Sunday, October 25, 2015
What the OT ascribes to God alone, the NT transfers to Christ
"Whenever mention is made of the Deity, therefore, there must no opposition be admitted between the Father and the Son, as though the name of the true God belonged exclusively to the Father. For surely the God who appeared to Isaiah, was the only true God, whom, nevertheless, John affirms to have been Christ. He likewise, who by the mouth of Isaiah declared that he was to be a rock of offence to the Jews, was the only true God; whom Paul pronounces to have been Christ. He who proclaims by Isaiah, 'As I live, every knee shall bow to me,' is the only true God; but Paul applies the same to Christ. To the same purpose are the testimonies recited by the Apostle - 'Thou, Lord, has laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens;' and 'Let all the angels of God worship him.' These ascriptions belong only to the one true God; he contends that they are properly applied to Christ. Nor is there any force in that cavil, that what is proper to God is transferred to Christ, because he is the brightness of his glory." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XIII. XXIII.
Friday, October 16, 2015
God is good to those who LOVE Him and is a punisher of the wicked
"I do not yet allude to the peculiar covenant which distinguished the descendants of Abraham from the rest of the nations. For in receiving, by gratuitous adoption, those who were his enemies into the number of his children, God even then manifested himself as a Redeemer, but we are still treating of that knowledge which relates to creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator. But though it will be useful to cite some passages from the New Testament, (since that also demonstrates the power of God in the creation, and his providence in the conservation of the world,) yet I wish the reader to be apprized of the point now intended to be discussed, that he may not pass the limits which the subject prescribes. At present, then, let it suffice to understand how God, the former of heaven and earth, governs the world which he hath made. Both his parental goodness, and the beneficent inclinations of his will, are every where celebrated; and examples are given of his severity, which discover him to be the righteous punisher of iniquities, especially where his forbearance produces no salutary effects upon the obstinate." - John Calvin, I. X. I.
In one sense I read this and it seems to speak against the conclusion of common grace in Calvin. Especially when in Book 1 he is speaking about the general knowledge of God and how we derive such knowledge.
In one sense I read this and it seems to speak against the conclusion of common grace in Calvin. Especially when in Book 1 he is speaking about the general knowledge of God and how we derive such knowledge.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
The Spirit uses the word of God alone to speak to his people.
"How diabolical, then, is that madness which pretends that the use of the Scripture is only transient and temporary, which guides the sons of God to the highest point of perfection! I would also ask them another question - whether they have imbibed a different spirit from that which the Lord promised to his disciples? Great as their infatuation is, I do not think them fanatical enough to hazard such an avowal. But what kind of Spirit did he promise? One, truly, who should 'not speak of himself,' but suggest and instil into their minds those things which he had orally delivered. The office of the Spirit, then, which is promised to us, is not to feign new and unheard of revelations, or to coin a new system of doctrine, which would seduce us from the received doctrine of the Gospel, but to seal to our minds the same doctrine which the Gospel delivers." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. IX. I.
"But in the same place the Apostle also calls his preaching 'the ministration of the Spirit;' doubtless intending, that the Holy Spirit so adheres to his own truth, which he hath expressed in the Scriptures, that he only displaces and exerts his power where the word is received with due reverence and honour. Nor is this repugnant to what I before asserted, that the word itself has not much certainty with us, unless when confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord hath established a kind of mutual connection between the certainty of his word and of his Spirit; so that our minds are filled with a solid reverence for the word, when by the light of the Spirit we are enabled therein to behold the Divine countenance; and on the other hand, without the least fear of mistake, we gladly receive the Spirit, when we recognize him in his image, that is, in the word. This is the true state of the case." - Ibid. I. IX. III.
There is no separating the agency of the Holy Spirit from the knowledge of the truth. To know the truth is life eternal; and this life is begun and supported by the Spirit of Christ. On the other hand, all who resist the truth, and do not admit its evidence, are expressly said to resist the Holy Ghost. We ought not, then, to imagine, with the popular preachers that the gospel can in any respect be considered as a dead letter, or destitute of Divine power. For being the voice of God, it is unchangeably powerful to save all who believe it, and to destroy all who oppose it. Believers are said to grieve the Holy Spirit, when they neglect to hearken to the words of the gospel, and their consciences are answerably grieved, when they are brought to repentance. - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio
"But in the same place the Apostle also calls his preaching 'the ministration of the Spirit;' doubtless intending, that the Holy Spirit so adheres to his own truth, which he hath expressed in the Scriptures, that he only displaces and exerts his power where the word is received with due reverence and honour. Nor is this repugnant to what I before asserted, that the word itself has not much certainty with us, unless when confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord hath established a kind of mutual connection between the certainty of his word and of his Spirit; so that our minds are filled with a solid reverence for the word, when by the light of the Spirit we are enabled therein to behold the Divine countenance; and on the other hand, without the least fear of mistake, we gladly receive the Spirit, when we recognize him in his image, that is, in the word. This is the true state of the case." - Ibid. I. IX. III.
