Why I like Calvin

I will just let old Jacob Arminius speak for me...

"After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other ... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read ... For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers -- so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all" -Jacobus Arminius

Calvin on Women

Calvin’s view of theological anthropology concerning women differed from Luther’s in a subtle way. Luther believed that a woman’s subjection was not something that was from the beginning, but was something brought about by the fall. The woman was created to help man rule, but after the fall all she has experienced is domination. As Ruether notes, “ Unlike Luther, who sees the fall as depriving women of a role in the government of public affairs in which she would originally had shared, Calvin attributes women’s exclusion from government to the original divine ordinance in which sovereignty in domestic and state affairs was given exclusively to the male. This same order of creation means that women are not to preach or teach in church.” (Women and Redemption pg. 124)
Calvin does, however, believe that women are equal to men in everyway except in the role of government. So Intellectually, spiritually, morally, etc. women are on the same footing he says concerning man, “Truly there are many things in this corrupted nature which may induce contempt; but if you rightly weigh all circumstances, man is, among other creatures a certain preeminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness, so that he is deservedly called by the ancients "a world in miniature.” (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis Chapter 1:26) he then says elsewhere when evaluating whether women are also included in the imago dei, “Why, even children know that women are included in the term!” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.13.3. John T. Mcneil ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 479) Thus we see that Calvin in almost every way views men and women on the same level according to the image of God, but the office or duty of government is not something women where created to participate in. (Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis Chapter1:26). Calvin also believed that if women ever ruled a nation it was God’s way of punishing the men for not adequately fulfilling their roles. (Ruether Women and Redemption pg. 125)
Women where also not allowed to speak or teach in church unless there was an emergency(Women and Redemption pg. 125). Calvin rejects Luther’s view the Adam was only first by primogeniture, that is being first born, Calvin declared that women where created equal but secondarily in authority from the beginning. This excludes women from church office, as Calvin says, “He Paul assigned two reasons why women should be subject to men: because not only did God enact this law, but he also inflicted it as a punishment on the woman.” (Calvin quoted in Women and Redemption/Ruether pg. 124-125)
Of course one cannot exclude from this discussion Calvin’s belief in determinism. For Calvin a persons freedom only depended if the person did what they wanted to do, it is not necessary for that person to be able to do other wise, only that the person wants to do an action or has the desire to do an action. Before the fall women’s hearts would have been turned toward God, but now they are only worried about usurping the power of the husband. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in paradise, Adam would have loved his wife and exercised his authority with Grace, but now this no longer happens because men are driven by a desire to abuse their authority. Calvin believed that men and women’s problem stemmed from their mutual rebellion against God, both Adam and Eve where responsible for the same sin, disobedience. This sin is what has caused the lack of functioning in marriage.
For Calvin it can be seen that women have rules that have been laid down by God from the beginning. Ruether notes three statuses of women in Calvin’s theology, “ 1) an inner quality of soul as image of God; 2) an external subjugation in matters of government, both of being established in God’s original order of creation; and 3) a worsening of women’s subjugation into servitude in the Fall in which women are forced to accede to submission that would originally have been voluntary.” Contrary to what many Feminist writers have written neither Calvin, nor Luther would have seen abuse by men or women to be a good thing. They saw it stemming from the universal curse of sin that was brought on by human disobedience, but it was not something that God would allow to go on forever, but would remedy in his own time.

