Reformed Pub discussion
Institutes Discussion
>
Book 1
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
James
(last edited Dec 03, 2014 05:53PM)
(new)
Dec 03, 2014 12:40PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
"Men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God."
"Thus from the feeling of our own ignorance, vanity, poverty, infirmity, and -what is more- depravity and corruption, we recognize that the true light of wisdom, sound virtue, full abundance of every good, and purity of righteousness rest in The Lord alone. To this extent we are prompted by our own ills to contemplate the good things of God;and we cannot seriously aspire to him before we begin to become displeased with ourselves. "
"Once we begin to raise our thoughts to God and ponder his nature, and how completely perfect are his righteousness, wisdom, and power- the straightedge by which we may be shaped. Then, what masquerading earlier as righteousness was pleasing in us will soon grow filthy in its consummate wickedness." Contemplation of God reveals to ourselves our true nature and heart- which we are often completely blind to see! I am ready for His straightedge...(I think)
I'm at chapter eight so far. Calvin has so far talked about the knowledge of God. How everyone has a intuitive knowledge of God and that He is revealed in creation. This knowledge however is insufficient and also the depravity of man corrupts this knowledge. So God has clearly revealed himself through Scripture. Furthermore the illumination of Scripture by God the Holy Spirit is required. This is what gives Scripture its authority, the authority of Scripture is not derived from the church."If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture."
So far, I really enjoy the way Calvin discusses man's innate knowledge of God in Chapter 5. He goes so deep to prove that man knows of God's existence and then that he has no excuse, and then in the final two sections of the chapter (14 & 15) he has this to say, "In vain for us, therefore, does creation exhibit so many bright lamps lighted up to show forth the glory of its Author. Though they beam upon us from every quarter, they are altogether insufficient of themselves to lead us into the right path." and later, "When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man; on the contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable."A beautiful way to say, that although God has made it clear in creation itself that we should worship and praise Him in everything we do and that we see miracles on a daily or even moment by moment basis, we still fully and completely reject Him and no amount of revelation through revelation will cause our perverse minds to accept him.
Thought this was helpful. 1.2 "So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity."
"It is better to limp in the way, than to run with swiftness out of it" 1.6.3"In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and the earth present us with innumerable proofs not only those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them." 1.5.2
1.11.7"The doctrine common to all should there be set forth by the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments,—a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols.... Of what use, then, were the erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached—viz. Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to any heavenly instructor."
In light of this passage, how do you guys feel about crosses in general being displayed in the church, homes, etc.? Or do you think Calvin is specifically talking about and denouncing the use of crucifixes?
Chris: there is a separate thread about that :)
Calvin puts forth the doctrine of "sola scriptura"(Scripture alone) in Book 1. I've heard from both Catholics and Protestants on this point, and I have to say that Calvin's arguments here seem rather flimsy and biased.Objection to sola scriptura: The books in the Scripture are given by inspiration of God, and conceived and written by the saints, that is the Church; the Church regulates which books are to be admitted into the Canon; the Church guarantees that the Scripture come down safe and unimpaired to our times, and persuades us to receive the Scripture with reverence.
Calvin's argument:
1.7.2, These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Eph. 2: 20.) If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist.
Note how Calvin adds the word "the doctrine" to the verse he quotes, and somewhat distorts its meaning to suit his purpose. Paul says "apostles and prophets" are the foundation of the Church, not "doctrine" or "Scripture". The New Testament didn't yet exist when the epistle was written.
He is saying that if the Prophets and Apostles were the foundation of the church, it was the revelation and preaching of those individuals by which all doctrine springs forth. Calvin is directly attacking the Catholic's claim that it was the Catholic church that defined the cannon. Instead, Calvin claims here that the church was built from the doctrines taught by the Prophets and Apostles which was then recorded as Scripture.
