Blogging the Institutes tag:www.reformation21.org,2008-01-02:/calvin//3 2009-12-18T22:17:45Z Movable Type Open Source 4.1 Blog 244: 4.20.27 - 4.20.32 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5898 2009-12-18T22:12:14Z 2009-12-18T22:17:45Z Paul Helm Calvin's sensitivity to the different circumstances in which people live lead him to flip-flop, or at least to be somewhat ambivalent in his attitude to the magistrate. Citing the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 27), Scripture requires obedience to bad kings, and even to pray for the well being of the country of exile (Jer.29). No doubt Calvin has his own city of exile, Geneva, in mind.  But should not rulers, who also have responsibilities, be kept on track? Yes, but not by ourselves, but by Almighty God.  This leads to discussion of the vexed question of civil disobedience. Calvin is strongly in favour of civil compliance, no doubt with the Peasants Wars and Munster in the back of his mind. But yet....the Lord sometime raises up avengers....'Let the princes hear and be afraid'.

What of those of his readers who are not princes, 'private individuals'? To them no command 'has been given been given except to obey and suffer...' (1518) There are two further checks upon a wicked ruler, however. First, if there are magistrates of the people, senates and parliaments, they are appointed to restrain kingly misrule. 'I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk...they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God's ordinance'. (4.20.31) Secondly, however wicked the prince to whom obedience is due, we are not to obey men rather than God. If rulers command anything against the King of Kings, 'let it go unesteemed'. Let the ordinary folk beware of false modesty. Their courage must not grow faint. On this rather ominous note Calvin brings his great work, the Institutes, to a close.


God be praised.

 

]]> Blog 243: 4.20.10 - 4.20.26 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5897 2009-12-18T22:10:03Z 2009-12-18T22:17:01Z Paul Helm No doubt having the Anabaptists in mind,  and having already defended the right to litigate, Calvin proceeds to defend the entire judicial process. He discourages using the law for the taking of revenge, but upholds the use of due process, 'through which God may work for our good'. (It is interesting that in his teaching Calvin primarily seems to have mind not Geneva, which by this time in his career he believed was governed along right lines, but countries where the law may remain hostile to evangelical Christianity). The use of the law is not incompatible with Christ's injunctions in Matthew 5, he says, since seeking legal help may not be incompatible with personal friendliness to one's adversaries. (This seems a hard saying, does it not?)  He thinks that he has Paul (I Cor. 6.5-8) on his side. And he has a word for the litigiousness of his own time.  'Christians ought indeed so to conduct themselves that they always refer to yield their own right rather than go into a court, from which the can scarcely get away without a heart stirred and kindled to hatred of their brother'. (3.20.12).  (This seems more realistic.)

But what about obeying the law when the rulers are wicked? Calvin's basic principle is:
the magistrate is God's minister, and so disobedience to the him is disobedience to God. (4.20.23)  This obedience is not to be less when the ruler is 'a very wicked man', who might be playing the role of God's scourge.

 

]]> Blog 242: 4.20.12 - 4.20.18 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5896 2009-12-18T22:06:57Z 2010-10-18T21:13:08Z Calvin borrows the idea of a just war from Augustine. Everything is to be tried in order to preserve the peace before war is declared, though waging war obviously means that reparations must be made, if necessary. A consideration of... Paul Helm Calvin borrows the idea of a just war from Augustine. Everything is to be tried in order to preserve the peace before war is declared, though waging war obviously means that reparations must be made, if necessary. A consideration of such reparations naturally leads Calvin to the question of taxation. Rulers are not to be extravagant. The people have not to be tax dodgers. Nothing much has changed, has it?

From the magistracy Calvin turns his attention to laws. Basically 'There are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations'. (1502) Don't be fooled by the double negative here: Calvin is telling us that he is not a theonomist, isn't he? He accepts the traditional three-fold distinction of Mosaic law, but argues only for the perpetuity of the first, the moral law. Further he thinks that the variety of systems of laws across nations should be respected, provided that these laws reflect common norms, as they usually do: the norms of the natural law and especially 'equity'.   The discretion we are permitted is to cover only the mode of punishment for infringements; at least Calvin gives no other example of tolerable differences. Once again, we note that Calvin is not a modern social pluralist. Neverteless, his attitude did much to 'internationalise' Calvin's arm of the Reformation. As regards the civil law the Christian may use litigation, but not out of vengeance, defending only what is his by right. Nevertheless, 'an upright litigant is rare'.

