Reformation Day 2013: Desultory Musings on the Fall (Genesis 3)

The Fall:  Genesis 3

Reformation Day 2013 when the doctrine of the Fall was readjusted to Biblical parameters. It was unquestionably Augustinian from Luther to Calvin to old Thomas in Canterbury. A few musings.

The Fall: Genesis 3

Desultory notes and musings.

A few chief questions for musings and review: (1) What happens pastorally and liturgically when the doctrine of the fall and total depravity is adjusted, mitigated? This much and to its credit, the old Book of Common Prayer in the daily offices and Holy Communion kept the ship “in the channel,” indubitably. The Great Reformation Confessions and catechisms helped to keep the ship "in the channel." (2) If readjusted however, what other doctrines suffer? Scripture, God, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology? We believe that if you go awry here, inescapably, one ends up with a "works-salvation" doctrine, a false Gospel, be it Arminian, American evangelical, high Tractarian sacerdotalism (ex opera operato), Romanism, and more. Rome's Gospel, despite having devout people and even, despite the doctrine, justified people, is a false Gospel, but we digress. Back to desultory connections.

Some notes:

1. Romans: all are under guilt and the power of sin. It is the reign of sin and exposes all humans to divine wrath. Rom 1.18, 19; 3.9, 19; 5. 17, 21

2. Putting the law aside (an instrument to expose the sinfulness of sin) and thinking of natural revelation alone (e.g. Rom. 1.18ff, inter alia, e.g. notably the Old Testament prophets), a word from Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Cornelius “Uncle Cornie” Van Til: "We may say that men ought to have concluded [from natural revelation] that the outcome of his failure to recognize the God whom he should serve would be his condemnation in eternal punishment. If they ought to know God as their Creator and ought to know him as the one from whom they had revolted, they ought also to conclude that this creator would put sinners out of his presence forever." Old "Uncle Cornie" was often difficult to understand (his books), but when he preached (without notes), he was as clear as could be; he was perspicuously clear and was one of those men who knew the Bible by heart, nearly, verse by verse, reminiscent of that old and godly Bishop, Dr. Theophilus Herter, the only man I'll call Bishop these days. Maybe RC Sproul as a friend and mentor. But, old "Uncle Cornie" was clear in his preaching. He was always predictable too; he'd start in Genesis and end up in Revelation, over and over, sermon by sermon. God has been good to me...to give me men like this along the way. Back on track.

3. Paul interprets Genesis and traces sin back to the common ancestor, Adam. The lapse or fall away from God and godliness involves sin, guilt, and judgment.

4. There are two Headmen, the First and Second Adams. The first Headman, or covenantal Headman, Adam: his fall and sin involves all The Second Headman, the covenantal Headman, the Second Adam, brings the fruits and benefits to His people. These terms: Headman, federal head, First and Second Adams, need to have greater frequency in use. For readers reading in other FB pages or blogs, we recommend using these terms as "probing points."

5. The first Adam was in a state of happiness, peace, and communion with God. This was promised to him and posterity upon a lawful condition: fidelity, steadfastness, duty, loyalty, decency and unbroken honor to God, His Word…standing and abiding honor and belief in His Highest Majesty in all His glory, dignity, and sovereignty. In essence, God hath said and thus we shall live.

6. Adam broke rank--a buck private, as it were and if we may, before a General--as a puny creature and was beguiled by his wife, Eve, and the serpent (Satan disguised as a serpent, 2 Cor. 11.3ff.; Rev. 12.9). His entire nature was involved and corrupted: mind, will, affections and body. In consequence, as the early chapters of Genesis unfold, we learn of an anti-God, self-serving, self-idolizing, self-assertive, lawless, disordered, refractory, rebellious, alienating, blinded, corrupt, murderous, and lying lifestyle, mindset, and worldview. It cannot be over-stated. Adam’s descendents become gripped and totally enslaved by guilt, pollution and desperate moral nakedness before the infinitely Holy and Just God. On Reformation Day 2013, it would be warranted to pull Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will off the shelf. Laymen should indeed read this ever-accessible, ever-readable, ever-theological and ever-pastoral Luther. If you don't have it and haven't read it, you--if you wish to be discerning--must read. He's available at extremely low prices at: http://www.amazon.com/Bondage-Will-The-J-Packer/dp/0800753429/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1383242742&sr=8-2&keywords=martin+luther+bondage+of+the+will

7. But, God is rich in mercy, kindness, grace, and voluntary condescension to the rebels. We recommend a few volumes: Westminster Confession of Faith (chaps 5-19), Witsius on the Economy of the Divine Covenants, Hengstenberg's History of the Kingdom Under the Old Testament, De Graaf's very accessible Promise and Deliverance as well as this FB and blog page, ever-devoted to these matters. But, back on track. The divine promise to save, redeem and reverse the serpentine curse is issued (Gen. 3.15, loc. cit.). God is truly and exclusively Adam’s one and only Redeemer. And, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Three-in-One, speak the word of rescue, hope, and promise. There is none of this Romanist and Tractarian nonsense of invoking other mediators; Tractarians have resuscitated paganism within Anglicanism.

