|
2674
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans Chapt. 5 and 6 commentary John Calvin
|
on: April 06, 2011, 05:53:11 PM
|
|
6. That our old man, etc.
The old
man, as the Old Testament is so called with reference to the New; for he
begins to be old, when he is by degrees destroyed by a commencing
regeneration. But what he means is the whole nature which we bring from
the womb, and which is so incapable of the kingdom of God, that it must
so far die as we are renewed to real life. This old man, he says, is
fastened to the cross of Christ, for by its power he is slain: and he
expressly referred to the cross, that he might more distinctly show,
that we cannot be otherwise put to death than by partaking of his death.
For I do not agree with those who think that he used the word
crucified, rather than dead, because he still lives, and is in some
respects vigorous. It is indeed a correct sentiment, but not suitable to
this passage. The body of sin, which he afterwards mentions, does not
mean flesh and bones, but the corrupted mass; for man, left to his own
nature, is a mass made up of sin. 188188 It is thought by Pareus and
others, that “body” is here assigned to “sin,” in allusion to the
crucifixion that is mentioned, as a body in that case is fixed to the
cross, and that it means the whole congeries, or, as Calvin calls it,
the whole mass of sins, such as pride, passion, lust, etc. But the
reason for using the word “body,” is more probably this, because he
called innate sin, man — “the old man;” and what properly belongs to man
is a body. The “body of sin” is a Hebraism, and signifies a sinful
body. It has no special reference to the material body, as Origen
thought. The “man” here is to be taken in a spiritual sense, as one who
has a mind, reason, and affections: therefore the body which belongs to
him must be of the same character: it is the whole of what appertains to
“the old man,” as he is corrupt and sinful, the whole of what is
earthly, wicked, and depraved in him. It is the sinful body of the old
man. — Ed.
He points out the end for which this destruction is
effected, when he says, so that we may no longer serve sin. It hence
follows, that as long as we are children of Adam, and nothing more than
men, we are in bondage to sin, that we can do nothing else but sin; but
that being grafted in Christ, we are delivered from this miserable
thraldom; not that we immediately cease entirely to sin, but that we
become at last victorious in the contest.
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
|
2676
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology
|
on: April 05, 2011, 10:37:34 AM
|
|
Going to move on to the next section.... i am not interested in discussing his socialistic views.
MORAL OBLIGATION
The idea of obligation, or of oughtness, is an idea of the pure reason. It is a simple,
rational
conception, and, strictly speaking, does not admit of a definition,
since there are no terms more simple by which it may be defined.
Obligation is a term by which we express a conception or idea which all
men have, as is manifest from the universal language of men.
All
men have the ideas of right and wrong, and have words by which these
ideas are expressed, and, perhaps, no idea among men more frequently
reveals itself in words than that of oughtness or obligation. The term
cannot be defined, for the simple reason that it is too well and too
universally understood to need or even to admit of being expressed in
any language more simple and definite than the word obligation itself.
The Conditions Of Moral Obligation
There
is a distinction of fundamental importance between the condition and
the ground of obligation. The ground of obligation is the consideration
which creates or imposes obligation, the fundamental reason of the
obligation. Of this I shall inquire in its proper place. At present I am
to define the conditions of obligation. But I must in this place
observe that there are various forms of obligation. For example,
obligation to choose an ultimate end of life as the highest good of the
universe; obligation to choose the necessary conditions of this end, as
holiness, for example; and obligation to put forth executive efforts to
secure this end. The conditions of obligation vary with the form of
obligation, as we shall fully perceive in the course of our
investigations.
Mans moral ability was lost by Adams sin.
There is no sinner who can meet these obligations. This is why i hold to
the position that the law is to be delivered through the paradigm of
sovereign grace. Because the standard must be greater than the universal
understanding of the highest standard. Our problem is that we think in a
way in which through this process of shame and un trustworthiness we
increase our frustration spiraling down from drawing our identity from
the real Man. We are naturally under the obligation to be in the miry
pit. I do not think the miry pit is just our guilt from sin but its
thinking of our rational moral ability with false standards.
I
have heard recently that the Pharisees kept the letter of the law but
were not holding to the spirit of the law. But the spirit of the law is
that if you break one of the least of these commands then you break them
all. That is different from the letter of the law. But the Pharisees
practiced divorcing their wives for any cause which was forbidden in the
letter of the law given at mount Sinai. This curse that Jesus was
speaking about may have been a kind of figure of speech to increase the
focus on their method of interpretation rather than just chiding them
about the adultery. Because Christ did not introduce a new moral ability
through the nt covenant because salvation has always been in the same
mode. We do not want to divide the NT from the OT. But rather the OT is
revealed in the NT. The point is that man in his natural view of the law
is devoid of special grace and is the personal subject of the curse of
the law. Its much worse than thinking in terms of the universal highest
obligation and drawing inferences about the truth of the moral
obligation by that process.