Luther and Women

Luther lit the match that started the fire that became the reformation. He held straight- forward positions on most doctrines. Searching through his various theological writings and sermons can discover his position towards women.
Christian theology breaks down its worldview into different doctrines, and the one of the most crucial is theological anthropology. Theological anthropology is the study of man and his relation to God and to his fellow men, and women.
When considering the human condition and all of its good and evil, Luther and Calvin drew off of the doctrine of Original sin and developed it to encompass a doctrine that the later Synod of Dort would call Total Depravity. These two doctrines not only answered the most important question of mankind’s position before God, but also the very essence of what it is to be human. Encompassed in this also the questions concerning the differences between men and women were answered.
Luther based his thoughts concerning women and men on the idea of the imago dei, which is found in Genesis 3, which was developed by later thinkers and expanded upon. Essential to the imago dei is the belief that man is created in the image of God, meaning that man was given certain faculties such that in a limited way he reflects God’s attributes. This for the reformers was foundational, and unless critics are willing to deal with this part of the Reformers thought then any critique of their supposed sexism fails. Luther believed that Adam, the head of fallen humanity, was along with his wife perfect in their original creation. In this state of bliss man and woman would have known God intimately, there would have been no malice human beings, and the intellect would not have been fallen. The fall or original disobedience of Adam and Eve ruined God’s good creation. (Pg. 117 Women and Redemption)
Luther sees a difference of role in men and women, but the image of God is the same. He says, “ …for the woman appears to be somewhat
When Adam an Eve fell God instituted specific punishments that would fit their crime adequately. Before the fall Adam and Eve would have shared the God given dominion in perfect harmony and love that had been bestowed upon them, but instead they chose to disobey God and with that comes punishment As Rosemary Radford Ruether says, “In the fallen world into which Adam and Eve were expelled, they and the whole creation have lost their former perfection. Every power given by God is now hideously deformed. Adam is punished by hard labor in a thorny earth, while Eve experiences great suffering in what was her primary expression of blessing childbearing. She now falls under the domination of her husband… even in paradise, the punishment of domination means that what was formerly an acceptable companionship of greater and lesser now becomes a burdensome servitude.” (Rutheford pg. 119) Whether or not Rutheford’s interpretation of Luther as believing that Eve was ontologically inferior is correct, it is still true that companionship was denigrated into domination.
Luther considered the domination of men over women was Eve’s punishment because of the fall. Luther says that “The rule remains with the husband, and the wife is compelled to obey him by God’s command. He rules the home, and the state, wages war, defends his possession, tills the soil, and plants. The wife, on the other hand, is like a nail driven into the wall, she sits at home…” (Luther quoted in Women and Redemption pg. 120). It also follows from this and other passages that Luther believes that men are to rule in the church also. Women are not to speak, and to remain quiet in church gatherings. (Women and Redemption pg. 121)
Luther has much to say in the household, and this is where one may assume is teachings had impact for the good. Luther in his writings on marriage and the household is rather candid in his declaration that the authority of the husband is not to be abused, but also that the place of the woman is in the home. Luther, believing that believers are new creations, thought that Christian men should treat their wives differently than the pagan. He also believes that marriage had one purpose before the fall, but two after. Before the fall marriage was for companionship, but afterwards it is for companionship, and to restrain the lustfulness of the human heart. (LW 632-633) An articulated view of marriage can be seen in much of Luther’s writings when He says, “Therefore a married man should have regard for such a sacrament, honor it as sacred, and behave properly in marital obligations, so that those things which originate in the lust of the flesh do not occur as they do in the world of brute beasts.” (Pg. 633 Luther’s Works) He also says, “man should realize that by giving himself to his wife completely, and her to him that the man is not to “make a filthy sow’s sty of one’s marriage.”
Luther believed that a woman had a proper function in life where she would work best, and that place was in the home, he says, “What was said about the estate of marriage, however, should also be applied to widows and unmarried women, for they also belong to the domestic sphere.” (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper LW pg. 55)
Luther’s views maybe summarized as men rule the world outside the home, as well as inside, but the woman was to raise the child, and support the husband or be his helper. This state of affairs was not what the world was supposed to be but through the fall the woman lost her right to rule with the husband, and now is punished by being in subjection to her husband. Luther also was against any abuse of the man’s power he often quotes Paul’s language in Ephesians that men should not be harsh with their wives. Modern readers may find Luther sexist or chauvinistic, but it must be kept in mind that Luther is as much a part of his time period as we are, and this must be said for the next theologian that is to be examined, John Calvin.