 

]]> Blog 241: 4.20.8 - 4.20.11 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5894 2009-12-15T23:10:06Z 2009-12-15T23:13:48Z Paul Helm Calvin here shows two things - his concern about the dangers of tyrannical government, and also his apparently relaxed attitude regarding forms of political government. You may say that he derives the possible forms from the ancient world, but in fact as a matter of logic there are only thee - rule by a king, by a few, or by all. Calvin rules out rule by everyone. (Note that in these remarks about government, and those that follow, he is concerned to avoid any suggestion of sympathy with the excesses of the left wing of the Reformation.) About government, provided that it is not 'popular', he is somewhat contextual in his approach. Different cultures find themselves with different forms of government, and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet he reasons in favour of an aristocracy, and some of what he says seems at places to foreshadow the more formal arrangement of 'checks and balances' that is characteristic of eighteenth-century government in the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere. 'Therefore, men's fault or failing causes it to be safer and more bearable for a number to exercise government, so that they may help one another, teach and admonish one another; and, if one asserts himself unfairly, there may be a number of censors and masters to restrain his willfulness'. (1493-4)

It would be wrong to think that Calvin's references to 'freedom' herald that of modern democratic society. For there are clear limits to freedom of expression and of worship.

 

]]> Blog 240: 4.20.2 - 4.20.7 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5889 2009-12-14T15:05:06Z 2009-12-14T15:06:01Z Calvin has already established his understanding of "a twofold government" to which human beings are subject: an inward government in which God rules over the individual human soul for eternal life and an outward government in which God through human... Sean Lucas http://72.47.212.95/media/sean.jpg Calvin has already established his understanding of "a twofold government" to which human beings are subject: an inward government in which God rules over the individual human soul for eternal life and an outward government in which God through human government establishes civil justice and outward morality (4.20.1).

He moves on to argue that these two governments are not antithetical. In fact, civil government has several purposes: 1) to cherish and protect religious worship; 2) to defend sound doctrine and the church's position; 3) to adjust our life to the society of men; 4) to enforce civil righteousness; 5) to reconcile us to one another; and 6) to promote general peace and tranquility (4.20.2; cf. a similar list in 4.20.3). This demonstrates that the twofold government actually is one divine rule: civil government "provides that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians and that humanity be maintained among men" (4.20.3).

In order to provide a clear method for discussing what the Bible teaches about civil government, Calvin follows Cicero's ancient division: magistrates, laws, and people. He spends the rest of this section, from sections 4-7, discussing the role of the magistrate. The magistrate served with God's mandate, ruled with God's authority, and acted as God's vice-regent. He should be faithful as "a vicar of God" (4.20.6); and in response, those ruled by the magistrate should hold that his position was "ordained of God" (4.20.7).

This means that not only government leaders that we like, but also those whom we do not, are God's agents to provide for peace that the Gospel might go forth and order that humanity might be maintained. How should we now live and pray (1 Tim 2:1-2)?

]]> Blog 239: 4.19.33 - 4.20.1 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5888 2009-12-14T03:59:48Z 2009-12-14T15:06:57Z Marriage has been instituted by God, but it is not a sacrament. Many are the good things which God has instituted, but that does not make them sacraments, which are, by definition, signs and ceremonies to confirm God's promise to... Iain D Campbell http://72.47.212.95/media/iain.jpg Marriage has been instituted by God, but it is not a sacrament. Many are the good things which God has instituted, but that does not make them sacraments, which are, by definition, signs and ceremonies to confirm God's promise to us. The fact that marriage illustrates Christ's relationship to the church does not make it a sacrament either - many are the things that illustrate it, but they are not sacraments.

True, Paul calls marriage a 'mystery' (Ephesians 5:32), and says that it speaks of Christ and his church. Says Calvin: 'truly it is a great mystery that Christ allowed a rib to be taken of himself, of which we might be formed; that is, that when he was strong, he was pleased to become weak, that we might be strengthened by his strength, and should no longer live ourselves, but he live in us' (4.19.35).

The problem is that in this passage the word 'mystery' in Greek has been translated by the word 'sacramentum' in Latin, and this has led to the sacramental view of marriage. Calvin responds with some obvious questions. Why debar priests from the 'sacrament'? If marriage is a sacrament, why are the clergy of the Church forbidden to enjoy it? 

Calvin's argument is that the Church's declaration that marriage is a sacrament allowed her to have control over social and civil causes, giving the Church an unwarranted intrusion into issues that are of a personal and individual nature, and in many cases going beyond the biblical parameters within which marriage is to be celebrated and enjoyed.

This recognition of the legitimate area of the Church's authority, as over against the legitimate areas of civil authority, leads Calvin into the final chapter of the Institutes, on the area of civil government. 'He who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated' (4.20.1).

