The Institutes (28)

Book 1 Chapter 14 Sections 20-22

… let us not be ashamed to take pious delight in the works of God open and manifest in this most beautiful theater. For… although it is not the chief evidence for faith, yet it is the first evidence in the order of nature, to be mindful that wherever we cast our eyes, all things they meet are works of God, and at the same time to ponder with pious meditation to what end God created them.

What did the first moment of existence look like? Was it an amalgamation of particles and matter that resulted a huge bang? Was their an intelligence behind that? Was it random? Will we never know? Or does something lie behind the beginning that too wonderful for us to imagine, as Richard Dawkins has theorized? Or is the most wonderful thing imaginable… God’s words splitting through the dark, creating light?

For Calvin, the thought of God as Creator is the most thankworthy thing in the universe. That God would choose to create men at all is the first in a long list of natural graces given to us. The only thing that supersedes this in time is God’s choice to save us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). So why, when Calvin has already gone through the nature of general revelation and creation, is he rehashing it? Here he’s not talking about the content of the revelation, but the spiritual benefits of meditating on and believing the doctrine of creation.

Calvin sees two chief steps in doing this: approaching the doctrine orthodoxically and orthopathically. In other words, thinking the right thoughts about these things, and then applying them to our own hearts.

The first part of the rule is exemplified when we reflect upon the greatness of the Artifacer who stationed, arranged, and fitted together the starry host of heaven in such wonderful order that nothing more beautiful in appearance can be imagined; who so set and fixed some in their stations that they cannot move; who granted to others a freer course, but so as not to wander outside their appointed course…

All of this is used to frame how much love is displayed in our salvation, which is the second step in this process. That God would start this grand master symphony with salvation already in mind and all the benefits thereof for us already in place… well, a picture doesn’t begin without a canvass. In this way God is good. God is good to make known His power and strength through creation, and his power and strength in our salvation.

… he willed to commend his providence and fatherly solicitude toward us in that, before he fashioned man, he prepared everything he foresaw would be useful and salutary for him. How great ingratitude would it be now to doubt whether this most gracious Father has us in his care, who we see was concerned for us even before we were born! How impious would it be to tremble for fear that his kindness might at any time fail us in our need, when we see that it was shown, with the greatest abundance of every good thing, when we were yet unborn!

Creation is intricately wrapped up in the story of redemption. God didn’t conceive creation apart from the fall and redemption. This realization, that creation would take place even though God foresaw the fall should bring us to worship Him all the more. Praise God!

The Institutes (24)

Book 1 Chapter 13 Sections 21-24

Finally, Calvin goes to war. Joke. He’s always at war. The Institutes have a perpetual edge, as if Calvin’s arguing against something. Biblical doctrine means firmly holding to and loving truth, and vehemently attacking and dismantling error. There is corresponding love for truth and hate for falsehood in the Christian life.

Here he begins to name specific Trinitarian heresies against which the church should set itself and authoritatively should declare the Word. Part of me was actually left saying: “isn’t Calvin going a bit overboard?” Well, in fact he probably is, as is evidenced by the way he treated Servetus when the latter was captive in Geneva. However one might try, it’s not excusable, although there’s good evidence that Calvin wanted some measure of mercy for the man.

With that in mind, Calvin goes about systematically (surprise!) demolishing the arguments of anti-Trinitarians. He summarizes what he’s going to do near the beginning of the section:

Indeed, if we hold fast to what has been sufficiently shown above from Scripture – the the essence of the one God is simple and undivided, and that it belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; and on the other hand that by a certain characteristic the Father differs from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit – the gate will be closed not only to Arius and Sabellius but to other ancient authors of error.

In short, Scripture is enough to tell us about God. All we must to is show positively what is true about God therein, and all heresy can be confronted, condemned, and brushed aside as such.

He goes about naming particular anti-Trinitarian heresies: Severtus is mentioned for the first time at length. For him, there is no Trinity, but instead a sort of modalism (where God has different modes that He chooses to display Himself through). He thought of belief in the Trinity as a belief in three gods, and that you couldn’t argue for the Trinity otherwise. Specifically, Servetus thought that Genesis revealed God as Creator, and John revealed God as Logos. Jesus was really God, but only came to be at the  moment that God the Father conceived Him to be the next expression of His glory.

Calvin begins to refute these things by going straight to John’s Gospel: Jesus Christ always existed as the Word in eternity past. The Word was both with God and was God… and then became flesh. The Word was not just a separate force; He was God Himself. And then the Word became flesh… the Word Who was both God and separate from God.

Calvin moves on to address heresies that promote the Spirit and Christ being finite creations of the Father that He infused with His a measure of His own deity. But Calvin shows that Christ receives worship as if He was the Father. If Christ receives worship, then one of two possibilities exist: He is God, or He is God’s rival.