The old testament concept of the
process of moral inability is conceived by a man who has been implanted
with the seed of sin. The metonymy is that sin is like a living
influence and infects a man in this relationship. We really are talking
about the life of sin corrupting the whole man. So there is never a time
when a man does not have a thought that goes astray. All of mans
thoughts are sinful. The errant thought is a declaration of independence
from God. It is treasonous to the kingdom and plan of God. Every
thought is like a soldier in opposition to Gods armies who is a Judas.
Man is not only subject to the consequences of laws broken but man is
subject to the direct words from our Saviors lips that he is defiled and
cursed. This is exactly what Christ pronounced as the prophet who spoke
the decrees of God. Our position as law breakers is that we are always
in our rite mode of thinking when we fall back on grace.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2678
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: CHAPTER 19. - OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. J CALVIN
|
on: April 03, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
|
|
14. Since by means
of this privilege of liberty which we have described, believers have
derived authority from Christ not to entangle themselves by the
observance of things in which he wished them to be free, we conclude
that their consciences are exempted from all human authority.
For
it were unbecoming that the gratitude due to Christ for his liberal
gift should perish or that the consciences of believers should derive no
benefit from it. We must not regard it as a trivial matter when
we
see how much it cost our Savior, being purchased not with silver or
gold, but with his own blood (1 Pet. 1:18, 19); so that Paul hesitates
not to say that Christ has died in vain, if we place our souls under subjection to men (Gal. 5:1, 4; 1 Cor. 7:23).
Several chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians are wholly occupied with showing that
Christ is obscured, or rather extinguished to us, unless our consciences maintain their liberty
;
from which they have certainly fallen, if they can be bound with the
chains of laws and constitutions at the pleasure of men. But as the
knowledge of this subject is of the greatest importance, so it demands a
longer and clearer exposition. For the moment the abolition of human
constitutions is mentioned, the greatest disturbances are excited,
partly by the seditious, and partly by calumniators, as if obedience of
every kind were at the same time abolished and overthrown.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2680
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Whitefields letter to Westley
|
on: April 01, 2011, 01:33:07 PM
|
|
"As directly," you say, "does the doctrine
tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness, such as
meekness, love, et cetera." I shall say little, dear Sir, in answer to
this paragraph. Dear Mr. Wesley perhaps has been disputing with some
warm narrow-spirited men that held election, and then he infers that
their warmth and narrowness of spirit was owing to their principles? But
does not dear Mr. Wesley know many dear children of God, who are
predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender-
hearted, kind, of a catholic spirit, and hope to see the most vile and
profligate of men converted? And why? because they know God saved
themselves by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may
have elected those who now seem to be the most abandoned.
But, dear
Sir, we must not judge of the truth of principles in general, nor of
this of election in particular, entirely from the practice of some that
profess to hold them. If so, I am sure much might be said against your
own. For I appeal to your own heart, whether or not you have not felt in
yourself, or observed in others, a narrow-spiritedness, and some
disunion of soul respecting those that hold universal redemption. If so,
then according to your own rule, universal redemption is wrong, because
it destroys several branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, et
cetera. But not to insist upon this, I beg you would observe that your
inference is entirely set aside by the force of the Apostle's argument,
and the language which he expressly uses in Colossians 3:12-13: "Put on
therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies,
kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one
another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against
any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2681
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: CHAPTER 19. - OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. J CALVIN
|
on: April 01, 2011, 01:23:43 PM
|
|
13. Whatever I have said about avoiding
offenses, I wish to be referred to things indifferent.460460 The
French adds, “Lesquelles ne sont de soy ne bonnes ne mauvais;”—which in
themselves are neither good nor bad. Things which are necessary to be
done cannot be omitted from any fear of offense. For as our liberty is
to be made subservient to charity, so charity must in its turn be
subordinate to purity of faith. Here, too, regard must be had to
charity, but it must go as far as the altar; that is, we must not offend
God for the sake of our neighbor. We approve not of the intemperance of
those who do every thing tumultuously, and would rather burst through
every restraint at once than proceed step by step. But neither are those
to be listened to who, while they take the lead in a thousand forms of
impiety, pretend that they act thus to avoid giving offense to their
neighbor, as if in the meantime they did not train the consciences of
their neighbors to evil, especially when they always stick in the same
mire without any hope of escape. When a neighbor is to be instructed,
whether by doctrine or by example, then smooth-tongued men say that he
is to be fed with milk, while they are instilling into him the worst and
most pernicious opinions. Paul says to the Corinthians, “I have fed you
with milk, and not with meat,” (1 Cor. 3:2); but had there then been a
Popish mass among them, would he have sacrificed as one of the modes of
giving them milk? By no means: milk is not poison.
