Considering the Secret Providence of God

Who wouldn’t want to read John Calvin on The Secret Providence of God? Well, it depends what kind of book you are looking to read.

The subject is certainly an interesting one. The caveat is that the book is polemical in nature. He’s not simply asserting what he believes on this subject so you and I can be edified. He’s responding to “charges” made by a former student/associate of his, Sebastian Castellio. The editor’s (Paul Helm) indicates some of their prior relationship. But in the final pages of the  book Calvin gives us more information about their relationship. This book reeks of betrayal. Polemics and betrayal make for some bombastic language at times. It may also explain why this book is not as clear as I’d hoped at times (but perhaps this was me having been online too much, rotting my brain, or too focused on the good cigars I’d often smoke while reading this). I read this book intermittently over the course of a few months. Far too long for a book of its size (122 pages), but I’ve been busy with other matters.

All this to say, I’d be careful to whom I recommend this book. I would recommend this for more mature Christians who have an interest in Calvin because they’ve already read his more popular works. It would be of interest to students of the Reformation and theological methods. I would not recommend this to someone struggling with the doctrine of providence or unfamiliar with how to do theology.

Helm’s introduction informs us that this was, in fact, Calvin’s third response to his fellow Frenchman on the subject. I suspect his frustrating was mounting as would mine. They met in Strasbourg. Castellio’s strength seemed to be languages, and Calvin appears to have taken a liking to the man. For a time Castellio was rector of the College of Geneva. It didn’t last long. First, Castellio denied the canonicity of the Song of Songs, calling it a lewd book. Then Calvin worked with him on a translation of the Bible into French. They differed greatly, and argued, about their approaches to translation. As the relationship soured, Castellio resigned from the college. He seems to have accepted at least some of Servetus’ writings, for later in this volume Calvin calls Servetus his master (this could be figuratively since Calvin did consider him a heretic in the body of his response). But the execution of Servetus by the Genevan authorities led to Castellio’s personal campaign against them, and Calvin. He was not open about this, often using a pen name instead of his own.

“The work provides us with a small window onto the boisterous, argumentative years of the Reformation, not in this case to the main conflicts but to the skirmishes initiated by some of its lesser characters, such as Pighius and Servetus and, of course, Castellio.” (pp. 18)

Helm notes that Calvin was generally gentle and accommodating to those he considered open or friendly to his views. “But he is pitiless and unflattering toward those such as Castellio who openly crossed him.” Castellio, on the other hand, seems less concerned with clear theological thinking as to ridicule and misrepresent Calvin. His goal seems to be to repeatedly jab his finger in Calvin’s eye. If they lived next to each other in Bowling Green, one thinks he’s blindside Calvin and stomp him when Calvin got off his lawn mower.

“To Calvin’s intense irritation, here is a man, once a friend and follower, who is not impatient of the carefully crafted subtleties that Calvin sometimes uses to advance his position, and above all contemptuous of the God whose interests Calvin sought to advance. Even their Protestantism provides them with little common ground.” (pp. 19-20)

Helm then moves into some theological analysis of the book. He critiques Castellio’s method. The antagonist blurs theological distinctions so that he accuses Calvin of equal ultimacy regarding God’s decrees of salvation and sin/reprobation. Calvin follows a typical medieval view of the two wills of God: his secret will (decrees) and his revealed will (declarations & commands). Calvin depends heavily on Augustine in this volume, the only other author he quotes. Castellio’s method also relies heavily on reason while Calvin’s on revelation. Castellio sets reason above revelation. While Calvin obviously uses reason, he understands it to be bound to revelation. There are limits to the powers of reason as well as things not revealed to us. He invokes Deut. 29:29 (as any student of Calvin’s would guess). His introduction is helpful in understanding how each participant will engage in this disputation. Helm also notes, at the end, how Arminius’ own formulations are dependent upon Castellio’s. He built, as Muller calls it, a theology of creation, far more popular than Castellio’s. But both rejected Calvin’s theology of grace.

