| << | Contents | >> |
The Institutes of the Christian Religion
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 499
[489] Ps. 26:2; Gen. 22:1; Deut. 8:2; 13:3; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Pet. 11:9; 1 Pet. 5:8. For the sense in which God is said to lead us into temptation, see the end of this section.
[490] Thus Eck boasts that he had written of predestination to exercise his youthful spirits.
[491] On predestination, see the pious and very learned obsesrvations of Luther, tom. 1 p. 86, fin., and p. 87, fin. Tom. 3 ad Psal. 22:8. Tom. 5 in Joann. 117. Also his Prefatio in Epist. ad Rom. and Adv. Erasmum de Servo Arbitrio, p. 429, sqq. 452, 463. Also in Psal. 139.
CHAPTER 22. THIS DOCTRINE CONFIRMED BY PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE.
[492] French, “Il y en a d’a aucuns, lesquels n’estans exercés en l’Ecriture ne sont dignes d’aucun, credit ne reputation; et toutes fois sont plus hardis et temeraires à diffamer la doctrine qui leur est incognue; et ainsi ce n’est par raison que leur arrogance soit supportée.”–There are some who, not being exercised in Scripture, are not worthy of any credit or reputation, and yet are more bold and presumptuous in defaming the doctrine which is unknown to them, and hence their arrogance is insupportable.
[493] August. de Corrept. et Gratia ad Valent. c. 15. Hom. de Bono Perseveran. c. 8. Item, de Verbis Apost. Serm. 8.
[494] Latin, “a reliquis;” French, “les autre Docteurs anciens;”–the other ancient Doctors.
CHAPTER 23. REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS ALWAYS UNJUSTLY ASSAILED.
[495] This is taken from Auguste Dein Gen. cont. Manich., Lib. 1 c. 3.
[496] French. “Toutesfois en parlant ainsi, nous n’approuvons pas la reverie des theologiens Papistes touchant la puissance absolue de Dieu;”–still in speaking thus, we approve not of the reverie of the Popish theologians touching the absolute power of God.
[497] French, “Si leur constance er fermeté a eté fondee au bon plasir de Dieu, la revolte des diables monstre qu’ils n’ont pas eté retenus, mais plustost delaisse;”–if their constancy and firmness was founded on the good pleasure of God, the revolt of the devils shows that they were not restrained, but rather abandoned.
[498] The French adds, “ou autre heretique;”–or other heretic.
[499] See Calvin, De Prædestinatione.
[500] Latin, “possililitatis profectus.”–French, “l’avancement de possibilité.”
[501] French, “Mas quelcun dira qu’il nous faut soucier de ce qui peut nous advenir: et quand nous pensons au temps futur que nostre imbecilité nous admoneste d’etre en solicitude;”–But some one will say, that we must feel anxious as to what may happen to us; and that when we think on the future, our weakness warns us to be solicitous.
[502] Bernard, in his Sermon on the Nativity, on 2 Cor. 1:3, quoting the two passages, Rom. 9:18, and Ezek. 18:32, admirably reconciles them.
[503] The French adds, “pour se conformer à notre rudesse;”–in accommodation to our weakness.
[504] These two assertions–”to our apprehension the will of God is manifold,” and “he mysteriously wills what now seems to be adverse to his will”–uncover a difficulty with which Calvin struggles: namely, the problem of whether God has a double will (or wills contrary things at the same time). Does God reveal one kind of will in the Gospel, while willing something else in His secret purpose? Do the Gospel promises, “in testifying concerning the will of God, declare that he wills what is contrary to his inviolable decree”? (first line, this section). Calvin, although insisting that there is no discrepancy, no inconsistency, between the predestination of the reprobate and the indiscriminate offer of the Gospel to all (and offering certain reasons for his conviction), nevertheless finds the ultimate solution to this problem in the incomprehensibility of God. God is so great, so far above us, and transcends our senses to such a degree, that we can never hope to comprehend His mystery or the depths of His infinite being. Yet he does not make the absolute distinction which some have made, between God as He is in Himself (about whom we can know nothing), and God as He appears to us (about whom we can know something), for he asserts “yet he [God] does not in himself will opposites.” Thus Calvin does say something about God as He is in Himself (in fact, he asserts that God does not violate the law of contradiction!) However, he leaves the final resolution of this apparent discrepancy to the eschatological future, when perhaps the mystery involved in this doctrine will be made known to our understanding. For the present, he exhorts us to “feel overawed with Paul at the great depth” of the wisdom and knowledge of God.
CHAPTER 25. OF THE LAST RESURRECTION.
[505] 2 Tim. 1:10; John 5:24; Eph. 2:6, 19; Rom. 7:16-18; Heb. 11:1; 2 Cor. 5:6; Col. 3:3; Titus 2:12.
[506] French, “nous recevions un povre salaire de nostre lascheté et paresse;”–we receive a poor salary for our carelessness and sloth.
[507] Calvin translates. “Quis scit an hominis anima ascendit sursum?”–Who knows whether the soul of man goes upward? &c.
[508] Chiliasm (from a Greek word meaning “a thousand”) arose very early in the history of theology. Some of the early Church Fathers distinguished between a first and a second resurrection, and held that there would be an intervening millennial kingdom in which Christ would reign with His saints upon the earth. This view may be found in Papias, Irenaeus, Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian (all from the second century). But by the time of Luther and Calvin, the leading theologians (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) had rejected the doctrine of an earthly millennium. Calvin calls it a “fiction,” and says that it is “too puerile to need or to deserve refutation.”
[509] Calvin’s chief objection to “Chiliasm” appears to be alleged limitation, to a period of one thousand years, of the reign of Christ with His saints. A secondary objection arises out of his interpretation of Revelation 20:2-7 (in which the term “thousand years” appears six times) as referring to the Church militant in this world. These objections against “Chiliasm” would today apply only to that view of the last things called Premillennialism. However, if a person held (1) that Christ’s kingdom is spiritually present, as He rules in the hearts of His elect; (2) that Christ’s kingdom shall have a future, earthly manifestation, when He shall reign with His saints upon the earth; and (3) that Christ’s kingdom will not cease at the close of the thousand years, but will merge into eternity; then it would appear that Calvin’s chief objection to this view would be removed. Of course, his secondary objection would remain as a difference of hermeneutical (interpretive) approach and method.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0561 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page