8. Adam is linked to Noah, Abraham, the patriarchs, the elect in Israel, to Christ Himself (see geneaologies, Mt. 1.1-18; Lk. 3.23-38), and the elect amongst the nations of the world (Eph.1.4ff; Rom. 9-11, inter alia.) God is not willing that a single one of His elect shall perish; His Majesty will, as it were, hold off on the Second Advent until the very last one is redeemed (2 Pet. 3.9, a text so routinely abused by these rebellious, refractory and self-assertive Arminians). Throughout the Old Testament, all are shown to be sinners: think of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for example. Everyone dies too; see the careful records of Gen. 50.22-26; even old Benny Hinn and Paul Grouch Sr., faith healers and false prophets, will die despite their lies. “In Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15.22).

9. In short, after the Fall, the continuing narrative is one of sin and rebellious lawlessness; in tandem with that record, the narrative is also that of God’s grace, redemption and promise. “Promise and Deliverance.”

Now, what are the consequences--on a very wide front--of altering these instructions?

Happy Reformation Day 2013.

Reformation Day 2013: Martin Luther (Full, 2-Hr. Movie) & Hat Tip to Tractarian Central

Reformation 2013: Luther's Theses v. "Tractarian Central ACNA"

Reformation Day 2013: R.C. Sproul on Perils Facing Evangelicals (& ACNA)

Or, perils facing American Anglicans: smoking the peace pipe with "Tractarian-Central" in the ACNA under the guise of unctuous piety and without doctrinal-confessional discipline, insights or concerns. 

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/perils-facing-evangelical-church/

The Perils Facing the Evangelical Church

from R.C. Sproul Oct 28, 2013                 

           

When we consider the predicament that the evangelical church of the twenty-first century faces in America, the first thing we need to understand is the very designation “evangelical church” is itself a redundancy. If a church is not evangelical, it is not an authentic church. The redundancy is similar to the language that we hear by which people are described as “born-again Christians.” If a person is born again of the Spirit of God, that person is, to be sure, a Christian. If a person is not regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he may profess to be a Christian, but he is not an authentic Christian. There are many groups that claim to be churches that long ago repudiated the evangel, that is, the gospel. Without the gospel, a gathering of people, though they claim otherwise, cannot be an authentic church.

In the sixteenth century, the term evangelical came into prominence as a description of the Protestant church. In many cases, the terms evangelical and Protestant were used interchangeably. Today, that synonymous use of the adjectives no longer functions with any accuracy. Historic Protestants have forgotten what they were protesting in the sixteenth century. The central protest of the Reformation church was the protest against the eclipse of the gospel that had taken place in the medieval church.

If a church is not evangelical, it is not an authentic church.

When we turn our attention to the first century, to the churches about which we learn from the biblical record, we know that all of the churches addressed in the New Testament, including the churches in Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, and the seven churches of Revelation, were evangelical churches. They all embraced the biblical gospel. Yet at the same time, these churches were different in their strengths, in their weaknesses, and in their compositions. An evangelical church is not necessarily a monolithic community. There may be unity among evangelical churches but not necessarily uniformity. The distinctions of the seven churches of Revelation are set forth clearly in that book. They manifest different greatnesses and frailties, but they all faced perils. Each confronted the dangers that assaulted the church in the first century. They faced hazards of varying proportions, but there was a common threat to the health of the New Testament church from many sides. Those dangers manifested in the first century are repeated in every age of the church. They certainly loom large at our time in the early years of the twenty-first century.

Among what I see as the three most critical perils the church faces today are, first of all, the loss of biblical truth. When the truth of the gospel is compromised or negotiated, the church ceases to be evangelical. We live in a time of crisis with respect to truth, where many churches see doctrine merely as something that divides. Therefore, they stress relationships over truth. That is a false distinction, as a commitment to truth is a commitment that should manifest itself in vital, living relationships. Relationships can never be a substitute for embracing the truth of God. So the either/or fallacy of doctrine or relationship cannot be maintained under careful biblical scrutiny.