There is no separating the agency of the Holy Spirit from the knowledge of the truth. To know the truth is life eternal; and this life is begun and supported by the Spirit of Christ. On the other hand, all who resist the truth, and do not admit its evidence, are expressly said to resist the Holy Ghost. We ought not, then, to imagine, with the popular preachers that the gospel can in any respect be considered as a dead letter, or destitute of Divine power. For being the voice of God, it is unchangeably powerful to save all who believe it, and to destroy all who oppose it. Believers are said to grieve the Holy Spirit, when they neglect to hearken to the words of the gospel, and their consciences are answerably grieved, when they are brought to repentance. - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
We are persuaded of the authenticity of Scripture by God alone
"Let it be considered, then, as an undeniable truth, that they who have been inwardly taught by the Spirit, feel an entire acquiescence in the Scripture, and that it is self-authenticated, carrying with it its own evidence, and ought not to be made the subject of demonstration and arguments from reason, but it obtains the credit which it deserves with us by the testimony of the Spirit. For though it conciliate our reverence by its internal majesty, it never seriously affects us till it is confirmed by the Spirit in our hearts. Therefore, being illuminated by him, we now believe the divine original of the Scripture, not from our own judgment or that of others, but we esteem the certainty, that we have received it from God's own mouth by the ministry of men, to be superior to that of any human judgment, and equal to that of an intuitive perception of God himself in it. We seek not arguments or probabilities to support our judgment, but submit our judgments and understandings as to a thing concerning which it is impossible for us to judge; and that not like some person, who are in the habit of hastily embracing what they do not understand, which displeases them as soon as they examine it, but because we feel the firmest conviction that we hold an invincible truth; nor like those unhappy men who surrender their minds captives to superstitions, but because we perceive in it the undoubted energies of the Divine power, by which we are attracted and inflamed to an understanding and voluntary obedience, but with a vigour and efficacy superior to the power of any human will or knowledge." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. VII. V.
The Church is built on the foundation of the Scripture alone and not the other way around
The Apostle ". . . testifies that the church is 'built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets'. If the doctrine of the prophets and apostles be the foundation of the Church, it must have been certain, antecedently to the existence of the Church. Nor is there any foundation for this cavil, yet it remains doubtful what writings are to be ascribed to the prophets and apostles, unless it be determined by the Church. for if the Christian Church has been from the beginning founded on the writings of the prophets and the preaching of the apostles, wherever that doctrine is found, the approbation of it has certainly preceded the formation of the Church; since without it the Church itself had never existed. It is a very false notion, therefore, that the power of judging of the Scripture belongs to the Church, so as to make the certainty of it dependent on the Church's will. Wherefore, when the Church receives it, and seals it with her suffrage, she does not authenticate a thing otherwise dubious or controvertible, but, knowing it to be the truth of her God, performs a duty of piety, by treating it with immediate veneration." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. VII. II.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Nature does not give us knowledge of what God is
"The mystical theology of the Egyptians also shows that they all sedulously endeavoured to preserve the appearance of reason in the midst of their folly. And any thing apparently probable might at first sight, perhaps, deceive the simple and incautious; but there never was any human invention by which religion was not basely corrupted. And this confused diversity emboldened the Epicureans, and other gross despisers of piety, to reject all idea of God. For, seeing the wisest of men contending with each other for contrary opinions, they hesitated not, from their discussions, and from the frivolous and absurd doctrines maintained by the different parties, to infer, that it was vain and foolish for men to torment themselves with investigations concerning God, who does not exist. And this they thought they might do with impunity, supposing that a compendious denial of any God at all would be better than feigning uncertain gods, and thereby occasioning endless controversies. they reason very ignorantly, or rather endeavor to conceal their own impiety behind the ignorance of men, which not at all justifies any encroachment on God. But from the general confession, that there is no subject productive of so many dissensions among the learned as well as the unlearned, it is inferred, that the minds of men, which err so much in investigations concerning God, are extremely blind and stupid in celestial mysteries. Others commend the answers of Simonides, who, being asked by Hiero the Tyrant what God was, requested a day to consider it. When the tyrant, the next day, repeated the inquiry, he begged to be allowed two days longer; and, having often doubled the number of days, at length answered, 'The longer I consider the subject, the more obscure it appears to me.' He prudently suspended his opinion on a subject so obscure to him; yet this shows that men, who are taught only by nature, have no certain, sound, or distinct knowledge, but are confined to confused principles, so that they worship an unknown God." - John Calvin, The Institues, I. V. XII.
We are stupid apart and derive no advantage of the testimony of God in nature
"But, notwithstanding the clear representations given by God in the mirror of his works, both of himself and of his everlasting dominion, such is our stupidity, that, always inattentive to these obvious testimonies, we derive no advantage from them. For, with regard to the structure and very beautiful organization of the world, how few of us are there, who, when lifting up their eyes to heaven, or looking round on the various regions of the earth, direct their minds to the remembrance of the Creator, and do not rather content themselves with a view of his works, to the total neglect of their Author! And with respect to those things that daily happen out of the ordinary course of nature, is it not the general opinion, that men are rolled and whirled about by the blind temerity of fortune, rather than governed by the providence of God? Or if, by the guidance and direction of these things, we are ever driven (as all men must sometimes be) to the consideration of a God, yet, when we have rashly conceived an idea of some deity, we soon slide into our own carnal dreams, or depraved inventions, corrupting by our vanity the purity of divine truth. We differ from one another, in that each individual imbibes some peculiarity of error; but we perfectly agree in a universal departure from the one true God, to preposterous trifles. This disease affects, not only the vulgar and ignorant, but the most eminent, and those who, in other things, discover peculiar sagacity." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I.V.XI
The elect were chosen by the grace and mercy of God alone
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Romans 9
The argument goes something like this that God cannot be merciful to vessels that are unfallen, because mercy presupposes fallenness. But is this true? When one considers the end to which God chose the elect and the non - elect one ought to see that it was God's grace and mercy to save some and to damn others before they had done anything good or wrong.
