|
|
On the net at: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson2_essay.html
First, covering the questions from lesson 1 reading. It is my
preference to let Calvin speak for himself, wherever possible, that
is why the primary sources are embedded in the printed lessons and
secondary sources follow. It is my intention to ask a few questions
from the readings for the first 10-15 minutes and use the those
readings to get into today's material.
From
the readings.
The Epistle to the Reader
1539
edition-not 1536 and Calvin is in Strasburg. What happened, why isn't
he in Geneva? What was he doing in Strasburg?
This return I
would have made much earlier, had not the Lord, for almost two whole
years, exercised me in an extraordinary manner.
He was in
Geneva, asked with Farel to leave. The "exercised me in an
extraordinary manner" will tie strongly into the major theme for
today's lesson--Calvin as aware of his special calling as a pastor
and as a doctor of theology.
to prepare and train students of
theology
Calvin's purpose is changing, from cathecism to
textbook for seminary students, primarily French exiles going back
into Catholic France.
Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans
the relationship of the commentaries to Institutes. We
will look briefly at the Romans commentary with the knowledge of God
class.
the next reading is:
The Original Translator's
Preface.
Prefixed to the fourth edition 1581
according
to the occasions of the text that were offered him
His sermons
were in the Bible's order, therefore so were the commentaries. But
the structure of Institutes is different with the commentaries
feeding into it.
This manner of writing, beside the peculiar
terms of arts and figures, and the difficulty of the matters
themselves, being throughout interlaced with the school men's
controversies, made a great hardness in the author's own book, in
that tongue wherein otherwise he is both plentiful and easy, insomuch
that it sufficeth not to read him once, unless you can be content to
read in vain.
what language is Institutes written in? why?
Compare and contrast to the 95 thesis.
whose works are very
good and profitable to the Church of God, yet by the consenting
judgement of those that understand the same, there is none to be
compared to this work of Calvin, both for his substantial sufficiency
of doctrine, the sound declaration of truth in articles of our
religion, the large and learned confirmation of the same, and the
most deep and strong confutation of all old and new heresies; so that
(the Holy Scriptures excepted) this is one of the most profitable
books for all students of Christian divinity.
doesn't this
negate 'sola scriptura'? me and my bible alone are sufficient? the
image of a bookshelf.
Method and Arrangement, or Subject of
the Whole Work
[From an Epitome of the Institutions, by Gaspar
Olevian.]
Leave this to next week, the internal structure
of the institutes and how it changed through the editions and why.
But it is important to think about the structure of Institutes from
the very beginning of our study.
end of review
today's
essay:
II. Calvins Purpose
Why read or study a nearly
500 year old book?
justify the effort. Ask the class to propose
reasons.
Especially in the light of Sola Scriptura, there is a
good outline at:
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm
that puts tradition into perspective with reference to Scripture and
therefore puts Calvin and the Reformed tradition especially with
regard to the Roman Catholic Church's position of the authority of
institutional interpretation. Or
at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/102/52.0.html
is : “Christian History
Corner: "The Bible Alone"? Not for John Calvin!
When we
seek answers to churchly and societal issues in the Bible alone,
citing the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, we are actually
contradicting the Reformers.
By Chris Armstrong”
where he says: “Worth asking, however, is whether we really understand what Sola Scriptura means within the church itself. Does this Reformation principle mean that the Bible yields up obvious answers to all our questions? That we need not turn to any interpretation of Scripture other than the conclusions each of us draws from our own common-sense interaction with Scripture? That the great teachers in the church's earlier eras—the "church fathers"—should have nothing to say to us today, for they represent nothing but "human traditions"?”
and at: http://www.pcea.asn.au/01.WCF/suff_scr.html
is: “SOLA SCRIPTURA:
The
Sufficiency of Scripture By Dr. Rowland Ward”
Introduction to the trapestry of Institutes and the 3
threads:
Example from the national gallery of art lecture on
the painting in 4 pieces. the institutes as a mosaic and well revised
work.
The silver thread, throughout the class follow what appears
to be 3 of the most important motifs. silver is Calvin as
Pastor-Preacher-Teacher.
And the awareness of his calling. Brief
analysis of pastor-teacher and 3 part eldership: doctor-pastor-deacon
of Calvin's day.
(gold is sovereignity of God and the incarnation
of Jesus, copper is Calvin's concern for the reformation in France
which ignites the church-state relationship issue)
build a
timeline of Calvin's life.
Consciously expand the two smaller
timelines from last week. The idea of the inverted pyramid and
influences on Institutes and Institutes influences on later history-
the takehome message from last week. We see institutes not as those
readers of 1559, but rather through the historical influences that it
makes into history, We see Institutes through 400+ years of
Institutes-colored glasses.
If i were to write an essay on the
history of the 20thC, i would look at two major themes, the
extraordinary numbers of people who died violent deaths and the
driving force underneath our societies of a rapidly changing
technology. Interestingly the 16thC was probably the most violent in
Europe upto the 20thC, but technology played a minor role---printing
press. But the violence was not just man killing other man but the
plague.
1347–1351 The Black Death (bubonic plague)
devastates Europe, killing as many as two-thirds of the population in
some parts
1453 Sack of Constantinople by the Turks; Christian
refugees are welcomed into Florence bring their libraries, including
ancient copies of the Greek Septuagint, with them; this encourages
the revival of “New Learning” throughout western Europe and will
make possible Erasmus’s ground breaking work on the Greek New
Testament (the basis of the Textus Receptus)
1455 Gutenberg
completes printing the Bible using movable type (first printing of
the Bible in any language); the invention of the commercial printing
press revolutionizes how knowledge and information are shared; it
proves to be an essential and powerful tool in spreading the Gospel
1519 Zwingli begins New Testament sermons; Swiss reformation is
born
1521 Diet of Worms; Luther refuses to recant; gets backing
of German princes; begins German translation of Bible
1525
Anabaptist movement begins in Zürich, spreads to Germany; First
Zürich disputation with those opposed to infant baptism; First
believer’s baptism in Zürich; Denck banished from Nuremberg
for views on Lord’s Supper; First Anabaptist congregation of 35
converts established in Zollikon; First imprisonment of Anabaptists
occurs in Zürich; they escape
1529 Reformation becomes
official in Basel
1531 Father died in disgrace in Noyon over
missing funds. John received law degree.
1532 Calvin starts
Protestant movement in France; publishes his first work—a
commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia.
