Christ Our Hope PCA blog - Tony Phelps, pastor

Counting the cost, closing the loop, and Calvin's Institutes

Somewhere, Someone said something about "counting the cost."  That would be in the New Testament, Jesus speaking, and specifically Luke 14:28-33.  In the context, Jesus teaches about counting the cost of discipleship.  He used the metaphors of someone building a tower, or a king going to war, and failing to consider whether they would be able to follow through and bring it to completion.  Alas, a less universal metaphor might be a church-planting pastor naively planning to post blogs on Calvin's Institutes without first counting the cost. 

So, here I am, confessing my failure to my faithful blog readers (i.e., brother Nathan!).  But I thought I would close the loop in a hopefully helpful way.  I am continuing my re-study of the Institutes, using a very helpful book:  Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin, by Ford Lewis Battles (published by P&R).   Battles was an important 20th Calvin scholar and English translator of the Institutes.

For those who are reviewing Calvin's magnum opus, or are just starting their journey, this book is an indispensable companion.  It's essentially an analytical outline of the Institutes, and serves as a clear guide to Calvin's thought.   The outline is thorough - the book is 421 pages long!  But it is also concise when compared to the 1700+ pages of the two volume Library of Christian Classics edition of the Institutes.

Here's an example of the work.  This is Battles' outline for Book 1, Chapter 1 of Calvin's work:

Chapter 1:  The Knowledge of God and That of Ourselves Are Connected, and How They Are Interrelated

1. Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God
  a. our real wisdom is confined almost entirely to
    (1) knowledge of God
    (2) knowledge of ourselves
  b. our rich blessings, acknowledged as from God, reveal our poverty and
      ruin which in turn compel us to look Godward
    (1) to seek what we lack
    (2) to learn humility
  c. we cannot seriously aspire to knowledge of God before we begin to
      become displeased with ourselves.

2. Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self
  a. if we hypocritically confine our contemplation to ourselves and do not
      go beyond to contemplate God, we complacently laud our own virtues
  b. but the moment our thoughts rise to God and His excellencies, we see
      our "virtues" as wicked, foolish, and weak

3. Man before God's majesty
  a. scriptural examples of man's painful awareness of his lowly state when
      confronted by God's majesty:  Job, Abraham, Elijah, etc.
  b. proposed order of teaching:
    (1) knowledge of God
    (2) knowledge of ourselves

So take up & read!

Calvin on the knowledge of God, and knowledge of ourselves

For those familiar with Calvin's Institutes, perhaps one of the more famous lines is its very first:  "Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts:  the knowledge of God and of ourselves."  It is interesting to note how Calvin gradually develops this proposition in the sections and chapters which follow.  Taken by itself, Calvin's first sentence is open to all kinds of abuse.  I can imagine a granola-eating, be-sandaled, patchouli-scented  "New Ager" embracing Calvin's statement:  "Yes, we must go within ourselves to discover the divine."  Of course, Calvin would puke (i.e., righteously retch) at such a sentiment.  Calvin's point is that we are creatures - and we must come to know who we are in relationship to our Creator, who sustains us every moment.   Calvin alludes to Acts 17:28, where Paul favorably cites a Greek poet as he evangelizes the Athenians, that God is the One in whom we live, and move, and have our being. 

In the next section, however, Calvin makes clear that something is already amiss in our knowledge of our ourselves.  We are "naturally" plagued by a self-righteousness - we think too highly of ourselves.  Calvin writes, For we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy - this pride is innate in all of us - unless by clear proofs we stand convinced of our own unrighteousness, folly, and impurity.  Moreover, we are not thus convinced if we look merely to ourselves and not also to the Lord, who is the sole standard by which this judgment must be measured.  For, because all of us are inclined by nature to hypocrisy, a kind of empty image of righteousness in place of righteousness itself abundantly satisfies us.   Next, Calvin will show that when we come to a true knowledge of God, the result is not necessarily a "happy" one!  I'll consider I, 1.3 in a future post.   

Will the true Church please stand up?

