Tag: John Calvin

Contemplating the Cross: Christ Our Passover Lamb

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

For the next few days, I’ll be posting excerpts from Nancy Guthrie’s Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross: Experiencing the Passion and Power of Easter (Crossway). Join me as I aim to contemplate the cross this passion week.

Today’s meditation is by John Calvin, from chapter 17 “Blood and Water” (pg. 103-104 of Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross, edited by Nancy Guthrie).

“Not one of his bones will be broken.” This quotation is taken from Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12, where Moses refers to the paschal lamb. John takes it for granted that that lamb was a figure of the true and only sacrifice through which the church was to be redeemed. This is consistent with the fact that it was sacrificed as the memorial of a redemption which had been already made. As God intended it to celebrate the former favor, he also intended that it should show the spiritual deliverance of the church, which was still in the future. So Paul without any hesitation applies to Christ the rule which Moses lays down about eating the lamb: “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:7-8).

From this analogy, or similarity, faith derives great benefit, since in all the ceremonies of the law it views the salvation which has been displayed in Christ. This is the purpose of the evangelist John when he says that Christ was not only the pledge of our redemption but also its price in that we see accomplished in him what was formerly seen by the ancient people under the figure of the Passover. In this way the Jews are also reminded that they ought to seek in Christ the substance of everything that the law prefigured but did not actually accomplish.

Christ truly is our Passover Lamb. A deliverance greater than that of the Jews from the bondage of Egypt (and the fury of the Death Angel) was effected by His death. Christ is without blemish, and his bones were not broken. He was brutally sacrificed for us, in our place. May His sacrifice for our sins grip us to the extent that like a Jewish home in Goshen, Jesus’ blood would adorn the door posts of our hearts. May we glory in nothing else but His Cross.

Calvin on Fundamental Doctrines

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

In reading through Nine Mark’s e-journal on fundamentalism, I came across an audio lecture by Iain Murray (editor of Banner of Truth) on George Whitefield and Catholicity. Catholicity refers to a spirit of unity among the universal (i.e. Catholic) church, and not in any way to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

The lecture was very interesting as it deals with George Whitefield’s life and influence. It focused on his ideas of Christian unity across denominational lines. And Murray alleges that this emphasis on Christian catholicity directly resulted in the birth of modern missions and other evangelistic ventures such as Bible societies and publishing houses. Murray is careful to apply Whitefield’s story to today’s Christianity, and warns against both a radical ecumenism and a sectarian disregard for unity.

In his lecture, he quoted from John Calvin on the idea of doctrines being fundamental or not. And as we’ve been arguing the historicity and validity of this idea (that doctrines can be ranked as primary and secondary, etc.), I thought I’d share the full quote, which I found in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1, section 12.

What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes–short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness–that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters* should in no wise be the base of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation. (emphasis added)

Also note the footnote (at the place where the asterisk is in the above quote), where John McNeill notes several proponents of this fundamental doctrine ideal in the seventeenth century.

*What follows is the footnote in my copy of the Institutes (edited by John McNeill [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960] ), emphasis added:

Cf. IV. ii. 1. The distinction of fundamental and nonfundamental articles of belief is woven into Calvin’s thought, though not definitively treated by him. F. Wendel remarks on the importance of this doctrine in Calvin’s championing of church unity, and cites Comm. I Cor. 3:11 (Corpus Reformatorum: Johannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia XLIX. 1354): “The fundamental doctrine, which it is nowise permissible to break, is that we cleave to Christ, for he is the only foundation [unique fondament] of the church.” The doctrines here named are introduced by the word qualia (such as) and are of course not a full enumeration of those which Calvin would hold requisite. The notion of fundamental articles formed the core of various liberal projects of union in the seventeenth century when it was advanced by Georg Calixtus, Pierre Jurieu, Samuel Werenfels, J.A. Turretin, and others. See Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 79 ff., 92 f., 107, 111.

I’ll have more to say on Nine Mark’s e-journal later. For now, you should know that several excellent articles on the question of fundamentalism, separation and unity are brought together in this one resource. I find it very helpful.

The Underappreciated Calvin

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

Loved by many, yet hated by more. John Calvin, the great Reformer, has bequeathed us a schizophrenic legacy.

He is remembered largely for the movement which carries his name: Calvinism. Predestination, cold hard logic, spiritual deadness, fatalists. This is how many view Calvinists today. Sure there are some who earn such descriptors, yet the historical orthodox movement bears greater resemblance to its founder than it does to a hyper-Calvinistic heresy.

Some view Calvin as the dictator of Geneva, yet in truth he was run out of town a time or two. He was a respected pastor, but simply a pastor. The town council condemned Servetus, and Calvin pleaded for the most merciful death available. In this he was a man of his times.

And how did his contemporaries view him? Most definitely not cold and logical. He was later chided as “the most Christian man of his generation”. Benjamin Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, described Calvin as the eminent Biblical theologian of his day (emphasis on “Biblical” rather than “theoretical” or “speculative”).

I could go on, but I would be writing the article I intend for you to read. John Chitty recently highlighted several of Calvin’s positive contributions to today’s church and he also linked to a superb article by Benjamin Warfield on Calvin as a theologian.

Among other things, Warfield points out that Calvin was the first to give a full treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And in fact, when with the Reformers, Calvin dethroned the Church of Rome, he put in its place the Holy Spirit. Let me continue with an excerpt from Warfield’s article:

Previously, men had looked to the Church for all the trustworthy knowledge of God obtainable, and as well for all the communications of grace accessible. Calvin taught them that neither function has been committed to the Church, but God the Holy Spirit has retained both in His own hands and confers both knowledge of God and communion with God on whom He will. The Institutes is, accordingly, just a treatise on the work of God the Holy Spirit in making God savingly known to sinful man, and bringing sinful man into holy communion with God….

Here then is probably Calvin’s greatest contribution to theological development. In his hands, for the first time in the history of the Church, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit comes to its rights. Into the heart of none more than into his did the vision of the glory of God shine, and no one has been more determined than he not to give the glory of God to another….And above everything else he deserves, therefore, the great name of the theologian of the Holy Spirit.

[read the article in its entirety]