1533 Calvin and Nicolas
Cop flee Paris. At about this time Calvin undergoes a “sudden
conversion.” (note: reading includes this)
1535 Anabaptist
uprising at Münster put down, and Anabaptists executed
1536
Menno Simons breaks with Rome; becomes Anabaptist leader in
Netherlands
Calvin is persuaded by Farel to remain in Geneva;
publishes the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion
1538 Landgrave Philip of Hesse arranges debate between
Anabaptists and Bucer; results in Hessian Anabaptists returning to
state church and state church deciding to excommunicate immoral
Christians
Calvin and Farel are banished from Geneva. Calvin goes
to Strasbourg as pastor to the French-speaking congregation.
1538
Helped Martin Bucer in Strasbourg.
1539 Cardinal Sadeleto writes
letter to Geneva. Calvin is asked to respond on behalf of Geneva.
1540 Married widow Idelette de Bure.
1541 Wooed back to
Geneva where he was more powerful than before—this time without
Farel.
1542 Only son James died.
1543 Copernicus writes that
earth revolves around sun
1549 Idelette died. John remained in
Geneva writing copiously and preaching
1553 Servetus, Spanish
theologian and physician executed in Geneva as a heretic
1555
Bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley are burned at the stake as
Cranmer watches; Later John Hooper and John Bradford are also burned
(Latimer died much more quickly; as the flames quickly rose,
Latimer encouraged Ridley, "Be of good comfort, Mr. Ridley, and
play the man! We shall this day light such a candle by God's grace,
in England, as I trust never shall be put out." The martyrdoms
of Ridley, Latimer, and Thomas Cranmer are today commemorated by a
Martyrs' monument in Oxford. The faith they once died for can now be
freely practiced in the land.)
see:
http://dlib.lib.ohio-state.edu/foxe/foxecat.php
1557
Publication of Geneva New Testament
(see http://www.e-sword.net/
it has a geneva bible module, plus geneva bible notes)
May 27,
1564. By his request buried in an unmarked grave.
Calvin's
Life
What Peter says about Paul often tells us more about
Peter than Paul? Why?
This is certainly happening in biographies
of Calvin. Much maligned from a very early date, with influential
biographies which were not historical but polemical.
Calvin is a
very private person.
almost no details of his life: age at
starting college, date of conversion.
My take on Calvin's life and work
first the
silver thread, Calvin's call to Geneva by Farel, his depression at
leaving and the energy released at returning.
Readings for the
week:
we have 2 readings. 4 page xerox from the Battles
translation of the 1556 edition, the poetical version of Calvin's
conversion taken from the Commentary on the Psalms. Why i chose this
piece to read.
The dedicatory letter from Calvin to Francis 1.
This appears in
all the editions of Institutes.
Try to read it twice, the second
time outloud, it will read easier and you ought to understand it
better hearing it as well as seeing it.....
INSTITUTIONS OF
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
PREFATORY ADDRESS TO HIS MOST CHRISTIAN
MAJESTY, THE MOST MIGHTY AND ILLUSTRIOUS MONARCH, FRANCIS, KING OF
THE FRENCH,
HIS SOVEREIGN; 1 JOHN CALVIN PRAYS PEACE AND SALVATION
IN CHRIST. 2
Sire,—When I first engaged in this
work, nothing was farther from my thoughts than to write what should
afterwards be presented to your Majesty. My intention was only to
furnish a kind of rudiments, by which those who feel some interest in
religion might be trained to true godliness. And I toiled at the task
chiefly for the sake of my countrymen the French, multitudes of whom
I perceived to be hungering and thirsting after Christ, while very
few seemed to have been duly imbued with even a slender knowledge of
him. That this was the object which I had in view is apparent from
the work itself, which is written in a simple and elementary form
adapted for instruction.
But when I perceived that the fury of
certain bad men had risen to such a height in your realm, that there
was no place in it for sound doctrine, I thought it might be of
service if I were in the same work both to give instruction to my
countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession, from which
you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those
madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom.
For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be
regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate,
ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and
flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea.
I am aware,
indeed, how, in order to render our cause as hateful to your Majesty
as possible, they have filled your ears and mind with atrocious
insinuations; but you will be pleased, of your clemency, to reflect,
that neither in word nor deed could there be any innocence, were it
sufficient merely to accuse. When any one, with the view of exciting
prejudice, observes that this doctrine, of which I am endeavouring to
give your Majesty an account, has been condemned by the suffrages of
all the estates, and was long ago stabbed again and again by partial
sentences of courts of law, he undoubtedly says nothing more than
that it has sometimes been violently oppressed by the power and
faction of adversaries, and sometimes fraudulently and insidiously
overwhelmed by lies, cavils, and calumny. While a cause is unheard,
it is violence to pass sanguinary sentences against it; it is fraud
to charge it, contrary to its deserts, with sedition and
mischief.
That no one may suppose we are unjust in thus
complaining, you yourself, most illustrious Sovereign, can bear us
witness with what lying calumnies it is daily traduced in your
presence, as aiming at nothing else than to wrest the sceptres of
kings out of their hands, to overturn all tribunals and seats of
justice, to subvert all order and government, to disturb the peace
and quiet of society, to abolish all laws, destroy the distinctions
of rank and property, and, in short, turn all things upside down. And
yet, that which yon hear is but the smallest portion of what is said;
for among the common people are disseminated certain horrible
insinuations—insinuations which, if well founded, would justify the
whole world in condemning the doctrine with its authors to a thousand
fires and gibbets. Who can wonder that the popular hatred is inflamed
against it, when credit is given to those most iniquitous
accusations? See, why all ranks unite with one accord in condemning
our persons and our doctrine!
Carried away by this feeling,
those who sit in judgment merely give utterance to the prejudices
which they have imbibed at home, and think they have duly performed
their part if they do not order punishment to be inflicted on any one
until convicted, either on his own confession, or on legal evidence.
But of what crime convicted? “Of that condemned doctrine,” is the
answer. But with what justice condemned? The very essence of the
defence was, not to abjure the doctrine itself, but to maintain its
truth. On this subject, however, not a whisper is allowed!
Justice,
then, most invincible Sovereign, entitles me to demand that you will
undertake a thorough investigation of this cause, which has hitherto
been tossed about in any kind of way, and handled in the most
irregular manner, without any order of law, and with passionate heat
rather than judicial gravity.