Ultimately, God could have chosen to save person a rather than person b. But, He did not. Mercy and Grace are undeserved favors from God because those who are chosen to be saved had nothing in themselves for why God decided to save them.
Unlike, Molinism which says that their god knows all things whether what will happen or what could happen, God in Scripture knows all things before they happened and that he had also predestined those things to happened. For God to know something is for God to predestinated it. Nothing happens outside of His knowledge. Whatever happens in this life happens because God knows it will happen. So those whom He did Predestined, He Called, Justified, and Glorified.
The argument goes something like this that God cannot be merciful to vessels that are unfallen, because mercy presupposes fallenness. But is this true? When one considers the end to which God chose the elect and the non - elect one ought to see that it was God's grace and mercy to save some and to damn others before they had done anything good or wrong.
Ultimately, God could have chosen to save person a rather than person b. But, He did not. Mercy and Grace are undeserved favors from God because those who are chosen to be saved had nothing in themselves for why God decided to save them.
Unlike, Molinism which says that their god knows all things whether what will happen or what could happen, God in Scripture knows all things before they happened and that he had also predestined those things to happened. For God to know something is for God to predestinated it. Nothing happens outside of His knowledge. Whatever happens in this life happens because God knows it will happen. So those whom He did Predestined, He Called, Justified, and Glorified.
The only grounds of acceptance before God is the death of Christ alone imputed to the elect alone
When the Bible says in 1 John 3 that believers in Christ does not commit sin it does not at all say that believers do not continue to sin either by habit or accident. But what it is saying is simple the Bible tells us how to please God. It also tells us that no one has pleased God and that God will one day judge the nations on account of their sins. Now it also tells us the only ground of acceptance before God which is in Christ alone. For after the sin of the first parents who were our representatives all of us also fell in them. Because of this the law demanded our death for lack of perfect obedience. No one is righteous but that one that gave his life on the cross for the sins of the elect alone. It is this death that is now imputed to the elect so that in Him they live.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
What makes a Christian is not one's external works, but one's conscience
"Dr. Karlstadt has fallen from the kingdom of Christ and has suffered shipwreck with respect to faith. Therefore he wants to get us out of the kingdom right into works and simply make Galatians of us also. For take note, dear reader, what gross blindness it is to fight as he does. 'If anyone circumcise himself, should he not in all fairness be called a Jew? Thus, whoever elevates is rightly called one who brings a sacrifice, etc.' You poor, miserable spirit, where on earth have you read that he is rightly called a Jew who circumcises himself? Did not Paul circumcise Timothy, when he was already baptized and a Christian? (Acts 16[:3]). Does not Paul declare circumcision a matter of free choice (1 Cor. 7[:19]), 'Neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision,' that is, one may circumcise himself or not have a foreskin or not. And this spirit pits his judgment blithely and boldly against that of Paul, saying it is not a matter of free choice, but makes one a Jew. he ought rather say that whoever circumcises himself as though he were compelled to do so by law and for conscience's sake, he is rightly a Jew. For circumcision does not make a Jew, since one does find those who due to illness or on account of an infection must be circumcised. Should they therefore be called Jews?
He, however, is a Jew who, compelled in his conscience by law, feels he must be circumcised. This Jewish disposition and conscience makes one a Jew, even if he never externally circumcised himself or could circumcised himself. The foreskin thus makes no one a Jew. But if he thinks in his conscience, he must have a foreskin, this one is a gentile, even if he permitted himself to be circumcised a thousand times externally. Similarly, since he thinks it necessary to have the foreskin and to condemn circumcision without leaving it free choice as Christ would have it, Dr. Karlstadt actually is a gentile and has lost Christ. Here one sees clearly how this man is completely swallowed up in works and drowned in external appearance, so that he is not able to give one single right judgment in spiritual matters of conscience. For it is impossible that a spark of Christian understanding should still be found in him, since he holds that an external work makes a Jew or Christian, gentile or Turk, and does not judge according to the conscience, but according to semblance and appearance, which even reasonable people do not do." -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 217-218
He, however, is a Jew who, compelled in his conscience by law, feels he must be circumcised. This Jewish disposition and conscience makes one a Jew, even if he never externally circumcised himself or could circumcised himself. The foreskin thus makes no one a Jew. But if he thinks in his conscience, he must have a foreskin, this one is a gentile, even if he permitted himself to be circumcised a thousand times externally. Similarly, since he thinks it necessary to have the foreskin and to condemn circumcision without leaving it free choice as Christ would have it, Dr. Karlstadt actually is a gentile and has lost Christ. Here one sees clearly how this man is completely swallowed up in works and drowned in external appearance, so that he is not able to give one single right judgment in spiritual matters of conscience. For it is impossible that a spark of Christian understanding should still be found in him, since he holds that an external work makes a Jew or Christian, gentile or Turk, and does not judge according to the conscience, but according to semblance and appearance, which even reasonable people do not do." -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 217-218
Those who do not speak clearly and do not attempt to do so have not the Spirit
"The Holy Spirit speaks well, clearly, in an orderly and distinct fashion. Satan mumbles and chews the words in his mouth and makes a hundred into a thousand. It is an effort to ascertain what he means." -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 196
God alone is our teacher and we do not go beyond what he has commanded.