Isaiah 45:7 not a good text to use, in order to prove God as the author of evil.

This passage is often used as a proof text to prove that God causes evil. I know the Calvinist answer will be that God never causes evil, he just ordains all things. If you want to be logically inconsistent that is your decision, but this passage does not teach "strong determinism" here is why,

"I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity (shalom) and create disaster (ra);
I, the Lord, do all these things."

The context of this passage is God illustrating how He has raised up Cyrus to do his bidding. Of course this is seen as in an international political light, which shows that God is the one true and living God of all the earth.
If we pay attention to the parallelism in this passage, and the language we will see why God makes this statement against the nations. The forming of light, and creating darkness in the first line, corresponds to the Shalom and Ra reference in the next sentence. Shalom is taken as peace or prosperity not "goodness" in some metaphysical sense, I would argue that Ra must linguistically be the opposite of Shalom, so it would be better to translate it disaster or calamity. Of course this is not a random or arbitrary action by God, but a punishment on the nations in particular Babylon via Cyrus.
Of course we know that Peace, or prosperity may not always be a good thing, especially when a nation is wicked. Therefore it is not an airtight case on the part of the Calvinist to take this passage to mean evil in a general all incompassing sense.
This text should be used only to argue that in certain circumstances God uses his power to create calamity for the purposes of punishing disobedient persons, or nations as this passage in its wider context will show.
I think that the confusion is that when biblical students see the word "ra" they automatically think of moral or ontological evil, instead of realizing that there maybe a rather wide range of meanings in context. We should remember, as Wittingstein argued, that words only get meaning from wider contexts.

When the Foundations are Destroyed What Shall we Do?

When the Foundations are Destroyed What Shall we Do?

Yesterday Katheryn Ware wrote an article that I think shows the conflict in the world of ideas. The conflict is not just about ethics, but also about the question of the existence of God. From the time of Plato it was believed that “the Good” was the foundation of all ethical principles, that there was some foundation upon which ethics could be founded, even after the enlightenment philosophers like Kant, Bentham, and many others tried to formulate some solid foundation for ethics, even if they did not believe in a theistic God they did believe that there had to be some foundation upon which we could make moral and ethical decision besides personal privy, but this has shown to be a dead end. I believe that Dr. Singer’s ideas will also go to the dust heap of history for the same reason. Dr. Singer is inconsistent in his ethics, on the grounds of a universe without a God, and a world that works on a theory of evolution that is based on Metaphysical Naturalism, framed in Carl Sagan’s oft quoted phrase, “The universe is all there has been, is, or ever will be.”
The Nietzschean critique of ethics shows that with the death of God a foundation for moral thought is groundless and only tools for the weak to reign in the strong. This clearly makes a mockery out of any attempt to create an “atheistic ethic.” Take for example Singer’s belief that we should protect animals from cruelty. I find cruelty to animals to be wrong on my theistic assumptions, but why pray tell; ought I care about manatees in Florida, or endangered lowland gorillas? If Evolutionary Naturalism is true, then I am living according to the principles set down by Natural selection. I am in a battle to survive, by having as many children as I can, and to do that I must eat, and worry about my own survival. Naturalism brings us to a completely egoistic “ethic”, which is just as random as the natural selection that has brought me into existence. For all of the mental gymnastics Dr. Singer tries to pull off he cannot escape the fact that he cannot answer the ought ness or the feeling of duty that we have toward a dying person, or even giving money to the poor. This is the crux of the matter with out a eternal transcendental foundation, or a “thou shall,” for ethical thought we should be consistent and embrace a philosophy of nihilism, and allow people to live as they please, whether that be all out indulgence or a life of self deprecation, because there is truly no “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “evil” because they are only constructs that the weak create so the strong cannot overpower them.
Singer is a weak ivory tower intellectual who wants to save the animals, but kill a mentally handicapped human being. I do not see why, on his philosophical assumptions, we should give a damn about either! I say kill them both if it furthers our ends in life. Of course you could take a pragmatic path that says that you should be ethical, because it is nice to others, and it maintains order in society, but then all you have done is placed ethics in a new God, just like a believer in theism does, which for the true nihilist is really no reason at all. When the universe is reduced down to a hopeless, cold, uncaring, irrational thing, then that is exactly what the inhabitants of it are. So with all do respect to Dr. Singer I do not think he has given me a reason to be horrified at the injustices of men toward animals.
Singer, in his attempt to rise above moral confusion replacing all traditional moral categories with his own is doing nothing other than falling into Nietzsche’s trap. Singer is a weak ivory tower intellectual who is trying to restrain the “Overman” of Nietzsche, which was the one who exerted his power over others, because he could. Nietzsche argued that humans tried to restrain the “Overman” for the sake of other weak human beings, Singer has only replaced weak humans with weak animals, which is just as absurd under the thought categories of atheism and Metaphysical naturalism.