The book proper begins with a series of Articles, 14, Castellio generates (better, fabricates) from Calvin’s writings. He presents as series of strawmen arguments since they bear little to no resemblance to what Calvin actually wrote. He misrepresents Calvin. What is unclear is how much of this he actually believed and how much he purposely twisted just to tick Calvin off. As he explains these articles you do find instances of confusing logic, conflation of ideas, failure to make distinctions and more really bad theological method. Here are some example of him tying himself in knots (as I noted in the margins of my copy):

“If God wills sin, then the Devil does not will sin. That is to say, the idea that the Devil is God is a complete contradiction. If God wills sin, he loves sin’ and if he loves sin, he hates righteousness.” (pp. 45)

“… if the (secret) will of God often contends with his command, how can it be known when he wills or when he does not will what he commands? … For instance, if God commands me not to commit adultery and yet wills that I commit adultery, and yet I ought not to commit adultery, then I ought to do what is contrary to his will.” (pp. 45)

“Your false God is slow to mercy and quick to wrath. He created the largest part of the world for perdition.” (pp. 52)

“But the God of Calvin is the father of lies who evidently governs sometimes by what he says and at other times by his secret promptings.” (pp. 53)

He’s trying to make Calvin’s understanding of God appear to be a moral monster, and the Christian life not practicable because he can’t make simple distinctions. How you think matters. And this is some seriously stinking thinking. He also appears to operate from a denial of depravity. This is an unstated presupposition of his that seems to infect his reasoning leading to a number of faulty conclusions.

“… if God prompts perverse affections and then he flies into a rage, he hates the same people before the perverse affections arise, for to prompt perverse affections is the work of hatred. Therefore, he hates the innocent. For men are innocent before the perverse affections arise.” (pp. 50)

Castellio also attacks Calvin’s “students” as contentious and sinful. He puts all his arguments into the mouths of Calvin’s opponents while affirming them as personally unanswerable. There is one more claim that his “disciples” depend more upon Calvin “than upon reason.” Here he affirms his view of reason over and above Scripture, and denies that Calvin’s doctrines arise from Scripture.

The main body of the book is Calvin’s point by point response to Castellio. He works through the articles. This divides the book into readable chunks for busy people. Much of Calvin’s argument is that his doctrines are in fact derived for Scripture. He places Scripture above (not against) reason. Castellio argues for common sense, common sense, common sense => theology from below, subject to our judgment. Man is the arbiter of truth.

“But if you allow no other form of reasoning except what an earthly man recognizes, then by such arrogance and disdain you deny yourself access to the very doctrine of knowledge of which is only possible to someone with a reverential spirit. … Everything loses its authority and grace if it does not satisfy your reason.” (pp. 61)

Calvin also notes that he has already answered these objections three or four times thus far. He notes that these articles falsely represent his views. He notes his dependence on Augustine who also faced similar stubborn objections. Castellio frequently didn’t cite Calvin’s works. When he quotes Calvin, he takes him out of context. Some of the accusations he makes are similar to those that Paul faced and answered in places like Romans 9-11. Calvin’s point? “You aren’t arguing against me, but the Scriptures when we examine the tensions in Scripture” is what he’d say. In terms of those tensions and distinctions Calvin asks:

“Truly God invites all men to repentance; therefore, all might return to the road where he offers pardon. Now, what we must here consider is whether the conversion that God requires is according to man’s free choice or is a truly unique gift from God. Therefore, insofar as all men are exhorted to repent, the prophet rightly denies that God wills the death of the sinner. Why does God not convert everyone to himself equally? The reason is in the hands of God’s secret will.” (pp. 71)

He notes that Castellio also has to answer these great questions.

“This knot is also for you to untie. Since no one comes near to God unless the secret influence of the Spirit draws him, why are not all men without discrimination drawn, if God wills all to salvation? For from his discrimination it certainly is to be concluded that God has a particular secret way in which many are excluded from salvation.” (pp .73)

Calvin also unearths some of his other presuppositions: “Nor will you accept that the causes of wrath are in man himself” (pp. 74). Castellio rejects the depravity of men as the root of God’s judgment and man’s temptation to sin. He espouses a weak view of foreknowledge, separating God’s “power and his prescience” (pp. 75). He is judging God by feeble sense, to quote Cowper’s hymn on the subject. Calvin warns Castellio of dualism.  He reminds him that God uses primary and secondary causes (pp. 191). He schools him in the doctrine of concurrence- two or more persons willing the same action but for different reasons (God’s being good and Satan’s and men’s being evil).

