Monthly Archives: May 2012

They mock…

Posted on by
Reply

What do we say when unbelievers mock the law of God?

R. C. Sproul Jr responds:

It’s not peculiarly new, this objection. People have used it for some time when confronted with the plain teaching of the Bible. Those outside the church seek to wiggle out from under the commands of God by, oddly, pointing to the commands of God. When we say “The Bible forbids x” they don’t reply, “It does not.” Instead they reply, “The Bible also says you can’t wear a shirt with both cotton and wool. The Bible also says you can sell your daughter. The Bible also says you can stone your son if he gets out of line.” And most Christians slink away.

The argument assumes the existence of a universal moral law that all humans recognize, but then suggests that the Bible itself not only falls short of that moral law but clearly and immediately opposes that universal moral law. The argument suggests, “Given that the Bible’s sense of morality says this, why should we listen to what it has to say about that?” It has reared its ugly head again in light of the President’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage.” And as usual, too many Christians are running scared.

What though, ought we to do with laws that challenge our sensibilities? The first thing we need to do is to understand the nature, meaning and scope of the laws. Consider, for instance, God’s command to Old Testament Israel that they not wear clothing of mixed materials. This law falls under what we call the ceremonial laws. These laws were not given because eternal moral standards require them. They were given instead for a more narrow, specific purpose- to set Israel apart from her neighbors. The same would apply to prohibitions against eating pork or shellfish. These laws were given for a people, for a time. They were not evil laws then, but they are not binding laws now. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, which means we now can eat a BLT, and better still, don’t have to be circumcised.

Some of the “offending” laws, however, were not ceremonial as such, but were civil. The Old Testament civil law, for instance, allowed for recalcitrant, disobedient children to be stoned to death. This did not mean, of course, that failure to pick up ones toys was a capital offense. The law instead dealt with older, teenaged children who defied, who dishonored, who maligned their parents continually. Still find it offensive?

Then you need to repent. The God of heaven and earth determined that the nation of Israel, that He formed, that He governed, should have such a law. No doubt recalcitrant children didn’t like it. No doubt their heathen neighbors didn’t like it. But we who are supposed to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit are commanded to disciple the nations, commanding them to obey all that Jesus commanded. And Jesus, remember, came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

The heathen find this retort effective not because God’s law is shameful, but because we are shamefully ashamed of it. We are already compromised, having our sense of justice informed by the world, rather than the Word. Our calling is not to squirm, not to apologize, not to try to cover for God. No, our calling is to stand on His Word, to have our consciences held captive to it, to adjust our moral sensibilities so they match God’s, rather than the world’s. Our calling is to be ashamed of ourselves, rather than the One who rescued us from our sins.

Calvin & Servetus (Revisited)

Posted on by
1

Geoff Ashley writes:

In August of 1553, Switzerland, home of the reformer John Calvin. Two months later he was executed. To read many internet articles, Calvin systematically stalked and slaughtered any person who dared oppose him. This picture of Calvin painted by his critics is a caricature greatly distorting the truth.

Before harshly judging Calvin a heartless tyrant, let us first hear the facts of the case. Here are a few things to consider:

1. Heresy was a capital crime in Geneva. Unlike the modern, Western separation of church and state, the world Calvin inhabited was one in which no such division existed. To be guilty of theological error was to be guilty of criminal offense. This political system existed as the norm for the vast majority of the world. Indeed, all the Protestants and Roman Catholics who were consulted at the time agreed with the execution.

2. Calvin was not the ultimate authority in Geneva. He certainly was no dictator as he is often portrayed by the misinformed. The magisterial council (who formally decided the case) opposed Calvin (who was not a citizen of Geneva) and used the trial to demonstrate their authority over him. Calvin did not have final power to condemn or save Servetus.

3. Servetus was not condemned for Arminianism, but for Pelagianism (the denial of original sin), Modalism (an anti-Trinitarian heresy), Pantheism (a rejection of the fundamental distinction between Creator and creation) and other serious theological errors. To read most internet sensationalism, Calvin opposed anyone who opposed Calvinism. In truth, he opposed anyone who opposed the gospel.

4. Nearly two decades earlier, Servetus asked Calvin to leave the safety of Geneva to discuss their differences. Though Calvin was wanted by the authorities in the area in which they were to meet, he went at the risk of his own life to reconcile Servetus to the truth of the gospel. Servetus never showed.

5. Calvin corresponded with Servetus before and during his imprisonment, imploring him to recant. One letter read, “I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.” Reflecting later, Calvin wrote, “I reminded him gently how I had risked my life more than sixteen years before to gain him for our saviour. I would faithfully do my best to reconcile him to all good servants of God. Although he had avoided the contest I had never ceased to remonstrate kindly with him in letters. In a word, I had used all humanity to the very end, until he being embittered by my good advice hurled all manner of rage and anger against me.”

6. Calvin visited Servetus in prison and prayed with and for him. J.I. Packer stated, “Calvin, for the record, showed more pastoral concern for Servetus than anyone else connected with the episode.”

7. As Bruce Gordon wrote, “Heresy was a capital offense, but Calvin did not want Servetus to die.” When the council ordered execution by burning at the stake, Calvin alone intervened to appeal for a more merciful beheading. The council refused.

Of Calvin’s role in the Servetus affair, the historian Paul Henry writes:

…a nearer consideration of the proceeding, examined from the point of view furnished by the age in which he lived, will completely exonerate him from all blame. His conduct was not determined by personal feeling; it was the consequence of a struggle which this great man had carried on for years against tendencies to a corruption of doctrine which threatened the church with ruin. Every age must be judged according to its prevailing laws; and Calvin cannot be fairly accused of any greater offence than that with which we may be charged for punishing certain crimes with death.

While we might disagree that Calvin is completely exonerated from all criticism in the case, the actual circumstances should greatly temper the rabid accusations which are often leveled at him.

Calvin and the leading reformers of his day approved the death of a heretic. But does this blemish invalidate the whole of their teaching? Do David’s actions regarding Bathsheba and Uriah nullify the Psalms? Does Peter’s cowardice and prejudice negate his epistles? There is only One Who has ever perfectly passed the litmus test of character. Such unfortunate failures and flaws in His people highlight all the more the grace God lavishes on such dreadful sinners as us.

Years later, on the verge of death, Calvin wrote, “With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which [God] has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of his death and passion, that in this way he might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from his remembrance…I confess I have failed innumerable times to execute my office properly, and had not He, of His boundless goodness, assisted me, all that zeal had been fleeting and vain…For all these reasons, I testify and declare that I trust to no other security for my salvation than this, and this only, viz., that as God is the Father of mercy, he will show himself such a Father to me, who acknowledge myself to be a miserable sinner.”