Later in his prefatory address to King Francis I of France, Calvin addresses a couple of common arguments Rome raises against the Reformers and the Protestant Church. Rome self-identifies as the true Church, claims that this true Church is visibly displayed in her papal hierarchy, and asserts that she cannot err. Since the Protestant Church is outside of these bounds, she cannot be considered a true Church, and must be in great error. In the upcoming blogs I will quote selections of Calvin’s response (in italics) with my comments:

By their double-horned argument they do not press us so hard that we are forced to admit either that the church has been lifeless for some time or that we are now in conflict with it. Surely the church of Christ has lived and will live so long as Christ reigns at the right hand of his Father. It is sustained by his hand; defended by his protection; and is kept safe through his power. For he will surely accomplish what he once promised: that he will be present with his own even to the end of the world [Matthew 28:20]. Against this church we now have no quarrel. For, of one accord with all believing folk, we worship and adore one God, and Christ the Lord [1 Corinthians 8:6], as he has always been adored by all godly men. But they stray very far from the truth when they do not recognize the church unless they see it with their very eyes, and try to keep it within limits to which it cannot at all be confined.

Notice how Calvin begins his argument. The true Church can never pass away because Christ promised to be present with His people to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:20). And the true Church is where true & godly worshipers of God and Christ are found (1 Corinthians 8:6). This also points to the spiritual nature of the true Church, over and against the “bricks and mortar” of the Roman papal hierarchy. While Rome declares that the true Church is found in its visible, papal hierarchy, the Scripture declares that the true Church is found wherever you find the true presence of Christ, the true faith of Christ, and the true worship of Christ.

Calvin never claims that the church passed completely out of existence at some point due to her corruptions. Occasionally, some modern Roman Catholic apologists will misrepresent the Protestant Reformers as essentially operating on the same assumptions as the Mormon cult. Mormons teach that the apostolic church vanished with the death of the apostles, and that Joseph Smith was used by God to restore the true apostolic church on earth. So likewise, the misrepresentation proceeds, Protestants presume to restore the lost apostolic Church. No, the Reformers would respond, we are simply seeking to reform the church so that her doctrine and practice would accord more fully with the apostolic Gospel. Because of the inevitable prevalence of human sin in the Church of all ages, this is a necessary and Christ-ordained duty in all ages (hence the Protestant slogan, “reformed and always reforming”). Calvin et al never expected to establish a “perfect” church. Rather, following the apostolic example as displayed throughout the New Testament epistles, they sought to be faithful to the task laid out by the apostle for the “man of God” (i.e., the one who ministers the Word of God): “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching [doctrine], for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV).

Rome has retreated from this apostolic task by inventing the idea of a church not subject to doctrinal reformation, together with an infallible pope (codified dogmatically with Vatican I in 1871). Some find this authoritarian fantasy appealing. “The church is such a mess! There are so many Protestant denominations! Everyone has their own interpretation of the Bible!” The diagnosis is correct – the church is a mess, as it was in its Old Testament form, as it was even in the apostolic era of the first century, as it has been throughout church history, as it will be until Christ returns! That’s why we are to be reformed and always reforming the fallible, erring Church according to the infallible, inerrant Scriptures! That’s the mandate of the true apostolic church! Yet some find comfort that Rome cuts through the fog and says, “We’re the true church – submit, shut up, and obey. Trust us, we’ll take care of you.” Tragically, that’s the essence of the deadly error of Rome. She interposes herself in the place of Christ – usurping to herself His sole claim to be the one Ruler of His Church, by His Word and Spirit; and the One Mediator between God and man, the only Redeemer of God’s people.

To be continued…

 

Calvin on Rome, the Reformation, and the church fathers

Some contemporary Protestant evangelicals have been drawn to the siren call of Rome, on the false assumption that modern Roman Catholicism represents the faith and practice of the ancient church.  A number of today's American Roman Catholic apologists (i.e., like those featured on EWTN) are skilled in creating this impression, by quoting from some church father of the first four centuries, and anachronistically arguing that their statement proves (or at least supports) some Roman doctrine like papal supremacy or transubstantiation.  With American evangelicalism's characteristically willful neglect of church history and theology, many in this fold make "easy pickin's" for Rome.  Add to that the superficial, emotive, sense-based, carnal worship style that predominates in evangelical churches, and Rome's far more substantial, traditional carnal worship becomes quite a draw to those who grow tired of "born-again" banality. 

In his preface to the Institutes, addressed to the King of France, Francis I, Calvin addresses the charge leveled by Roman Catholic opponents that the Protestant Reformation contradicted the early church fathers.  It's instructive to see how Calvin responded.  How and when we have the church fathers on our side is what matters.