There are moments you have to stop and think (especially if you’ve been distracted by your children) to sort out the argument. He will trace out Castellio’s argument at times so keeping the train of thought is essential.

He responds to the questioning of Calvin and disciples’ character with observations about Castellio’s.

“When I fed you in my home, no man had ever appeared to be more proud and more deceitful or more destitute than yo. Whoever does not perceive you to be an imposter and a cynic devoted to shamelessness, and a buffoon barking against piety, they are absolutely without judgment.” (pp. 118)

“But it must certainly be that you were too dull, because you were not able to understand what I have taught you, both in the familiarity of my own home and also what you heard when I so often preached in the public assembly.” (pp. 119)

“… you boast among your followers that study is empty and frivolous (the same study that is employed in philosophy, logic, and even theology) in order that you might gain more disciples for yourself. … You, on the other hand, request that untutored men who despise all learning and are inflated only with the breath of arrogance appear in public so that they may audaciously make judgments concerning the mysteries of heaven.” (pp. 120-121)

You see here the sense of betrayal that drives his harsh words. Still, these words are mild by some of today’s standards. We see a picture of Castellio as something of a fundamentalist Arminian. He was anti-intellectual; anti-scholarship in addition to exalting human reason. He was also, in Calvin’s estimation, a heretic. He didn’t just disagree, but held to views that Calvin put him outside the bounds of the Church. And so he ends:

“May God restrain you, Satan. Amen.” (pp. 122)

There is much here that is important to learn in terms of doing theology. There is some here that we should likely avoid in terms of doing polemics. We should continue to speak the truth in love. Lay out presuppositions to the light of day for evaluation. Clearly make proper distinctions. Reconcile the tensions found in Scripture instead of just proof-texting. Bur resist the temptation to denigrate the other person. Truth in the face of lies (even half-truths), and love in the face of animosity. I believe Calvin did the former but at times failed in the latter. May God have mercy on us all.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Considering For a Continuing Church

In recent years the decades leading up to the formation of the PCA have been the focus on some discussion within the denomination. This is for a few reasons. One reason is the recent Overture on Race that passed at General Assembly this year. It has been a lengthy discussion, and a frustrating discussion for all involved. Another reason is the seemingly annual cries around the time of General Assembly that the PCA is “going liberal”.  Comparisons are often made to the struggle between progressives and conservatives in the PCUS that led to many of the conservatives leaving in 1973 to form the PCA, and another wave that left in 1982 to form the EPC.

For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America by Sean Michael Lucas is a timely book in light of these and other concerns. He looks at the issues that took place in the PCUS and how the disagreements played out. In this way, the reader can see the culpability of many conservatives in segregation and putting up barriers many minorities feel when they think of the PCA. In other words, he shows the need for Overture 43 (and the others) in the hopes that we will be more inclusive of our brothers and sisters of other ethnic backgrounds having been made sensitive to how conservative Presbyterians have treated this issue in the past.

This is not a blanket condemnation. He notes how many, including Nelson Bell who is Billy Graham’s father-in-law, softened their stance over the years. Around the time of the conservatives’ departure, many of the younger conservative leaders wanted an integrated church. Many leaders did not want a racially segregated church. Others did. In other words, the PCA started with differences of opinion on this issue, and continues to have differences of opinion on this issue. There have been painful discipline issues in recent years, involving people I know, to address racism in our congregations. The “Concerned Presbyterians” Facebook page spouts kinism anonymously. We still have a ways to go, but many of us want to see the changes happen.

Lucas could have been more exhaustive in this regard. But he said enough. His goal was not to expose and humiliate people but to be honest about our past. He made his point without going for the jugular.

He spent far more time addressing the doctrinal declension of the PCUS, and the resulting problems with church discipline, as well as the disagreement over the spirituality of the church and how it should be applied in social issues.