Calvin points out that this is the same tension in the way the Father treats Christ: in Philippians 2, Christ is so exulted that it is obvious that He is deity.

… unless he had been God manifested in the flesh he could not have been raised to such a height without God himself striving against himself.

It wouldn’t make sense for Christ to be so exulted by both God and man unless Christ was God.

The Institutes (22)

Book 1 Chapter 13 Sections 14-15

It’s not just important that Jesus is God, it’s critical to the Christian faith. As Jared Wilson argues near the end of Your Jesus is Too Safe, the doctrine of Christ’s deity is important because only God can save us from our sins. But what about the Holy Spirit? Is it important that the Holy Spirit is God? What about that He’s a Person, another member of the Trinity? Having argued strongly for the Person and deity of the Son, Calvin turns to (in my opinion) this much more daunting task: showing that the Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is another Person of the Godhead.

Is it daunting because we must perform exegetical gymnastics in order to prove that the Holy Spirit is indeed God? Not at all, though the Scriptures speak less about the deity of the HS than it does about Christ’s deity. So rather than there being no clear testimony that the Spirit is God, we just don’t have as much evidence. It’s an issue of quantity, not quality. However, where the Scripture does speak to the nature of the Holy Spirit, it is still clear: the Holy Spirit is God.

First, in His work the Holy Spirit is shown to be God. The prophets were sent by and empowered through the Holy Spirit, where elsewhere it is clear that Yahweh sent and empowers them. Regeneration is said to be a work of God, but Paul in Romans attributes our regeneration to the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is said to have a will and choice in 1 Corinthians 12. Calvin writes:

If the Spirit were not an entity subsisting in God, choice and will would by no means be conceded to him. Paul, therefore, very clearly attributes to the Spirit divine power, and shows that He resides hypostatically in God.

In this same passage, the gifts of the Spirit are completely sourced in God. It is the Holy Spirit who gives gifts to the church by His own will and choice. This made me think of the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5… which are nothing less than Yahweh’s own character being expressed through His servants.

Second, the Spirit is shown to be God by strongly implicit scriptural statements. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 shows that we are called the temple of God on account of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Calvin points out another intriguing passage… blasphemy committed against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, even though blasphemy against the Son will be (Matthew 12:31-32). Could we even blaspheme something instead of someone? The point is clear… Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead, another member of a Trinity of Persons that all have the same essence of deity.

The Institutes (20)

Book 1 Chapter 13 Sections 1-6

How do we know the Trinity exists? In a recent conversation, a few friends and I discussed how such a critical doctrine was not so obvious to the early church. That, combined with some recent interactions with a man who has Unitarian beliefs, has led me to reexamine many of the key texts from the Scriptures, especially concerning the Person and deity of the Holy Spirit. Coincidentally, this is the same thing Calvin addresses in another long chapter. This will likely take the week to get through.

As I studied the Scriptures, I was struck by how the apostles went out of their way to ensure that we understood that Christ and the Spirit were also God… the same God as the Father. The Spirit is alternately called Christ’s Spirit or Yahweh’s Spirit.

Calvin, of course, is all about the Trinity. As he begins to explore God’s character, he doesn’t present a list of attributes like most modern systematic theologies will. Instead, he’s concerned about exploring the Trinity in a deeply pastoral way, addressing objections along the way.

Romans 1 gives us the benchmark for what is perceivable about God: He’s infinite and spiritual. Whereas Calvin does not connect these two attributes to Romans 1, the connection seems more or less clear in my mind.

Beyond the clear character of God displayed in nature, the first thing to note about His nature is that He is one God in three Persons. Calvin addresses several semantic issues, including the difference between hypostases, person, and subsistance (there is no practical difference in Calvin’s mind), and the fact that all three Persons share the same essence. Many will decry the use of non-Biblical terms to describe God, but Calvin points out that this is not at all impermissible.

… we ought to seek from Scripture a sure rule for both thinking and speaking, to which both the thoughts of our minds and the words of our mouths should be conformed. But what prevents us from explaining in clearer words those matters in Scripture which perplex and hinder our understanding, yet which conscientiously and faithfully serve the truth of Scripture itself, and are made use of sparingly and modestly and on due occasion?

When a truth is Scripture is found, such as the clear teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and all God, it is not wrong to assign a word or draw a principle from that truth and label it as such. That’s systematic theology at its essence: looking at all of Scripture and pulling out truth about a particular topic. In this case, God is clearly found in three Persons.

The other benefit of systematic theology is the weeding out of false teachers from the People of God. It’s worth noting that the modern Baptist cry of “no creed but the Bible” was also the cry of the liberalism that infiltrated the denominations in the early part of the last century. Unless we properly interpret and lay out that interpretation for others to see, we’re playing theological trickery, because “no creed but the Bible” means 20,000 different things to 20,000 different people. Orthodoxy must be laid out, and in understanding the Bible systematically we have a tool to show where orthodoxy cannot be compromised.