Corporal Punishment and Micah 1

The Importance of Retributive Justice!
Is Retributive Justice wrong? I would argue that it is not, and would make the point that Genesis clearly allows for the death penalty. The death penalty is based on the bible's teachings on the Sanctitity of human life! One only has to look at the book of Genesis to have this case laid out before them in stark colors. Genesis says:

"From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative.

9:6 “Whoever sheds human blood,

by other humans

must his blood be shed;

for in God’s image

God has made humankind.”

Here in this passage the Noahic Covenant has been established. The point to make here is that the Noahic covenant was never abolished(not really a good word), like the Mosaic law. The sole reason given for the justification to take murder's life is the fact that he/she has shed the innocent blood of a person, that is created in God's image. In other words to kill a human being is to dishonor God's own image, which if anything should be punishable by death it should certainly be an affront to God's own being.



Blake


9:01 PM - add eprops - add comments - email it


micah 1
Thoughts on Micah
My comments are in brackets [].

1 The word of the LORD that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.
2 Hear, O peoples, all of you,
listen, O earth and all who are in it,
that the Sovereign LORD may witness against you,
the Lord from his holy temple.

[ It is easily noticed that in this passage Micah is using the prophetic Divine Law suit form of speech. Notice here as in the book of Deuternonomy that God calls the people to "hear" and then he calls on the whole earth to listen so that the Lord may bring a witness against this people. If Deuteronomy is read carefully it is in the form of a Suzerean law suit. The biblical form calls upon the earth, the stars, etc. as witnesses if the people fall into apostasy. Essentially, Micah is identifying the community of Israel as covenant breakers.]

Judgment Against Samaria and Jerusalem

3 Look! The LORD is coming from his dwelling place;
he comes down and treads the high places of the earth.
4 The mountains melt beneath him
and the valleys split apart,
like wax before the fire,
like water rushing down a slope.

[The metaphorical language in this passage serves to magnify the Lord's power and glory. As N.T. Wright and many other writers note this language is not meant to be taken in a literal fashion, but it is meant to be taken in a "concrete" fashion. Meaning that it is a symbolic way of describing real events. In this case the events are an invading army coming to punish or "plow" the people of God for their sins.]

