We find this an unhelpful post on Calvin's Institutes. A very regrettable comment, to wit, about enjoying theological debate, as if this was our duty. It had an unfortunate tone, given the subject under discussion, e.g. predestination. That is a subject for humility, caution, and a bent knee and bowed neck, not pedantry and arguments---and this from me, this scribbler, a resolute Calvinist. We wish that Ref21 would offer more substantial comments on the Institutes than this. It isn't very helpful; we've noticed a snarky and immature comment yesterday, something we hope does not reoccur; that sword cuts two ways.
"What else do prophets [pastors] do but continually preach God's free call?" So Calvin ends paragraph 1 of this section on the thorny issue of election to salvation and of reprobation. I was stumped by this. Should we not juts substitute prophets with all who call themselves disciples of Christ? This is the gospel of mercy, "nothing but God's free mercy" is how Calvin puts it; this is the gospel of unbounded grace; and this is the gospel of his "free goodness."
No doubt you and I will read over these paragraphs to be equipped for a good theological debate-and who doesn't like one of those. But could we just linger over this last line of Calvin's from 3.24.1? I'll be the first to confess. It calls me up way short. What a gracious God we have. What a privilege to be ministers of his gospel, whether or not we get paid for it. Why do we neglect our duty?
1 comment:
I don't see what was offensive about the remark. Nichols doesn't actually say anything in the blog about what Calvin means by "free calling" and "free mercy." If you will actually read 3.24.1, in both references to "free mercy" and "free calling" Calvin is speaking of election and the effectual calling of the elect, not an alleged "free offer" of the Gospel to the reprobate and the elect alike.
Anyway, truth is worth debating. Running away from the truth leads to error for the sake of compromise. On the other hand, we ought to decide what is primary doctrine, worth fighting over, and what is secondary doctrine, which is not worth fighting over. Article 17 makes it clear that the predestination of the elect is a primary doctrine from the Reformed Anglican perspective.
Post a Comment