A second widespread peril to the church today is the loss of any sense of discipline. When the church fails to discipline its members for gross and heinous sins, particularly sins of a public nature, that community becomes infected with the immorality of the secular culture. This occurs when the church so desperately wants to be accepted by the pagan culture that it adopts the very morality of the pagan community and imitates it, baptizing it with religious language.

The third crucial peril facing the church today is the loss of faithful worship. There are different styles of worship that can be pleasing to God. However, all worship that is pleasing to God is worship grounded in Spirit and in truth. We can have lively worship, manifesting great interest and excitement, with doctrine and truth eliminated. On the other hand, we can have what some call a dead orthodoxy, where the creedal truths of the historic Christian faith remain central to the worship of the church, but the worship itself does not flow from the heart and lacks spiritual vitality.

For the rest, see:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/perils-facing-evangelical-church/

Reformation Day 2013: "Is the Reformation Over?"

Is the Reformation Over? John Calvin, Roman Catholicism, and Contemporary Ecumenical Conversations

Scott M. Manetsch
Scott Manetsch is professor of church history and chair of the church history department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.     

                    

Is the Reformation over? At first blush, this question would appear to be a rather peculiar one to ask. Of course the Reformation is over—if by that term we mean the particular constellation of religious, political, and social events in sixteenth-century Europe that led to the division of Western Christendom and the renewal of early modern Christianity. In recent years, however, the question “Is the Reformation over?” has served as a placeholder for a different set of issues, addressing the nature of contemporary Roman Catholicism and its relation to historic Protestantism. The issues are complex and controversial: To what degree has the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council effectively redressed the central theological and religious concerns posed by sixteenth-century Protestant leaders such as Martin Luther or John Calvin? Has the historic agreement reached between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999—known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ)—successfully pacified the centuries-long controversy over the doctrine of justification by faith alone? 2 And irrespective of real theological differences, is it strategic and wise for Christians in the Western world to continue to divide over matters of doctrine in the face of radical Islam and rampant secularism?

Moreover, some contemporary evangelicals outside historic Protestant churches may wonder if the question “Is the Reformation over?” holds any relevance for them at all. Should evangelicals remain wedded to theological constructions framed by religious controversies that occurred nearly 500 years ago?

In 2005, evangelical historian Mark Noll and free-lance Christian author Carolyn Nystrom addressed these issues in a book entitled (appropriately enough) Is the Reformation Over? 3 In this highly acclaimed work, Noll and Nystrom survey the history of Catholic-Protestant controversies in North America over the past three centuries. The authors call particular attention to the seismic shift in evangelical attitudes toward Roman Catholics since the Second Vatican Council. In recent years, they note, much of the historic mistrust and antagonism between evangelicals and Catholics has been set aside for a new spirit of cooperation and mutual support. Today evangelical Protestants in the United States make common cause with their Catholic neighbors on a variety of important political and social issues. At the same time, a sizeable number of evangelicals admire Catholic leaders such as Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa, and they look to traditional works of Catholic spirituality and modern Catholic devotional literature for inspiration and spiritual nourishment. In addition to these shifting popular attitudes, Noll and Nystrom point to the sustained ecumenical dialogues between Catholic and evangelical scholars over the past fifteen years—known collectively as Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT)—as evidence of substantive theological rapprochement between the two religious camps. The most impressive fruit of these unofficial dialogues, the authors believe, is the agreement on the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone as formulated at ECT II4.

Should we conclude, then, that the Reformation is over? For Noll and Nystrom, the answer is “No” and “Yes.” No, the Reformation is not over in the sense that important theological differences continue to divide American evangelicals and Roman Catholics—most notably their conflicting understandings of the Church, the primacy of the Pope, and the Marian doctrines. On the other hand, Noll and Nystrom believe that ecumenical accords such as ECT II and JDDJ signal that the Reformation divide over justification has been successfully bridged. The authors, thus, conclude, “If it is true . . . that iustificatio articulis stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae (justification is the article on which the church stands or falls), then the Reformation is over.”5

Noll and Nystrom’s book Is the Reformation Over? has garnered both praise and criticism. The evangelical periodical Christianity Today awarded the book “honorable mention” in its 2006 book awards. Evangelical leader J. I. Packer praised the book for its “superb theological journalism.” 6

Other scholars have been far less positive. While acknowledging the book’s usefulness as a historical survey of Catholic-Protestant relationships, several reviewers (including myself) question the quality of theological analysis and dispute the accuracy of a number of the book’s conclusions.7