]]> Blog 237: 4.19.20 - 4.19.25 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5886 2009-12-11T15:49:12Z 2009-12-11T15:50:26Z Rick Phillips http://72.47.212.95/media/phillips.jpg Calvin continues his diatribe against false sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, wrapping up his denial of the sacrament of final unction.  In paragraphs 19-21, he levels two criticisms: the proof text (James 5:14) does not pertain to the church today but only to the apostolic age with its now-ceased gift of healing; and what the Roman priests actually do in final unction bears little resemblance to what James calls for.  We see in final unction an example of a problem that often shows up in Protestant and Evangelical circles as well: a flimsy appeal to a proof text that does not in fact apply and to which we are not in fact adhering.  If we are going to use proof texts, we could at least actually follow the doctrine or practice proved by the text.  Calvin's summary statement could apply very well to any number of evangelical groups today, not least the "emergent" churches and their highly creative practices: "Lo, how beautifully they profit when they have been allowed freely to abuse James's testimony according to their own whim!"

Calvin then turns to the false sacrament of holy orders, for which he has nothing but complete scorn.  For one thing, this is in practice actually seven different sacraments, one each for doorkeepers, readers, exorcists, acolytes, subdeacons, deacons, and priests, since each order has its own rite with its own meaning, so that the papists actually employ a total of thirteen sacraments.  In sustaining these orders, the bizarre hermeneutics seen throughout Catholic sacramentology continues, as each of these orders is claimed to have been fulfilled by Christ.  For instance, they argue that Christ established the sacramental office of doorkeeper when he cleansed the temple.  This is an instance of yet another problem widely seen among Evangelicals today, namely, starting with a doctrine or practice and then ransacking the Bible for the most spurious justifications.  Calvin confesses to viewing the Roman teaching with laughter, but I am afraid that he would think similarly regarding many ecclesiastical innovations evidenced in the Evangelical movement today.

Experience shows that we will often be tempted to create novel offices or quasi-offices in our churches today in order to meet changing needs.  Calvin's critique of Roman Catholic sacramentology and ecclesiology warns against such innovations.  Rather than structuring our churches and ministries according to our own wisdom, for which we then will seek non-existent biblical justification, we would do much better to devote ourselves to the full embrace of what the Bible teaches.  The biblical pattern of elders and deacons has been seldom really tried and has never proved itself a failure.  The same is true regarding innovative rites and ceremonies that may seem a good idea to us.  Calvin's mocking condemnation of the papal approach, in paragraph 25, reminds us humbly to restrict ourselves from creating our own false ceremonies.  Let ministers and elders remember that as we represent Christ in our offices, we are therefore required to practice his teaching and have not authority to invent our own.

]]> Blog 236: 4.19.14 - 4.19.19 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5878 2009-12-08T17:29:57Z 2009-12-08T17:31:26Z Phil Ryken http://72.47.212.95/media/phil.jpg Calvin continues his critique of Catholicism by applying a biblical definition of "sacrament" to the Roman rite of penance.  He begins with a clear and careful distinction between public repentance, as it was practiced in the early church, and the private absolution offered through the so-called sacrament of penance. 

Public repentance traditionally included an assurance of pardon and the offering of peace.  Calvin believed that such an act of assurance was spiritually wholesome and thus he wanted to see it restored to the church.  He was also open to the possibility that this could include a "laying on of hands," a practice he regarded as a matter of indifference, and thus permissible.

What Calvin opposed, however, was regarding penance as a sacrament--that is to say, "an outward ceremony instituted by the Lord to confirm our faith."  Following Augustine, he maintained that penance could not be a sacrament because it did not include an outward and visible element that represented an inward and spiritual reality.  There is nothing in penance to correspond to the water of baptism, for example, or to the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.

If there is a sacrament that is properly connected to repentance, Calvin argues, that sacrament is not penance but baptism.  Here Calvin quotes John the Baptist, who referred to "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4).   

When he turns, at last, to "extreme unction" (which is yet another purported sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church), Calvin strongly asserts that the spiritual gift of healing has ceased.  The miraculous power of the apostles to heal the body was only a temporary gift that quickly disappeared.  God has decreed its disappearance so as "to make the new preaching of the gospel marvelous forever." 