4. MISLEADING CLAIM THAT THE CHURCH FATHERS OPPOSE THE REFORMATION TEACHING

Moreover, they unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory — to put it very modestly — would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. Still, what commonly happens to men has befallen them too, in some instances. For these so-called pious children of theirs, with all their sharpness of wit and judgment and spirit, worship only the faults and errors of the fathers. The good things that these fathers have written they either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. You might say that their only care is to gather dung amid gold.  Then, with a frightful to-do, they overwhelm us as despisers and adversaries of the fathers! But we do not despise them; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval. Yet we are so versed in their writings as to remember always that all things are ours [1 Corinthians 3:21-22], to serve us, not to lord it over us [Luke 22:24-25], and that we all belong to the one Christ [1 Corinthians 3:23], whom we must obey in all things without exception [cf. Colossians 3:20]. He who does not observe this distinction will have nothing certain in religion, inasmuch as these holy men were ignorant of many things, often disagreed among themselves, and sometimes even contradicted themselves. It is not without cause, they say, that Solomon bids us not to transgress the limits set by our fathers [Proverbs 22:28]. But the same rule does not apply to boundaries of fields, and to obedience of faith, which must be so disposed that “it forgets its people and its father’s house” [Psalm 45:10 p.]. But if  they love to allegorize so much, why do they not accept the apostles (rather than anyone else) as the “fathers” who have set the landmarks that it is unlawful to remove [Proverbs 22:28]? Thus has Jerome interpreted this verse, and they have written his words into their canons. But if our opponents want to preserve the limits set by the fathers according to their understanding of them, why do they themselves transgress them so willfully as often as it suits them? ... [from Battles' translation, Vol 1, pp 69-70]

A couple of things stand out to me.  Calvin honors the church fathers as having "written many wise and excellent things."  Implicitly, Calvin commends being conversant with the church fathers as a safeguard against innovation in theology and worship.  In fact, as conversant as he was with them, he knew that the theology and practice of the Calvinistic reformation would have largely received the approval of the fathers. 

Yet his view of the fathers is informed by the biblical doctrine of the depravity of man.  They were not immune to error.  He then points out that the fathers themselves would want Calvin et al to view them not as lords, but servants for the good of our faith - as the church of every age is under the sole Lordship of Christ, who alone must be obeyed.  Sadly, the fathers were guilty of ignorance in many things, disagreements among themselves, and contradicitons within their own writings. 

What of Rome's view and use of the fathers?  How can it be more colorfully stated than by Calvin himself:  "...their only care is to gather dung amid gold."  To put it more politely, Rome's use of the fathers is selective - and they select and promote their errors rather than their more faithful representations of the apostolic theology and practice found in the New Testament Scriptures. 

Rome mispresents itself as the faithful heir of the church fathers.  Perhaps Calvin would argue that she is only the illegitmate progeny of the fathers' adulterous departures from the apostolic faith! Evangelicals, on the other hand, live like orphans in this world.  True, biblical Protestant theology is genuinely apostolic and catholic - embracing the apostolic doctrine of the Scriptures as our supreme authority, and enjoying the best of what our spiritual fathers of the church of the ages have to teach us.

The faith of our fathers - and evangelical orphans

Do evangelical Protestants have a sense of being heirs of something rich, deep, and rooted in scripture and history?  Do we recognize historical & spiritual forefathers, with whom we identify, and because of whom we give thanks, for God's grace and good providence in raising them up for the good of His Church?  Or are we historical and theological orphans, without a sense of identity or heritage?  Well, if Rick Warren is the representative voice of modern American evangelicalism, the pope of a-historical evangelical pragmatism, then the larger evangelical world sadly wanders fatherless in this world...

In the coming weeks, or months, or whatever it might turn out to be, I plan to once again read through John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.  It is a milestone of biblical, Protestant theology - an attainment in history that still speaks today.  Among "Bible-believing" American Christians, however, "Calvinism" has, at best, a questionable reputation.  There are some who identify themselves as "Five Point" Calvinists, i.e., embracing the biblical & reformed doctrines of grace, summarized in the acronym TULIP - Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.  Yet this particular system was not directly created by Calvin, but by his faithful theological heirs in the 17th century Dutch Reformed church.  The so-called Five Points, in fact, were codified in direct response to the doctrinal challenges to the Calvinism of that church, raised by the students of Jacob Arminius (hence the resulting theological label, "Arminian"). 

On the negative side, many fundamentalist / dispensationalist baptists and charismatics despise a caricature of Calvinism, which they have created out of straw (i.e., Dave Hunt's ignorant piece of biblical, theological, and historical pulp fiction, What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God). Their anemic theology seems to be driven by  evangelistic methodology, rather than the Bible - as in, "If TULIP is true, how can I tell people that God loves them soooo very much?  And that Jesus died for them personally, with them in mind, so that He could have a personal relationship with them?  And that He's standing at the door of their hearts and knocking, but the handle is on the inside, so they have to open the door and let Him in - because He would never, ever, ever violate their free will?  That God has this wonderful, eternal plan for their lives, but leaves the choice to them?  That God has given the gift of His Son, but it's up to us whether or not we open it?"   As if Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, were some impotent, pathetic suitor, frustrated by the sinners He loves so much, who spurn His invitations to a "personal relationship." 

