Calvin’s Beliefs
Saw this online…
1. Calvin thought that the Church had the power of excommunication: “The Church binds him whom she excommunicates, not by plunging him into eternal ruin and despair, but condemning his life and manners, and admonishing him, that, unless he repent, he is condemned.” (Institutes, IV, 11:2)
2. Calvin believed that there was no salvation outside the Church: “Beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, . . .” (IV, 1:4)
3. Calvin thought weekly Holy Communion was the minimum frequency: “The sacrament might be celebrated in the most becoming manner, if it were dispensed to the Church very frequently, at least once a-week.” (IV, 17:43)
4. Calvin believed in the primacy of St. Peter, as leader of the apostles: “There is no senate without a consul, no bench of judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a provost, no company without a master. Thus there would be no absurdity were we to confess that the apostles had conferred such a primacy on Peter.” (IV, 6:8)
5. Calvin accepted the primacy of the Roman Church in early Christian history: “I deny not that the early Christians uniformly give high honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence. . . . [it] adhered more firmly to the doctrine once delivered, . . .” (IV, 6:16)
6. Calvin believed in the indefectibility of the Church: “I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church . . .” (IV, 9:13)
7. Calvin utterly detested denominations and sectarianism: “Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal (August. Ep. 48), for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, . . .” (IV, 1:2)
8. Calvin thought that sacraments produce real, beneficial effects: “They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.” (IV, 14:7) / “That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, . . .” (IV, 17:10)
9. Calvin taught that there was such a thing as a holy, sacred place: “God . . . descend[s] to us, that he may be near to us, and yet neither change his place nor affect us by earthly means, but rather, . . . raise us aloft to his own heavenly glory, . . .” (IV, 1:5)
10. Calvin believed that human beings could be distributors or mediators of salvation: “In several passages he [St. Paul] . . . attributes to himself the province of bestowing salvation (1 Cor. 3:9).” (IV, 1:6)
11. Calvin seemingly accepted the notion of baptismal regeneration: “. . . forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ.” (IV, 15:4)
12. Calvin approved of bodily mortification as spiritually beneficial: “In like manner, therefore, as persons accused were anciently wont, . . . to humble themselves suppliantly with . . . coarse garments, . . . weeping and fasting, and the like, undoubtedly belong, in an equal degree, to our age, whenever the condition of our affairs so requires.” (IV, 12:17)
13. Calvin believed that there was a profound causal connection between Holy Eucharist and salvation: “Nay, the very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. . . . by this food believers are reared to eternal life.” (IV, 17:8) / “. . . the food of eternal life.” (IV, 17:19) / “. . . secures the immortality of our flesh, . . .” (IV, 17:32)
14. Calvin held that contraception was gravely sinful: “It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime.” (Commentary on Genesis [38:10], translated by John King)
15. Calvin accepted the Catholic and scriptural belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary: “[On Matthew 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.” (Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, Geneva, 1562, Vol. I, p. 107; from Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949)
That Calvin believed these things should really come with no surprise. The reformers sought to reform the Church, not to revolutionize it, therefore the larger part of what we believe is held in common.
Thanks for the post.
Hey man, sorry for fading away in the previous dialogue – work got busy and we were travelling.
I posted this for a few reasons. Firstly, I wonder how many Calvinists today would affirm that Mary was perpetually virgin and decry contraception as gravely sinful.
Secondly, here was a quotation which seems to baptismal regeneration, although other writings seem to contradict that. Since we last spoke, I had a long talk over lunch with a Presbyterian Pastor friend of mine and I left with the impression that even Calvin wasn’t sure what he thought on the issue, let alone the various Calvinistic denominations.
Lastly, I find Calvin’s stance just…strange. He says that the church can’t defect from the truth, yet doesn’t he have to affirm that in order to justify the Reformation? He affirms the Church’s power to excommunicate, the primacy of Peter and Rome, yet is willing to reject such authority and arrogate it to himself.
No problem, I hope you and your family are well.
I think most Calvinists would call the perpetual virginity adiaphora. I personally believe she was perpetually virgin, but it doesn’t much affect my faith.
Contraception, to me is much more important, and it saddens me that many of my brothers disagree with me or treat it as a matter of small importance. I myself strongly believe it is a sin.
Calvin left his views on the sacraments intentionally obscure. He believed that had real effect and despised the errors of the memorialists; he didn’t want to clearly define what happens in the sacraments, preferring to leave them a mystery.
By the way, due to our previous conversation, I have come to believe in baptismal regeneration of the elect.
He didn’t say that the visible church coudn’t defect from the truth. Nor does he give himself any authority above Scripture or as the apostles. He did believe in apostolic succession and the sacrament of ordination (he distinguishes this from the “ordinary sacraments” but it is a sacrament nonetheless) but not that Peter passed his special authority on, unless I am mistaken. He held that presbyters, elders, bishops, are equal in rank.
I think this is a very clear example of why Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. There’s a strong biblical case against it and universal historical case, yet under Sola Scriptura the historical record can just be ignored and the Biblical texts reinterpreted.
The trouble with this position is that it purposefully obscures what was clear to previous generations of Christians.
Glad to hear it, although I’m guessing your wording here is very specific – due to your commitment to the P of TULIP, you have to limit regeneration to the elect. This then puts you in the odd position that when a baby is baptised you can say “I’m CERTAIN that grace MAY have been imparted”.
What about the quotation in the post which says “I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church . . .” (IV, 9:13).