  

]]> Blog 235: 4.19.7- 4.19.13 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5877 2009-12-08T17:25:35Z 2009-12-08T17:27:08Z Confirmation, a sacrament in Roman Catholic theology, was an offence to Calvin because it sapped the meaning of baptism. In scholastic terms, baptism only washed away original sin and those sins committed before baptism. Confirmation was viewed as a sacrament... Derek Thomas http://72.47.212.95/media/derek.jpg Confirmation, a sacrament in Roman Catholic theology, was an offence to Calvin because it sapped the meaning of baptism. In scholastic terms, baptism only washed away original sin and those sins committed before baptism. Confirmation was viewed as a sacrament of continuing grace. Calvin, on the other hands, viewed baptism and a sign and seal of forgiveness and reconciliation for the entirety of one's life - making confirmation unnecessary. Besides which, the New Testament church knew nothing of it and on this ground alone, confirmation is an intrusion, an invention of man and essentially idolatrous [Calvin calls it "this misborn wraith" 4.19.13].

Instead of priestly anointing with oil, baptized children ought to confirm their faith by testifying to the church of the grace of God in their lives. Furthermore, to ensure that such a testimony is biblical and based upon solid foundations, Calvin advocates the practice of catechizing. Calvin produced a catechism upon his return to Geneva in 1541 which underwent two major revisions (1545 and 1560). Calvin's aim in writing the Catechism of 1545, was to set a basic pattern of doctrine and designed to serve as a pattern for what parents should teach their children. It began: 

Master: What is the chief end of human life?
Scholar: To know God by whom men were created.

]]> Blog 234: 4.19.1 - 4.19.6 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5874 2009-12-04T16:35:18Z 2009-12-04T16:36:40Z More on sacraments - additional ones invented by men. Using the formula that sacraments are "visible signs of an invisible grace" Calvin notes that there is no limit to the inventions that can pass this test. Reverting again to the... Derek Thomas http://72.47.212.95/media/derek.jpg More on sacraments - additional ones invented by men. Using the formula that sacraments are "visible signs of an invisible grace" Calvin notes that there is no limit to the inventions that can pass this test. Reverting again to the argument of recent novelty, Calvin argues that the seven sacraments of medieval Catholicism were unknown in the early church. They are a recent invention (addition) and fail for that reason. Sola Scriptura must be the basis on which sacraments are judged. How many sacraments did Jesus give to the church? Two and only two: baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Interestingly, Calvin argues a cessationist line (in the example of "laying on of hands"/confirmation): this was an expediency of the infant church so long as the apostles remained. Once they had died, these rituals (as with miracles) ceased with them.

]]> Blog 233: 4.18.14 - 4.18.20 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5873 2009-12-03T19:49:31Z 2009-12-03T19:50:22Z Calvin had studied Plato - no friend to Christianity - and is amused how accurately he depicted (in the Republic) the antics of medieval priests in celebrating the Mass - preying on the innocent and uneducated by fooling them into... Derek Thomas http://72.47.212.95/media/derek.jpg Calvin had studied Plato - no friend to Christianity - and is amused how accurately he depicted (in the Republic) the antics of medieval priests in celebrating the Mass - preying on the innocent and uneducated by fooling them into believing nonsense through magical "hocus pocus" conjuring tricks with bread and wine.

In gospel-shaped dynamics, the Lord's Supper falls into the category of indicative-imperative: the Supper is a way of saying "thank you," an act of gratitude for grace already received. It is not to be viewed as performance of duty obliging God to act differently toward our sins - the cycle of self-justification that is pandemic in the natural (religious) man.

Baptism and the Supper are the two sacraments established by Christ in the church - one, an initiatory sign and seal, the other a confirming, discipling memorial of thanksgiving; both of which point to Jesus Christ alone as the way of salvation, "the cleanness of God's mysteries is but polluted when man adds anything of his own" [4.18.20].

]]> Blog 232: 4.18.8 - 4.18.13 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5872 2009-12-03T19:46:52Z 2009-12-03T19:48:38Z Private Communion (or Masses): Calvin is against them. True, he is against the Mass "period"; but mutatis mutandis he is against private celebrations of the Lord's Supper for the same reason: the Supper is meant to define the communion of... Derek Thomas http://72.47.212.95/media/derek.jpg Private Communion (or Masses): Calvin is against them. True, he is against the Mass "period"; but mutatis mutandis he is against private celebrations of the Lord's Supper for the same reason: the Supper is meant to define the communion of the body, not its separation and individuality. As for the Mass itself: Calvin is subject to the antics of historic revisionists as much as we are in our time. Citing detached, non-contextualized sentences from the church Fathers is a game anybody can play, but the Mass is (largely) an invention of the medieval period and cannot be supported entirely from antiquity. The Reformation (Calvin's argument, we recall, in his prefatory remarks to the French King) is not (as Roman Catholics asserted) something "new," but rather, ancient and historic.