One thing is clear, however: Noll and Nystrom’s book has been read widely, and it has played a not insignificant role in shaping American evangelicals’ perceptions of contemporary Roman Catholicism. A good example of this is seen in the case of Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. When Beckwith, announced his decision to convert back to the Roman Catholic Church in 2006, one of the factors he listed that influenced his decision was reading the book Is the Reformation Over?8

Because of the limitations of space and the range of my own expertise, I will explore the question “Is the Reformation over?” from a slightly unconventional angle. Instead of examining Catholic theological formulations since Vatican II or describing ecumenical conversations of the past four decades or reviewing relevant material in the authoritative Catholic Catechism (rev. 1994), this essay focuses on the fundamental religious and theological concerns of one Protestant reformer, John Calvin, as he engaged Catholic opponents between 1539 and 1549. Several words of explanation are in order.

1. I am convinced that before we answer the question “Is the Reformation over?” we must first clearly define the nature of the Protestant Reformation, or more precisely, the primary theological convictions that set Protestant churchmen at odds with the late medieval Church. If contemporary ecumenical dialogues are to be conducted with historical integrity, they must take seriously the substantial theological and religious disagreements that caused ecclesial division in the first place.

2. Why John Calvin? Admittedly, it is hazardous to present one sixteenth-century reformer as representative of a religious movement as complex and variegated as the “Protestant Reformation.” Nevertheless, Calvin was recognized in his own day as one of the most insightful and articulate Protestant theologians who rigorously engaged and critiqued Roman Catholic theology. 9 Though few magisterial reformers endorsed all of Calvin’s conclusions, documentary evidence indicates theologians such as Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Pierre Viret did read and approve of the general substance of Calvin’s argument against his Catholic opponents.

3. Finally, I have chosen to focus my analysis on a select number of Calvin’s writings from 1539 to 1549, a decade (as we shall see) when Calvin was intensively engaged in defending the Protestant cause against papal and imperial threats. Several of these treatises are relatively unknown, yet they provide important insights into the reasons that Calvin believed that religious reformation was necessary to preserve the Christian gospel and protect the purity of Christ’s Church.
This essay proceeds as follows: §1 briefly surveys Calvin’s engagement with Roman Catholic opponents from 1539 to 1549. §2 highlights important theological themes found in Calvin’s writings of this period that shed light on his distinctive priorities and theological concerns as they relate to Catholic theology and practice. §3 concludes with five brief observations drawn from Calvin’s theological writings that seem particularly relevant for contemporary ecumenical discussions between evangelical Protestants and Catholics.
 
1. A Decade of Debate: Calvin and Catholicism, 1539–1549

John Calvin is frequently remembered as the author of the Institutes and the writer of biblical commentaries. He is less well-known for the several dozen polemical writings that periodically issued from his pen during his career. For Calvin, defending Christian truth in print was a crucial dimension of his vocation as pastor and doctor of the church: “I would be a real coward if I saw God’s truth being attacked and remained quiet without a sound,” he once commented.10

A survey of Calvin’s polemical writings over the course of his career reveals a definite pattern: during the late 1530s and throughout the 1540s, his opponents more often than not were Roman Catholics, such as Louis Du Tillet, Jacob Sadoleto, Albert Pighius, Pope Paul III, and the Council of Trent. By contrast, during the 1550s, Calvin’s literary battles shifted to engaging Protestant opponents, such as the Lutheran pastor Joachim Westphal and the reformed scholar Sebastian Castellio. We begin with a brief survey of Calvin’s most important writings against Catholic opponents during the decade from 1539 to 1549.

Calvin’s first major polemical writing against Catholicism was thrust upon him. In 1539, Calvin was in the city of Strasbourg, serving as minister of the French congregation under the tutelage of the seasoned reformer Martin Bucer. Calvin had been expelled from Geneva the previous year, and he was still licking his wounds from the humiliating treatment he had received from the city council. With Calvin’s departure, the progress of reform had gone rather badly in Geneva, and Catholic authorities had seized upon the opportunity by enlisting Cardinal Jacob Sadoleto to write an open letter to Geneva’s citizens in order to woo them back to the Mother Church. With no one to answer Sadoleto, Geneva’s city council appealed to Calvin for help. That Calvin agreed to do this says a lot about his character and his sense of Christian duty. Calvin wrote his response to Sadoleto in six days in August of 1539.11