You can see his argument when he states, "if the Christian church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the church, since, but for this, the church herself never could have existed." or, because prophecy and apostolic preaching was recorded in scripture and that teaching is what the church was build off of, it was these things where doctrine are defined, not the Catholic church.
He later further expands his point by stating it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately confirms Scripture to the Christian, not the history of the work or the authority of the church. He goes so fart to suggest Scripture should be an obvious thing for the Christian, "How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste."
I suppose the strength of such an argument would ultimately be if your world view allows you to agree with Calvin that the Holy Spirit works out the truth of scripture or if the modern leadership of the church defines it.
To clarify, I don't know if I would call this an exceptionally strong argument or not, but I don't think I would go so far as to call it a weak one or one where he is manipulating verses to bring about his ends.
Calvin's first argument revolves around precedence, whether the Church or the Scripture comes first. I don't think he can deny that the apostles and prophets are part of the Church, and the Scripture is produced by the Church. Therefore, the Church has precedence over the Scripture. The Holy Spirit does confirm the Scripture to believers, who are members of the Church; OTOH, the unbelievers cannot understand the Scripture without the teaching of the Church, "the pillar and ground of the truth".
If the Scripture is obvious to every Christian, there would be no need of apostles or prophets, i.e., the spiritual authorities. But, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; "
1.9.3Objection to sola scriptura #2: For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3: 6)
Calvin's refutation:
It is clear that Paul is there arguing against false apostles, (2 Cor. 3: 6,) who, by recommending the law without Christ, deprived the people of the benefit of the New Covenant.
Paul is comparing the Law of Moses with the New Covenant. Surely Calvin is not saying that Moses is a false apostle? Either he is confusing the context of 2 Cor. 3:6 with Galatians, in which Paul does argue against the false apostles, or he is misinterpreting the Scripture here.
While I wholeheartedly agree with Calvin that the Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit must be in harmony with one another, it is worth emphasizing that, without the working of the Spirit in the inner man, the Scripture alone doesn't give life, but kills. The Holy Spirit does not minister to each believer as isolated individual, but as members the Church, the body of Christ, through the ministry of the apostles and prophets and the mutual faith of believers.
The doctrine of "sola scriptura" can be very misleading, if used to pit the Scripture against the Church, when they are in truth intimately bound with one another.
1.11.5I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now more than threadbare, "that images are the books of the unlearned." So said Gregory: but the Holy Spirit goes a very different decision; and had Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit's school, he never would have spoken as he did, ... the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false
I'm shocked that Calvin goes so far as to criticize St. Gregory the Great for not learning his lesson from the Spirit. If the heavens and the earth can show the illiterate peasants the majesty of God, as Calvin himself writes in Chapter 5, and we perceive the heavens and the earth via images received from our senses, does it not prove that "images are the books of the unlearned"?
No. If I am understanding Calvin correctly, when we perceive the works of creation (heavens, earth, etc.) we are experiencing God's general revelation to everyone. This revelation gives us the knowledge that there is a God. But we need to be taught by the Spirit through special revelation (Scripture) who that God is - his character, attributes, etc. Images created by man are tainted by our sinful dispositions and therefore do not truly depict who God is, hence being inadequate teachers. "God himself must bear witness to himself from heaven" (1.5.13)
There are two questions here: first, whether images can represent the attributes of God; second, whether man can learn of God by those images. Calvin denies both, but his arguments baffle me.First, the relevant passage in Romans 1 shows that the attributes of God are "clearly seen" in the creation.
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuseSecond, if the depravity of man makes him incapable of knowing God, this incapacity applies not only to images, but to all other things as well, including doctrines (1 Cor. 2:14). Why aren't books banned from churches along with images? If God bears witness to Himself through books, what prevents Him from doing the same through images?
Romans 1:19-20
Mod
"This is a group exists mainly for the edification of Reformed Christians. While anyone is welcome, and healthy debate is encouraged, we will not tolerate hostile ongoing opposition to the Reformed faith, as described in the 3 forms of Unity, The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you disagree with these documents be respectful about it, and we will return the favor."