When I read histories of his life in Geneva, it seems to me that he had more power than a Pope.
Hmmm…a certain understanding of Apostolic succession. It’s also problematic for a few reasons, such as his understanding of the episcopacy. Also, Arius had apostolic succession, but it didn’t do him much good 😉
Why would Christ give a special authority to Peter, only to be lost within a generation? For what purpose?
Also, when Jesus institutes the twelve and Peter, He’s clearly modelling it off the government of the Davidic Kingdom, the cabinet of ministers with a Prime Minister. Why would the cabinet’s authority continue, but not the Prime Minister?
…and this really puts him at odds with the Early Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) speaks very clearly to the three-fold levels of clergy. Not only that, we find absolutely no objection to Ignatius or his successors anywhere. In the Early Church, Christians wrote against all kinds of heresy and liturgical disputes (e.g. quartodeciman controversy), but nobody anywhere seems to complain that this upstart from Antioch was going against the teaching of the Apostles by adding an extra tier to Holy Orders.
(For more information on this, please see here)
“I think this is a very clear example of why Sola Scriptura doesn’t work…”
Biblical texts can be ignored as well. But the church fathers or anyone else did not convince me of it, Scripture did. I wasn’t convinced of Reformed doctrine by the Church Fathers, or R.C. Sproul (though they certainly played a part); it was Scripture. This does not downplay the role of church fathers, the creeds, or apologetics. They are all good things, but their basis must be scripture. And ( I assume you believe in Old Earth Creation) you ignore the universal consent by the church fathers to young earth. Why? Because it isn’t a “matter of faith”–it isn’t based on Scripture.
”
‘This then puts you in the odd position that when a baby is baptised you can say “I’m CERTAIN that grace MAY have been imparted”.’
I can be certain that grace has been imparted, not only to the infant, but the the parents and the entire church. Even to a non-elect individual, if they are raised by a covenant family, it will be something that changes them and influences its entire life.
“What about the quotation in the post which says “I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church . . .” (IV, 9:13).” But it doesn’t say “truth in the visible church” this is referring to the invisible, universal, catholic church.
He held that presbyters, elders, bishops, are equal in rank.
“…and this really puts him at odds with the Early Church.”
I will let Saint Jerome speak for me.
“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord.
—Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:7 (HT: Mike Kruger)
In both epistles commandment is given that only monogamists should, be chosen for the clerical office whether as bishops or as presbyters. Indeed with the ancients these names were synonymous, one alluding to the office, the other to the age of the clergy. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 69 – To Oceanus, §3.
We read in Isaiah the words, “the fool will speak folly,” and I am told that some one has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, that is, before bishops. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced? Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests of a single church: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 146 – To Evangelus, §1.
There are several other quotes as well where he says similar things: bishops and presbyters are equal.
Ambrosiaster says this, commenting on Eph. 4:11-12:
Therefore the writings of the apostle do not agree in all things with the ordination which is now in the church because these were written at the very commencement. For he calls Timothy, a presbyter made by him, a bishop also because at first presbyters were called bishops, so that, one receding, the following might succeed him. See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 203. (XVIII.xxi.6).
That’s cool, but my point was that the best a Sola Scriptura Christian can do is just appeal to their interpretation of Scripture which, as you point out, can just be ignored.
I actually don’t have a strong opinion about the age of the earth, but in addition to pointing out that there were some notable exceptions among the Fathers, the situation isn’t parallel. The Fathers don’t just speak to us about matters of faith (as in doctrine), but also morals, and contraception was universally condemned as immoral.
So it’ll be regenerative grace for the elect, but a “lesser grace” for the non-elect? That doesn’t make much sense to me and I’m not really sure how one would justify that claim.
(It also seems to drive a wedge into TULIP, since in an attempt to maintain the Perseverance of the Saints, it necessarily means that this “lesser grace” isn’t irresistible. Ironically, it actually means that God is making grace available which He knows will be rejected)
Laying aside the issue that this invisible conception of the Church is alien, both to Scripture (Matthew 18:17) and history (Council of Nicaea), who was holding to Calvinistic doctrine prior to Calvin? Simply on the question of justification, Alister McGrath writes in Iustitia Dei: “A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification as opposed to its mode must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.”
I’m not quite sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that Jerome is more authoritative? Are you saying that Jerome rejected the authority of the Episcopacy?
“The Fathers don’t just speak to us about matters of faith (as in doctrine), but also morals, and contraception was universally condemned as immoral.”
Ethics and morality are grouped under matters of faith, as that is one of the major concerns of the Bible.
“(It also seems to drive a wedge into TULIP, since in an attempt to maintain the Perseverance of the Saints, it necessarily means that this “lesser grace” isn’t irresistible. Ironically, it actually means that God is making grace available which He knows will be rejected)”
This makes me think you don’t understand “Irresistible Grace” (I don’t blame you) which is why I prefer the term “Efficacious Grace.” This grace is distinguished from different types of grace like Common Grace. Efficacious or Effectual Grace brings out the effect God intended which is the salvation of the person recieving the Efficacious Grace.
“who was holding to Calvinistic doctrine prior to Calvin?”
The Reformation essentially started by Luther’s reading of Saint Augustine. Augustine’s teachings were accepted by the early church (Council of Orange 529), though they apparently strayed from this progressively. Gottescalk of Orbais, and his friend Prudentius also held views similar to Calvin’s. Saint Thomas Aquinas also made strong statements about predestination. But above all, the Bible supports the doctrines of grace as taught by the Reformed, and that is where we stand.