In this long epistle, Calvin defends the Genevan reformation as well as his own ministry as a reformer. He articulates the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith, the nature of the Church, and a reformed understanding of the sacraments. Calvin’s primary argument is that true Christianity is founded upon the Word of God, not the pronouncements and traditions of men. Calvin and the Protestants were not destroying the true Church, but seeking to restore it according to Scriptures, following the pattern of the ancient Church. Calvin comments,

You know, Sadoleto, . . . not only that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours, but that all we have attempted has been to renew the ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was after-award flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction.12

 
During Calvin’s three year sojourn in Strasbourg, Martin Bucer introduced him to the broader world of inter-confessional dialogue. In 1540–41, Bucer persuaded Calvin to accompany him to a series of religious colloquies at Haguenau, Worms, and finally Regensburg, aimed at achieving religious concord between Protestants and Catholics. “They are dragging me to Regensburg although I do not want to go at all,” Calvin complained.” 13 At Regensburg, Protestant theologians (such as Philip Melanchthon and Martin Bucer) and Catholic moderates (such as Gasparo Contarini, Johannes Gropper, and Johann Eck) tentatively agreed on key doctrines that divided them, including original sin, free will, and justification. 14 As a theological advisor, Calvin watched from the sidelines. He found the articulation of justification in Article 5 to be satisfactory, although somewhat vague. Writing to Guillaume Farel, Calvin reported:

You will be astonished . . . that our opponents have yielded so much, when you read the extracted copy. . . . Our friends have thus retained also the substance of the true doctrine. . . . [Y]ou will desire, I know, a more distinct explication and statement of the doctrine [of justification], and in that respect, you shall find me in complete agreement with yourself. However, if you consider with what kind of men we have to agree upon this doctrine, you will acknowledge that much has been accomplished.15

 
In the end, both Martin Luther and the pope rejected the Regensburg Agreement—including the article on justification. Long before this, Calvin had given up hope for true reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church and returned to Strasbourg. For the remainder of his career, Calvin was of the opinion that healing the breach between Rome and the Protestant churches was all but impossible.16

In the years following Calvin’s return to Geneva in 1541, he engaged Catholic opponents on a variety of fronts. In 1543, he wrote a sharp satirical work against the popular Catholic practice of venerating religious relics. Honoring the physical remains of martyrs and saints is not only foolish and superstitious, Calvin argued, but nothing short of idolatrous because it transfers to physical objects the worship and praise that belong to the living God alone.17

In the same year, Calvin offered a more substantial critique of Roman Catholic theology and practice in a long treatise entitled On the Necessity of Reforming the Church. 18 This work is addressed to Emperor Charles V, who had announced an Imperial Diet to be held at Speyer early in 1543.

Comprising more than one hundred pages in the Latin original, this treatise describes in detail the myriad of errors of Roman Catholic teaching on worship, salvation, the sacraments, and church leadership, showing the ways that false doctrine translated into religious practices that were abusive, superstitious, and even pagan. Given the church’s desperate condition, Calvin urges the emperor to undertake the cause of religious reformation in the German lands by summoning a religious council. This was the emperor’s responsibility; this was God’s command: “[T]he church should be restored to true order, and its most corrupt condition reformed, according to the strict standards of the gospel.”  Calvin’s treatise On the Necessity of Reforming the Church19, which went through eight editions in the half century that followed, was read with approval by Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Martin Bucer. 20 There is no evidence that Emperor Charles V ever saw it or read it.
By the time that Pope Paul III finally convened a General Church Council at Trent in December 1545, the window of opportunity for religious reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants had closed. In the first phase of the Council, which met in eight sessions from 1545 to 1547, the roughly forty clergymen in attendance addressed and rejected central doctrines of the Protestants. The council condemned the doctrines of sola scriptura and justification by faith alone. At the same time, it reaffirmed the Roman Church’s traditional teachings on original sin, baptism, the Mass, penance, purgatory, the priority of the Vulgate and the authority of Apocryphal books.21

The first phase of Trent had scarcely concluded before Calvin’s friends were urging him to respond. By the end of 1547, Calvin had rushed to publication a printed version of the Acts of the Council of Trent, with his Antidote that answered Catholic arguments point by point. 22 Calvin’s theological analysis in the Antidote is incisive, even as his tone is sharp and sometimes abusive. Calvin ridicules the notion that the Catholic Council is infallible: the forty clergymen in attendance were drawn from the “dregs” of the church; they are a bunch of “garrulous and audacious monks, some of whom hunt after mitres, and others after cardinals’ hats.” Consequently, “[t]he proclamation of the Council is entitled to no more weight than the cry of an auctioneer.” 23 The Catholics at Trent boast of their “specious reformation” (speciosa reformatio) but refuse to address the myriad of problems in the Church. Calvin summarizes Protestant grievances as follows:

We complain that the whole doctrine of godliness is adulterated by impious dogma; that the whole worship of God is vitiated by foul and disgraceful superstitions; that the pure institution of the sacraments has been supplanted by horrible sacrilege; that their use has been converted into a profane trafficking; that poor souls, which ought to have been ruled by the doctrine of Christ, are oppressed by cruel bondage; that nothing is seen in the Christian Church that is not deformed and debased; that the grace of Christ not only lies half-buried, but is partly torn to pieces, partly altogether extinguished. Calvin’s frustration and bitterness are palpable in the Antidote. Despite repeated calls for religious reform, the Council of Trent in Calvin’s view had done nothing but condemn the Protestants, reaffirm errant Catholic dogma, and tighten the yoke of tyranny over faithful Christian people.24

The final major treatise that Calvin wrote against Catholic opponents appeared in 1549 under the title The Adultero-German Interim. 25 Like the Antidote, Calvin wrote it in response to a specific confessional crisis. After more than two decades of empty threats, Emperor Charles V finally found the political opportunity in 1547 to wage war against the Lutheran princes who made up the Schmalkaldic League. On April 23, 1547, imperial forces won a stunning victory at Mühlenberg over Johann Friedrich, the Elector of Saxony. Over the next months, Charles imposed on Lutheran territories and cities the so-called Augsburg Interim, a temporary religious settlement that required Protestants to subscribe to a moderate statement of Catholic doctrine which, among other things, recognized the existence of married clergy and allowed laity to receive communion in both kinds.26


Several Protestant reformers, most notably Philip Melanchthon, were willing to accommodate themselves to this uncomfortable arrangement. Calvin, by contrast, was horrified and soon published the text of the Interim with a lengthy commentary on each doctrinal point. Calvin’s Adultero-German Interim represents one of the clearest and most comprehensive statements of what he believed to be the fundamental doctrines dividing Catholics and Protestants. Its popularity in the sixteenth century is attested by the fact that it reappeared in ten editions during the following two decades.


In Calvin’s mind, there was no room for compromise. To do so, would be to mix Christ and Baal, indeed, to settle for “half of Christ.” 27 In order he treats justification by faith, confession of guilt and penance, the nature of the true Church, the authority of Scripture, papal primacy, the Catholic sacraments, intercession of the saints, fasting, celibacy, and ceremonies. On all these points, Calvin is clear: any doctrinal accommodation is impious, indeed sacrilegious. Certainly Christian unity and the peace of the Churches is desirable. But Protestants must reject all “terms of peace which mingle the figments of men with the pure truth of God.”28

Calvin concludes his treatise by calling German Protestants to die, rather than sign the Augsburg Interim: “The time now demands that the faith which we have hitherto professed with the tongue and pen shall be sealed with our blood. . . . For an idol is set up, not to deform the external appearance of the sanctuary, but to defile and destroy the whole sanctity of the Church, to overthrow the entire worship of God, and leave nothing in our religion unpolluted.” 29 Clearly, Calvin was not attempting to build bridges with his Catholic opponents, but to expose the church of Rome as a false church that had fundamentally destroyed the Christian gospel.

2. Calvin’s Critique of Roman Catholicism

To detail each of the theological concerns articulated in Calvin’s writings against Catholic opponents from 1539 to 1549 would require an essay much longer than the present one. This section highlights only some of the most important or suggestive elements of Calvin’s argument against Roman Catholicism.

2.1. Scripture and Interpretation

Throughout his Catholic writings, Calvin emphasized that the Word of God, the Scripture, must serve as the norma normans, the determinative authority within Christ’s Church. The Word of God, states Calvin, “is like the Lydian stone, by which [the Church] tests all doctrines.” Indeed, “all controversies should be decided by thy Word.” 30 In his letter to Sadoleto, Calvin insists that the Church of Christ must be governed by both Word and Spirit: “seeing how dangerous it would be to boast of the Spirit without the Word, [our Lord] declared that the Church is indeed governed by the Holy Spirit, but in order that that government might not be vague and unstable, he annexed it to the Word.”  31


In Calvin’s eyes, one of the chief failures of the medieval church was that it had neglected the divine Scriptures. Scarcely one bishop in a hundred was willing or able to preach.  32Lay people were encouraged to venerate the Sacred Text, but they were not taught its message. In a rare auto-biographical comment in his Letter to Sadoleto, Calvin recalls his own experience:

I, O Lord, as I had been educated from a boy, always professed the Christian faith. But at first I had no other reason for my faith than that which then everywhere prevailed. Thy Word, which ought to have shone on all thy people like a lamp, was taken away, or at least suppressed as to us.33

 
Calvin believed that the consequences of such neglect were devastating. Once deprived of God’s Word, ignorant common people were victimized by the corrupt traditions of the medieval church and succumbed to pernicious errors, falsehoods, and superstition. 34 By contrast, one of the most important achievements of the Protestant Reformation, Calvin asserts, is to make the Word of God available to the people of God, whether through preaching, vernacular translations of the Scripture, or biblical commentaries. Calvin boasts, we “have thrown more light upon the Scriptures than all the doctors who have appeared under the Papacy since its commencement.”35

Calvin’s most detailed treatment of the authority of Scripture is found in the Antidote, his commentary on the early sessions of the Council of Trent. Here Calvin rehearses and rejects the four main conclusions that the Tridentine fathers made relative to the Scriptures: (1) Scripture and church tradition share equal authority in determining matters of doctrine; (2) the Apocryphal books are authentic Scripture; (3) the Latin Vulgate constitutes the authoritative version of the Church; and (4) the magisterium alone has the right to interpret Scripture.


To concede these points, Calvin argues, is to capitulate everything to the Catholics. For if one places the church’s oral traditions on equal footing with Scripture, then “whatever [doctrines] they produce, if supported by no authority of Scripture, will be classed among the traditions, which they insist should have the same authority as the Law and the Prophets.” 36 The same thing pertains to the exclusive privilege of interpretation. If the Roman magisterium is granted exclusive authority to interpret holy writ, then the papists will prove whatever they wish out of Scripture, turning God’s Word into a “wax nose.”37


 Calvin does acknowledge, however, the dangers of allowing private individuals to interpret the Scripture for themselves in every circumstance. Certainly, most biblical texts are clear, and everyone may correctly interpret them. But for a passage that is more obscure or difficult, it is “inappropriate [indignum] to refer it to the private will of man” alone. In such instances, he believes, a company of godly teachers well-versed in the Scriptures ought to undertake such interpretation: “in the case of an obscure passage, when it is doubtful what sense ought to be adopted, there is no better way of arriving at the true meaning than for pious doctors to make common inquiry, by engaging in religious discussion.” 38 For Calvin, then, Christian lay people are responsible to study and interpret the Word of God, but on difficult matters, they must submit to the judgment of godly leaders with special training in the biblical text.

For the rest, see:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/is_the_reformation_over_john_calvin_roman_catholicism_and_contemporary
 

Reformation Day 2013: Ligonier's View v. ACNA's New "Anti-Reformation" Catechism

The new ACNA catechism's anti-Reformation arguments vis a vis:  http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18192#.UnHAg4zD9jo:  "As a reflection of this perceived convergence between different schools of traditional Anglicanism, evangelical and catholic, Nelson thought the new catechism `intentionally avoided Rerformation era arguments.' However, this isn't at the expense of doctrine, claimed Nelson. `The weakness of previous versions (of the catechism) was a neglect of doctrinal content. We worked hard to shore that up.'"

Syncretism 101, dubbed "convergence."  More like willful amnesia, obfuscation, and artful incoherence, artfully sold with unctuous piety.

And now, a word from Ligonier Ministries.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-reformation-day-all-about/

What Is Reformation Day All About?

from Robert Rothwell Oct 30, 2013                

 

Tomorrow, much of the culture will be focused on candy and things that go bump in the night. Protestants, however, have something far more significant to celebrate on October 31. Tomorrow is Reformation day, which commemorates what was perhaps the greatest move of God’s Spirit since the days of the Apostles. But what is the significance of Reformation Day, and how should we consider the events it commemorates?

At the time, few would have suspected that the sound of a hammer striking the castle church door in Wittenberg, Germany, would soon be heard around the world and lead ultimately to the greatest transformation of Western society since the apostles first preached the Gospel throughout the Roman empire. Martin Luther’s nailing of his ninety-five theses to the church door on October 31, 1517, provoked a debate that culminated finally in what we now call the Protestant Reformation.

An heir of Bishop Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther is one of the most significant figures God has raised up since that time. This law student turned Augustinian monk became the center of a great controversy after his theses were copied and distributed throughout Europe. Initially protesting the pope’s attempt to sell salvation, Luther’s study of Scripture soon led him to oppose the church of Rome on issues including the primacy of the Bible over church tradition and the means by which we are found righteous in the sight of God.