Calvin is at his redemptive-historical best here: before Calvary, Christ was represented by way of a blood-shedding ritual on an altar; after Calvary, he is represented by a blood-less feast at a table. Some of the church Fathers applied an analogical interpretation to the word "sacrifice" in the New Testament, concluding what the gospel disallows - a denial of the once-for-all nature of the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.

Gospel, justification and grace are at issue in the re-sacrificing of Christ in the mass as commonly understand - which amounts to a damning indictment of the ritual.

]]> Blog 231: 4.18.2 - 4.18.7 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5869 2009-12-01T14:51:25Z 2009-12-01T14:52:37Z The Mass. At the heart of Calvin's theological method in assessing the value of the Mass is the cross. The Mass signifies an on-going ritual of sacrifice, undermining the "once-for-all" of Calvary. By its constant repetition, it declares all prior... Derek Thomas http://72.47.212.95/media/derek.jpg The Mass. At the heart of Calvin's theological method in assessing the value of the Mass is the cross. The Mass signifies an on-going ritual of sacrifice, undermining the "once-for-all" of Calvary. By its constant repetition, it declares all prior "sacrifices" - including Calvary - insufficient to forgive sins. It denigrates Christ and makes his life and work of less value. By participating in the re-sacrifice ritual, we abandon "free grace" and declare that we are forgiven by something which we do. Again, there rises from the heart of man the reflex of self-justification.

Calvin reformed theological method is clearly observable in this piece of polemical theology. Its language and style may appear blunt - course even - by today's sanitary evaluation of theological exchange; but Calvin's is exercised (emotionally) because in the Mass he see a dishonoring of Jesus. And when that is viewed, he cannot be silent. Nor should we.

]]> Blog 230: 4.17.46 - 4.18.1 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5868 2009-12-01T14:49:28Z 2009-12-01T14:50:54Z Scottish Highland Presbyterians need to hold their breath for a second while Calvin refers to an annual Lord's Supper ritual as "a veritable invention of the devil" [4.17.46]. Calvin then adds, something which he has been cited for ever since,... Derek Thomas http://72.47.212.95/media/derek.jpg Scottish Highland Presbyterians need to hold their breath for a second while Calvin refers to an annual Lord's Supper ritual as "a veritable invention of the devil" [4.17.46]. Calvin then adds, something which he has been cited for ever since, that the Supper should be "spread at least once a week" - a desire he never experienced; nor could he have. The Supper required a strict discipline in Geneva requiring the involvement of the Consistory - a task impossible to accomplish on a weekly basis. Those who entertain weekly communion today [in the name of Calvin] almost certainly abandon the discipline associated with the Supper to ensure against unworthy eating and drinking. Today's church has views examination as an entirely personal obligation.

Not content to view annual communion as demonic, Calvin views "communion in one kind" as "from the same shop" [4.17.47], adding a five-fold argument for "communion in both kinds."  Again, it is Calvin's use of both Scripture and early church tradition that comes to the surface: undermining Roman Catholic veneration of apostolic succession by arguing its unhistorical precedence.  Brilliant!

]]> Blog 229: 4.17.40 - 4.17.45 tag:www.reformation21.org,2009:/calvin//3.5866 2009-11-25T19:02:37Z 2009-11-25T19:03:57Z Stephen Nichols http://72.47.212.95/media/steve.jpg One of the other debated issues in the Lord's Supper, in addition to the question of presence, is that of fencing the table. Who may participate?  What does it mean to eat and drink unworthily? Who is worthy? Who is unworthy? Calvin takes up these questions in 4.17.40 - 42. He also deals with the question of how it is to be administered in terms of the liturgy of the communion service (4.17.43). Finally, he tackles the question of frequency (4.17.44). All of these questions are worthy of book-length treatments in and of themselves. Calvin offered a few on the subject. Read up on the life of Jonathan Edwards and you'll see he had some thoughts here, too. But here in these several chapters Calvin offers some balanced, thoughtful, and (for this may his name be blessed) concise discussion. Just read it; you'll be glad you did.

Then comes 4.17.45. Amidst all of these debatable issues of the Lord's Supper--ironic that the practice that is intended to show the unity of the body of Christ has served to be the source of so much disunity down through the centuries of the church's life, isn't it?--Calvin above all tells us to participate, to eat and to drink of the body and the blood of Christ. He would add, participate frequently. 

I think American evangelicalism on the whole has lost sight of the necessity and luxury of this practice of the Lord's Supper. May it not be true of us, of me. 

]]>