5 All this is because of Jacob's transgression,
because of the sins of the house of Israel.
What is Jacob's transgression?
Is it not Samaria?
What is Judah's high place?
Is it not Jerusalem?
[This passage is astonishing in its denunciation upon the Jerusalem cult, and the cult in Samaria. Why is the Lord bringing judgment upon the people? Because of their violation of the covenant. Did not God lay down the blessings and cursings of violating his covenant in the book of Deuteronomy? In the Old Testament the "high places" where were people would go worship pagan fertility gods like Asherah and Baal. What is astonishing is that God says that he will punish Israel for Samaria, which is understandable because Samaria was set up as a opposite place of worship outside of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. But for Micah to call out the Jerusalem establishment, where God was said to dwell in His Temple was about as revolutionary as anything imaginable ot the ancient mind. God calls his own dwelling place, a high place that needs to be broken down. This should make us remember in our own churches, that we can put something else above God, and not even realize it. The Israelites problem was the worship of other gods, but the problem with the modern world is not so much "other gods" in the explicit sesne, but in the more insidius implicit sense. Our idols may take the form of our abstract concepts and philosophies, that we feel so certain about. One thing is certain though a God who is infinite, must be beyond our thought at least to a degree. The moment we think we have him pinned down is the moment we should start rethinking things. ]

6 "Therefore I will make Samaria a heap of rubble,
a place for planting vineyards.
I will pour her stones into the valley
and lay bare her foundations.

7 All her idols will be broken to pieces;
all her temple gifts will be burned with fire;
I will destroy all her images.
Since she gathered her gifts from the wages of prostitutes,
as the wages of prostitutes they will again be used."
[I am not sure if Jerusalem should be implicated in verses 6 and 7 since Jerusalem is not mentioned, only Samaria. Then again maybe Samaria is an archetype for Micah of universal false worship. If this is the case then God is lashing out at both Jerualem and Samaria for it idolotry. The reference to destroying the city and making it a heap of rubble where vineyards grow, is pointing to the fact that when God brings his destruction in history it will be absolutely traumatic, and final. In classic Old and New Testament form, God speaks of himself with jealousy calling Israel a prostitute who has sold her self out to the other nations. How many times in our own lives as the "New Israel" subject to whoring ourselves out to other gods! And the multiple ways in which we can do this is enough to make your head spin. Just think about it we can do this in our relationships, with our church, with famous preachers, with ideas, with work, anything that is conceivable can become an idol that God detests.]

I will finish the rest of chapter 1 when I have time.
Blake

Where is Jesus or a Problem of the Naïve Metaphysics of Wayne Grudem?

Wayne Grudem, thought of by many as one of the best evangelical theologians, makes the assertion in his Systematic Theology that the ascension means that Jesus is “somewhere” or in a “place.” Grudem then goes on to chastise evangelicals who say that this is simply metaphorical language in speaking about Jesus’ Ascension.
I have multiple problems with Grudem in this case, but I think his biggest problem in this passage is his metaphysic. Grudem wants the reader to believe that God is outside of time, incorporeal, etc. yet he wants this being to be in a “place”. I think Grudem is having trouble with language in this regard. He seems to forget that human language is designed to only deal with sense data, which makes it difficult to define realities outside of our sense experience. A good example of this language problem is when we speak of God “seeing” into the future. If we think about this we know that God does not have eyes to see. This is a metaphorical way of speaking about God. I would submit that what the disciples saw at Jesus Ascension was on a plane that they had to empty out their linguistic cupboard to describe. I think the language of an “upward ascension” is the language of theophony which does indeed represent a real event, but one that does not happen everyday. Grudem is trying to get scripture to explain something in univocal fashion, that probably can only be explained analogically. More on this distinction later.
I think Grudem commits the same fallacy, or error in thinking that Frederick Copleston pointed out in his A History of Philosophy when he was discussing Plato’s theory of the forms and the misguided critique of the “forms” spatial position. He says, “In the case of that which transcends space and time, we cannot even legitimately raise the question, where it is. It is nowhere, as far as local presence is concerned (though it is not nowhere in the sense of being unreal). The separation would thus seem to imply, in the case of the Platonic essence, a reality beyond the subjective reality of the abstract concept- a subsistent reality, but not a local separation. It is, therefore, just as true to say that the essence is immanent, as that it is transcendent: the great point is that it is real and independent of particulars, unchanged and abiding. It is foolish to remark that if the Platonic Essense is real, it must be somewhere. Absolute Being, for instance, does not exist outside us in the sense in which a flower exists outside us—for it might just as well be said to exist inside us, in as much as spatial categories simply do not apply to it. On the other hand, it cannot be said to be inside us in the sense that it is purely subjective, is confined to us, comes into being with us, and perishes through our agency or with us. It is both transcendent and immanent, inaccessible to the senses, apprehensible only by the intellect.”
Did the disciples sense something with their senses? I believe that they did, but I do not think that it implies that Jesus is floating around somewhere in the space-time universe. Grudem did not deal with the nature of the resurrection body, which could very well exist in an incorporeal way (it passes through walls), and be eternal, as well in some sense being physical. Grudem has hit the wall of human language like a Mack truck, and has not realized the multiple problems his position has for his doctrine of God. It is clear from the gospels that the resurrection body was Jesus’ body transformed. What is the extent of this transformation? I do not think we know very well. The only thing we know is that it is eternal and physical in someway. Grudem has made it restrained to our time-space universe, which I think is a mistake.