This last issue is probably Luther’s most significant contribution to Christian theology. Though preached clearly in the New Testament and found in the writings of many of the church fathers, the medieval bishops and priests had largely forgotten the truth that our own good works can by no means merit God’s favor. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and good works result from our faith, they are not added to it as the grounds for our right standing in the Lord’s eyes (Eph. 2:8-10). Justification, God’s declaration that we are not guilty, forgiven of sin, and righteous in His sight comes because through our faith alone the Father imputes, or reckons to our account, the perfect righteousness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21).

Martin Luther’s rediscovery of this truth led to a whole host of other church and societal reforms and much of what we take for granted in the West would have likely been impossible had he never graced the scene. Luther’s translation of the Bible into German put the Word of God in the hands of the people, and today Scripture is available in the vernacular language of many countries, enabling lay people to study it with profit. He reformed the Latin mass by putting the liturgy in the common tongue so that non-scholars could hear and understand the preached word of God and worship the Lord with clarity. Luther lifted the unbiblical ban on marriage for the clergy and by his own teaching and example radically transformed the institution itself. He recaptured the biblical view of the priesthood of all believers, showing all people that their work had purpose and dignity because in it they can serve their Creator.

Today, Luther’s legacy lives on in the creeds and confessions of Protestant bodies worldwide. As we consider his importance this Reformation Day, let us equip ourselves to be knowledgeable proclaimers and defenders of biblical truth. May we be eager to preach the Gospel of God to the world and thereby spark a new reformation of church and culture.

Reformation Day 2013: Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer's "Homily on Justification"

H/t to Mr. (Rev.) David Ould at http://davidould.net/?p=6151&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+davidould+%28David+Ould%29

Nothing better on Reformation Day then to be reminded of some classic Anglican teaching i.e. Reformed Protestantism

HOMILY ON THE SALVATION OF MANKIND

And so the justice of God and his mercy did embrace together, and fulfilled the mystery of our redemption. And of this justice and mercy of God knit together, speaketh S. Paul in the third Chap. to the Romans, All have offended, and have need of the glory of God, but are justified freely by his grace, by redemption which is in Jesu Christ, whom God hath sent forth to us for a reconciler and peace maker, through faith in his blood, to show his righteousness. And in the tenth Chap. Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness, to every man that believeth. And in the 8th chapter. That which was impossible by the law, in as much as it was weak by the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the similitude of sinful flesh, by sin damned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, which walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. In these foresaid places, the Apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification. Upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace: upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and upon our part true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by God’s working in us: so that in our justification, is not only Gods mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calleth the justice of God, and it consisteth in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law: and so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore S. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not mans only work, without God: And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out fro the office of justifying.
…
For our own imperfection is so great, through the corruption of original sin, that all is imperfect that is within us, faith, charity, hope, dread, thoughts, words, and works, and therefore not apt to merit and discern any part of our justification for us. And this form of speaking use we, in the humbling of ourselues to God, and to give all the glory to our Saviour Christ, which is best worthy to have it.
…
These great and merciful benefits of God (if they be well considered) … move us for his sake also to be ever ready to give ourselves to our neighbours, and as much as lieth in us, to study with all our endeavour, to do good to every man. These be the fruits of true faith, to do good as much as lieth in us to every man, and above all things, and in all things to advance the glory of God, of whom only we have our sanctification, justification, salvation, and redemption: to whom be ever glory, praise, and honour, world without end. Amen.

Reformation Day 2013: "Luther Nails 95 Theses to the Door"

Mr. (Abp.) Peter Jensen: "The Spiritual Reformation"

The Spiritual Reformation

Phillip is the Dean of Sydney at St Andrew's Cathedral, Australia and regularly preaches at the 10:30am gathering.

Originally Published:
27th October 2013

Return to the audio index.

Bible passage: John 2:13-3:8 2 Kings 23:1-30

Date: 27/10/2013

Outline

  John 2:13-3:8

1  The Symptoms that Cry for Reform

 a Josiah’s day

 b Jesus’ day

 c Luther’s day

 d our day

2 The Reform that addresses the Symptoms 

 a Josiah’s day

 b Jesus’ day

 c Luther’s day

 d our day

3 The Reform that addresses the Disease

 a Josiah’s day

 b Jesus’ day

 c Luther’s day

 d our day

4 The Changes that come of Spiritual Reform

 a Josiah’s day

 b Jesus’ day

 c Luther’s day

 d our day

- See more at: http://www.phillipjensen.com/audio/the-spiritual-reformation/#sthash.O93Z3V1H.dpuf