"Teaching and doing are two things. I say, furthermore, that one should separate teaching and doing as far from each other as heaven from earth. Teaching belongs only to God. He has the right and the power to command, forbid, and be master over the conscience. However, to do and refrain from doing belong to us so that we may keep God's commandment and teaching. Where doing or to refrain from doing is in question, and concerning which God has taught, commanded, and forbidden nothing, there we should permit free choice as God himself has done. Whoever though goes beyond this by way of commandments or prohibition invades God's own sphere of action, burdens the conscience, creates sin and misery, and destroys all that God has left free and certain. In addition he expels the Holy Spirit with all his kingdom, work, and word, so that nothing but devils remain." - Martin Luther, Against the heavenly Prophets, Pg. 207
"Now, dear sirs, we are speaking of minor matters, insofar as the doing is concerned. For what does it mean to elevate the sacrament? But when the teaching is taken into account we are dealing with the most important matters. The factious spirit is too frivolous and meddles all too impudently in this matter. He has such a low regard for teaching and such a high regard for the doing that he does not see the beam in his own eye, and is too much concerned with the splinter in our eye [Matt. 7:5]. For with teaching he manhandles conscience, which Christ has won with his own blood, and kills souls, which God has dearly purchased, with commandments and sins. For thereby the kingdom of Christ will be destroyed and everything that the gospel has brought us exterminated. For Christ cannot remain in the conscience that goes whoring after alien teaching and the commandments of men. There faith must perish. Therefore let everyone know that Dr. Karlstadt has a spirit which is hostile to faith and to the whole kingdom of God, which be in turn would destroy with his conceit and human nonsense, as you may well understand from this part of the discussion and concerning which you will hear more later." - Ibid, Pg. 209
"Now, dear sirs, we are speaking of minor matters, insofar as the doing is concerned. For what does it mean to elevate the sacrament? But when the teaching is taken into account we are dealing with the most important matters. The factious spirit is too frivolous and meddles all too impudently in this matter. He has such a low regard for teaching and such a high regard for the doing that he does not see the beam in his own eye, and is too much concerned with the splinter in our eye [Matt. 7:5]. For with teaching he manhandles conscience, which Christ has won with his own blood, and kills souls, which God has dearly purchased, with commandments and sins. For thereby the kingdom of Christ will be destroyed and everything that the gospel has brought us exterminated. For Christ cannot remain in the conscience that goes whoring after alien teaching and the commandments of men. There faith must perish. Therefore let everyone know that Dr. Karlstadt has a spirit which is hostile to faith and to the whole kingdom of God, which be in turn would destroy with his conceit and human nonsense, as you may well understand from this part of the discussion and concerning which you will hear more later." - Ibid, Pg. 209
Christian Liberty where the commands of God do not clearly communicate
"Already, at an early date, we have taught Christian liberty from [the writings] of St. Paul. There is to be freedom of choice in everything that God has not clearly taught in the New Testament, for example, in matters pertaining to various foods, beverages, attire, places, persons and various forms of conduct [Rom. 14:2-6; 1 Cor. 8:8-10]. We are obligated to do nothing at all for God, except believe and love. Now tell me, where has Christ forbidden us to elevate the sacrament or commanded us to elevate it? Show me one little word, and I will yield. Yet Dr. Karlstadt ventures to burst out and say that it is forbidden by Christ, and considers it a sin as great as the denial of God. He is unable to prove this. Nor is it true. Is it not a woeful, pitiable blindness, so to burden souls with sin and murder them, and make laws where none exist?" -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 205-206
Friday, October 9, 2015
No man knows his Creator
"By the knowledge of God, I intend not merely a notion that there is such a Being. But also an acquaintance with whatever we ought to know concerning Him, conducing to his glory and our benefit. For we cannot with propriety say, there is any knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety. I have no reference here to that species of knowledge by which men, lost and condemned in themselves, apprehend God the Redeemer in Christ the Mediator; but only to that first and simple knowledge, to which the genuine order of nature would lead us, if Adam had retained his innocence. For though, in the present ruined state of human nature, no man will ever perceive God to be a Father, or the Author of salvation, or in any respect propitious, but as pacified by the mediation of Christ; yet it is one thing to understand, that God our Maker supports us by his power, governs us by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and follows us with blessings of every kind, and another to embrace the grace of reconciliation proposed to us in Christ. Therefore, since God is first manifested, both in the structure of the world and in the general tenor of Scripture, simply as the Creator, and afterwards reveals himself in the person of Christ as a Redeemer, hence arises a two-fold knowledge of him; of which the former is first to be considered, and the other will follow in its proper place." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.2.1
Someone might read this part of the Institutes and be unfamiliar with what Calvin is saying here. When he says 'there is no knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety', he speaks generally. He is proving the point that men are totally depraved and that there is no longer in man true knowledge of God that man believes or accepts. He is not saying that we know whether a Christian is a Christian if they perform good works or perform religious things.
