I have just begun the fourth and final book in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Unfortunately, however, my effort to record salient points and quotes remains far behind the reading plan – a little over 600 pages, to be specific.  At this rate, I’ll still be working on this project 5 years from now.  I can think of worse things.

In chapter 13 of Book One, Calvin addresses “the unity of the divine essence in three Persons taught, in Scripture, from the foundation of the world.’  He will treat the meaning of ‘person’, then prove the deity of the Son, then prove the deity of the Holy Spirit.  From there, he goes on to refute ‘certain heresies which have arisen.’

God’s immensity is his starting point and a classic concept is helpfully brought to bear on the matter in hand, namely, the idea of anthropomorphism.

“The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted.  For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children?  Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of Him to our feebleness.  In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below His proper height.” -Institutes, 1.13.1

In paragraph 3, Calvin deals with a perennial problem in defending true faith against, especially, cultists or pseudo-Christian sects.  I saw this recently in a debate between two evangelical scholars and two leaders from the United Pentecostal Church.  The UPC advocates’ attempted to cut off the use of extra-biblical language.  It was a tactic that enabled them to twist the meaning of the biblical terms and get away with it.  Given Calvin’s words here, that trick is very old.  (In fact, these things have been done much further back still – hear Piper’s biographical sermon on Athanasius).  Back to Calvin:

“Now, then, though heretics may snarl … at the word ‘person’ as inadmissable, in consequence of its human origin, since they cannot displace us from our position that three are named, each of whom is perfect God, and yet that there is no plurality of gods, it is most uncandid to attack the terms which do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare and sanction. ‘It were better’, they say, ‘to confine not only our meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture…’  If they call it [that is, the Trinity] a foreign term, because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they certainly impose an unjust law – a law which would condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of Scripture.  But if by foreign they mean that which, after being idly devised, is superstitiously defended – which tends more to strife than edification – which is used either out of place, or with no benefit which offends pious ears by its harshness, and leads them away from the simplicity of God’s word, I embrace their soberness with all my heart.  For I think we are bound to speak of God as reverently as we are bound to think of Him…  But in regard to those parts of Scripture which, to our capacities, are dark and intricate, what forbids us to explain them in clearer terms – terms, however, kept in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, used sparingly and modestly, and not without occasion?” -Institutes, 1.13.3

Tightening.

“These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings, if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held.  Thus when early Christians, when harassed with the disputes which heresies produced, were forced to declare their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order that no indirect subterfuges might remain to ungodly men, to whom ambiguity of expression was a kind of hiding place.  Arius confessed that Christ was God, and the Son of God; because the passages of Scripture to this effect were too clear to be resisted, and then, as if he had done well, pretended to concur with others.  But, meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ was created, and had a beginning like other creatures.  To drag this man of wiles out of his lurking places, the ancient church took a further step, and declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father…  That little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians.” -Institutes, 1.13.4 (my emphasis)

“Arius says that Christ is God, and then mutters that he was made and had a beginning.  He says, that he is one with the Father, but secretly whispers in the ears of his party, made one, like other believers, though with special privilege.  Say He is consubstantial and you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon, though you add nothing to Scripture.” -Institutes, 1.13.5

More soon, I hope.

In Book 1, chapters 11 and 12, Calvin stands against the “impiety of attributing a visible form to God.”  So, down with the use of images, statues, paintings with any representations of God.  For a more contemporary defense of this same notion, see J.I. Packer, Knowing God (don’t remember which chapter; close to the front).  Calvin also argues for what would later be called the regulative principle.

Here goes.

“[Comments from Ps 115:4; 135:15] There was ground, therefore, for the sarcasm of the heathen poet (Horace, Satirae I.8), ‘I was once the trunk of a fig tree, a useless log, when the tradesman, uncertain whether he should make me a stool, etc., chose rather that I should be a god.’” -1.11.4

“Indeed brothels exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed than churches do images intended to represent virgins.” -1.11.7

Aha, here’s the famous C.J. Mahaney quote about the heart being an idol factory.  Incidentally, one of the side benefits of reading through the Institutes is that I’m now able to locate so many long-treasured Calvin quotes that I have picked up second hand over the last 15 or so years.

“Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols.” -1.11.8

The following quote explains the reaction of the people in a previous post.

“After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues: for when once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also worshipped him as being there….  They say, we do not call them our gods.  Not did either the Jews or gentiles of old so call them; and yet the prophets never ceased to charge them with their adulteries with wood and stone for the very acts which are daily done by those who would be deemed Christians, namely, for worshiping God carnally in wood and stone.” -1.11.9-10

Contrary to at least one noted scholarly opinion (whom I won’t name since I have yet, first hand, to find him in print on this), the Regulative Principle, in concept, was not a 17th century invention.

“The nature of the worship which God requires will be seen in its own place (2.7-8).  He has been pleased to prescribe in his law what is lawful and riht and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their own.” -1.12.2