I think this is a cultural difference – in Catholic thought we typically distinguish between teaching about faith (right beliefs about theological issues) and morals (right behaviour).
Perhaps I should clarify. Of course in protestant catholic thought there is a clear distinction between faith and works. I meant by “matters of faith” matters that are particularly relevant to our beliefs.
I understand the distinctions – I’m just pointing out that under your current understanding, the type of grace which is given in baptism is both varied and unknown. It may give the person being baptised Irresistible/Effectual Grace and regenerate his soul. However, if God has decided that this person is not Elect, it won’t be given. In that case, baptism just gives Common Grace which, while helpful, is not enough to save, rather like offering a friend $5 who is about to have his mansion repossessed. There is no way to know which type of grace was given in the baptism.
I see what you mean. Obviously I deny the ex opere operato interpretation of the sacraments, and believe that faith is necessary for the Sacraments to be effectual, and the elect are given this faith. And I don’t necessarily think it is important to know which persons are elect or not (and have received the Effectual Grace).
Why “obviously”? Do you take the side of the Donatists?
That is also Catholic teaching. I’m not sure you understand what ex opere operato means. It means that God’s grace isn’t withheld because of the inadequacies of either the minister or the recipient. Whether that grace has anything to work on is an entirely different question.
I’m just pointing out how incoherent your position is becomes as you try to hold together some elements of the baptismal regeneration doctrine of the Early Church and Calvinism of 16th Century. At most, you can affirm that baptism MAY regenerate a person.
Surely you’re not claiming that Augustine was basically Lutheran? In order to buy the assertion that “the truth does not perish in the [invisible] Church”, we need to see a succession of Christians throughout history who look very Protestant. It’s not enough to point to an occasional theologian in history who came close to one particular doctrine adopted by some of the Reformers.
I gave a quotation from Alister McGrath who said in Iustitia Dei that in the Reformation, “A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification as opposed to its mode must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.” Given your position, you have to reject his scholarly assessment, right?
I will have to disagree with Rev. McGrath here. But I also don’t believe that the Church always in every period of history has held the same thing I do, but that they held the essentials of the faith.
That’s a bold claim, given that McGrath has certainly read much more of the Early and Medieval Church than either of us. On what basis are you making your assertion? Is it wishful thinking? Have your ministers simply affirmed it? Or do you have hard data in mind?
On this topic Jerome and the episcopacy, he offers seemingly contradictory thoughts on the subject:
How do we resolve this seeming contradiction?
Well, firstly we have to remember that Jerome was combatting the heretical view that, due to their association with the bishop, deacons were of a higher authority than priests, which is why he argues in the way that he does.
Next up, crucially, we have to remember that Jerome does not deny what the Church teaches.
Finally, it is worth noting that he is arguing that, like the diaconate, the monoepiscopate developed during the Apostolic age.
Of course, all this needs to be set against the background of the rest of Church history, particularly since a quarter-millennium earlier, St. Clement (AD 96) had described bishops as an apostolic institution, and St. Ignatius (AD 107) had affirmed the necessary three-fold structure of the Church.
I’m not actually totally convinced either way, nor am I opposed to Anglicanism (if you read the 39 Articles or the founders of Anglicanism they are thoroughly Reformed) but due to what the Bible and Saint Jerome said, I so far believe the case for presbyterian government is stronger.
They had *some* people in the Anglican Church around that time who definitely held to recognizably Calvinistic doctrine, but I encountered next to nothing of that during my years in Anglicanism.
Sorry, but I don’t understand… First of all, why is Jerome’s witness so important? I understand he’s closer to your position, but on what basis does his thought trump the teaching of the Fathers for hundreds of years prior and for the next thousand years? More crucially though, in my previous comment I showed that he didn’t reject Church teaching about Bishops and still thought the monepiscopacy was an Apostolic institution. Not only that, the monepiscopacy was repeatedly invoked by the Early Church apologists when defending the faith against heresy:
“…that tradition derived from the apostles… comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops… The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [of Rome]. Of this Linus… Anacletus.. Clement… … … [and] Eleutherius does now… hold the inheritance of the episcopate. – St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (AD 180)
So, I’m really not seeing any sort of case here from history.
Firstly, the original Anglican Tradition was very clearly Calvinist. I don’t think any one really denies that. Thomas Cranmer was taught by a friend of Calvin’s. The modern Anglican Church is not much Calvinist in teaching (at least the majority of the ministers are not Calvinists today, but they still hold much Calvinist teaching, especially regarding the Sacraments, but the Predestinatorial Articles cannot be ignored either), but they also have many other problems with modernism invading their tradition. Still, at least in America, there are many Reformed Anglicans.
Secondly, obviously I am going to care about what Jerome says, because that is what my Church teaches, and his teaching and reasoning verify that. I admit it was introduced very early on, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t taught in Scripture, and my tradition, tries to keep the Church as close to Scripture as possible.
I’d push back on the entire notion of “the original Anglican Tradition”, as it was a moving target from the very beginning, moving swiftly from schism to doctrinal changes, and for generations being a struggle between the Anglo-Catholic and Reformed elements within the Anglicanism.
Cramner is definitely an important figure, since he was the one who really pushed for rupture with the past, denying apostolic succession and the priesthood. It is because of his reforms that the Catholic Church cannot regards Anglican order as valid because of the intent of his changes.
