Reading Through the Institutes of the Christian Religion #4

Thoughts and reflections concerning the following areas 1.13.1-14.0


"Here, if any where, in considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God's word. For how can the human minds which has not yet been able to ascertain of what the body of the sun consists, though it is daily presented to the eye, bring down the boundless essence of God to its little measure? Nay, how can it, under its own guidance, penetrate to a knowledge of the substance of God while unable to understand its own? Wherefore, let us willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself....This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word."-Calvin, John 

 In the current readings so far things have been fairly easy to discern and comprehend but things are about to change. Calvin now leads us by the hand in a lengthy discussion and explanation of subject that has brought about division, created heresies, and birthed cults in the endeavour to understand it rightly. The topic we will now discuss will be the Trinity.

Many books and articles consisting of multiple pages have been written on this subject and is discussed by Calvin at length and with great care. I will only submit one blog entry to this topic but will to the best of my ability discuss what Calvin says about it, give a brief summery of its historical development, and some concluding remarks. But first we need to get acquainted with a few terms and issues as we start at the shallow side and make our way to the deep end.

The Early Christian Explanation of the Trinity

“There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.” B.B Warfield

Simply put, the doctrine of trinity is difficult to understand even when taught and understood correctly but i'll try to give a brief (very brief) summery of how it developed. Now, we all know that the name "trinity" is no where to be found int he bible but its absence doesn't mean it isn't biblical. The question is does the term explain and reflect what scripture teaches. The early church, in response to a number of heretical groups and false teachings that were arising who denied the diety of christ or the holy spirit began to formally solidify who Christ is in relation to the Father. It was unanimously agreed upon by the early church that Christ was truly God and since there was only one God reconciliation between the two truths had to be fleshed out. A few began to deny the deity of Christ, namely the gnostic heresy which taught that Christ was a super angel,inferior in nature to God, and an emanation of God of a higher rank than humans and at the same time denied his humanity. Arainsism, named after Arius held that the Son was created by the Father who at one time never existed. Christ being created is subordinated to the father in essence ultimately resulting in the denial of his divinity. Arainism is seen today in the doctrine and beliefs of the Jehovah's witness. Sabellius(A.D. 200), the originator of sabellianism held that the Father,Son,and Holy Spirit were God but said that they were no more than three manifestations or "modes" of the one true God. Sabellius denied the personhood of the three while ascribingng to it as a great mystery. Tritheism, Docetism, Macedonianism, Adoptionism, and Partialism just to name a few were many other teachings that arose denying the deity of Christ which gave rise to the need to articulate a creed or statement to refute the many errors that were attacking the christian faith.

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed

 The Council of Nicene

Out of all the heresies the christian church was at great odds with aranisism which claimed that Jesus was a created being and at one time didn't exist. Having been excommunicated twice for his teaching arius continued with great force along side with eusebus, a  popular bishop. The arian message became more popular and since it contradicted the teaching of Christ and the christian church hostility began to arise. Constantine the great noticed this rivalry and fearful that aranisism would divide his empire which was recently converted to Christianity called a council to settle the dispute.

Eusebius

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father, before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
We believe also in one Holy Spirit.
We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
- See more at: http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-2.html#sthash.dlHg8tw7.dpuf

At the council a rule or statement of faith(a set of basic doctrines learned and confessed) was used as a way to preserve apostolic tradition.  The rule of faith used states,

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father, before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
We believe also in one Holy Spirit.
We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
- See more at: http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-2.html#sthash.dlHg8tw7.dpuf

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father, before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

We believe also in one Holy Spirit.

We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

 Unsatisfied with it Constantine requested the addition of one word, homoousios.

One Iota: Homoiousios and Homoousios

Homoousios means (Greek: “of one substance,” or “of one essence”) The terms homoiousios and homoousios mean "similar essence" and "same essence."According to those who adopted homoiousios, Jesus was not the same as God but simply had a "similar essence." Arius viewed Jesus as heteroousios which means of a different substance. The fact that Christ was God was a given among the christian church and since he was infact God his essence was the same as Gods. To covey biblical truth homoousios was used and included rather than the word homoiousios which differed in spelling by just the letter "i". According to those who argued for homoousios, the doctrine which was eventually adopted as orthodoxy and added to the nicene creed, Jesus and God had the exact same essence which is what arius denied. Also, contrary to arius Christ is said to be consubstantial with the Father which means that the Son of God is of no other substance or essence but of the Father.
The final version of the creed reads as follows,
   

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.