Dealing with Delay, or An Integral Tension Within Biblical Thought?

This topic has been one to cause much cognitive disonance within Christian circles, and a deadly threat to the Christian faith. I know from personal experience, after having dealt with this subject for quite sometime. I do not claim that what I am going to say resolves the problem indefinitely, but I think it may make the issue a little bit more clear to believers and unbelievers alike.
When coming to the topic of what New Testament Critics have called the “delay of the Parousia”, it is assumed out of hand that this causes a insurmountable problem for the Christian faith, or worse, totally invalidates it and shows that it is in fact a false worldview. There is no getting around the fact that there is imminence language in the New Testament, as Ben Witherington has shown quite clearly in his book Jesus, Paul, and The End of the World. The problem stated in a very general fashion is: Jesus and the rest of the New Testament characters believed that Christ’s return would happen with in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples, and when this belief was proven wrong when Christ did not return after the fall of Jerusalem the early Church then reverted to doing theology.
I think that most of the explanations that have arisen to tackle this very thorny problem in believing scholarship has failed. I also believe that this is the most significant objection to the Christian faith, quite possibly rivaling the problem of evil for the truth or falsity of the Christian faith.
In this paper I will attempt to, first show that the traditional approaches to this topic have failed. I will show that first the most recent attempt to answer this problem by scholars like N.T. Wright have failed, because they try and squeeze biblical language to fit a certain mold across the board that I do no think the New Testament, History, nor scholarship will uphold. Second, I will attempt to show that the traditional position of critical scholarship is off target on this topic. I think that they plaster the early Christians with too much naivety. Finally, I will attempt to show that there is something more profound going on in the OT and NT, and even the rabbis when they use the language of imminence for the coming of God. This paper will depend much upon the work of C.E.B Cranfield, Ben Witherington, Albert Schweitzer, Dale C. Allison, and Richard Bauckham and his article “The Delay of the Parousia” in the Tyndale Bulletein. I have never seen his position critiqued other than to say it is just “a way around the problem”. Bauckham in his examination of the Rabbinical literature and select passages from the OT shows that “nearness” was a way of speaking about the coming of YHWH, and it was more for ethical imperative than any form of date setting.
Series I. HIstory of the Problem in New Testament Studies
A. Remairus and Wrede
B. Schweitzer
C. Others?

Series II. An Old Testament Problem?

Series III A Rabbinical Problem?

Series IV. A New Testament Problem?

A) Jesus
B) Paul
C) Peter
D) Jude
E) John (emphasis on Revelation)
F) Conclusion

Series V. The Problem Critically scrutinized. In...
A) Jesus
B) Paul
C) Peter
D) Jude
E) John
F) Conclusion
Series VI. Summary and Conclusions from Study

I am sure this outline will change, this is how I think I will proceed.