Someone might read this part of the Institutes and be unfamiliar with what Calvin is saying here. When he says 'there is no knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety', he speaks generally. He is proving the point that men are totally depraved and that there is no longer in man true knowledge of God that man believes or accepts. He is not saying that we know whether a Christian is a Christian if they perform good works or perform religious things.
God is the author of sin
When we are tempted and we sin do not say that God is to blame for your sin or evil lust. Although, He is the author thereof, he is so only on the ground that he is the primary cause of your evil lust and action. However, God is not the author in the sense that he is the one who does the evil lust or action. In the WCF God is the primary cause who uses secondary causes chapter 3.
"1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
As for the verses, the Bible says in several places that He sends an evil spirit to some people. Also it says that he caused others to sin so that they would die. He causes kings to go to war. I think he sent a lying spirit to one so that he would be consumed.
The problem with permitting sin is that it does not remove God from responsibility. For instance, Augustine is known to say that Evil is just the absence of good. But if this is the case then why did God remove himself from the situation?
"Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
24And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies.
25He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.
26He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen.
27They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.
28He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word.
29He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish."
- Psalm 105
This verse does not say he permitted the Egyptians to hate his people but that he turned their hearts to hate his people.
"1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
As for the verses, the Bible says in several places that He sends an evil spirit to some people. Also it says that he caused others to sin so that they would die. He causes kings to go to war. I think he sent a lying spirit to one so that he would be consumed.
The problem with permitting sin is that it does not remove God from responsibility. For instance, Augustine is known to say that Evil is just the absence of good. But if this is the case then why did God remove himself from the situation?
"Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
24And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies.
25He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.
26He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen.
27They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.
28He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word.
29He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish."
- Psalm 105
This verse does not say he permitted the Egyptians to hate his people but that he turned their hearts to hate his people.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Nothing matters but that we guard the teaching and the faith
"Doctor Andreas Karlstadt has deserted us, and on top of that has become our worst enemy. May Christ grant that we be not alarmed, and give us his mind and courage, that we may not err and despair before the Satan who here pretends to vindicate the sacrament, but has much else in mind. For since he has not thus far been able to suppress with violence the whole doctrine of the gospel, he seeks to destroy it with cunning interpretation of Scripture.
Now I have foretold it, and my prophesying will become true (I'm afraid), that God will visit our ingratitude and permit the truth to be cast down, as Daniel says (Dan. 8:[12]). Because we persecute and do not accept the truth, we must again have vain error and false spirits and prophets. These have already been with us to some extent for three years, though thus far hindered by his grace. Otherwise they would long ago have wrought havoc in our ranks. Whether he will keep this disturbance in check any longer, I do not know, since no one cares, no one prays for it, and all are without fear, as though the devil were sleeping who, however, goes about as a furious lion [1 Pet. 5:8]. Although I hope restraint will not be lacking as long as I live. Therefore I personally, as long as I live, will resist insofar as God helps me, and help wherever possible. And this is my earnest, sincere warning and admonition:
First, that each one with complete earnestness pray God for a right understanding and for his holy, pure Word. In view of the fact that under such a mighty prince and god of this world - the devil -it is not within our power to preserve either the faith or God's Word, there must be divine power which protects it, as Psalm 12 well prays and says [Ps. 12:6-8], 'The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, purified seven times. Do thou, O Lord, protect us, guard us ever from this generation. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the sons of men." If we boast that we have God's word and do not take care as to how we are to keep it, it is soon lost.
Second, we, too, ought to do our part and not close our eyes, but be on our guard. For God nonetheless always holds his grace firmly over the world, so that he permits no false prophets to attempt anything except something external, such as works and subtle minute discoveries about external things. No one concerns himself with faith and a good conscience before God, but only with what glitters and shines before reason and the world. Just as the Arians apparently put up a good case in the court of reason, when they alleged that God was only one person, the Father, while the Son and the Holy Spirit were not true God.
Likewise, it was easy and pleasant for the Jews and Pelagians to believe that works without grace made one pious; and under the papacy it was said in an attractive way that the free will also contributes something toward grace. So, since it is in accord with reason, it sounds altogether pleasant to say that there is simply bread and wine in the sacrament. Who cannot believe that? If one only today would grant to the Jews that Christ was simply a man, I think it would be easy to convert them.