The key issue in the doctrinal declension was the doctrine of Scripture. This lay at the root of things. Their version of system subscription was being flexible on issues like inspiration and inerrancy. The strict subscriptionists today try to compare current “declension” in the PCA to liberalism and progressivism. But no presbyteries are giving exemptions for low views of Scripture. The exemptions have to do with how to interpret particular passages (like Genesis 1-3) with some interpretations ruled out of bounds (like theistic evolution). As I look at the PCA today, though I am a theological conservative, and a confessional Presbyterian, I don’t see the “big tent” as a huge problem because I don’t expect everyone to think like me.

They had their issues with “discernment bloggers” so to speak. Some conservatives took to journals to attack the progressives. We see similar verbiage today from those bemoaning the decline of the PCA: Marxist is one I’ve seen quite a bit lately.

The conservatives were scared of the world around them, just as we can be today. They were afraid of liberalism, Marxism/communism, integration. We see similar concerns today. Toss in feminism.

The PCUS, due to their low view of Scripture, went all the way with female ordination. There was no slippery slope, they instituted women deacons and elders at the same time. Some today look at the study committee on women in the church as see that all over again. I’m not sure how they arrive at that position. What Scripture said didn’t matter to much of the PCUS. It does matter to most in the PCA. Many have some questions and want to better understand what Scripture says. It is possible that we have as many cultural blinders on as the progressives. In our own history, the RPCES joined with the PCA in the 80’s. They had women deacons. This was not a huge obstacle for joining and receiving then. But now it would be, at least for some. They see this as feminism, not a different understanding of a very confusing text (1 Tim. 3:11). Principled people have different views of women worship leaders, SS teachers, etc. It would be good to better understand all of this, but some see even asking questions as evidence of liberalism.

The conservatives in the PCUS were frustrated by the church discipline process. It seemed as if it was extremely difficult to discipline men who were teaching false doctrine. Often conservatives faced road blocks to ministry. It seemed just to block conservative candidates but not liberal ones.

There is some frustration today about church discipline. I don’t think it is quite the same as the problem back then. It has been difficult to discipline people teaching the Federal Vision. What I don’t see is conservatives being blocked from positions. The people I have seen blocked have been people with low views of Scripture and those open to continuationalism.

The spirituality of the church continues to be a struggle. Conservatives wanted to be involved in social issues, just different ones. They weren’t concerned about racism and civil rights (generally) but sure were about communism. In their eyes, one was not a gospel issue but the other clearly was. Conservatives, therefore, weren’t just about evangelism and prayer. They were politically involved too. But they complained about the social agenda of the progressives, as if they shouldn’t have one.

Today many attack any idea of social engagement as liberalism, a social gospel or cultural marxism. But they are often engaged politically themselves. Rather than see things as if we have different opinions on social issues, there is a polarization that continues today.

The PCA that the perpetually disgruntled want was not the intention of the founders, or at least the majority. They wanted a mainline Reformed evangelical denomination that affirmed the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, fulfilled the Great Commission and held to the historic doctrines of the Westminster Confession. That is the PCA today. It wanted to become a national church, and it has become one. It wanted to be a culturally engaged church, and it has become one. This is part of what sets it apart from the OPC which has more of a fundamentalist or isolationist bent to it. I get the sense that the people who are groaning after every General Assembly have a similar isolationist bent and want the PCA to bend to their will rather than embrace it for what it was intended to be and is.

Sean Michael Lucas’ book is very important, and helpful, to help us see where we’ve come from and what the founders wanted the PCA to be, for better and worse. Perhaps we can gain greater perspective on where we need repentance, and where we need to be more reasonable. Maybe we’ll be more understanding of those we disagree with, less likely to jump to unfair characterizations, and discern where we can disagree in a principled fashion. I would strongly recommend this book for pastors and elders (and deacons?). Most of us now weren’t alive then. Many of us weren’t part of the PCUS or PCA when it was founded. This will help us to understand the tensions that pull various groups in the PCA apart.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Next Christians

Reading Gabe Lyons’ The Next Christians: How a New Generation is Restoring the Faith was fairly frustrating.  Some of it was the book, and some of it was me.  I’ll lay my cards on the table.  I’m a conservative, “confessional” Presbyterian who believes in cultural engagement.  That means that I think doctrinally and am interested in engaging culture.  When I read a book, I usually expect the author to either advocate or assess a position.  He or she is either an adherent or a critic.  It was this expectation, in part, that made this a persistently frustrating read.

