Category — Reformation

One of the reasons for the Reformation, one that does not get the press it deserves, is the break with a ground-motive that was and is at odds with the Biblical motive of Creation-Fall-Redemption. The reigning spiritual structure of the years preceding the Reformation was expressed in the writings of Thomas Aquinas — the Nature-Grace synthesis, the child of the marriage between Hellenic and Biblical notions. The creeping specter of the synthesizing attitude is still around today. It means the end of Protestantism if it continues.

It is a fascinating fact of church history that the Eastern branch of the church has avoided this particular pitfall that has infected the Western. The Eastern theologians have put a bar at the door of Being and said, “None shall enter”. Their apophatic methodology has saved them from much of the Hellenic mistakes found in the West. This has laid them open, perhaps mistakenly, to the charge of mysticism, but the West’s rationalism has been and continues to be it’s Achilles heel — “You shall be like God” is a temptation that comes in all sorts of forms.

Semper reformanda.

“The reformer’s doctrine of God contained nothing novel or extraordinary. Like Luther, Barnes and Tyndale held to the traditional concept of God as formalized in such ecumenical statements of the ancient Church as the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. The reformer’s would insist, however, that it was the teaching of Scripture rather than any conciliar decision which constituted the basis for their beliefs. Lack of originality was the necessary consequence of the reformer’s objective. They sought for nothing new, but rather wanted to restore the doctrines of primitive Christianity to the primacy they once enjoyed”. — p. 83, Luther’s English Connection, Dr. James E. Goldrick (Emphasis mine)

The confusion between Baptist theology and Calvinism continues. It has become an unargued assumption that Calvin and Credo-baptists are one in their understanding. John Piper and many others are flying this flag. It makes no sense — it is logically impossible.

The reason? Calvin presents a system of theology that is a whole cloth, and the covenant is central to it.As a definitive expression of the covenant, the children of believing parents are included in the sacramental signs and seals. Genesis 17 is a good text to ponder. His system is so closely knitted together, taking away one thread destroys the fabric.

But to take him up as one’s figurehead, all the while denying two-thirds of the Institutes is simply irrational — Presbyterian government is another heavy point that many choose to simply ignore. I am not trying to make any claims to Calvin-ownership, far from it. This is simply a philosophical issue for me. If I disagreed with Marx, I would not call myself a Marxist. If I disagreed with Plato, I would not call myself a Platonist. But, for some strange reason, certain pastors who are at odds with many of the primary teachings of the man still claim him as their own.

If this kind of thing continues, the sheep are going to get more and more confused as time goes on. It seems like these men have little or no concern for the minds of the people, and expect them to fall in line with an irrational leap across an empty chasm. They have done with Calvin what Apple did with Ghandi — turned him into a

Writing on the Holy Spirit, he said:
“…with tender care He supported the confused matter of heaven and earth, until beauty and order were added”. Institutes, Book 1, 148.