So our concern here should now be that we keep these two teachings far apart from each other: the one that teaches of the main articles, to govern the conscience in the spirit before God; the other, which teaches of things external or works. For more depends on the teaching of faith and a good conscience than on the teaching of good works. When works are lacking, help and counsel are at hand so that one can produce them if the teaching of faith remains firm and pure. But if the teaching of faith is placed in the background and works are put forward, then nothing can be good and there is neither counsel nor help. Then works lead to vain glory and seem to people to be something great, while God's glory disappears." - Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 157-158
Now I have foretold it, and my prophesying will become true (I'm afraid), that God will visit our ingratitude and permit the truth to be cast down, as Daniel says (Dan. 8:[12]). Because we persecute and do not accept the truth, we must again have vain error and false spirits and prophets. These have already been with us to some extent for three years, though thus far hindered by his grace. Otherwise they would long ago have wrought havoc in our ranks. Whether he will keep this disturbance in check any longer, I do not know, since no one cares, no one prays for it, and all are without fear, as though the devil were sleeping who, however, goes about as a furious lion [1 Pet. 5:8]. Although I hope restraint will not be lacking as long as I live. Therefore I personally, as long as I live, will resist insofar as God helps me, and help wherever possible. And this is my earnest, sincere warning and admonition:
First, that each one with complete earnestness pray God for a right understanding and for his holy, pure Word. In view of the fact that under such a mighty prince and god of this world - the devil -it is not within our power to preserve either the faith or God's Word, there must be divine power which protects it, as Psalm 12 well prays and says [Ps. 12:6-8], 'The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, purified seven times. Do thou, O Lord, protect us, guard us ever from this generation. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the sons of men." If we boast that we have God's word and do not take care as to how we are to keep it, it is soon lost.
Second, we, too, ought to do our part and not close our eyes, but be on our guard. For God nonetheless always holds his grace firmly over the world, so that he permits no false prophets to attempt anything except something external, such as works and subtle minute discoveries about external things. No one concerns himself with faith and a good conscience before God, but only with what glitters and shines before reason and the world. Just as the Arians apparently put up a good case in the court of reason, when they alleged that God was only one person, the Father, while the Son and the Holy Spirit were not true God.
Likewise, it was easy and pleasant for the Jews and Pelagians to believe that works without grace made one pious; and under the papacy it was said in an attractive way that the free will also contributes something toward grace. So, since it is in accord with reason, it sounds altogether pleasant to say that there is simply bread and wine in the sacrament. Who cannot believe that? If one only today would grant to the Jews that Christ was simply a man, I think it would be easy to convert them.
So our concern here should now be that we keep these two teachings far apart from each other: the one that teaches of the main articles, to govern the conscience in the spirit before God; the other, which teaches of things external or works. For more depends on the teaching of faith and a good conscience than on the teaching of good works. When works are lacking, help and counsel are at hand so that one can produce them if the teaching of faith remains firm and pure. But if the teaching of faith is placed in the background and works are put forward, then nothing can be good and there is neither counsel nor help. Then works lead to vain glory and seem to people to be something great, while God's glory disappears." - Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 157-158
What is the Definition of Necessity?
"What is sometimes given as the definition of philosophical Necessity, namely, 'That by which a thing cannot but be,' or 'whereby it cannot be otherwise,' fails of being a proper explanation of it, on two accounts: First, the words can, or cannot, need explanation as much as the word Necessity; and the former may as well be explained by the latter, as the latter by the former. Thus, if any one asked us what we mean, when we say, a thing cannot but be, we might explain ourselves by saying, it must necessarily be so; as well as explain Necessity, by saying, it is that by which a thing cannot but be. And Secondly, this definition is liable to the fore-mentioned great inconvenience; the words cannot, or unable, are properly relative, and have relation to power exerted, or that may be exerted, in order to the thing spoken of; to which as I have now observed, the word Necessity, as used by philosophers, has no reference.
Philosophical Necessity is really nothing else than the full and fixed connexion between the things signified by the subject and predicate of a proposition, which affirms something to be true. When there is such a connexion then the thing affirmed in the proposition is necessary, in a philosophical sense; whether any opposition or contrary effort be supposed, or no. When the subject and predicate of the proposition, which affirms the existence of any thing, either substance, quality, act, or circumstance, have a full and certain connexion, then the existence or being of that thing is said to be necessary in a metaphysical sense. And in this sense I use the word necessity, in the following discourse, when I endeavor to prove that necessity is not inconsistent with liberty." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 16 -17
Philosophical Necessity is really nothing else than the full and fixed connexion between the things signified by the subject and predicate of a proposition, which affirms something to be true. When there is such a connexion then the thing affirmed in the proposition is necessary, in a philosophical sense; whether any opposition or contrary effort be supposed, or no. When the subject and predicate of the proposition, which affirms the existence of any thing, either substance, quality, act, or circumstance, have a full and certain connexion, then the existence or being of that thing is said to be necessary in a metaphysical sense. And in this sense I use the word necessity, in the following discourse, when I endeavor to prove that necessity is not inconsistent with liberty." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 16 -17
The will acts on what is most pleasing or agreeable
"But possibly it is needless to mention the 'state of the mind,' as a grounds of the agreeableness of objects distinct from the other two mentioned before; viz. The apparent nature and circumstances of the objects viewed, and the manner of the view. Perhaps, if we strictly consider the matter, the different temper and state of the mind makes no alteration as to the agreeableness of objects, any other way, than as it makes the objects themselves appear differently beautiful or deformed, having apparent pleasure or pain attending them; and, as it occasions the manner of the view to be different, causes the idea of beauty or deformity, pleasure or uneasiness, to be more or less lively.