That is because Gabe, as something of a pollster and think tank guy, is writing more like a sociologist.  He is describing something- not necessarily assessing this new movement.  He never even lays out his own place in the hodgepodge of evangelicalism.  At the least he is a “previous” Christian.

“I’ve seen many of the next Christians get the order correct.  When they do, and when we do, consider what’s possible.”

Read Full Post »

Considering the Reformed Confession, Part 2

The second chapter of R. Scott Clark’s book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, begins his more in-depth analysis of the crisis he laid out in the first chapter.  Here he tackles The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty.

This chapter begins oddly by offering a few examples of this quest in Reformed circles.  Those are KJV-only advocates (I’ve missed this movement in the Reformed community), arguing against women in the military (I’m not sure I see the connection here as he explains it), and the Biblical Counseling movement (since he seems to view counseling as a medical issue instead of a sanctification issue in many cases).  He just drops those, without anything to back up his claims.  There is no smoking gun that these are related to the Illegitimate Quest.  Full preterism and denying the free offer of the gospel are about the only ones that I see as connected to this quest.  And those 2 are problematic.

But he spends the chapter focusing on a literal 6-day creation, theonomy and covenant moralism.  His argument is that in the shifting sands of modernity (or would that be post-modernity) some look for a solid place to stand.  Their insecurity, he says, leads them to seek certainty in all the wrong places.  He sees the role of fundamentalism as important in this.

“In fact, it is not a belief that the Bible is true which makes on a fundamentalist; rather it is the belief that one’s interpretation is inerrant which qualifies one as a fundamentalist.”

An interesting definition or defining factor.  But is he certain they are wrong?

6 Day Creation

He begins with the “rise” of a literal 6-day creation as a boundary marker.  In recent years, this was an issue in the PCA as they tried to determine if ministers should subscribe as strictly to this part of the Confession as other parts of the confession, like justification.  He notes that the RCUS adopted this as their denominational position in 1999.  I have not even heard of the RCUS.  The  OPC and URC have all studied it as well.

They defend this position from Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith (4.1).  This is what is so interesting to me.  He tries to say that the meaning of the Confession is not clear.  Since they may have been arguing against Augustine’s instantaneous creation instead of modern science’s evolution, 6 days doesn’t mean 6 days- it might mean something else.  This is a doctrinal statement, not a literary genre that may use figurative speech.

Read Full Post »

Considering Evangelism and Social Involvement

After the introductory chapters on gospel and community, Total Church authors Chester and Timmis begin to practically work them out in a variety of important areas.  They start with evangelism and social involvement.

“Our conviction is that Christian are called to a dual fideltiy- fidelity to the core content of the gospel accompanied by fidelity to the primary context of a believing community.  To ignore or minimize either is not merely to hamstring the task of evangelism; it is effectively to deconstruct it.”

Their thesis is that evangelism focuses on the gospel word within the gospel community.  A phrase often attributed to Francis of Assisi, (apparently falsely) “Preach the gospel; use words if necessary” has wrongly separated gospel preaching and words.  The gospel is a message, so words are necessary.  Sometimes actions are too!

Too often we think of our need to do evangelism individually.  We all have a personal responsibility.  But we all have strengths and weaknesses that should be balanced out in the context of the community.  Not only that, but as the gospel community “incarnates” the gospel, people have an easier time grasping the power of the gospel.

Their vision is to have people bringing people to social events where the gospel is lived and proclaimed by the community.  This takes some of the burden off of us to think we have to answer all questions, address every concern and close the deal like some cold call salesman.  Some are better at building relationships with others and inviting them into the community.  Others are better at discerning the particular gospel issues that need to be addressed.

Does this happen automatically?  No, but the goal is to create a culture of gospel intentionality where the community works together to proclaim the gospel.