Every… single… Early Church Father… including St. Jerome… regarded the episcopacy as valid and apostolic, yet you feel confident standing against it. But on what basis? On an arbitrary standard placed upon you by the leadership of your denomination. It’s ironic that you deny the 1,500 year Apostolic Tradition of the Episcopacy for the sake of your denomination’s tradition which dates back no further than a few hundred years to the Reformation.
You even admit that your acceptance of Jerome is entirely ad hoc – you cite him, not because he’s more authoritative or reliable but simply because he holds a minority view which is marginally closer to your own position. Jerome would reject the Presbyterian teaching on this subject and many others. Why bother appealing to him at all if the entirety of Church history can simply be rejected?
Once again, we return to my assertion that there’s no principled difference between SolO Scriptura and SolA Scriptura. A personal interpretation of Scripture seems to be able to trump anything, regardless of its acceptance in antiquity. This makes it hard to accept your claims about affirming the Early Church. If you are willing to say that the entire Church for a millennium and a half instituted an invalid authority structure, why trust them on anything else? How many doctrines can be rejected before claims of continuity with the historic Church fall apart?
Happy Easter! Christ is risen!
Sorry for the lateness of my response, I’ve had a busy last couple of weeks.
I will just say that I am no expert in Church History, but there are Protestants who are. I would commend to you Gavin Ortlund’s channel Truth Unites. He seems to contradict your assumption that the “entirety of church history” supports your claim. And he gives evidence for this.
“A personal interpretation of Scripture seems to be able to trump anything, regardless of its acceptance in antiquity.” This certainly isn’t the traditional Protestant understanding, which sought to Reform the Church based on the Authority of Scripture, but not to get rid of the Church or it’s traditions (so long as they matched up with Sacred Scripture).
Indeed He is risen!
No worries, if you heard the recent five minute episode on the podcast, we’ve all had nasty stomach bugs and have been doing a lot of vomiting…
I’m very much familiar with his work (I’ve actually invited him on Pints With Jack), but there’s a reason why few people try to argue like this – it’s an uphill battle. I think Trent Horn has said everything that needs to be said regarding his video.
However, I would suggest that a couple of points are worth considering:
1. Assuming for the sake of argument that Dr. Ortlund’s case is correct, I still don’t know how one would try and reconcile it with Calvinism’s Ordo Salutis, or your way of making baptism only occasionally regenerative.
2. Let’s just assume for sake of argument that I’m correct about the Early Church’s opinion regarding baptismal regeneration (it’s not hard to find Protestant scholars who will concede the point but appeal to Sola Scriptura to justify their position). At that point, you will have rejected the Early Church’s universal testimony regarding the validity of bishops and the universal testimony regarding baptismal regeneration. Would that be enough for you to reconsider your theological system?
If not, on how many points does the Early Church have to disagree before it becomes worth reconsidering? If there is no such number, it rather proves my point about SolO/SolA Scriptura.
(I don’t need answers to these questions – these are just some things to consider)
Yeah, but how did that project work out? Did it result in ecclesial and doctrinal unity, or utter chaos?
“That’s a bold claim, given that McGrath has certainly read much more of the Early and Medieval Church than either of us. On what basis are you making your assertion? Is it wishful thinking? Have your ministers simply affirmed it? Or do you have hard data in mind?”
Well, to be fair, I don’t know the exact context of the quote or what exactly he is referring to. But there were many before Calvin or Luther who taught something very similar on justification. I cited examples: St. Augustine (Council of Orange), Gotteschalk of Orbais (not to mention his friend Prudentius), and Thomas Aquinas certainly adds to the table as well.
He’s talking here specifically about Justification: “The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification as opposed to its mode must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.”. The Reformed understanding of justification, particularly its reduction to being merely a forensic act, is unknown to Christian history prior to the Reformation. McGrath is not alone in this assertion.
I don’t see how one could read any of these authors in any depth and conclude that they were teaching the same thing as Calvinism (I think I earlier shared this analysis of Augustine). More importantly though, to McGrath’s point, their understandings of justification are definitely not the same.
Also, I want to point you back to the standard which needs to be fulfilled which I mentioned earlier: “In order to buy the assertion that ‘the truth does not perish in the [invisible] Church’, we need to see a succession of Christians throughout history who look very Protestant. It’s not enough to point to an occasional theologian in history who came close to one particular doctrine adopted by some of the Reformers.”
The analysis you sent of St. Augustine wasn’t convincing, to be honest.
And while some do try to trace some sort of “Protestant succession” we do not. Calvin taught that there was still something of the true church in the papacy. There must always be a catholic church, sometimes it will be more or less true and more or less heretical.
How so? Do you dispute the claims that Augustine believed in Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration, Mary’s perpetual virginity etc. Or do you just not think it’s important?
But if you believe in ministerial succession there should be evidence of that, yes?
I wonder what he means by that, since the papacy presupposes a monepiscopacy which he rejects.
Regardless, this vague affirmation takes us back to that claim in the Institutes that says “I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church”. As I’ve said, this begs the question “Where we can see this in the historical record?” You don’t look in Church history and find Calvinism – you just don’t. You’ve said yourself the Early Church didn’t have TULIP. The best that can be offered is occasional, ad hoc similarities with certain doctrines held by individuals… but this also requires us to ignore a substantial portion of what such people also believed.