However, I think so much is certain, that volition, in no one instance that can be mentioned, is otherwise than the greatest apparent good is, in the manner which has been explained. The choice of the mind never departs from that which, at the time, and with respect to the direct and immediate objects of decision, appears most agreeable and pleasing all things considered. If the immediate objects of the Will are a man's own actions, then those actions which appear most agreeable to him he wills. If it be now most agreeable to him, all things considered, to walk, then he now wills to walk. If it be now, upon the whole of what at present appears to him, most agreeable to speak, then he chooses to speak; if it suits him best to keep silence, then he chooses to keep silence. There is scarcely a plainer and more universal dictate of the sense and experience of mankind, than that, when men act voluntarily, and do what they please, then they do what suits them best, or what is most agreeable to them. To say, that they do what pleases them, but yet not what is agreeable to them, is the same thing as to say, they do what they please, but do not act their pleasure; and that is to say, that they do what they please and yet do not what they please." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 14
However, I think so much is certain, that volition, in no one instance that can be mentioned, is otherwise than the greatest apparent good is, in the manner which has been explained. The choice of the mind never departs from that which, at the time, and with respect to the direct and immediate objects of decision, appears most agreeable and pleasing all things considered. If the immediate objects of the Will are a man's own actions, then those actions which appear most agreeable to him he wills. If it be now most agreeable to him, all things considered, to walk, then he now wills to walk. If it be now, upon the whole of what at present appears to him, most agreeable to speak, then he chooses to speak; if it suits him best to keep silence, then he chooses to keep silence. There is scarcely a plainer and more universal dictate of the sense and experience of mankind, than that, when men act voluntarily, and do what they please, then they do what suits them best, or what is most agreeable to them. To say, that they do what pleases them, but yet not what is agreeable to them, is the same thing as to say, they do what they please, but do not act their pleasure; and that is to say, that they do what they please and yet do not what they please." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 14
The Definition of the term Will
"And therefore I observe, that the Will (without any metaphysical refining) is, That by which the mind chooses any thing. The faculty of the Will, is that power, or principle of mind, by which iti s capable of choosing: an act of the Will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.
If any think it is a more perfect definition of the Will, to say, that it is that by which the soul either chooses or refuses; I am content with it: for in every act of Will whatsoever, the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than the contrary or rather than the want or non-existence of that thing. So in every act of refusal, the mind chooses the absence of the thing refused; the positive and the negative; and the mind's making its choice in that case is properly the act of the Will: The Will's determining between the two, is a voluntary determination; but that is the same thing as making a choice. So that by whatever names we call the act of the Will, choosing, refusing approving, disapproving, liking, disliking, embracing, rejecting, determining, directing, commanding, forbidding, inclining, or being averse, being pleased or displeased with; all may be reduced to this of choosing. For the soul to act voluntarily, is evermore to act electively." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 7
If any think it is a more perfect definition of the Will, to say, that it is that by which the soul either chooses or refuses; I am content with it: for in every act of Will whatsoever, the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than the contrary or rather than the want or non-existence of that thing. So in every act of refusal, the mind chooses the absence of the thing refused; the positive and the negative; and the mind's making its choice in that case is properly the act of the Will: The Will's determining between the two, is a voluntary determination; but that is the same thing as making a choice. So that by whatever names we call the act of the Will, choosing, refusing approving, disapproving, liking, disliking, embracing, rejecting, determining, directing, commanding, forbidding, inclining, or being averse, being pleased or displeased with; all may be reduced to this of choosing. For the soul to act voluntarily, is evermore to act electively." - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Pg. 7
What does the Scripture mean?