[We believe] also in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say "There was a time when he was not," or "He did not exist before he was begotten," or "He was made of nothing" or assert that "He is of other substance or essence than the Father," or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.

When the creed states," The holy catholic church," it refers to the universal church rather than a specific branch of Christianity. The word catholic comes from the Greek word katholikos which means "universal" or "general."

Hopfully i've done a decent job with the historical development of the trinity but so as not to have this blog post become longer than it needs i'll save Calvins thoughts on the trinity for part 2 of this blog post.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.
[We believe] also in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say "There was a time when he was not," or "He did not exist before he was begotten," or "He was made of nothing" or assert that "He is of other substance or essence than the Father," or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.
- See more at: http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-4.html#sthash.zVClXKRV.dpuf

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.
[We believe] also in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say "There was a time when he was not," or "He did not exist before he was begotten," or "He was made of nothing" or assert that "He is of other substance or essence than the Father," or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.
- See more at: http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-4.html#sthash.zVClXKRV.dpuf

Seven Things That Christ Is

1) He is the Way; men without him are Cains, wanderers, vagabonds:—
2) He is the Truth; men without him are liars, like the devil, who was so of old:—
3) He is the Life; without him men are dead, dead in trespasses and sins :—
4) He is the Light; without him men are in darkness, and go they know not whither:—
5) He is the Vine; those that are not grafted in him are withered branches, prepared for the fire:—
6) He is the Rock; men not built on him are carried away with a flood:—
7) He is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the author and the ender, the founder and the finisher of our salvation.

~John Owen

P.S. He that hath not him, hath neither beginning of good, nor shall have end of misery.
from a sermon entitled A Vision of Unchangeable, Free Mercy ; Volume 8, page 36

Mans dependence on Gods revelation for knowledge.

“If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point. Then he will have to seek an exhaustive understanding of reality. He will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such an exhaustive understanding of reality he has no true knowledge of anything at all. Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing. This is the dilemma that confronts every form of non-Christian epistemology” (SCE).

The Remedy For Sin-Sick Souls

Set faith at work on Christ for the killing of your sin. His blood is the great sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in this, and you will die a con­queror; yea, you will, through the good providence of God, live to see your lust dead at your feet.

~John Owen~

Overcoming Sin & Temptation (Wheaton, IL; Crossway; 2006)

The Intolerance of Tolerance

"If you begin with this new view of tolerance, and then elevate this view to the supreme position in the hierarchy of moral virtues, the supreme sin is intolerance. The trouble is that such intolerance, like the new tolerance, also takes on a new definition. Intolerance is no longer a refusal to allow contrary opinions to say their piece in public, but must be understood to be any questioning or contradicting the view that all opinions are equal in value, that all worldviews have equal worth, that all stances are equally valid. To question such postmodern axioms is by definition intolerant. For such questioning there is no tolerance whatsoever, for it is classed as intolerance and must therefore be condemned. It has become the supreme vice....under the aegis of this new tolerance, no absolutism is permitted, except for the absolute prohibition of absolutism. Tolerance rules, except that there must be no tolerance for those who disagree with this peculiar definition of tolerance."

D. A. Carson. The Intolerance of Tolerance 

The appetite for ear-tickling preaching

"They don’t want to hear healthy teaching. Why? Because people in the church want to own God without giving up sinful lifestyles, and they will not endure someone telling them what God’s Word says about it. What do they want to hear? “Having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (v. 3). Ironically, they seek out teachers. In fact, they heap to themselves teachers—but not sound ones. They choose the teachers who tell them what they want to hear. They want what tickles their ears and feeds their lusts. They want what makes them feel good about themselves. Preachers who offend them, they reject. They accumulate a mass of teachers who feed their insatiable selfish appe­tites. And the preacher who brings the message they most need to hear is the one they least like to hear. Unfortunately, preachers with ear-tickling messages are all too abun­dantly available.....The demand creates the supply. The hearers invite and shape their own preachers. If the people desire a calf to worship, a ministerial calf-maker is readily found.”