“I’d push back on the entire notion of “the original Anglican Tradition”, as it was a moving target from the very beginning, moving swiftly from schism to doctrinal changes, and for generations being a struggle between the Anglo-Catholic and Reformed elements within the Anglicanism.”
The founders of the Anglican Tradition were essentially Reformed. The 39 Articles that the ministers clearly hold the distinctives of the Reformed Tradition, and all the ministers are required to uphold them in a certain capacity.
This is a point of detail, but even the Wikipedia article describes the tensions within Anglicanism over the first forty years:
The Thirty-nine articles ultimately served to define the doctrine of the Church of England as it related to Calvinist doctrine and Roman Catholic practice… The articles went through at least five major revisions prior to their finalisation in 1571. The first attempt was the Ten Articles in 1536, which showed some slightly Protestant leanings – the result of an English desire for a political alliance with the German Lutheran princes. The next revision was the Six Articles in 1539 which swung away from all reformed positions, and then the King’s Book in 1543, which re-established most of the earlier Roman Catholic doctrines. During the reign of Edward VI… the Forty-two Articles were written under the direction of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1552. It was in this document that Calvinist thought reached the zenith of its influence in the English Church… Finally, upon the coronation of Elizabeth I and the re-establishment of the Church of England as separate from the Roman Catholic Church, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion were initiated by the Convocation of 1563… The articles pulled back from some of the more extreme Calvinist thinking and created the distinctive English reformed doctrine.
Of course, these tensions didn’t go away after the initiation of the Articles and, due to the Anglican understanding of authority they’re not exactly what you’d call “binding”, which is why there was continued development and why there is doctrinal chaos within the Anglican communion today.
“Every… single… Early Church Father… including St. Jerome… regarded the episcopacy as valid and apostolic, yet you feel confident standing against it.”
St. Jerome clearly stated that in the original apostolic church, bishops and elders were equal.
“It’s ironic that you deny the 1,500 year Apostolic Tradition of the Episcopacy for the sake of your denomination’s tradition which dates back no further than a few hundred years to the Reformation.” Firstly, it isn’t required of me that I hold to every article that my church teaches to be a member, and like I said, I’m not fully convinced either way. If I’m perfectly honest, before perhaps a year ago, I have always been in a congregational setting of church (which I certainly do reject that form of church government). So I’m rather new to the study of church government as a whole. But at the same time, from the evidence that I have looked at, the episcopacy is not a biblical ordinance, while it may be a beneficial one to a certain extent. And I am willing to give the episcopacy has iure humano right to authority, not iure divino.
“you cite him, not because he’s more authoritative or reliable” certainly he is more authoritative and reliable than I am or my parson is. That is why I quote him, if he meant nothing more to me, I could just quote my pastor or anyone else lay or no. Nor do I reject the entirety of church history. God forbid. Nor do I reject the authority of the church over me. Extra ecclesium nulla salus. But where the church clearly disagrees with scripture, it has strayed from the faith. I as a lay person could not decide that it has strayed from scripture necessarily, I don’t have authority to do that. But it is the duty of every ordained minister of the word to defend it, and really it is my duty to be “rightly dividing the word of truth” as well.
Now, the Roman Catholic Church, if I am not mistaken, has declard that we Protestants are “separated brothers” therefore you must admit that “extra ecclesium nulla salus” does not me “outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation” but outside the one holy catholic and apostolic church, which includes us. If it includes us, then how is our ordination invalid, if we are communing with Christ’s Body through the sacraments?
I said that Jerome regarded the episcopacy as valid and apostolic, and I provided many quotations to demonstrate this.
You speak about the “original” apostolic Church – what years are you referring to? I ask because, in the “original” apostolic Church, there was no such thing as a deacon! We are fortunate enough to have later the institution of the diaconate recorded in Chapter 6 of the Acts of the Apostles.
In the very earliest Church, there was no ministry of Deacon. Likewise, at least according to Jerome, the distinction between Presbyter and Bishop developed within the Apostolic Age as the Church grew and spread.
If you don’t have to hold to every article, then what authority do they really have?
Again, what sets that as the standard? Who says that you have to find the clear distinction of the Presbyterate and Episcopacy recorded in Scripture? Why didn’t any of the Fathers hold to that standard? Did they not know Scripture?
We find Fathers arguing about all sort of things in the historical record (date for Easter etc.), by why do we not find a single Father objecting to the monepiscopacy?
Even if Jerome is correct about development within the Apostolic age, he didn’t think it was a problem! Why then should you object against the universal acceptance of the Early Church?
If you’re willing to throw out the acceptance of the episcopacy in the historic Church, why bother looking at Church history at all? You reject to two of the most well-documented, undisputed and earliest beliefs of the Early Church. If you can reject these, it’s easy to reject doctrines which have less immediate, explicit support (and determining the canon basically really problematic).
That’s not what St. Ignatius of Antioch writes as he travels from Antioch to Rome:
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop… Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” – Letter to the Smyrnaeans
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church” – Letter to the Trallians
The key is that it [the episcopacy] was developed over time with specific purposes, until various abuses became entwined with it, and it was no longer useful. Nor was it scriptural.
The authority that the Church has is limited by scripture. When something the Church teaches counters Scripture, it must be stood up against, because it is then a false Church.