But what about those who disagree with using extra-biblical terms to describe what is in the Bible? Calvin, having thus far argued strongly for systematic theology, takes to heart the dissenting opinion of his brothers.

[This] modesty of saintly men ought to warn us against forthwith so severely taking to task, like censors, those who do not wish to swear to the words conceived by us, provided they are not doing it out of either arrogance or frowardness or malicious craft. But let these very persons, in turn, weigh the necessity that compels us to speak thus, that gradually theymay at length become accustomed to a useful manner of speaking.

Calvin gives two examples:

Arius says that Christ is God, but mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says that Christ is one with the Father, but secretly whispers in the ears of his own partisans that He is united to the Father like other believers, although by a singular privilege. Say “consubstantial” and you will tear off the mask of this turncoat, and yet you add nothing to Scripture.

Sabellius says that Father, Son, and Spirit signify no distinctions in God. Say they are three, and he will scream that you are naming three Gods. Say that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of persons; you will say in one word what Scripture states, and cut short empty talkativeness.

Speaking systematically about the Scriptures is essential when we’re dealing with heresy, and I would say when we’re teaching the Scriptures. It helps no one to study the Scriptures that are easily interpreted and not held up to other Scriptures. Instead, we should do the hard work of studying through the Scriptures to show people God the Father, Son, and Spirit… the Triune God. This doctrine, and so many others, rely upon the whole counsel of God. We should not shy away from it.

The Institutes (18)

Book 1 Chapter 11 Sections 8-16

Calvin continues his assault on the use of images in worship. In so doing, he lays out a methodology for tenaciously pursuing and expelling error within the Church. This can be best summed up by an appeal to Scripture until it is plainly seen that whatever error is propounded cannot be claimed to be part of the Christian faith. His contention throughout this whole chapter is that using imagery in worship to depict God is a dangerous error that faces clear commands in Scripture to the contrary.

But lest it be claimed that Calvin was in opposition to the arts, he clarifies his position:

… because sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I seek a pure and legitimate use of each, lest those things which the Lord has conferred upon us for his glory and our good be not only polluted by perverse misuse but also turned to our destruction… only those things are to be sculptured or painted which the eyes are capable of seeing: let not God’s majesty, which is far above the perception of the eyes, be debased through unseemly representations.

Calvin almost pleads for readers not to allow such a thing into their worship. He cites a particular argument that is presented in favor for images in worship: the distinction between latria and dulia. The argument goes like this: we don’t worship (latria) the images, we just serve them (dulia). Calvin demolishes this argument:

For just as an adulterer or a homicide cannot escape guilt by dubbing his crime by some other name, so it is absurd for them to be absolved by the subtle device of a name if they differ in no respect from idolaters whom they themselves are compelled to condemn. Yet so far are they from separating their own cause from the cause of these idolaters that the source of the whole evil is rather a preposterous emulation in which they vie with the latter while they both contrive by their own wit, and fashion with their own hands, the symbols to represent God for themselves.

Is this not precisely a description of liberal Christianity? The condemn what they themselves do, trying to maintain a distinctiveness in “following Jesus” while they hollow out everything that phrase means. Similarly, proponents of the “New Perspective on Paul” try to sympathize and identify with historical Christianity, all while they subtly undercut the meaning of justification by faith alone.

Summarily, he confronts Catholic appeals to church history and to Scripture to prove their support for images. In the case of church history, Calvin notes that there were no images in the churches for close to five hundred years after Christ. The Council of Nicaea in 787 was apparently used to bolster support for image-worship, but Calvin shows that there was plenty of dissenting opinion at the time. As such, the introduction of image-worship has a strong connection to much later Catholic tradition, not the Scriptures or early Christian practice.

Calvin quickly deals with the few Scriptures that Catholics cite who favor image-worship. Among them are Genesis 28:18, 47:10; and Psalm 44:13, 98:5, 9. These Scriptures are so out of context and spiritualized that the use of them shows how little was known about the Scriptures and how little they were held in esteem by the Catholic Church.

The Word is central to worship, and God has ordained two images to be used in order to display Himself to His people.

… even if so much danger were not threatening [i.e. images in worship], when I ponder the intended use of churches, somehow or other it seems to me unworthy of their holiness for them to take on images other than those living and symbolical [sic] ones which the Lord has consecrated by his Word. I mean Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, together with other rites by which our eyes must be too intensely gripped and too sharply affected to seek other images forged by human ingenuity.

Amen and amen. The images of baptism and the Lord’s Supper flow out of the Scriptures and point back to the Scriptures. Anything in worship that leads away from the Scriptures cannot be allowed in worship; it is deadening to Christians, and cannot be a part of legitimate worship.