Let it not be imagined that I am
here framing my own private defence, with the view of obtaining a
safe return to my native land. Though I cherish towards it the
feelings which become me as a man, still, as matters now are, I can
be absent from it without regret. The cause which I plead is the
common cause of all the godly, and therefore the very cause of
Christ—a cause which, throughout your realm, now lies, as it were,
in despair, torn and trampled upon in all kinds of ways, and that
more through the tyranny of certain Pharisees than any sanction from
yourself. But it matters not to inquire how the thing is done; the
fact that it is done cannot be denied. For so far have the wicked
prevailed, that the truth of Christ, if not utterly routed and
dispersed, lurks as if it were ignobly buried; while the poor Church,
either wasted by cruel slaughter or driven into exile, or intimidated
and terror—struck, scarcely ventures to breathe. Still her enemies
press on with their wonted rage and fury over the ruins which they
have made, strenuously assaulting the wall, which is already giving
way. Meanwhile, no man comes forth to offer his protection against
such furies. Any who would be thought most favourable to the truth,
merely talk of pardoning the error and imprudence of ignorant men For
so those modest personages 3 speak; giving the name of error and
imprudence to that which they know to be 4 the infallible truth of
God, and of ignorant men to those whose intellect they see that
Christ has not despised, seeing he has deigned to intrust them with
the mysteries of his heavenly wisdom. 5 Thus all are ashamed of the
Gospel.
Your duty, most serene Prince, is, not to shut either
your ears or mind against a cause involving such mighty interests as
these: how the glory of God is to be maintained on the earth
inviolate, how the truth of God is to preserve its dignity, how the
kingdom of Christ is to continue amongst us compact and secure. The
cause is worthy of your ear, worthy of your investigation, worthy of
your throne.
The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to
acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a
minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the
divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He,
moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any
kingdom which is not ruled by the sceptre of God, that is, by his
divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has
declared, that “where there is no vision the people perish”
(Prov. 29:18).
Let not a contemptuous idea of our
insignificance dissuade you from the investigation of this cause. We,
indeed, are perfectly conscious how poor and abject we are: in the
presence of God we are miserable sinners, and in the sight of men
most despised—we are (if you will) the mere dregs and off—scoutings
of the world, or worse, if worse can be named: so that before God
there remains nothing of which we can glory save only his mercy, by
which, without any merit of our own, we are admitted to the hope of
eternal salvation: 6 and before men not even this much remains, 7
since we can glory only in our infirmity, a thing which, in the
estimation of men, it is the greatest ignominy even tacitly 8 to
confess. But our doctrine must stand sublime above all the glory of
the world, and invincible by all its power, because it is not ours,
but that of the living God and his Anointed, whom the Father has
appointed King, that he may rule from sea to sea, and from the rivers
even to the ends of the earth; and so rule as to smite the whole
earth and its strength of iron and brass, its splendour of gold and
silver, with the mere rod of his mouth, and break them in pieces like
a potter’s vessel; according to the magnificent predictions of the
prophets respecting his kingdom (Dan. 2:34; Isaiah 11:4; Psalm
2:9).
Our adversaries, indeed, clamorously maintain that our
appeal to the word of God is a mere pretext,—that we are, in fact,
its worst corrupters. How far this is not only malicious calumny, but
also shameless effrontery, you will be able to decide, of your own
knowledge, by reading our Confession. Here, however, it may be
necessary to make some observations which may dispose, or at least
assist, you to read and study it with attention.
When Paul
declared that all prophecy ought to be according to the analogy of
faith (Rom. 12:6), he laid down the surest rule for determining the
meaning of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by this rule and our
victory is secure. For what accords better and more aptly with faith
than to acknowledge ourselves divested of all virtue that we may be
clothed by God, devoid of all goodness that we may be filled by Him,
the slaves of sin that he may give us freedom, blind that he may
enlighten, lame that he may cure, and feeble that he may sustain us;
to strip ourselves of all ground of glorying that he alone may shine
forth glorious, and we be glorified in him? When these things, and
others to the same effect, are said by us, they interpose, and
querulously complain, that in this way we overturn some blind light
of nature, fancied preparatives, free will, and works meritorious of
eternal salvation, with their own supererogations also; 9 because
they cannot bear that the entire praise and glory of all goodness,
virtue, justice, and wisdom, should remain with God. But we read not
of any having been blamed for drinking too much of the fountain of
living water; on the contrary, those are severely reprimanded who
“have hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no
water” (Jer. 2:13). Again, what more agreeable to faith than to
feel assured that God is a propitious Father when Christ is
acknowledged as a brother and propitiator, than confidently to expect
all prosperity and gladness from Him, whose ineffable love towards us
was such that He “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for
us all” (Rom. 8:32), than to rest in the sure hope of salvation and
eternal life whenever Christ, in whom such treasures are hid, is
conceived to have been given by the Father? Here they attack us, and
loudly maintain that this sure confidence is not free from arrogance
and presumption. But as nothing is to be presumed of ourselves, so
all things are to be presumed of God; nor are we stript of vain—glory
for any other reason than that we may learn to glory in the Lord. Why
go farther? Take but a cursory view, most valiant King, of all the
parts of our cause, and count us of all wicked men the most
iniquitous, if you do not discover plainly, that “therefore we both
labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God” (1
Tim. 4:10); because we believe it to be “life eternal” to know
“the only true God, and Jesus Christ,” whom he has sent (John
17:3). For this hope some of us are in bonds, some beaten with rods,
some made a gazing—stock, some proscribed, some most cruelly
tortured, some obliged to flee; we are all pressed with straits,
loaded with dire execrations, lacerated by slanders, and treated with
the greatest indignity.
Look now to our adversaries (I mean
the priesthood, at whose beck and pleasure others ply their enmity
against us), and consider with me for a little by what zeal they are
actuated. The true religion which is delivered in the Scriptures, and
which all ought to hold, they readily permit both themselves and
others to be ignorant of, to neglect and despise; and they deem it of
little moment what each man believes concerning God and Christ, or
disbelieves, provided he submits to the judgment of the Church with
what they call1 10 implicit faith; nor are they greatly concerned
though they should see the glow of God dishonoured by open
blasphemies, provided not a finger is raised against the primacy of
the Apostolic See and the authority of holy mother Church.1 11 Why,
then, do they war for the mass, purgatory, pilgrimage, and similar
follies, with such fierceness and acerbity, that though they cannot
prove one of them from the word of God, they deny godliness can be
safe without faith in these things—faith drawn out, if I may so
express it, to its utmost stretch? Why? just because their
belly is their God, and their kitchen their religion; and they
believe, that if these were away they would not only not be
Christians, but not even men. For although some wallow in luxury, and
others feed on slender crusts, still they all live by the same pot,
which without that fuel might not only cool, but altogether freeze.