“If you’re willing to throw out the acceptance of the episcopacy in the historic Church, why bother looking at Church history at all? You reject to two of the most well-documented, undisputed and earliest beliefs of the Early Church.” Firstly, I don’t necessarily reject the episcopacy. Secondly, why on earth would I not study Church History. Church History is our Family History. I care very much about what members of our family say, even if, untimately I reject them as not aligning with Scripture. The Reformation was not to throw out Church History, but to get rid of corruptions.
“That’s not what St. Ignatius of Antioch writes as he travels from Antioch to Rome”
Gavin Ortlund demonstrates that Ignatius of Antioch is not wholly accurate, and if I can’t trust him in other matters, how much weight should I put on him here? But even so, I disagree with nothing of the quotes you gave. I agree that the presbyters have divine authority over the congregation, but not necessarily that the bishop has divine authority over the presbyters, or the archbishop over bishops, or pope over archbishops. But again, I’m still studying these things, Church Government is something I’ve hardly studied extensively at all, so give me grace.
The deaconate also developed over time and one of the first deacons listed in Acts became the head of a heretical movement! Does that mean they should be dispensed with as well? Would any Church office survive such a test?
How exactly was it no longer useful? By what standard? The Early Church seemed to think it was pretty useful. In fact, the apologists of the Early Church relied upon the episcopacy to fight Gnosticism. St. Ignatius of Antioch said that if you didn’t have a Bishop, you didn’t have a Church!
Not only is that a disputable point – can you name even a single Early Church Father who thought that this was a problem?
Says who? The Church Fathers didn’t think this was the case. The Church long predates the New Testament. The boundaries of what is and isn’t Scripture aren’t clearly established for hundreds of years and it is canonized by men who had many beliefs and practices I imagine you’d consider unscriptural.
According to whose interpretation?
In what sense do you accept it? You belong to a Church without Bishops and you claim it’s unscriptural.
My point is it seems that any appeal to history is basically meaningless if the best-attested doctrines can be rejected solely on the basis of a different interpretation of Scripture. If the best-attested can be so easily dispatched, then what’s the value of an ad hoc citation of the odd historical figure here and there in Church history who was a bit closer to one’s theology?
On the basis of what evidence?
You say you don’t disagree, but I don’t know how you can affirm that given that Ignatius gives a three-fold hierarchy of religious authority with Bishops over and above Presbyters (“there is one bishop..Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop… Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”).
“How exactly was it no longer useful?”
Protestant churches who find it useful, still have bishops. Presbyterian churches often have a role similar to a bishop, and, for example the Reformed Church of Hungary has a Bishop.
“St. Ignatius of Antioch said that if you didn’t have a Bishop, you didn’t have a Church!” Perhaps this is hyperbolic, or in a certain context, but this cannot really be accurate. Unless you define bishop as equal with priest, this really isn’t scriptural. If you admit that the office of bishop developed over time, then either a) there was a time after Pentecost that there was no church, or b) Ignatius is wrong.
“The boundaries of what is and isn’t Scripture aren’t clearly established for hundreds of years and it is canonized by men” But what makes it Scripture? The men? No, God makes it Scripture, the men received what God had given them as such, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the authority of the Church and the apostles.
“According to whose interpretation?” Those ordained to teach Scripture are bound by their oaths to defend what it teaches.
All you’re saying here is that this universally-attested apostolic institution is rejected by most Protestants although some retain the title on the basis of utilitarianism. The Early Church clearly thought the episcopacy was essential – what changed after 1,500 years?
He wasn’t being hyperbolic – I’d invite you to read what the man said.
…or (c) the bishops are the successors to the Apostles.
You had said that “The authority of that the Church has is limited by scripture” and I pointed out that the Church predates Scripture, both in terms of composition and canonization. If the authority of the Church is truly limited by what the Apostles written down, how could the Church possibly operate until all Scripture was written and canonized?
Besides, the Early Church Fathers did not hold to Sola Scripture – they believed also in Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.
If you’re rejecting Apostolic Succession, then does that mean anyone who has founded a denomination or local church? Within Protestantism many of these interpretations are contradictory, so whose interpretation do we follow?
Some interesting discoveries about what Jerome actually said:
‘Why “obviously”? Do you take the side of the Donatists?’
No, Donatism is heresy. Well it is not the act of performing the sacrament alone which brings about it’s effect. It requires faith, like I said, and it requires the work of the God extending His grace. If he is not extending His grace to the non-elect, then it cannot be extended merely by the performing of the rite (By the way, I may be wrong here and not in line with Reformed Orthodoxy or with Historical Sacramentology in my wording, please bear with me).
“It means that God’s grace isn’t withheld because of the inadequacies of either the minister or the recipient.” I fully agree with this. Ex opere operato is literally translated “by doing it, it is done” which implies that the words themselves, the actions, the water, the bread, the wine, have power in themselves apart from God.
I don’t believe that the non-elect are truly partaking of or communing with Christ’s Body either when they partake of the sacrament of Holy Communion (they are eating and drinking judgment).
Well, Ex opere operato developed in response to their claims.
Your language is ambiguous here. What do you mean by “effect”? The “effect” of the Sacraments is that sacramental grace is made available. Like in the Parable of the Sower, the harvest which comes from such a gift depends upon the soil into which it is sown.
You are forced into this odd position because of TULIP. What you are doing here is giving your Calvinism priority over the belief of the Early Church. If you let go of TULIP then you can hold to the doctrine of the Early Church. However, while trying to hold onto both, you’re really holding to neither.