“If church and mission are redefined in relational terms, then work, leisure, and family time can all be viewed as gospel activities.  Ordinary life becomes pastoral and missional if we have gospel intentionality.  Watching a film with friends or looking after a burdened mother’s children can simultaneously be family time, leisure, mission, and church.”

The gospel is also about the marginalized (economically, socially, racially etc) experiencing acceptance in the community because of the gospel.  This means that the gospel community is involved in society’s problems.  It does not merely do good, but connects it with the gospel.  We show love because God is love.  We show compassion because God is compassionate.  We offer acceptance because Christ has torn down all dividing walls to create a new living temple.  The grace of God is at stake, as we see in places like James 2.  The church is to be an economically, socially and racially diverse community.

“If our congregations are full of respectable people, then it may be that we have not truly grasped the radical grace of God.”

They make three assertions:

Evangelism and social action are distinct activities.

Proclamation is central.

Evangelism and social action are inseparable.

As with evangelism, Chester and Timmis advocate a healthier, more biblical approach to social action.  We act together, rather than as individuals.  In this way people are connected to the community, and not just an individual.  As a result, the full reality of the gospel is make known from the outset- God saves us into community.  This also protects us from creating a disconnect between evangelism and social action.  The social gospel movement merged the two, losing the distinction and usually the gospel.  Fundamentalism separated the two, often abandoning social involvement in a knee jerk reaction to the social gospel.  We are to distinguish them, but ultimately not separate them as we do the 2 natures of Messiah as well justification and sanctification.

Total church is on the right track here.  It is here they lean on their Reformed heritage rather than the Anabaptist influence which has been more characterized by retreat from society (understandable since they were persecuted greatly in Europe).

Read Full Post »

Review: Piper on J. Gresham Machen

After reading this chapter from Contending for Our All, I wondered… alot of this sounds like what the Jollyblogger has been saying lately (polemics, Paul’s instruction to Philippi vs. Galatia).  Hmmmm.

This was a good chapter, but not the homerun the previous chapters had been.  Piper in no way idealizes of idolizes Machen.  But he recognizes that the church owes Machen a great debt.  While in Germany, Machen was under the spell of liberalism for a time.  Dr. Herrmann had a passion that his profs at Princeton seemed to lack.  But Machen realized he needed both truth and passion, or light and heat as Edwards put it so well.

Piper has a good discussion of why Machen was not, and did not want to be known as, a Fundamentalist.  Machen was too much of a scholar for a largely anti-intellectual movement.  Nor was he a legalist, as much of Fundamentalism was.  Instead of retreating from culture, Machen wanted to challenge it head on.

Machen, who many found annoying, once said of Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield “With all his glaring faults he was the greatest man I have ever known.”  That might be a good word for many of us.  I’ve met some of the greats of the last century, and I’ve seen some of their foibles.  We can throw stones at their imperfections- but they are still greatly used by Jesus.  We need to offer some charity over character flaws, and balance that with real accountability when they sin big (if indeed they do).

I think Machen’s best work was Christianity and Liberalism.  What is found there, as he confronts a ‘church’ captive to modernism, is quite appropriate to the more extreme elements in the emerging church.  The radicals or revisionist movements within the emerging church are pretty much doing what the liberals of Machen’s day were doing.  They were hemming and hawing, redefining words, reinterpreting creeds rather than out-right denying them.

One of Piper’s challenges to us from Machen is: “He challenges us … to say what we mean and mean what we say, and to repudiate duplicity, trickery, sham, verbal manipulating, sidestepping, and evasion.”  I think Machen, like Driscoll, would be in McLaren’s face and not allowing him to play word games and throw up smoke and mirrors.

There’s also good stuff about institutional integrity: “The compromise of an institution’s fidelity and the misuse of academic freedom happens when doctrinal and ethical doubts are kept secret, or, worse, when lurking denials are put forward as affirmations.  … But the duplicity that hides secret denials will destroy an institution and a soul.” (Piper)

Piper ends on a great point with this: “…God reigns over his church and over the world in such a way that he weaves the weaknesses and the strengths of his people with infinite wisdom into a fabric history that displays the full range of his glories.”

It is worth investing the time to read about Machen, and what Machen has written.

Read Full Post »