He, accordingly, who is most anxious about his stomach, proves the
fiercest champion of his faith. In short, the object on which all to
a man are bent, is to keep their kingdom safe or their belly filled;
not one gives even the smallest sign of sincere zeal.
Nevertheless,
they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in
what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected.
They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful
and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracles it has been
confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent
of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to
confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the
Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the
many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. Lastly, they
say there is little need of argument, for its quality may be known by
its fruits, namely, the large number of sects, the many seditious
disturbances, and the great licentiousness which it has produced. No
doubt, it is a very easy matter for them, in presence of an ignorant
and credulous multitude, to insult over an undefended cause; but were
an opportunity of mutual discussion afforded, that acrimony which
they now pour out upon us in frothy torrents, with as much license as
impunity,1 12 would assuredly boil dry.
1. First, in calling
it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word
deserved not to be charged with novelty. To them, indeed, I very
little doubt it is new, as Christ is new, and the Gospel new; but
those who are acquainted with the old saying of Paul, that Christ
Jesus “died for our sins, and rose again for our justification”
(Rom. 4:25), will not detect any novelty in us. That it long lay
buried and unknown is the guilty consequence of man’s impiety; but
now when, by the kindness of God, it is restored to us, it ought to
resume its antiquity just as the returning citizen resumes his
rights.
2. It is owing to the same ignorance that they hold it
to be doubtful and uncertain; for this is the very thing of which the
Lord complains by his prophet, “The ox knoweth his owner, and the
ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not
consider” (Isaiah 1:3). But however they may sport with its
uncertainty, had they to seal their own doctrine with their blood,
and at the expense of life, it would be seen what value they put upon
it. Very different is our confidence—a confidence which is not
appalled by the terrors of death, and therefore not even by the
judgment—seat of God.
3. In demanding miracles from us, they
act dishonestly; for we have not coined some new gospel, but retain
the very one the truth of which is confirmed by all the miracles
which Christ and the apostles ever wrought. But they have a
peculiarity which we have not—they can confirm their faith by
constant miracles down to the present day! Way rather, they allege
miracles which might produce wavering in minds otherwise well
disposed; they are so frivolous and ridiculous, so vain and false.
But were they even exceedingly wonderful, they could have no effect
against the truth of God, whose name ought to be hallowed always, and
everywhere, whether by miracles, or by the natural course of events.
The deception would perhaps be more specious if Scripture did not
admonish us of the legitimate end and use of miracles. Mark tells us
(Mark 16:20) that the signs which followed the preaching of the
apostles were wrought in confirmation of it; so Luke also relates
that the Lord “gave testimony to the word of his grace, and granted
signs and wonders to be done” by the hands of the apostles (Acts
14:3). Very much to the same effect are those words of the apostle,
that salvation by a preached gospel was confirmed, “The Lord
bearing witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles”
(Heb. 2:4). Those things which we are told are seals of the gospel,
shall we pervert to the subversion of the gospel? What was destined
only to confirm the truth, shall we misapply to the confirmation of
lies? The proper course, therefore, is, in the first instance, to
ascertain and examine the doctrine which is said by the Evangelist to
precede; then after it has been proved, but not till then, it may
receive confirmation from miracles. But the mark of sound doctrine
given by our Saviour himself is its tendency to promote the glory not
of men, but of God (John 7:18; 8:50). Our Saviour having declared
this to be test of doctrine, we are in error if we regard as
miraculous, works which are used for any other purpose than to
magnify the name of God.1 13 And it becomes us to remember that Satan
has his miracles, which, although they are tricks rather than true
wonders, are still such as to delude the ignorant and unwary.
Magicians and enchanters have always been famous for miracles, and
miracles of an astonishing description have given support to
idolatry: these, however, do not make us converts to the
superstitions either of magicians or idolaters. In old times, too,
the Donatists used their power of working miracles as a
battering-ram, with which they shook the simplicity of the common
people. We now give to our opponents the answer which Augustine then
gave to the Donatists (in Joan. Tract. 23), “The Lord put us on our
guard against those wonder—workers, when he foretold that false
prophets would arise, who, by lying signs and divers wonders, would,
if it were possible, deceive the very elect” (Mt. 24:24). Paul,
too, gave warning that the reign of antichrist would be “withall
power, and signs, and lying wonders” (2 Thess. 2:9).
But our
opponents tell us that their miracles are wrought not by idols, not
by sorcerers, not by false prophets, but by saints: as if we did not
know it to be one of Satan’s wiles to transform himself “into an
angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). The Egyptians, in whose
neighbourhood Jeremiah was buried, anciently sacrificed and paid
other divine honours to him (Hieron. in Praef. Jerem). Did they not
make an idolatrous abuse of the holy prophet of God? and yet, in
recompense for so venerating his tomb, they thought1 14 that they
were cured of the bite of serpents. What, then, shall we say but that
it has been, and always will be, a most just punishment of God, to
send on those who do not receive the truth in the love of it, “strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie”? (2 Thess. 2:11). We,
then, have no lack of miracles, sure miracles, that cannot be
gainsaid; but those to which our opponents lay claim are mere
delusions of Satan, inasmuch as they draw off the people from the
true worship of God to vanity.
4. It is a calumny to represent
us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the ancient writers of a purer
age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their impiety. Were the
contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the most
moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours.1 15
While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of
those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as
with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar
acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs to
them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which are
well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt; so that it
may be truly said their only care has been to gather dross among
gold. Then, with dishonest clamour, they assail us as enemies and
despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if
this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support
the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their
suffrages. Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavoured to
remember (1 Cor. 3:21-23; see also Augustin. Ep. 28), that all things
are ours, to serve, not lord it over us, but that we axe Christ’s
only, and must obey him in all things without exception. He who does
not draw this distinction will not have any fixed principles in
religion; for those holy men were ignorant of many things, are often
opposed to each other, and are sometimes at variance with
themselves.
It is not without cause (remark our opponents) we
are thus warned by Solomon, “Remove not the ancient landmarks which
thy fathers have set” (Prov. 22:28). But the same rule applies not
to the measuring of fields and the obedience of faith. The rule
applicable to the latter is, “Forget also thine own people, and thy
father’s house” (Ps. 45:10). But if they are so fond of allegory,
why do they not understand the apostles, rather than any other class
of Fathers, to be meant by those whose landmarks it is unlawful to
remove? This is the interpretation of Jerome, whose words they have
quoted in their canons. But as regards those to whom they apply the
passage, if they wish the landmarks to be fixed, why do they,
whenever it suits their purpose, so freely overleap them?
Among
the Fathers there were two, the one of whom said,1 16 “Our God
neither eats nor drinks, and therefore has no need of chalices and
salvers;” and the other,1 17 “Sacred rites do not require gold,
and things which are not bought with gold, please not by gold.”
They step beyond the boundary, therefore, when in sacred matters they
are so much delighted with gold, driver, ivory, marble, gems, and
silks, that unless everything is overlaid with costly show, or rather
insane luxury1 18 , they think God is not duly worshipped.
It
was a Father who said,1 19 “He ate flesh freely on the day on which
others abstained from it, because he was a Christian.” They
overleap the boundaries, therefore, when they doom to perdition every
soul that, during Lent, shall have tasted flesh.
There were
two Fathers, the one of whom said,2 20 “A monk not labouring with
his own hands is no better than a violent man and a robber;” and
the other,2 21 “Monks, however assiduous they may be in study,
meditation, and prayer, must not live by others.” This boundary,
too, they transgressed, when they placed lazy gormandising monks in
dens and stews, to gorge themselves on other men’s substance.
It
was a Father who said,2 22 “It is a horrid abomination to see in
Christian temples a painted image either of Christ or of any saint.”
Nor was this pronounced by the voice era single individual; but an
Ecclesiastical Council also decreed,2 23 “Let nought that is
worshipped be depicted on walls.”2 24 Very far are they from
keeping within these boundaries when they leave not a corner without
images.
Another Father counselled,2 25 “That after
performing the office of humanity to the dead in their burial, we
should leave them at rest.” These limits they burst through when
they keep up a perpetual anxiety about the dead.
It is a
Father who testifies,2 26 “That the substance of bread and wine in
the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature and
substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus
Christ.” This boundary they pass in pretending that, as soon as the
words of our Lord are pronounced, the substance of bread and wine
ceases, and is transubstantiated into body and blood.
They
were Fathers, who, as they exhibited only one Eucharist to the whole
Church,2 27 and kept back from it the profane and flagitious; so
they, in the severest terms, censured all those2 28 who, being
present, did not communicate How far have they removed these
landmarks, in filling not churches only, but also private houses,
with their masses, admitting all and sundry to be present, each the
more willingly the more largely he pays, however wicked and impure he
may be,—not inviting any one to faith in Christ and faithful
communion in the sacraments, but rather vending their own work for
the grace and merits of Christ!2 29
There were two Fathers,
the one of whom decided that those were to be excluded altogether
from partaking of Christ’s sacred supper,3 30 who, contented with
communion in one kind, abstained from the other; while the other
Father strongly contends3 31 that the blood of the Lord ought not to
be denied to the Christian people, who, in confessing him, are
enjoined to shed their own blood. These landmarks, also, they
removed, when, by an unalterable law, they ordered the very thing
which the former Father punished with excommunication, and the latter
condemned for a valid reason.
It was a Father who pronounced
it rashness,3 32 in an obscure question, to decide in either way
without clear and evident authority from Scripture. They forgot this
landmark when they enacted so many constitutions, so many canons, and
so many dogmatical decisions, without sanction from the word of
God.
It was a Father who reproved Montanus, among other
heresies,3 33 for being the first who imposed laws of fasting. They
have gone far beyond this landmark also in enjoining fasting under
the strictest laws.
It was a Father who denie that the
ministers of the Church should be interdicted from marrying, and
pronounced married life to be a state of chastity; and there were
other Fathers who assented to his decision. These boundaries they
overstepped in rigidly binding their priests to celibacy.
It
was a Father who thought3 34 that Christ only should be listened to,
from its being said, “hear him;” and that regard is due not to
what others before us have said or done, but only to what Christ, the
head of all, has commanded. This landmark they neither observe
themselves nor allow to be observed by others, while they subject
themselves and others to any master whatever, rather than
Christ.
There is a Father who contends3 35 that the Church
ought not to prefer herself to Christ, who always judges truly,
whereas ecclesiastical judges, who are but men, are generally
deceived. Having burst through this barrier also, they hesitate not
to suspend the whole authority of Scripture on the judgment of the
Church.3 36
All the Fathers with one heart execrated, and with
one mouth proteste against, contaminating the word of God with the
subtleties sophists, and involving it in the brawls of dialecticians.
Do they keep within these limits when the sole occupation of their
lives is to entwine and entangle the simplicity of Scripture with
endless disputes, and worse than sophistical jargon? So much so, that
were the Fathers to rise from their graves, and listen to the
brawling art which bears the name of speculative theology, there is
nothing they would suppose it less to be than a discussion of a
religious nature.
But my discourse would far exceed its just
limits were I to show, in detail, how petulantly those men shake off
the yoke of the Fathers, while they wish to be thought their most
obedient sons. Months, nay, years would fail me; and yet so
deplorable and desperate is their effrontery, that they presume to
chastise us for overstepping the ancient landmarks!
5. Then,
again, it is to no purpose they call us to the bar of custom. To make
everything yield to custom would be to do the greatest injustice.
Were the judgments of mankind correct, custom would be regulated by
the good. But it is often far otherwise in point of fact; for,
whatever the many are seen to do, forthwith obtains the force of
custom. But human affairs have scarcely ever been so happily
constituted as that the better course pleased the greater number.
Hence the private vices of the multitude have generally resulted in
public error, or rather that common consent in vice which these
worthy men would have to be law. Any one with eyes may perceive that
it is not one flood of evils which has deluged us; that many fatal
plagues have invaded the globe; that all things rush headlong; so
that either the affairs of men must be altogether despaired of, or we
must not only resist, but boldly attack prevailing evils. The cure is
prevented by no other cause than the length of time during which we
have been accustomed to the disease. But be it so that public error
must have a place in human society, still, in the kingdom of God, we
must look and listen only to his eternal truth, against which no
series of years, no custom, no conspiracy, can plead prescription.