No need to take offense to this response. It's just a concern as I am charged with moderating this community.
Thank you for correcting my oversight concerning the invisible attributes of God being revealed in nature. In man's depravity the knowledge of God is suppressed:
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Romans 1:21-23
These images don't teach us who God is, but what we "think" him to be. Any images that man makes are of created things and therefore are misleading when it comes to teaching us who God is. The Spirit being our teacher does so correctly and authoritatively through the inspired, inerrant Word of God - the Scriptures. Effectively keeping us from "worshipping the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25).
These other books used aren't divinely inspired. They are used to help us understand what we believe as taught by the Spirit through the Scriptures. They aren't presenting us visible, misleading, images of the invisible God. They should be directing us back to the Scriptures as our source of the knowledge of God.
Mod
Hi James,Thanks for the warning. No offense taken. You're doing your job. :) I wasn't aware that I appeared to be attacking the authority of the Scripture or the depravity of man, nor is it my intention, since I hold the same doctrines, though my understanding of them may be different from others.
The reason I joined this group is to learn more about the Reformed faith and Calvin's magnum opus, and the only way I learn is by asking questions and engaging in live discussions. My apologies if my questions offend anyone here. I'll leave if my presence here disturbs the peace.
Mod
I've been thinking about your posts for a few days. I'll keep thinking haha
1.17.11"...ignorance of providence is the greatest of all miseries, and the knowledge of it the highest happiness."
After reading chapter 17 I'm just realizing how little time I actually take meditate/reflect on Gods's providence over ALL things past, present, and future. I mean, how often do we take time to actively dwell on that fact! Maybe it's just me...
I felt the same way, Chris. It can be overwhelming to look around and remember that God is truly decreeing and ultimately controlling all things. Even the "unimportant things".It's truly mind blowing.
Currently reading Chapter 17... Calvin seems to simultaneously argue that God both wills and does not will that evil acts should happen... Can someone help me wrap my head round his thought here?
God morally doesn't will it in a moral way, but God having a morally higher goal uses evil and wills it instrumentally to achieve that goal.Maybe?
But how does that work in a system in which we don't possess free will? I'm cool with the fact that God is not to be blamed for evil, but I just don't understand whether the arguement is that God actively puts evil in the world, or makes use of evil that is there
The intentions of the actor are what Calvin is pointing at. So in Genesis, when Joseph states clearly that "What you intended for evil, God intended for good", the fact that God pre-ordained that Joseph would be sold into slavery and (in an ultimate sense) orchestrated things so that he would be sold into slavery, doesn't change the fact that it was the sinful, wicked will of his brothers that caused them to do so.
So while Joseph's slavery was a sin for his brothers, it was righteousness for God. All the while, God's righteous intention in the act does not excuse the sinful action of Joseph's brothers.
God is in control of all things, but we still have wills. God uses our wills to fulfill his good and righteous purposes, but that does not excuse us when it is sins we commit that he uses to fulfill that decree.
to continue my previous comment, this is what Calvin is talking about by "inferior causes" (17.9). God ultimately controls all things (the greatest cause of every thing that happens in all of creation is the decree of God). That being said, there are inferior causes (the wickedness of Joseph's brothers) that are sinful.
Keep in mind, also, what Calvin states about our understanding of the things of God, (17.13) "Because our weakness cannot reach [God's] height, any description which we receive of Him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible" or, take your understanding of God with a grain of salt. He has revealed things to us, but even in revealing them, he is describing himself in a finite way while describing the infinite.
Reading the last two chapters today on God's sovereignty on the day my job was ending was a blessing.
So who has finished? How will the discussion. Be done?
Dang it. There should be an edit function on ones posts.
So will there be an organised discussion? :)
I'm behind but not deterred! I will catch up! Good job to all who completed the first leg of this reading marathon!