You were fine until the final clause. The Sacraments cannot be separated from God. The Eucharistic Liturgy even proclaims at the consecration “Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit”.
The doctrine of Ex opere operato says that God makes up for whatever is lacking in us. Let’s say that you discover that the Pastor who baptized you was actually a con-man and an atheist. Was there grace in your baptism? Was there grace in his Holy Communion?
That seems incoherent to me. How can they eat and drink judgement if they’re not consuming Christ? Paul’s statement in Corinthians about eating and drinking judgement only makes sense if you adopt the historic understanding of the sacraments.
“Well, Ex opere operato developed in response to their claims.” If you mean *Ex opera operato* as that it isn’t the minister’s qualifications or actions that make the sacrament applicable, I agree, for it is God doing the work. But if you take ex opere operato without faith as necessary, then I disagree.
“Your language is ambiguous here.” I mean that faith is necessary. If we mean the Lord’s Supper, whoever feeds on Christ has eternal life, Christ abides in them, and they in Him.
“What you are doing here is giving your Calvinism priority over the belief of the Early Church.” This is because I believe Calvinism to be what is taught in the Bible, and if the Early Church differs from God’s Word in certain areas, then in those areas I must differ from the Early Church. But this in no way means I shouldn’t study them, certainly that is where (apart from the Bible) I should most desire to study, as well as the developments further on. I do have a benefit they didn’t have–two thousand years of Church teaching and development of thought, but it is all held under the same authority they had–Sacred Scripture.
“If you let go of TULIP then you can hold to the doctrine of the Early Church. However, while trying to hold onto both, you’re really holding to neither.” This is not necessarily true. The Early Church never had TULIP, therefore we cannot really say what they would have said, but the Early Church was also very diverse in opinion. Only through various councils were certain thoughts developed, rejected and accepted. There were times when the prevailing ideas were wrong, unorthodox, unscriptural. Remember Athanasius: Athanasius contra mundum. The predominant position in the visible Church was against Athanasius, though of course God brought the Church throught that peril. The Reformation wasn’t started in the 16th century, but far earlier, a major cause of division being the Lateran Councils, but throughout, as various corruptions entered the Church, there were those that found them unbiblical, there were relatively “Reformation-minded” people in the Catholic Church. The Reformers didn’t even intend to separate, really but to reform. They wanted to go back to orthodoxy, not reject orthodoxy.
Neither.
The minister must have the relevant authority (“Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it”) and the form and matter of the Sacrament must be correct – a random person off the street cannot consecrate the Eucharist with beer by saying “Presto!”. Additionally, simply going through the motions doesn’t magically bear fruit any more than rocky ground can allow a seed to flourish.
The wikipedia page is actually pretty good on this: “Affirming the ex opere operato efficacy means being sure of God’s sovereign and gratuitous intervention in the sacraments. For example, in confirmation the Holy Spirit is bestowed not through the attitude of the bishop and of the person being confirmed but freely by God through the instrumentality of the sacrament. In order to receive sacraments fruitfully, it is believed necessary for the recipient to have faith. It is in those who receive them with the required dispositions that they bear fruit.”
Because you know better than they did?
Why trust them on the New Testament canon but reject much of their belief and practice?
I’m not sure how you can reconcile this idea of “development of thought” while rejecting the apostolic origins of Bishops. It would seem necessary, however, to hold to some idea of development if one is unable to find various Calvinistic doctrines prior to Calvin, such as McGrath attests.
So why isn’t that deemed unscriptural?
In some things there was a diversity of opinion, in others there wasn’t.
It ebbed and flowed.
However, why appeal to Athanasius? Is it because you agree on one particular issue? After all, he also believed in Apostolic Succession, Baptismal Regeneration, indefectibility of the Church, the infallible authority of Ecumenical Councils, the Deuterocanon, Real Presence in the Eucharist, Mary as Mother of God, sinless, perpetual virgin, Sacred Tradition and specifically called on the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
He’s something to consider – who is the first Christian after the death of St. John that you can point to and say “This man believed what I believe”? This returns us to Calvin’s assertion about the indefectibility of the Church. Appealing to various Fathers through history on particular points but rejecting so much else of what they believed seems problematic to me.
You’re confusing earlier reform (which is found throughout the Church’s history) with what happened in the 16th Century – schism and what we must necessarily call heresy since you had many different Protestant groups asserting contradictory doctrines.
This is what they said when they split from Rome and it’s what they said when they split from each other. Real Reformers, such as St. Francis and St. Teresa, show humility and actually reform the church rather than divide it.
“The minister must have the relevant authority” By “minister” I mean ordained minister. And of course the Words of Institution and the proper elements are necessary. Confessional Protestants believe this.
Based upon what the Wikipedia said, I would accept that.
“Why trust them on the New Testament canon but reject much of their belief and practice?” The fact is, I haven’t studied their belief and practice much (aside from St. Augustine) but I do know some of what they said, as quoted by my teachers.
By “development of thought” I mean I have far more to draw from, far more scholarship to read, opinions to discern, the opinions of thousands of people from two thousand years. They had very little as far as this goes. This means I can have a better understanding (ideally) of what the Bible teaches than they could. John Chrysostom never heard what Augustine taught or what Martin Luther taught. Of course we do not believe that any one person was ever 100% accurate (save Christ and what is recorded in Scripture) and therefore we can become more accurate in our understanding.
“So why isn’t that deemed unscriptural?” Sola Scriptura does not mean that we do not have creeds or confessions to accurately describe what the Bible teaches.
“He’s something to consider…” Well no one is perfect so no one is going to be 100% accurate. But I can say throughout the history of the Church there were so many saints that believe what I believe in the general, if not in the particular.
It’s often repeated “To be deep in Church history is to cease to be Protestant.” I’ve resolved to study the Church Fathers and see whether it matches up with what I believe and what Scripture teaches. If that means I have to become Roman Catholic, Soli Deo Gloria (though I suspect I shall only have to become Lutheran or Anglican).
“You’re confusing earlier reform (which is found throughout the Church’s history) with what happened in the 16th Century – schism and what we must necessarily call heresy since you had many different Protestant groups asserting contradictory doctrines.” But the Reformers didn’t want schism, they wanted Reform. They were kicked out because they held the authority of Scripture over the authority of the ecclesial leaders. But for example, Martin Luther was, by his authority, appointed to teach, and in his ordination to do this, he vowed to defend Sacred Scripture, as well as to uphold the authority of the Church. He couldn’t (exactly) do both , so he stood with Scripture.
This does beg the question as to what constitutes a valid ordination and who has the authority to ordain another, but that’s a separate issue.
But you can answer that in principle now, though, right? Would you agree that it would be problematic to accept a canon compiled by theologians who held to doctrine and practice which you would reject? The Fathers were under the impression that their beliefs were compatible with the Scripture they canonized.
The Reformation resulted in many more opinions, but that doesn’t seemed to help foster clarity and consensus of theological opinion regarding what the Bible teaches!
I understand that’s the claim, but I haven’t seen anything yet to refute my assertion that SolO Scripture and SolA Scripture are essentially the same doctrine.
Every single Early Church Father embraced the episcopacy and affirmed that it was an apostolic institution. Every. Single. One. There isn’t a single descending voice… yet you boldly reject it based on your fallible interpretation of Scripture. This is one of many such issues. Conversely, you concede that the Early Church didn’t have TULIP, yet you embrace it because of your reading of Scripture.
Calvin wrote in his Institutes that Satan “blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins”. He rejected this ancient testimony based on his own fallible interpretation of the Bible.
What value are creeds and confessions and Church History if they can be so easily ignored?
I don’t really know how you can assert “throughout the history of the Church…many saints…believe what I believe” while also saying “I haven’t studied their belief and practice much”.
But rather than staying in generalities (“so many saints”), can you give me a name? In the past I know you’ve suggested folks like Augustine and Athanasius but I responded with very long lists of doctrines which they held which I’m fairly confident that you’d reject.
Maybe it’s the way you formed this sentence, but it sounds like you’re going to judge the Fathers against your own understanding of Scripture. I can tell you in advance that they will disagree with some regularity. Will you allow yourself to be corrected by them, or will you reject their teaching if it doesn’t square with your understanding of Christianity? If the former, great, but if the latter, why bother?
I know it’s often repeated that “the Reformers didn’t want schism”, but that’s exactly what they produced. Did St. Francis produce schism and heresy? St. Teresa? St. Dominic? The fruits of the two groups show which were reformers and which wanted revolution. G.K. Chesterton said “The Reformer is always right about what’s wrong. However, he’s often wrong about what is right.”
Yes, he rejected the authority of Christ’s Church and Her teachings in favour of their own theological novelties. Another way of saying this is that they were kicked out for schism and heresy.
Luther didn’t have his authority independently of the Church. As you quoted before from 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us.”
Curious as to your thoughts on the Council of Valence 855:
“faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes the merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God. In predestination, however, (we believe) that God has determined only those things which He Himself either in His gratuitous mercy or in His just judgment would do * according to Scripture which says: “Who has done the things which are to be done” [ Is. 4 5:11, LXX]; in regard to evil men, however, we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them, but that He did not predestine it, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom, as Saint Augustine* says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain predestination.”
Only inasmuch as God has revealed the redeeming truths of religion in Scripture, Calvin thought, do human beings have access to them. However, revealed truths were not provided to satiate human curiosity, but rather to address the most pressing and practical requirements of human life, most notably redemption.
If the only religious truth is found in Scripture, how did the Church function prior to the writing, completion and compilation of Scripture?
Apostolic authority
Twelve Apostles ran a Church which spanned the entire Roman Empire and beyond? Or did the Apostles deputize the leaders of local congregations?
Did the Apostles teach anything other than what was later written down in the New Testament? If so, upon the death of the last Apostles would Churches have to regress their knowledge of the Faith to only that which is found explicitly in Scripture?
“He wasn’t being hyperbolic – I’d invite you to read what the man said.”
If I read it seeing bishop and presbyter as equal, I have no problems with what he said.
The Didache says to appoint for yourselves bishops–how would that fit in?
“…or (c) the bishops are the successors to the Apostles.” sure, and so are presbyters.
“If you’re rejecting Apostolic Succession” I don’t reject Apostolic Succession, I hold ministerial succession.
What’s “it” here? Ignatius’ letters?
And “equal” in what sense, authority?
Because Ignatius clearly says that they’re not equal in authority.
What’s the problem with that? Are you assuming that this is an instruction for a single congregation to have multiple bishops?
…but it’s not to the same degree. Deacons are also in a sense successors to the Apostles in the sense that they continue to support their ministry.
And you do this while rejecting the episcopacy which was deemed to be apostolic by the entire Church?
“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough… Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men… For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” – Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 32