Many American "Bible-believing" Christians, it seems, are suspicious (and sadly ignorant) of both history and theology.  Thus, "Calvinism" is often grossly misunderstood or mispresented by those who reject it.  John Calvin, first and foremost, is a biblical exegete (i.e., interpreter) par excellence, who wrote commentaries on nearly every book of the Bible.  His commentaries, for those not plagued by what CS Lewis called "chronological snobbery," stand out to this day as clear, faithful expositions of the text of God's Word, which still excel much of what passes for scholarship today.  A friend of mine with a charismatic background shared a story with me about an experience at his Pentecostal Bible college.  His church history professor had this and this only to say of Calvin:  "John Calvin:  greatest biblical exegete in church history.  Period."  Well, I tend to agree.  But what follows from this admission is that Calvin's theology was no arbitrary system imposed upon the Scriptures (as some charge), but resulted from his in depth, prayerful study of the entirety of God's Word.  It also shows that Calvinism cannot be reduced to a mere five points, but is a Genesis-to-Revelation, Christ-centered, redemptive, all-embracing world-and-life view. 

Now please don't misunderstand me - I'm not advocating a Christianized kind of "ancestor worship."    I'm not exalting Calvin as some infallible Presbyterian pope.  As Charles Spurgeon put it so well:  "I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God."  Yet it is proper to call Calvin, as a leading Protestant Reformer, as the premier theologian and exegete of the Reformation era, a father of the faith.  In fact, Calvin himself was not only characterized by a breadth and depth of biblical knowledge, but he was deeply conversant with the ancient "fathers of the faith," the patristic writers.  Though surely surprising to many contemporary evangelicals, one aspect of historic reformation theology, properly understood, was the effort to recapture the biblically faithful aspects of the theology and worship of the patristic period (generally understood as the post-apostolic era from 100-450 AD).   Calvin labored to show that the theology of the Reformation was not a new thing, but a biblical and a historical thing.  He argued and demonstrated that the best of the church fathers were on the side of the Reformation. 

Calvin's Institutes went through several ever-expanding editions in his lifetime - retaining it's original structure of four books, based on the order of the Apostles' Creed, pertaining to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and the holy catholic church.  The first edition was completed when Calvin was only 26 years old in 1536.  The final edition was published in 1559.  His purpose in writing the Institutes was two-fold:  1) to defend the Reformation, and French Protestants in particular, from false charges and persecution by the Roman Catholic Church (thus the preface is addressed directly as an appeal to the King of France, Francis I); and 2) to provide a basic handbook of theology,  to aid the church in her study of God's holy Word (some "handbook" - four volumes and nearly 1700 pages in Beveridge's English translation!). 

I anticipate several contemporary benefits / applications as I once again work through Calvin's theological magnum opus.  1) The Roman Catholic question, i.e., why the Protestant Reformation still matters - and the central issues of biblical authority and justification by faith alone must not be abandoned or obscured if we are to remain biblically faithful Protestants today;  2) a clarification of sola scriptura, that the ultimate & final authority of the Bible is not to be understood as a "me, Jesus, and the Bible" subjective method of biblical interpretation.  Rather, as Calvin exemplifies, it is an interaction with the text of Scripture in the context of the whole of God's Word, with the Bible serving as its own interpreter - and yet also in thoughtful interaction with the church of the ages (i.e., church history and historical theology are necessary to a faithful & humble handling of God's Word, since we must acknowledge that He has graced His church through the ages with luminaries like the early church fathers, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, Edwards, et al); 3) the charismatic issue - why the Word of God & the Spirit of God can never be separated, and why as a result, most of charismatic Christianity is more bane than blessing in the church today (Calvin was called by Princeton divine Benjamin Warfield, "the theologian of the Holy Spirit,"); 4) a biblical understanding of the sacraments as a means of God's grace, and therefore as an essential element of true Christian piety; and 5) perhaps most importantly, the pressing need for a genuinely God-glorifying, man-humbling biblical theology, centered on the redemptive revelation of Jesus Christ. 

There will be, I expect, many other applications, but these are the first that come to mind.  So in the coming months, blogsville will mainly be my reflections (for whatever they're worth!) on Calvin's Institutes and its continuing relevance for the church today...