Thus Isaiah formerly taught the people of God, “Say ye not, A
confederacy, to all to whom this people shall say, A confederacy;”
i.e. do not unite with the people in an impious consent; “neither
fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts
himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread” (Is.
8:12). Now, therefore, let them, if they will, object to us both past
ages and present examples; if we sanctify the Lord of hosts, we shall
not be greatly afraid. Though many ages should have consented to like
ungodliness, He is strong who taketh vengeance to the third and
fourth generation; or the whole world should league together in the
same iniquity. He taught experimentally what the end is of those who
sin with the multitude, when He destroyed the whole human race with a
flood, saving Noah with his little family, who, by putting his faith
in Him alone, “condemned the world” (Heb. 11:7). In short,
depraved custom is just a kind of general pestilence in which men
perish not the less that they fall in a crowd. It were well,
moreover, to ponder the observation of Cyprian,3 37 that those who
sin in ignorance, though they cannot be entirely exculpated, seem,
however, to be, in some sense, excusable; whereas those who
obstinately reject the truth, when presented to them by the kindness
of God, have no defence to offer.4 38
6. Their dilemma does
not push us so violently as to oblige us to confess, either that the
Church was a considerable time without life, or that we have now a
quarrel with the Church. The Church of Christ assuredly has lived,
and will live, as long as Christ shall reign at the right hand of the
Father. By his hand it is sustained, by his protection defended, by
his mighty power preserved in safety. For what he once undertook he
will undoubtedly perform, he will be with iris people always, “even
to the end of the world” (Mt. 28:20). With the Church we wage no
war, since, with one consent, in common with the whole body of the
faithful, we worship and adore one God, and Christ Jesus the Lord, as
all the pious have always adored him. But they themselves err not a
little from the truth in not recognising any church but that which
they behold with the bodily eye, and in endeavouring to circumscribe
it by limits, within which it cannot be confined.
The hinges
on which the controversy turns are these: first, in their contending
that the form of the Church is always visible and apparent; and,
secondly, in their placing this form in the see of the Church of Rome
and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, maintain, both that the
Church may exist without any apparent form, and, moreover, that the
form is not ascertained by that external splendour which they
foolishly admire, but by a very different mark, namely, by the pure
preaching of the word of God, and the due administration of the
sacraments. They make an outcry whenever the Church cannot be pointed
to with the finger. But how oft was it the fate of the Church among
the Jews to be so defaced that no comeliness appeared? What do we
suppose to have been the splendid form when Elijah complained that he
was left alone? (1 Kings 19:14). How long after the advent of Christ
did it lie hid without form? How often since has it been so oppressed
by wars, seditions, and heresies, that it was nowhere seen in
splendour? Had they lived at that time, would they have believed
there was any Church? But Elijah learned that there remained seven
thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal; nor ought we to
doubt that Christ has always reigned on earth ever since he ascended
to heaven. Had the faithful at that time required some discernible
form, must they not have forthwith given way to despondency? And,
indeed, Hilary accounted it a very great fault in his day, that men
were so possessed with a foolish admiration of Episcopal dignity as
not to perceive the deadly hydra lurking under that mask. His words
are (Cont. Auxentium), “One advice I give: Beware of Antichrist;
for, unhappily, a love of walls has seized you; unhappily, the Church
of God which you venerate exists in houses and buildings; unhappily,
under these you find the name of peace. Is it doubtful that in these
Antichrist will have his seat? Safer to me are mountains, and woods,
and lakes, and dungeons, and whirlpools; since in these prophets,
dwelling or immersed, did prophesy.”
And what is it at the
present day that the world venerates in its horned bishops, unless
that it imagines those who are seen presiding over celebrated cities
to be holy prelates of religion? Away, then, with this absurd mode of
judging!4 39 Let us rather reverently admit, that as God alone knows
who are his, so he may sometimes withdraw the external manifestation
of his Church from the view of men. This, I allow, is a fearful
punishment which God sends on the earth; but if the wickedness of men
so deserves, why do we strive to oppose the just vengeance of God?4
40 It was thus that God, in past ages, punished the ingratitude of
men; for after they had refused to obey his truth, and had
extinguished his light, he allowed them, when blinded by sense, both
to be deluded by lying vanities and plunged in thick darkness, so
that no face of a true Church appeared. Meanwhile, however, though
his own people were dispersed and concealed amidst errors and
darkness, he saved them from destruction. No wonder; for he knew how
to preserve them even in the confusion of Babylon and the flame of
the fiery furnace.
But as to the wish that the form of the
Church should be ascertained by some kind of vain pomp, how perilous
it is I will briefly indicate, rather than explain, that I may not
exceed all bounds. What they say is, that the Pontiff,4 41 who holds
the apostolic see, and the priests who are anointed and consecrated
by him,4 42 provided they have the insignia of fillets and mitres,
represent the Church, and ought to be considered as in the place of
the Church, and therefore cannot err. Why so? because they are
pastors of the Church, and consecrated to the Lord. And were not
Aaron and other prefects of Israel pastors? But Aaron and his sons,
though already set apart to the priesthood, erred notwithstanding
when they made the calf (Exod. 32:4). Why, according to this view,
should not the four hundred prophets who lied to Ahab represent the
Church? (1 Kings 22:11, &c.). The Church, however, stood on the
side of Micaiah. He was alone, indeed, and despised, but from his
mouth the truth proceeded. Did not the prophets also exhibit both the
name and face of the Church, when, with one accord, they rose up
against Jeremiah, and with menaces boasted of it as a thing
impossible that the law should perish from the priest, or counsel
from the wise, or the word from the prophet? (Jer. 18:18). In
opposition to the whole body of the prophets, Jeremiah is sent alone
to declare from the Lord (Jer. 4:9), that a time would come when the
law would perish from the priest, counsel from the wise, and the word
from the prophet. Was not like splendour displayed in that council
when the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees assembled to consult
how they might put Jesus to death? Let them go, then, and cling to
the external mask, while they make Christ and all the prophets of God
schismatics, and, on the other hand, make Satan’s ministers the
organs of the Holy Spirit!
