; for though God cannot be low in respect of His state and condition, yet He is of infinite condescension. None bears as He, nor suffers patiently so much contradiction to His will; which is proposed to us for our encouragement in affliction, as it shone in Christ. ‘For consider Him that endures such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest you be wearied, and faint in your minds. “

Pride, on the other hand, is the very image of the devil. Shall we value ourselves on the height of our spirits? Satan will vie with the highest of us in that point. Though he is the most miserable, yet he is the proudest in the whole creation. There is the greatest distance between his spirit and his lot; the former is as high as the throne of God, the latter as low as hell. As it is impossible that ever his lot should be brought up to his spirit; so his spirit will never come down to his lot. Therefore he will be eternally in a state of war with his lot. Thus, even at this time, he has no rest, but goes about, seeks rest indeed, but finds none.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Midweek Ramblings

Tagged as ,

January 28, 2015 · 7:40 pm

Midweek Rambling: Sermon Recommendation Related to Week 4 Post

As a follow up to some of the things I discussed in this week’s post on the Institutes, I recommend Ligon Duncan’s sermon delivered this past Sunday at FPC Columbia, SC: “How Jesus Gives Us Peace.”  His starting text was 1 Thessalonians 3:16, and he eventually touched on Ephesians 4:14-19 as it relates to the difficulties many Christians encounter when it comes to experiencing both God’s peace and love.    Wonderfully encouraging sermon!

Leave a comment

Filed under Midweek Ramblings

Tagged as , , , ,