"Now, though heretics rail at the word person, or some morose and obstinate men clamorously refuse to admit a name of human invention; since they cannot make us assert that there are three, each of whom is entirely God, nor yet that there are more gods than one, how very unreasonable is it to reprobate words which express nothing but what is testified and recorded in the Scriptures! It were better, say they, to restrain not only our thoughts, but our expressions also, within the limits of the Scripture, than to introduce exotic words, which may generate future dissensions and disputes, for thus we weary ourselves with verbal controversies; thus the truth is lost in altercation; thus charity expires in odious contention. If they call every word exotic, which cannot be found in the Scriptures in so many syllables, they impose on us a law which is very unreasonable, and which condemns all interpretation, but what is composed of detached texts of Scripture connected together. But if by exotic they mean that which is curiously contrived, and superstitiously defended, which tends to contention more than to edification, the use of which is either unseasonable or unprofitable, which offends pious ears with its harshness, and seduces person from the simplicity of the Divine word, I most cordially embrace their modest opinion. For I think that we ought to speak of God with the same religious caution, which should govern our thoughts of him, since all thoughts that we entertain concerning him merely from ourselves, are foolish, and all our expressions absurd. But there is a proper medium to be observed we should seek in the Scriptures a certain rule, both for thinking and for speaking by which we may regulate all the thoughts of our minds, and all the words of our mouths. But what forbids our expressing in plainer words, those things which, in the Scriptures, are, to our understanding, intricate and obscure, provided our expressions religiously and faithfully convey the true sense of the Scripture, and are used with modest caution, and not without sufficient occasion? Of this, examples sufficiently numerous are not wanting. But, when it shall have been proved, that the Church was absolutely necessitated to use the terms Trinity and Persons, if any one then censures the novelty of the words may he not be justly considered as offended at the light of the truth? As having no other cause of censure, but that the truth is explained and elucidated?" -John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XIII. III. (Emphasis is mine)
"It does not appear that those men who are so strenuous for the use of Scripture phrases only in articles of religion, have a greater value for the Scriptures than others; nay, not so much; for if we are to form a judgment of them by their sermons and writings, one would think they never read the Scriptures at all, or very little, since they make such an infrequent use of them; you shall scarcely hear a passage of Scripture quoted by them in a sermon, or produced by them in their writings; more frequently Seneca, Cicero, and others; and it looks as if they thought it very unpolite, and what might serve to disgrace their more refined writings, to fill their performances and the Socinians more lately, carry on their cause, and endeavor to support it by making use of unscriptural words and phrases; and therefore it is not with a very good grace that such men, or those of the same cast with them, object to the use of words and phrases not syllabically expressed in Scripture; and the rather since the Arians were the first that began to make use of unscriptural phrases, as Athanasius affirms." - John Gill, Introduction to Divinity of God, Pg. xxix
"It does not appear that those men who are so strenuous for the use of Scripture phrases only in articles of religion, have a greater value for the Scriptures than others; nay, not so much; for if we are to form a judgment of them by their sermons and writings, one would think they never read the Scriptures at all, or very little, since they make such an infrequent use of them; you shall scarcely hear a passage of Scripture quoted by them in a sermon, or produced by them in their writings; more frequently Seneca, Cicero, and others; and it looks as if they thought it very unpolite, and what might serve to disgrace their more refined writings, to fill their performances and the Socinians more lately, carry on their cause, and endeavor to support it by making use of unscriptural words and phrases; and therefore it is not with a very good grace that such men, or those of the same cast with them, object to the use of words and phrases not syllabically expressed in Scripture; and the rather since the Arians were the first that began to make use of unscriptural phrases, as Athanasius affirms." - John Gill, Introduction to Divinity of God, Pg. xxix
What determines the will?
Jonathan Edwards, "With respect to that grand inquiry, 'What determines the Will? it would be very tedious and unnecessary, at present, to examine all the various opinions, which have been advanced concerning this matter; nor is it needful that I should enter into a particular discussion of all points debated in disputes on that other question, 'Whether the will always follows the last dictate of the understanding?' It is sufficient to my present purpose to say, It is that motive, which, as it stands in view of the mind, is the strongest, that determines the Will." Freedom of the Will, Pg. 9
This reminds me of what Gordon Clark says in Religion, Revelation and Reason
Clark says, "The primacy of the intellect, then, cannot be a power automatically exercised over the volition regarded as a separate faculty. This would violate the unity of the person. Instead of the phrase 'THE PRIMACY OF THE INTELLECT', the essential idea might better be expressed as 'THE PRIMACY OF THE TRUTH'. And the primacy is one of authority rather than of psychological power. The older forms of expression generate an old perplexity dating from Platonic dialogues. On the assumption that the intellect dominates the will, it would follow that no one does wrong knowingly. All evil is due to ignorance, and education guarantees correct conduct. The ambiguities hidden in this apparently simple language are enormous. But if we speak of the primacy of truth, we can avoid, even if we do not solve, these perplexities. The primacy of truth will mean that our voluntary actions ought to conform to the truth. Obviously sometimes they do not. If it is true that worshiping God is good, we ought to worship him. Perhaps we choose not to worship God, but the truth is superior in right to our will. This way of putting the matter extends as well to the voluntary choice of belief. We may choose to believe a truth, or we may choose to believe a lie. Both types of choice actually occur. But the primacy of truth means that we ought to believe the truth and we ought not to believe the lie." - Emphasis is mine. Found in his Three R's
This reminds me of what Gordon Clark says in Religion, Revelation and Reason
Clark says, "The primacy of the intellect, then, cannot be a power automatically exercised over the volition regarded as a separate faculty. This would violate the unity of the person. Instead of the phrase 'THE PRIMACY OF THE INTELLECT', the essential idea might better be expressed as 'THE PRIMACY OF THE TRUTH'. And the primacy is one of authority rather than of psychological power. The older forms of expression generate an old perplexity dating from Platonic dialogues. On the assumption that the intellect dominates the will, it would follow that no one does wrong knowingly. All evil is due to ignorance, and education guarantees correct conduct. The ambiguities hidden in this apparently simple language are enormous. But if we speak of the primacy of truth, we can avoid, even if we do not solve, these perplexities. The primacy of truth will mean that our voluntary actions ought to conform to the truth. Obviously sometimes they do not. If it is true that worshiping God is good, we ought to worship him. Perhaps we choose not to worship God, but the truth is superior in right to our will. This way of putting the matter extends as well to the voluntary choice of belief. We may choose to believe a truth, or we may choose to believe a lie. Both types of choice actually occur. But the primacy of truth means that we ought to believe the truth and we ought not to believe the lie." - Emphasis is mine. Found in his Three R's
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)