But if they are sincere, let them
answer me in good faith,—in what place, and among whom, do they
think the Church resided, after the Council of Basle degraded and
deposed Eugenius from the popedom, and substituted Amadeus in his
place? Do their utmost, they cannot deny that that Council was
legitimate as far as regards external forms, and was summoned not
only by one Pontiff, but by two. Eugenius, with the whole herd of
cardinals and bishops who had joined him in plotting the dissolution
of the Council, was there condemned of contumacy, rebellion, and
schism. Afterwards, however, aided by the favour of princes, he got
back his popedom safe. The election of Amadeus, duly made by the
authority of a general holy synod, went to smoke; only he himself was
appeased with a cardinal’s cap, like a piece of offal thrown to a
barking dog. Out of the lap of these rebellious and contumacious
schismatics proceeded all future popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots,
and presbyters. Here they are caught, and cannot escape. For, on
which party will they bestow the name of Church? Will they deny it to
have been a general Council, though it lacked nothing as regards
external majesty, having been solemnly called by two bulls,
consecrated by the legate of the Roman See as its president,
constituted regularly in all respects, and continuing in possession
of all its honours to the last? Will they admit that Eugenius, and
his whole train, through whom they have all been consecrated, were
schismatical? Let them, then, either define the form of the Church
differently, or, however numerous they are, we will hold them all to
be schismatics in having knowingly and willingly received ordination
from heretics. But had it never been discovered before that the
Church is not tied to external pomp, we are furnished with a
lengthened proof in their own conduct, in proudly vending themselves
to the world under the specious title of Church, notwithstanding that
they are the deadly pests of the Church. I speak not of their manners
and of those tragical atrocities with which their whole life teems,
since it is said that they are Pharisees who should be heard, not
imitated. By devoting some portion of your leisure to our writings,
you will see, not obscurely, that their doctrine—the very doctrine
to which they say it is owing that they are the Church—is a deadly
murderer of souls, the firebrand, ruin, and destruction of the
Church.
7. Lastly, they are far from candid when they
invidiously number up the disturbances, tumults, and disputes, which
the preaching of our doctrine has brought in its train, and the
fruits which, in many instances, it now produces; for the doctrine
itself is undeservedly charged with evils which ought to be ascribed
to the malice of Satan. It is one of the characteristics of the
divine word, that whenever it appears, Satan ceases to slumber and
sleep. This is the surest and most unerring test for distinguishing
it from false doctrines which readily betray themselves, while they
are received by all with willing ears, and welcomed by an applauding
world. Accordingly, for several ages, during which all things were
immersed in profound darkness, almost all mankin were mere jest and
sport to the god of this world, who, like any Sardanapalus, idled and
luxuriated undisturbed. For what else could he do but laugh and sport
while in tranquil and undisputed possession of his kingdom? But when
light beaming from above somewhat dissipated the darkness—when the
strong man arose and aimed a blow at his kingdom—then, indeed, he
began to shake off his wonted torpor, and rush to arms. And first he
stirred up the hands of men, that by them he might violently suppress
the dawning truth; but when this availed him not, he turned to
snares, exciting dissensions and disputes about doctrine by means of
his Catabaptists, and other portentous miscreants, that he might thus
obscure, and, at length, extinguish the truth. And now be persists in
assailing it with both engines, endeavouring to pluck up the true
seed by the violent hand of man, and striving, as much as in him
lies, to choke it with his tares, that it may not grow and bear knit.
But it will be in vain, if we listen to the admonition of the Lord,
who long ago disclosed his wiles, that we might not be taken
unawares, and armed us with full protection against all his
machinations. But how malignant to throw upon the word of God itself
the blame either of the seditions which wicked men and rebels, or of
the sects which impostors stir up against it! The example, however,
is not new. Elijah was interrogated whether it were not he that
troubled Israel. Christ was seditious, according to the Jews; and the
apostles were charged with the crime of popular commotion. What else
do those who, in the present day, impute to us all the disturbances,
tumults, and contentions which break out against us? Elijah, however,
has taught us our answer (1 Kings 18:17, 18). It is not we who
disseminate errors or stir up tumults, but they who resist the mighty
power of God.
But while this single answer is sufficient to
rebut the rash charges of these men, it is necessary, on the other
hand, to consult for the weakness of those who take the alarm at such
scandals, and not unfrequently waver in perplexity. But that they may
not fall away in this perplexity, and forfeit their good degree, let
them know that the apostles in their day experienced the very things
which now befall us. There were then unlearned and unstable men who,
as Peter tells us (2 Pet. 3:16), wrested the inspired writings of
Paul to their own destruction. There were despisers of God, who, when
they heard that sin abounded in order that grace might more abound,
immediately inferred, “We will continue in sin that grace may
abound” (Rom. 6:1); when they heard that believers were not under
the law, but under grace, forthwith sung out, “We will sin because
we are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:15). There were
some who charged the apostle with being the minister of sin. Many
false prophets entered in privily to pull down the churches which he
had reared. Some preached the gospel through envy and strife, not
sincerely (Phil. 1:15)—maliciously even—thinking to add
affliction to his bonds. Elsewhere the gospel made little progress.
All sought their own, not the things which were Jesus Christ’s.
Others went back like the dog to his vomit, or the sow that was
washed to her wallowing in the mire. Great numbers perverted their
spiritual freedom to carnal licentiousness. False brethren crept in
to the imminent danger of the faithful. Among the brethren themselves
various quarrels arose. What, then, were the apostles to do? Were
they either to dissemble for the time, or rather lay aside and
abandon that gospel which they saw to be the seed—bed of so many
strifes, the source of so many perils, the occasion of so many
scandals? In straits of this kind, they remembered that “Christ was
a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,” “set up for the
fall and rising again of many,” and “for a sign to be spoken
against” (Luke 2:34); and, armed with this assurance, they
proceeded boldly through all perils from tumults and scandals. It
becomes us to be supported by the same consideration, since Paul
declares that it is a neverfailing characteristic of the gospel to be
a “savour of death unto death in them that perish” (2 Cor. 2:16),
although rather destined to us for the purpose of being a savour of
life unto life, and the power of God for the salvation of believers.