It is false then to say they nourish those whom, under a semblance of soothing they cruelly murder.
But granting that such dissimulation may be used for a time, how long are they to make their pupils drink that kind of milk?
If they never grow up
so as to be able to bear at least some gentle food, it is certain that
they have never been reared on milk.461461 French, “de bon
laict;”—good milk.
Two reasons prevent me from now
entering farther into contest with these people, first, their follies
are scarcely worthy of refutation, seeing all men of sense must nauseate
them; and, 2140secondly, having already amply refuted them in special
treatises, I am unwilling to do it over again.462462 See Epist. de
Fugiendis Impiorum Illicitis Sacris. Also Epist. de Abjiciendis vel
Administrandis Sacerdotiis Also the short treatise, De Vitandis
Superstitionibus. Let my readers only bear in mind, first, that whatever
be the offenses by which Satan and the world attempt to lead us away
from the law of God, we must, nevertheless, strenuously proceed in the
course which he prescribes; and, secondly, that whatever dangers impend,
we are not at liberty to deviate one nail’s breadth from the command of
God, that on no pretext is it lawful to attempt any thing but what he
permits.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2682
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans Chapt. 6 commentary John Calvin
|
on: April 01, 2011, 01:12:46 PM
|
|
By the glory of the Father, that is, by that
illustrious power by which he exhibited himself as really glorious, and
as it were manifested the greatness of his glory. Thus often is the
power of God, which was exercised in the resurrection of Christ, set
forth in Scripture in sublime terms, and not without reason; for it is
of great importance, that by so explicit a record of the ineffable power
of God, not only faith in the last resurrection, which far exceeds the
perception of the flesh, but also as to other benefits which we receive
from the resurrection of Christ, should be highly commended to us. 186
5. For if we have been ingrafted, etc. He strengthens in plainer words the argument he has already stated;
for
the similitude which he mentions leaves now nothing doubtful, inasmuch
as grafting designates not only a conformity of example, but a secret
union, by which we are joined to him; so that he, reviving us by his Spirit, transfers his own virtue to us.
Hence
as the graft has the same life or death in common with the tree into
which it is ingrafted, so it is reasonable that we should be partakers
of the life no less than of the death of Christ; for if we are ingrafted
according to the likeness of Christ’s death, which was not without a
resurrection, then our death shall not be without a resurrection. But
the words admit of a twofold explanation, — either that we are ingrafted
in Christ into the likeness of his death, or, that we are simply
ingrafted in its likeness. The first reading would require the Greek
dative ὁμοιώματι, to be understood as pointing out the manner; nor do I
deny but that it has a fuller meaning: but as the other harmonizes more
with simplicity of expression, I have preferred it; though it signifies
but little, as both come to the same meaning. Chrysostom thought that
Paul used the expression, “likeness of death,” for death, as he says in
another place, “being made in the likeness of men.” But it seems to me
that there is something more significant in the expression; for it not
only serves to intimate a resurrection, but it seems also to indicate
this — that we die not like Christ a natural death, but that there is a
similarity between our and his death; for as he by death died in the flesh, which he had assumed from us, so we also die in ourselves, that we may live in him.
It is not then the same, but a similar death; for we are to notice the
connection between the death of our present life and spiritual
renovation.
Ingrafted, etc. There is great force in this word,
and it clearly shows, that the Apostle does not exhort, but rather teach
us what benefit we derive from Christ; for he
requires nothing from us, which is to be done by our attention and
diligence, but speaks of the grafting made by the hand of God.