John MacArthur. Ashamed of the Gospel 

Reading Through Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis

Reading Through Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. #1

  1 peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

1 peter 3:15 states an important prerequisite for anyone who is willing to offer a reasoned defence of the Christian faith  expressing that one must "set apart christ as lord in your heart". What does this mean you ask? Well, Van till explains it saying, " Christ must be the ultimate authority over our philosophy,  our reasoning, and our argumentation, not just at the end, but at the beginning, of the apologetical endeavor". Citing Matt 22:37, Van till provides an explanation on why one has to be set apart declaring that to reason in a manner that does not place christ as the ultimate commitment and controlling  foundation is to transgress the first commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."  This means that the apologist must presuppose the truth of Gods word from the beginning of the apologetical encounter to the end. Gods word being the ultimate commitment of the believer must be the conclusion of his argumentation since its his presuppostional standard and starting point that governs his reasoning to begin with. The inspired word of God and his revelation in any discussion is the Christians beginning and final reference point of knowledge and reasoning, any other starting point for knowledge that doesn't begin with commitment and reverence for God subordinates God's wisdom to the supposed wisdom of ones autonomous starting point. One must be rooted and grounded in Christ and ensure that our reasoning is guided by Christian presuppositions.  

 Presuppositions

Presuppositions are elementary assumptions in ones reasoning's which aid a person in forming opinions. They are personal commitments that a person holds at the very center of their web of beliefs. They provide a person with starting points from where everything else in life will be evaluated and interpreted. Everybody has what can be called a “worldview,” a perspective in terms of which they see everything and understand their perceptions and feelings. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man’s knowledge and awareness is interpreted. This worldview, as explained above, is not completely derived from human experience, nor can it be verified or refuted by the procedures of natural science. Not everybody reflects explicitly upon the content of his worldview or is consistent in maintaining it, but everybody has one nonetheless. A person’s worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One’s worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life, etc. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs.

Epistemologically Self-Conscious

Epistomology is the study of the nature and limits of human knowledge and tackles various topics like justification,truth, and belief.  Our theory of knowing  or(epistomology)  should be consistent with christian presuppositions which is the biblical message as a whole. Having our theory of knowledge being consistent with our presuppositions directly influences our  convictions about reality, such as Gods existence and nature,mans nature, and relation to God, his purpose and place in then universe, evil,sin,...etc. The epistemologically self conscious Christian will then avoid saying one thing theologically and then practice something entirely different in their general reasoning and scholarship. In the realm of scholarship for example, the christian must not assume a neutral stance or submit to "neutrality" by taking on a non committed attitude to the truthfulness of scripture and christian commitments. In his book, "Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith" Greg Bahnsen elaborates more on this topic saying, "One must be presuppositionally committed to Christ in the world of thought (rather than neutral) and firmly tied down to the faith which he has been taught, or else the persuasive argumentation of secular thought will delude him. Hence the Christian is obligated to presuppose the word of Christ in every area of knowledge; the alternative is delusion." "Neutrality", to be more specific, is a position thats one takes which does not presuppose the truth of the word of God. Unbelieving reasoning and worldly philosophy thats not rooted in Christ are at its core and any conclusion will be interpreted through its lens rather than through they spectacles of scripture. Bahnsen goes on futher and states,

 "The Christian is completely different from the world when it comes to intellect and scholarship; he does not follow the neutral methods of unbelief, but by God’s grace he has new commitments, new presuppositions, in his thinking. Therefore, the Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian! By denying his distinctive religious commitment he is reduced to apostate thought patterns and absorbed into the world of unbelief. Attempting to find a compromise between the demands of worldly neutrality (agnosticism) and the doctrines of Christ’s word results in the rejection of Christ’s distinctive Lordship by obliterating the great gulf between the thinking of the old man and that of the new man." -Bahnsen, Greg (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

The Impossibility of the Contrary

God, who is the essential foundation and source of all knowledge that man attains via Gods revelation, is the only philosophically sound starting point or precondition for any reasoning and reasoning in general. Only the truth of Christianity taken as a whole can explain and make sense out of human experience ex-the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment, the knowability of the external world  outside of your mind, reliability of memory,logic, the existence of truth, the adequacy of language to describe the world; the existence of values used in science; the uniformity of nature, the existence of numbers and mathematical truths. Upon analysis of this fact, Bahnsen writes " all truth drives one to Christ. From  beginning to end mans' reasoning about anything whatsoever (even reasoning about reasoning itself) is unintelligible or incoherent unless the truth of the Christian Scriptures is presupposed. Any position contrary to the Christian one, therefore, must be seen as philosophically impossible. It cannot justify its beliefs or offer a worldview whos various elements comport with each other." In his book, "Always ready", Bahnsen further illustrates this point by saying, 

".. that the philosophic perspective of the unbeliever destroys meaning, intelligence, and the very possibility of knowledge, while the Christian faith provides the only framework and conditions for intelligible experience and rational certainty. The apologist must contend that the true starting point of thought cannot be other than God and His revealed word, for no reasoning is possible apart from that ultimate authority."

Antitheism presupposes theism, which means that to reason at all the unbeliever MUST operate on assumptions that actually contradict his or her espoused presuppositions, assumptions that comport only with the christian worldview. To put it in the simplest way possible, we know from scripture that God created the world and sustains it and up holds it by his power and governs it by his wisdom. Man was created with the faculties to interact with the world wholly dependent on Gods revelation to him. God knows everything. If there is another god, then God would know that there is another god. God does not know that there is another god, therefore there is not another god. In this sense then it is logically impossible that another god exists. There is only one true God, and He is the God of Christian Scripture. It follows that positions which posit some other god or claim that no god exist are false, or in this case, impossible. Any and all other unbelieving philosophies or systems of thought or religious doctrines, cults that sprung forth from mans depraved mind that are contrary to the Scriptures are false.

  

 

Reading Through the Institutes of the Christian Religion #3

Thoughts and reflections on the following areas.1.11.1-1.13.0


 Thus far Calvin has spoken on the topics of God and his relation to man, man and his relation to God, creation, and scripture. He now takes a short detour and talks about a subject that he briefly spoke about
earlier which is idolatry.


"Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. "

-John Calvin

Calvin says that mans mind is similar to that of a manufactures building that creates idols. Setting aside three chapters to the topic of idolatry Calvin begins to unload with both barrels on what many would call a sensitive subject. In prior chapters we witness the utter folly of man as he is unable to come to a true knowledge of God due to the depravity of his mind. As a result, their decent in further acts of unrighteousness and ungodleness is seen and they spirals down further as is depicted by paul in romans where he writes, 

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened  
 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God  into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

At the beginning of Exodus 20 God declares that hes a jealous God and that all worship and honor is his alone since he alone is worthy. The prophet Isaiah tells us also that, God will share His glory with no one (42:8), summarizing  these two statements nicely Calvin writes,


"But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded with any false god; and thereafter defines what due worship is, in order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance to him as their only Lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for worshipping him in accordance with his will."


"Corporeal images are unworthy of the majesty of God, and that, because they diminish reverential fear and encourage error," Calvin states, and goes on to utter how bizarre this act is as it reduces the immense and incomprehensible Deity to the size of a few feet. This act being natural to mans fallen nature defiles Gods majesty by an absurd and indecorous fiction which is explained by Calvin, "...when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is a spirit to an inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or stone, or gold. "

Man flies headling in the pursuit of idols with the utmost of speed similar to water bursting forth voilently from and abundent stream. The multitude of stars in the skies was equlivant to the number of Gods man devises and imagined to be as well as every filthy animal that walks the earth. "Visible shapes made for the purpose of representing him are false and wicked fictions;" Calvin declares," and all, therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge are miserably deceived."

The longing for a visible form of God has been in the sinful heart of man for ages and in their futile attempts to ascend to god by their own strength they bring down and fashion him with their hands using gold,silver,wood,stone or other dead and corruptible matter. Calvin asserts, "The human mind, stuffed as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to its own capacity; as it labors under dullness, nay, is sunk in the grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the place of God. To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That idolatry has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited.." With ears and eyes men create idols, a visible representation of the invisible God beseeching  aid, prostrating themselves as suppliants in an act of prayer before the most reprehensible images clad in the dress of men and beast shamefully displayed while others Calvin recounts as having, "...confound the sexes, and form a compound out of different bodies, giving the name of deities to objects, which, if they were met alive, would be deemed monsters."


Now, here's where things get a bit sticky....In contemporary art visible representation of God or Jesus Christ are regularly seen. Such images are "purported" to be a representation of Jesus or God so the question is if some act of sacrilege was committed on a picture would one consider it offensive. If so, would that person be treating that image as an object of worship,reverence, honor, while holding pious feelings for it? The text of the Second Commandment forbids not only the worshiping of God by images, but the making of images purporting to be of God and since Jesus is God that kinda complicated the whole children's book issue. To be sure, this is a debate that is on going and will continue till Christ returns again. 
Calvin weighs in on this subject quite nicely,

"I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully,--that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it. The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by unbecoming representations. Visible representations are of two classes--viz. historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures."

" Let it suffice to remember, that whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone, are of the nature of sacrilege."John Calvin
.