This we should certainly experience it to be, did we not by our
ingratitude corrupt this unspeakable gift of God, and turn to our
destruction what ought to be our only saving defence.4 43
But
to return, Sire.4 44 Be not moved by the absurd insinuations with
which our adversaries are striving to frighten you into the belief
that nothing else is wished and aimed at by this new gospel (for so
they term it), than opportunity for sedition and impunity for all
kinds of vice. Our Go is not the author of division, but of peace;
and the Son of God, who came to destroy the works of the devil, is
not the minister of sin. We, too, are undeservedly charged with
desires of a kind for which we have never given even the smallest
suspicion. We, forsooth, meditate the subversion of kingdoms; we,
whose voice was never heard in faction, and whose life, while passed
under you, is known to have been always quiet and simple; even now,
when exiled from our home, we nevertheless cease not to pray for all
prosperity to your person and your kingdom. We, forsooth, are aiming
after an unchecked indulgence in vice, in whose manners, though there
is much to be blamed, there is nothing which deserves such an
imputation; nor (thank God) have we profited so little in the gospel
that our life may not be to these slanderers an example of chastity,
kindness, pity, temperance, patience, moderation, or any other
virtue. It is plain, indeed, that we fear God sincerely, and worship
him in truth, since, whether by life or by death, we desire his name
to be hallowed; and hatred herself has been forced to bear testimony
to the innocence and civil integrity of some of our people on whom
death was inflicted for the very thing which deserved the highest
praise. But if any, under pretext of the gospel, excite tumults (none
such have as yet been detected in your realm), if any use the liberty
of the grace of God as a cloak for licentiousness (I know of numbers
who do), there are laws and legal punishments by which they may be
punished up to the measure of their deserts—only, in the mean time,
let not the gospel of God be evil spoken of because of the iniquities
of evil men.
Sire,4 45 That you may not lend too credulous an
ear to the accusations of our enemies, their virulent injustice has
been set before you at sufficient length; I fear even more than
sufficient, since this preface has grown almost to the bulk of a full
apology. My object, however, was not to frame a defence, but only
with a view to the hearing of our cause, to mollify your mind, now
indeed turned away and estranged from us—I add, even inflamed
against us—but whose good will, we are confident, we should regain,
would you but once, with calmness and composure, read this our
Confession, which we desire your Majesty to accept instead of a
defence. But if the whispers of the malevolent so possess your ear,
that the accused are to have no opportunity of pleading their cause;
if those vindictive furies, with your connivance, are always to rage
with bonds, scourgings, tortures, maimings, and burnings, we, indeed,
like sheep doomed to slaughter, shall be reduced to every extremity;
yet so that, in our patience, we will possess our souls, and wait for
the strong hand of the Lord, which, doubtless, will appear in its own
time, and show itself armed, both to rescue the poor from affliction,
and also take vengeance on the despisers, who are now exulting so
securely.5 46
Most illustrious King, may the Lord, the King of
kings, establish your throne in righteousness, and your sceptre in
equity.
Basle, 1st August 1536.
i removed the
footnotes, taken from:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.all.html
What
are Calvin's two big points? We are loyal Frenchman and we are good
Christians. For 'extra credit' spend a minute and outline it, that
will be the first task for next week. We will review the structure
article: “Method and Arrangement, or Subject of the Whole Work
[From an Epitome of the Institutions, by Gaspar Olevian.]” from the
first week packet as well.
further links for online research:
from the
Institutes
http://www.crta.org/books/institutes/bk1ch06.html
what
makes Calvin in general and Institutes in particular so
special?
http://www.solideogloria.ch/calvin/english/johncalvin.htm
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps018.shtml
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonInterpretingJohnCalvinSummary.htm
i would like to have put this into the readings packet, it is essential
reading.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonLongerOverviewCalvinsInstitutes.htm
a really good reasonable intro to each section of Institutes
more
timelines:
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0reformationtimeline.htm
http://din-timelines.com/bline.shtml
http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-Reformations.html
reformed
link
lists:
http://members.aol.com/Graceordained/
http://www.hisglory.us/puritan%20sermons/puritan_sermons_index.htm
questions
for thought?
why was Calvin so maligned? see:
http://www.heroesofhistory.com/page69.html
a fascinating essay:
NONE DARE
CALL IT BLASPHEMY
Calvinism and the Older Testament Law
THE
REFORMERS AND THEONOMY:
From Victory to Defeat
Three studies on
the Reformers' Rejection of God's Law
Chapter 13 of a study on
the
Reformers' treatment of the Anabaptists
Kevin Craig
December,
1982
at:
http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/anabaptists/13-0index.htm
i've gotten a lot of flack posting this
URL, the writer claims to be a Christian anarchist and lots of people
think i ought not to reference him.
however read his essays and i think he is using 'left wing political
terms' in a libertarian manner. and i know lots of libertarians in the
conservative reformed churches. so read it for yourself, and react to
the vocabulary afterwards (willing suspension of disbelief)
The Protestant Reformation: religious change and the people of sixteenth-century Europe
at:
http://lib329.bham.ac.uk/coreRes/reformat/contents.htm
piece meal study guide to the reformation.
John
Calvin:
The Man and His Doctrine
at:
http://www.wcofc.org/deep/calvin%20the%20source%20of%20his%20doctrin.htm#Introduction
this is an anti-TULIP essay, but properly looks at some of the
influences on his life. The author just doesn't like nor agree with
them, especially Augustine and original sin. The point is that you can
often learn more from your enemies than from your friends. *grin*
http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/calvin.htm
True
Piety According to Calvin
at:
http://www.the-highway.com/piety1_Battles.html
this is a big deal, Battles expanded this essay into a complete book.
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/tglojc/tglojc.html
17 part essay on Calvin, a little too pro-Calvin for my tastes, repeats
several
'holy half-truths', but good intro.
sidebar: swords and
swiss voting at: http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=9415&sid=666761
the issue of Calvin having other children, other than Jacques in 1542
came up. Only Jacques was baptized because it appeared that he might
live, he only lived less than 2 months however. researching topic:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/tglojc/tglojc.pdf
i posted a note to
a reformed discussion group, and hope to be able to reference the
answer here this week.
The class was given
today, i don't know how to rate my teaching, but they invited me back
again next week, and people did show up today. I will take that as
success. write new words on the paper, for instance today: benefice,
habitant. And write the 3 points for the class to take home with them,
concentrate on dancing with and around these, the rest can be read
here...
1-Calvin as Pastor-Teacher 2-Geneva as a theological-pastoral
laboratory 3-institutes as a summary of biblical theology
i
will keep my annotated reading list
at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/guide-publish/002-2398661-1811269
16:43
May 16th 2004