But there is no reason why you should seek to apply the metaphor or
comparison in every particular; for between the grafting of trees, and
this which is spiritual, a disparity will soon meet us: in the former
the graft draws its aliment from the root, but retains its own nature in
the fruit; but in the latter not only we derive the vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass from our own to his nature. The Apostle, however, meant to express nothing else but the efficacy of the death of Christ,
which manifests itself in putting to death our flesh, and also the efficacy of his resurrection, in renewing within us a spiritual nature. 187
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2684
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans Chapt. 6 commentary John Calvin
|
on: March 29, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
|
|
3. Know ye not, etc. What he intimated in the
last verse — that Christ destroys sin in his people, he proves here by
mentioning the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into his
faith; for it is beyond any question, that we put on Christ in baptism,
and that we are baptized for this end — that we may be one with him. But
Paul takes up another principle — that we are then really united to the
body of Christ, when his death brings forth in us its fruit; yea, he
teaches us, that this fellowship as to death is what is to be mainly
regarded in baptism; for not washing alone is set forth in it, but also
the putting to death and the dying of the old man. It is hence evident,
that when we become partakers of the grace of Christ, immediately the
efficacy of his death appears. But the benefit of this fellowship as to
the death of Christ is described in what follows. 184184 “Baptized
into (εἰς) Christ,” “baptized into (εἰς) Moses,” 1 Corinthians 10:2,
“baptized into (εἰς) one body,” 1 Corinthians 12:13, are all the same
forms of expression, and must mean, that by the rite of baptism a
professed union is made, and, in the two first instances, a submission
to the authority exercised is avowed.
By “baptized into his death,” we are to understand, “baptized,” in order to die with him, or to die as he died; not that the death is the same;
for it is a like death, as it is expressed in Romans 6:5, as the
resurrection is a like resurrection. His death was natural, ours is
spiritual; the same difference holds as to the resurrection.
It is the likeness
that is throughout to be regarded; and this is the key to the whole
passage. It is true, that through the efficacy of Christ’s death alone
the death of his people takes place, and through the operation of his
Spirit; but to teach this is not the design of the Apostle here; his
object seems to be merely to show that a change takes place in every
true Christian, symbolized by baptism, and that this change bears a
likeness to the death and resurrection of our Savior. He speaks of
baptism here not merely as a symbol, but as including what it
symbolizes; as he does in a similar passage, Colossians 2:11, 12, where
he refers to this change, first under the symbol of circumcision, and
then of baptism; which clearly proves that the same thing is signified
by both. — Ed.
4. We have then been buried with him, etc. He now
begins to indicate the object of our having been baptized into the death
of Christ, though he does not yet completely unfold it; and the object
is — that we, being dead to ourselves, may become new creatures.
He
rightly makes a transition from a fellowship in death to a fellowship
in life; for these two things are connected together by an indissoluble
knot — that the old man is destroyed by the death of Christ, and that
his resurrection brings righteousness, and renders us new creatures.
And
surely, since Christ has been given to us for life, to what purpose is
it that we die with him except that we may rise to a better life? And
hence for no other reason does he slay what is mortal in us, but that he
may give us life again.
Let us know, that the Apostle does not
simply exhort us to imitate Christ, as though he had said that the death
of Christ is a pattern which all Christians are to follow; for no doubt
he ascends higher, as he announces a doctrine, with which he connects,
as it is evident, an exhortation; and his doctrine is this —
that
the death of Christ is efficacious to destroy and demolish the
depravity of our flesh, and his resurrection, to effect the renovation
of a better nature, and that by baptism we are admitted into a
participation of this grace.
This foundation being
laid, Christians may very suitably be exhorted to strive to respond to
their calling. Farther, it is not to the point to say, that this power
is not apparent in all the baptized; for Paul, according to his usual
manner, where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the
effect with the outward sign; for we know that whatever the Lord offers
by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith. In
short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when rightly
received. So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27.) Thus indeed
must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the faith of
the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols,
except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine
beneficence. 185
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2685
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: CHAPTER 19. - OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. J CALVIN
|
on: March 29, 2011, 07:33:22 AM
|
|
12. The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees:
for
if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses,
any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the
greatest danger.
But Paul seems to me to have marked out
most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in
the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When he adopts
Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to
circumcise Titus (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The acts are different, but
there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising
Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of
all: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to
them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them
that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law
(being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I
might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I
might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by
all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We have here the proper
modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained
with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the
circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: “But
neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you,” (Gal. 2:3-5).
We
here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust
exactions of false apostles, it is 2139brought into danger with weak
consciences.
In all cases we must study charity, and look
to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,”
says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for
me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man
another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). There is nothing plainer than
this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification
of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain
from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by
abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less
employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they
would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the
interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification,
than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a
pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external
things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.
This one i might not see eye to eye with Calvin. I do not fundamentally disagree with him tho.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment