Calvin: Christ's design on Palm Sunday

In the first place, we ought to remember Christ’s design, which was, that he came to Jerusalem of his own accord, to offer himself to die; for it was necessary that his death should be voluntary, because the wrath of God could be appeased only by a sacrifice of obedience. And, indeed, he well knew what would be the result; but before he is dragged to the cross, he wishes to be solemnly acknowledged by the people as their King; nay, he openly declares that he commences his reign by advancing to death, but though his approach was celebrated by a vast crowd of people, still he remained unknown to his enemies until, by the fulfillment of prophecies, which we shall afterwards see in their own place, he proved that he was the true Messiah; for he wished to omit nothing that would contribute to the full confirmation of our faith.

-John Calvin, Commentaries - John 12:12

Random Update #8: Neurology → Nephrology

Well, my blog has reached a low ebb in the last few weeks. For one reason or another I've lacked all inspiration to write. But there have been a few things happening...

1. I just spent a month working on the inpatient neurology service at the hospital, taking care of mostly stroke patients, seizure patients and a random assortment of other neurological disorders. Even with some very long hours at times it was an enjoyable month which makes me realize I'm finally settling into this doctor thing a little bit. I got to do another lumbar puncture which ended up going very well - I got a "champagne tap" which means there were no red blood cells in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples I collected. Frequently you will nick a small blood vessel as you insert the needle deep into the patient's back, thus contaminating your sample with a small amount of blood. I was able to avoid this complication and received the traditional gift of a bottle of white wine - CSF (without blood in it) is clear - from my attending. Technically the traditional gift is a bottle of champagne but the colonel reasoned that no one really drinks champagne. Unfortunately I'm not much of a wine drinker either.

2. Today I started working in the Nephrology clinic and that's where I'll be for the next month except for a week of leave I'm taking starting on the 18th.

3. I've occasionally been able to read a few pages of the Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. It's an amazing work of history and of literature. Two men about whom I knew little were St. Augustine of Canterbury (d. AD 604) (not to be confused with "of Hippo") and Pope Gregory the Great (AD 540 - 604). Both of these men played a great role in the evangelization of my ancestors and the formation of the English Church. For that I am grateful to them and more so to God who chooses such sinners for tasks so great.

A snowy drive to work

4. I passed my final board exam (USMLE Step 3) to be a licensed physician. I took it in Puyallup, Washington just before most people in the Puget Sound area got socked-in by a huge snow and ice-storm or "snowpocalypse 2012" as us residents who had to drive to the hospital each morning at 4:30AM in spite of the weather referred to it (and yes I grew up on the West-side of the Cascade Mountains so I am a snow-wimp like the majority of Portlanders and Seattleites).



5. While I haven't been writing on my blog I have gotten myself involved in a facebook debate about baptism with a bunch of Lutherans (with whom I mostly agree) and Baptists (with whom I mostly disagree). And by Baptist I mean "Non-denominational," "Charismatic," "Pentecostal," and also all those with the honesty just to call themselves "Baptist." With that said I know a lot of great Christians who are Baptists (heck, just look at my favorite Christians blogs on the right-hand of your screen - 4 out of the 7 are Baptists). But the debate I've been in has made me examine my own thoughts on baptism, and to be honest it's something I've probably tried not to think too much about in order to avoid debates with a good percentage of my Christian friends. A friend challenged me on a statement I made denying the intrinsic efficacy of baptism as a means of grace. He confronted me not with some systematic theology and not with some sappy platitude but with a fairly clear and plain-sounding statement from God's word: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." Hmm... Doesn't really seem to fit with what I had written.

6. St. Augustine wrote: "For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism." (City of God, Book XIII, chapter 7.)

"Baptism of St. Augustine" (of Hippo) - Troyes 

7. John Calvin wrote: "We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign." (Commentary on 1st Peter 3:21)

8. On the subject of Baptists and scriptural fidelity, I recently visited a nearby "Non-denominational" (read Baptist) church because they had a Saturday night service and it was my only chance to go to church that week. It was a pretty hip place, lots of 20-somethings with cool-looking clothes and the very latest in praise music. But I was thoroughly unimpressed by the preaching, which was topical and during which a very few Bible verses were used (likely misused) in making the preacher's somewhat questionable points. And then I started thinking about how the Lutheran church I sometimes attend when I'm in the Portland area and the Anglican church I like to worship at in Olympia have sermons that are absolutely saturated with Scripture. I can also think of quite a few other Non-denominational churches I've been to where very little Scripture is read during the service. The thing that gets me is that it's often these same people who will accuse Lutherans and Anglicans of being too beholden to "tradition" while they supposedly simply follow the Word of God.

9. Much of the best, most Scripture-saturated and Christ-centered preaching I've ever heard was at Cornerstone Bible Church (Baptistic in theology) in Riverside, California during medical school. It's a complicated world we live in.

Who Maketh Thee to Differ?

Yesterday I was blessed by a great time of fellowship and Bible study, the topic of which was the sin of pride. This is a sin which vexes me and I was surprised by the "divine appointment" of walking unexpecting into this Bible study. I saw it as a "divine appointment" because I have felt particularly convicted of this sin this week and I had just asked a brother pray for me earlier that day that God would humble me. Asking for humbling from God is not something that I take lightly at all and it is actually a prayer that causes me to fear. A brother once prayed for me that I would be humbled a few years ago, without my asking, and the Lord did humble me, and it was painful - a necessary and painful blessing. But that is not really the topic I want to write about now.

As we were talking about pride yesterday one portion of Scripture which came up was the beginning of 1st Corinthians chapter 4. The context of this passage seems to me primarily to be Paul's concerns about the divisions in the Corinthian church and the prideful sects that had arisen, saying things like "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos (3:4)." Paul points out that he and Apollos were nothing but servants who "planted" and "watered," and that "God gave the growth (3:5, 6)." Paul then concludes that, "neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth (3:7)." Paul then seems to diverge briefly in verses 11-20 but then comes back to writing about the sects that had arisen. In verses 21-23 he writes, "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." The thing that caught my eye in these verses was Paul's mention of boasting. I think the idea of boasting is very important for understanding the nature of God's grace and the salvation of sinners. Paul uses a word translated as "boast" or "boasting" at least 37 times in his letters in the ESV. Often he speaks of boasting as it is related to our salvation which is by grace alone in Christ alone. In communicating the kind of salvation which sinners have in Christ, Paul writes that it is a kind of salvation, "so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:9)." We can offer nothing for the procurement of salvation, it is only a free gift from a merciful and just God, therefore we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. And the salvation which God freely makes available by His grace was purchased with an infinite price, the shed blood of the spotless Lamb of God and King of the Universe, Jesus Christ.

With all of these things in mind, last night during this Bible study I read 1st Corinthians 4:7, "For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" First of all I must point out that I was reading an NKJV last night as my trusty ESV is currently MIA. So perhaps the reason this verse, which I've read many times, stood out to me so profoundly was that I read it in a version I'm not used to reading. And with further research on this verse today I see that there is a lot of variation in the way it's translated in different versions. The line which stood out particularly to me was, "For who makes you to differ from another?" Had I been reading my ESV I would have read, "For who sees anything different in you?" Without my ESV I've also been using my NLT a lot lately which has, "For what gives you the right to make such a judgment?" The NIV is surprisingly close to the NKJV with "For who makes you different from anyone else."

But it was the NKJV which struck me last night so I'll focus on that translation. Once again 1 Corinthians 4:7, "For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" When Paul asks that question in the last part of the verse, "why do you boast as if you had not received it?" I think the same thought could be expressed positively as, "why do you boast as if you had whatever you're boasting of as an inherent quality or possession in yourself." It is clear that Paul is saying that whatever the Corinthians have, that it is a gift from God and therefore something they have no right to boast about. The second part of this verse helps to clarify the first part. Paul asks, "for who makes you to differ from another?" Paul obviously asks this question with various blessings a person might possess in mind. I think this question, "who makes you to differ from another?" is applicable to every gift we have from God whether it be some "innate" ability in areas such as academics or sports or more particular spiritual gifts like healing, prophecy or tongues (1 Cor. 12:9-10). But above our "natural" abilities and spiritual gifts is the gift of salvation in Christ itself.

It is this gift of salvation which I first thought of when I read, "who makes you to differ?" I thought of this because about five years ago when I vehemently claimed the label "Arminian" for myself, I asked a friend this very question as I wrestled with what I saw as the inconsistency of Arminianism with salvation by grace alone. I asked my friend, a man whom I respect greatly to this day and who remains an Arminian, a question very similar to the one Paul asked in 1 Corinthians 4:7. We were talking about "prevenient" grace and salvation and I asked him, if I and another man both heard the gospel preached and both received the grace to either decide to follow Christ or to deny him, what was it in me that caused me to follow Christ while the other man rejected Him? I was asking my friend, what made us to differ? To me this question, which I think is inevitable in the Arminian system, is a significant problem. It seems to me that if this question can even be asked it must imply that there was something better in those who in the end choose Christ even if they were brought to that point of decision by God's grace. They must be smarter or holier or luckier but the thought of any of these things being a cause of salvation must be rejected in light of Paul's rejection of boasting in ourselves concerning our salvation. If I chose Christ, if I "differed," because I was smarter or holier or luckier then I have something to boast of in myself and I have my own self to thank for my salvation. But boasting is excluded. And it is obvious what the answer is to Paul's question, "who makes you to differ from another?" The answer is that God by His grace makes you to differ. The answer to Paul's rhetorical question, "what do you have that you did not receive?" is "nothing."

So it was surprising to me to see Paul asking in Scripture the very question I had posed years ago and years prior to my rejection of Arminianism or a least what passes for Arminianism today. My friend didn't have any answer for my question, by the way, and if I remember right he basically said that it was a question that shouldn't be asked. Maybe he is right but at least for the present I have come to different conclusions. Whenever I think I see something in Scripture which I hadn't seen before I always like to check and see if others have seen the same thing. I think this is especially important in a verse like 1st Corinthians 4:7 where there is a lot of variation in the way it is translated. So as usual I went to my favorite Bible commentator, John Calvin, to see what he had to say. What I found did not disappoint. In regards to the words. "to differ," or in Calvin's version, "to distinguish," the reformer wrote:

To distinguish here means to render eminent. Augustine, however, does not ineptly make frequent use of this declaration for maintaining, in opposition to the Pelagians, that whatever there is of excellence in mankind, is not implanted in him by nature, so that it could be ascribed either to nature or to descent; and farther, that it is not acquired by free will, so as to bring God under obligation, but flows from his pure and undeserved mercy. For there can be no doubt that Paul here contrasts the grace of God with the merit or worthiness of men.

Calvin: Salvation by free grace

What follows is a quote from Calvin's commentary on Luke 23:42-43, "Then he said, 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.'" It is longer than most quotes I post but I think it is an excellent analysis of the passage by Calvin. The Reformer expands here on the Thief's salvation through faith alone.

Though Christ had not yet made a public triumph over death, still he displays the efficacy and fruit of his death in the midst of his humiliation. And in this way he shows that he never was deprived of the power of his kingdom; for nothing more lofty or magnificent belongs to a divine King, than to restore life to the dead. So then, Christ, although, struck by the hand of God, he appeared to be a man utterly abandoned, yet as he did not cease to be the Savior of the world, he was always endued with heavenly power for fulfilling his office. And, first, we ought to observe his inconceivable readiness in so kindly receiving the robber without delay, and promising to make him a partaker of a happy life. There is therefore no room to doubt that he is prepared to admit into his kingdom all, without exception, who shall apply to him. Hence we may conclude with certainty that we shall be saved, provided that he remember us; and it is impossible that he shall forget those who commit to him their salvation.

But if a robber found the entrance into heaven so easy, because, while he beheld on all sides ground for total despair, he relied on the grace of Christ; much more will Christ, who has now vanquished death, stretch out his hand to us from his throne, to admit us to be partakers of life. For since Christ has, “nailed to his cross the handwriting which was opposed to us, (Colossians 2:14,) and has destroyed death and Satan, and in his resurrection has triumphed over the prince of the world, (John 12:31,) it would be unreasonable to suppose that the passage from death to life will be more laborious and difficult to us than to the robber. Whoever then in dying shall commit to Christ, in true faith, the keeping of his soul, will not be long detained or allowed to languish in suspense; but Christ will meet his prayer with the same kindness which he exercised towards the robber. Away, then, with that detestable contrivance of the Sophists about retaining the punishment when the guilt is removed; for we see how Christ, in acquitting him from condemnation, frees him also from punishment. Nor is this inconsistent with the fact, that the robber nevertheless endures to the very last the punishment which had been pronounced upon him; for we must not here imagine any compensation which serves the purpose of satisfaction for appeasing the judgment of God, (as the Sophists dream,) but the Lord merely trains his elect by corporal punishments to displeasure and hatred of sin. Thus, when the robber has been brought by fatherly discipline to self-denial Christ receives him, as it were, into his bosom, and does not send him away to the fire of purgatory.

We ought likewise to observe by what keys the gate of heaven was opened to the robber; for neither papal confession nor satisfactions are here taken into account, but Christ is satisfied with repentance and faith, so as to receive him willingly when he comes to him. And this confirms more fully what I formerly suggested, that if any man disdain to abide by the footsteps of the robber, and to follow in his path, he deserves everlasting destruction, because by wicked pride he shuts against himself the gate of heaven. And, certainly, as Christ has given to all of us, in the person of the robber, a general pledge of obtaining forgiveness, so, on the other hand, he has bestowed on this wretched man such distinguished honor, in order that, laying aside our own glory, we may glory in nothing but the mercy of God alone. If each of us shall truly and seriously examine the subject, we shall find abundant reason to be ashamed of the prodigious mass of our crimes, so that we shall not be offended at having for our guide and leader a poor wretch, who obtained salvation by free grace.

-John Calvin, Commentaries

Faith Alone

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved

- Sts. Paul and Silas (Acts 16:31a)

A classmate and I have been meeting with a group of unchurched kids from San Bernardino for Bible studies for almost two years now. It has been a challenging and rewarding ministry. Recently we discussed a passage from the Gospel of Luke which gives me much joy and hope. It is a passage that speaks strongly against those religious people who would add in various works or rituals or ceremonies as prerequisites for salvation in Jesus Christ.

The passage we talked about was Luke 23:39-43. This passage recounts the crucifixion of our Lord and it is here in Luke's gospel that we get some added details about Christ's interactions with those who were also crucified near Him.

As we've done this Bible study with these kids it has been our goal to preach the gospel every time we meet. We aren't trying to give them some kind of Sunday school style moralism where we just tell them they should obey their parents because the Bible says so or something like that. Of course we encourage them to be good people and to do the right thing but we also try constantly to convey the truth that we can never live up to God's standards and that we are all guilty sinners, deserving of hell, before His perfect holiness.

This is where we tried to start when we discussed this passage from Luke. We actually started in Isaiah, with the prophet's vision of God in Isaiah chapter 6. We read Isaiah 6:1-5 and tried to convey a sense of God's greatness and holiness. We were on a large hill, overlooking Loma Linda, Redlands and San Bernardino when we did our study so we asked these kids to imagine looking out at an enormous throne of God, larger than the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, with angels encircling it, shielding their faces from His glory. After talking about Isaiah's fear before the throne of God where he said, "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts! (Isaiah 6:5)," we asked them to imagine standing alone before God's throne, being judged. We pointed out that Isaiah, who said, "Woe is me!," was a "good guy" when compared to most people. He was a prophet of God. He wrote a book of the Bible. We asked them, "if Isaiah (a "good" guy) was fearful before God's throne, what hope would a man who had been a criminal his whole life have before the throne of God?" I don't remember their answers but it was at this point that we had one of them read the passage from Luke 23.

After reading the passage, ending with verses 42 and 43, "And he said, 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.' And he said to him, 'Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise,'" we asked them, at this point what did the thief have to do to get to heaven? The obvious answer to this question was "nothing." We then asked, after this thief died and he was standing before God's throne, what would have been his hope of salvation? We asked specifically whether some good deed he had done in life would be his hope for salvation when he stood before God's throne. Their answer was that Jesus said he would be in paradise that day and because we have taught them that Jesus is God, obviously His word is trustworthy, therefore Christ's decree would be the thief's hope. We next asked whether the thief had to pay for his sins or be punished by God for his sins. It is true that he was being crucified for his crimes but I think they realized that if this thief was going to be in paradise that day then he was not going to pay for his sins or be punished by God. We then asked if someone else payed for the thief's sins or if someone else suffered in his place. I think no other place in Scripture illustrates more vividly the substitutionary atonement, "and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him (Isaiah 53:6b and 10a)." At this point we again shared the gospel with them.

In our study we did not forget that "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10)." I used our taking time weekly to lead a Bible study as an example of obedience to God. But I said that this obedience to God was only out of gratitude for the cross and His grace and had nothing to do with any hope of earning or contributing to my salvation. And I think the same is true for that thief on the cross who was saved by grace alone through faith alone. Had he somehow been taken off of that cross prior to his death but after putting his faith in Christ, I certainly believe he would have been baptized, he would have participated in the Lord's Supper and he would have led a life characterized by repentance. But it would have been clear that none of these works had earned his salvation. They would have been things done in love for God in response to his salvation and because he was a new creation in Christ.

The fact that some who claim to follow Christ debate about whether we are saved by grace alone through faith in Christ alone versus being saved by our works or some contribution of our works amazes me on the one hand but doesn't surprise me on the other. It amazes me because I think this truth, of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone is essential to the gospel and is expressed so clearly by the apostle Paul, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph. 2:8-9)." It doesn't surprise me though, that this would be controversial, because the idea of salvation by grace alone through faith alone runs so contrary to the natural way of thinking according to our sin nature. I think this is evident in the fact that every other world religion, as far as I know, is some form of works-righteousness and this heart of the gospel is under constant attack even within Christendom and has been since Pentecost. This heart of the gospel which is, "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes," that salvation is by God's grace alone through faith in Christ alone and purchased for us by His atoning death, has even been mostly lost at times in the history of the Church. This was the case prior to the Reformation, that great outpouring of God's grace which we celebrate today. And I think that today even in so-called Evangelicalism most churches assume that everyone already believes the gospel and consequently the true gospel is rarely preached. But I also think the simple heart of the gospel is such a tremendous and glorious truth which we are so prone to forget or underestimate that it is something we can never get past and must constantly hear preached.

When I first started thinking about this text from Luke as a defense of salvation by grace alone through faith alone I wanted to make sure that other Christians had seen the same thing in this passage. So it was a great joy to read commentaries on this passage by two men of God, both of whom I respect greatly. The first I read was by John Calvin. Calvin wrote:

And this confirms more fully what I formerly suggested, that if any man disdain to abide by the footsteps of the robber, and to follow his path, he deserves everlasting destruction, because by wicked pride he shuts against himself the gate of heaven. And, certainly, as Christ has given to all of us, in the person of the robber, a general pledge of obtaining forgiveness, so, on the other hand, he has bestowed on this wretched man such distinguished honor, in order that, laying aside our own glory, we may glory in nothing but the mercy of God alone.

Calvin calls us all to follow in the path of the robber and glory in nothing but the mercy of God alone. Calvin has many other wonderful things to say about this passage in his commentary and, Lord willing, I will quote some more of what he wrote in the coming week. The second commentator I ran into, which in some ways brought me even more joy than Calvin's writing, is a great Patristic voice, John Chrysostom who lived between 349 and 407 A.D. Chrysostom was the Archbishop of Constantinople and writes with great clarity on the subject of salvation through faith alone. Chrysostom in his Sermon 7 on Genesis writes:

Let us see, however, whether the brigand gave evidence of effort and upright deeds and a good yield. Far from his being able to claim even this, he made his way into paradise before the apostles with a mere word, on the basis of faith alone...

I'll also post a longer and more complete quote from Chrysostom in the coming week.

Happy Reformation Day!

He has loved us before the world was created

The work of atonement derives from God's love; therefore it has not established the latter:

For this reason, Paul says that the love with which God embraced us "before the creation of the world" was established and grounded in Christ [Eph. 1:4-5]. These things are plain and in agreement with Scripture, and beautifully harmonize those passages in which it is said that God declared his love toward us in giving his only-begotten Son to die [John 3:16]; and, conversely, that God was our enemy before he was again made favourable to us by Christ's death [Rom. 5:10]. But to render these things more certain among those who require the testimony of the ancient church, I shall quote a passage of Augustine where the very thing is taught: "God's love," says he, "is incomprehensible and unchangeable. For it was not after we were reconciled to him through the blood of his Son that he began to love us. Rather, he has loved us before the world was created, that we also might be his sons along with his only-begotten Son - before we became anything at all. The fact that we were reconciled through Christ's death must not be understood as if his Son reconciled us to him that he might now begin to love those whom he hated. Rather, we have already been reconciled to him who loves us, with whom we were enemies on account of sin. The apostle will testify whether I am speaking the truth: 'God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us' [Rom. 5:8]. Therefore, he loved us even when we practiced enmity toward him and committed wickedness. Thus in a marvelous and divine way he loved us even when he hated us. For he hated us for what we were that he had not made; yet because our wickedness had not entirely consumed his handiwork, he knew how, at the same time, to hate in each one of us what we had made, and to love what he had made."

- John Calvin, Institutes 2.16.4

Antichrist

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?

This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

-1 John 2:22

Yesterday, in response to a comment on my last post I checked out Calvin's commentary on 1st John 2:22 and I was very interested and impressed to see what the reformer had to say about "antichrist:"

What he had generally said of false prophets, he now applies to the state of his own time; for he points out, as by the finger, those who disturbed the Church. I readily agree with the ancients, who thought that Cerinthus and Carpocrates are here referred to. But the denial of Christ extends much wider; for it is not enough in words to confess that Jesus is the Christ, except he is acknowledged to be such as the Father offers him to us in the gospel. The two I have named gave the title of Christ to the Son of God, but imagined him to be man only. Others followed them, such as Arius, who, adorning him with the name of God, robbed him of his eternal divinity. Marcion dreamt that he was a mere phantom. Sabellius imagined that he differed nothing from the Father. All these denied the Son of God; for not one of them really acknowledged the true Christ; but, adulterating, as far as they could, the truth respecting him, they devised for themselves an idol instead of Christ. Then broke out Pelagius, who, indeed, raised no dispute respecting Christ’s essence, but allowed him to be true man and God; yet he transferred to us almost all the honor that belongs to him. It is, indeed, to reduce Christ to nothing, when his grace and power are set aside. . .

. . . We now see that Christ, is denied, whenever those things which peculiarly belong to him, are taken away from him. And as Christ is the end of the law and of the gospel, and has in himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, so he is the mark at which all heretics level and direct their arrows. Therefore the Apostle does not, without reason, make those the chief impostors, who fight against Christ, in whom the full truth is exhibited to us.

-John Calvin, Commentaries

Shall We Draw Daggers?

From the biography of Anglican Calvinist preacher Charles Simeon, a conversation with John Wesley:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

H/T: John Piper

Happy Birthday Mr. Calvin

Today was John Calvin's 500th birthday. (I had originally entitled this post "Belated Birthday" as I thought I had missed the day - hopefully this will teach me to do one last wikipedia check before posting stuff in the future)... So back to my post: Calvin is a man I've come to respect more and more in the past three or four years since taking a class on his theology at Asbury Seminary. One aspect of Calvin's theology that I especially appreciate is the purity of his focus on the grace of God and the work of Christ in salvation and the complete rejection of the idea that any good work from ourselves could justify us before God. Here is a quote from the Institutes which touches on this issue:

I admit that the ancient writers of the church commonly used it [the word merit], and would that they had not given posterity occasion for error by their misuse of one little word! Nevertheless, in some passages they also testify that they did not intend to prejudice the truth. For in one such place Augustine speaks thus: "Let human merits, which perished through Adam, here keep silence, and let God's grace reign through Jesus Christ." Again: "The saints attribute nothing to their merits; they will attribute all to thy mercy alone, O God." Again: "And when man sees that all the good he has, he has not from himself but from his God, he sees that all that is praiseworthy in himself arises not from his own merits but from God's mercy." You see that Augustine, when he has denied to man the power of well-doing, also overthrows any worth of merit. Moreover, Chrysostom says: "Our works, if there are any that follow the freely given call of God, are repayment and debt, but God's gifts are grace and beneficence and great generosity."

-John Calvin, Institutes 3.15.2

Ten Lessons From Great Christian Minds

I thought this was a pretty cool post from the blog Between Two Worlds. I've read works from all of these men and Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, a Kempis, Wesley and Dostoyevsky have all done a lot to shape my thinking. The one Christian writer not on the list who has also had a big influence on me is John Bunyan and his work, The Pilgrim's Progress.

From philosophy professor James Spiegel:

1. Augustine (5th century): Remember that you are a citizen of another kingdom.
   
2. Martin Luther (16th century): Expect politicians to be corrupt.
3. Thomas Aquinas (13th century): God has made himself known in nature.
4. John Calvin (16th century): God is sovereign over all, including our suffering.
5. Jonathan Edwards (18th century): God is beautiful, and all beauty is divine.
6. Thomas a’Kempis (15th century): Practice self-denial with a passion.
7. John Wesley (18th century): Be disciplined and make the best use of your time.
   
8. Fyodor Dostoevsky (19th century): God’s grace can reach anyone.
9. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (20th century): Beware of cheap grace.
10. Alvin Plantinga (21st century): Moral virtue is crucial for intellectual health.

H/T: Between Two Worlds

Rabboni!

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?"Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). - John 20:11-16

This Easter story, where Mary Magdalene exclaims "Rabboni!" has been one of my favorite Resurrection stories for a long time. I remember hearing this story read when my family would go to Easter sunrise services early in the morning on the banks of the Lewis River. I think what strikes me about this story is the almost palpable emotion of Mary who is at first described as weeping. I always imagined it being dark and Mary having tears in her eyes when she turned and failed at first to recognize her Lord. But Jesus calls her by name and Mary's one word reply of "Rabboni" is a single word of Scripture which has always affected me greatly.

I like what Calvin has to say in his commentary on the passage. On Jesus calling Mary by name Calvin writes, "That voice of the Shepherd, therefore, enters into Mary's heart, opens her eyes, arouses all her senses, and affects her in such a manner, that she immediately surrenders herself to Christ." On Mary's reply to Jesus, Calvin writes, "The efficacy of the address [Rabboni] is evident from this circumstance, that Mary immediately renders to Christ the honor which is due to him; for the word Rabboni is not only respectful, but involves a profession of obedience. Mary therefore declares, that she is a disciple of Christ, and submits to him as her Master. This is a secret and wonderful change effected on the human understanding, when God, enlightening her by his Spirit, renders her clear-sighted, who formerly was slow of apprehension, and, indeed, altogether blind. Besides, the example of Mary ought to serve the purpose of exhortation, that all whom Christ invites to himself may reply to him without delay."

Christ: Sacrifice and Victor

Yet we must not understand that he fell under a curse that overwhelmed him; rather - in taking the curse upon himself - he crushed, broke, and scattered its whole force. Hence faith apprehends an acquittal in the condemnation of Christ, a blessing in his curse. Paul with good reason, therefore, magnificently proclaims the triumph that Christ obtained for himself on the cross, as if the cross, which was full of shame, had been changed into a triumphal chariot! For he says that "Christ nailed to the cross the written bond which stood against us . . . and disarmed the principalities . . . and made a public example of them" [Col. 2:14-15]. And no wonder! For "Christ . . . through the eternal Spirit offered himself," as another apostle testifies [Heb. 9:14]. From this came that transmutation of nature. But that these things may take root firmly and deeply in our hearts, let us keep sacrifice and cleansing constantly in mind. For we could not believe with assurance that Christ is our redemption, ransom, and propitiation unless he had been a sacrificial victim. Blood is accordingly mentioned wherever Scripture discusses the mode of redemption. Yet Christ's shed blood served, not only as a satisfaction, but also as a laver [cf. Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; Rev. 1:5] to wash away our corruption.

-John Calvin, Institutes 2.16.6

The Wonderful Exchange

I live in a house with five other med students, all of whom are Christians, and lately the topic of the Eucharist has come up in our conversations. My housemates strongly take the typically Protestant "Symbolic" view while I've tried to argue for what would probably be described as a more Lutheran view, the Presence of Christ being spiritually, "with the bread, in the bread, and under the bread." So last night to take a break from studying I cracked open John Calvin's Institutes to look at his view on the Eucharist once again. It's not that I haven't looked at it before. When I was at Asbury Seminary I wrote a paper on it but Calvin's view was confusing enough for me that I felt the need to refresh my memory. This post really isn't about the Eucharist though because I simply wanted to post a wonderful sentence from Calvin that I came across while I was reviewing his theology of the Sacrament. So here it is:

This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, becoming Son of man with us, he has made us sons of God with him; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.

- John Calvin, Institutes 4.17.2

Calvin on Holiness

I love this quote from Calvin's Institutes.

Now what is to be learned from the law can be readily understood: that God, as he is our Creator, has toward us by right the place of Father and Lord; for this reason we owe him glory, reverence, love, and fear; verily, that we have no right to follow the mind’s caprice wherever it impels us, but, dependent upon his will, ought to stand firm in that alone which is pleasing to him; then, that righteousness and uprightness are pleasing to him, but he abominates wickedness; and that, for this reason, unless we turn away from our Creator in impious ingratitude, we must cherish righteousness all our life. For if only when we prefer his will to our own do we render to him the reverence that is his due, it follows that the only lawful worship of him is the observance of righteousness, holiness, and purity.

John Calvin, Institutes 2.8.2

End of Semester Insanity

The end of my last semester at Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky draws near and my attention is focused on three large term papers I must finish by May 13th. I've taken some of the best classes I've ever had in any university setting this semester and all three papers should prove interesting. My classes this semester were "The Philosophy of C.S. Lewis" and "The Problem of Evil" with Dr. Walls and "The Theology of John Calvin" with Dr. O'Malley. Doctors Walls and O'Malley are two of my favorite professors here and the content of the courses has been quite good. I thought the subjects of my term papers might interest some of you so I describe them here below along with the appropriate illustrations:It's been cool taking a Calvin course at an Arminian seminary. I haven't yet taken our systematic theology (Basic Christian Doctrine) so the only systematic I will have taken on campus will have been John Calvin's. For class we've read the majority of The Institutes and a good biography by Wendell. My paper will focus on Calvin's idea of the third use of the law, how that theology affected his pastoral ministry and then compare that to Luther's concept of the law and how that affected his ministry. I'm not a fan of all of Calvin's theology but I do like his third use of the law. Basically, Calvin said that the law was useful to instruct Christians to lead a holy life. This is contrary to Luther's view where after a person is saved the law no longer has any claim on a person's life. “If I look to myself,” said Luther, “then all is flesh, all is sin. If I look to Christ, I am completely holy and pure, and I know nothing at all about the Law.”
I chose the cover of David Bentley Hart's book The Doors of the Sea as the illustration for my Problem of Evil class because I thought it was such a poetic and profound account of the problem of evil and theodicy. I highly recommend this book! This class has been the best I've taken at Asbury. The readings have been intensely interesting and the class discussions enlightening. I became interested in one theme from The Doors of the Sea - that of the problem of natural evil. Hart suggests that natural evil could be the result of demonic activity. I'm going to go at this problem, trying to defend the thesis that natural evil is actually the result of a corruption of creation resulting from the fall. I'm going to check out some commentaries on Romans 8:20-21, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God," and go from there. I've started on my Lewis term paper and hope to finish it tomorrow. I'm exploring some ideas surrounding one of the characters from Lewis' The Great Divorce. The character is the liberal Episcopal bishop. The bishop has taken a bus ride from hell into heaven and has a discussion with a former friend and classmate who is in heaven. The chapter is a wonderful indictment of liberal theology and I would say also much of postmodern thought. Let's just say I bring a lot of passion to this subject - I grew up in a liberal church and I'm still recovering. I think a lot of Christians, epecially those who have always been around evangelicals or fundies, are very ignorant of the serious dangers of liberal theology. I love what one of my professor's Lawson Stone had to say about liberalism, "I personally believe it to be the most effective heresy Satan ever fomented on the church."

Well, now I've spent another hour procrastinating. God's Peace.