While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons. These we must hold, unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge. (Inst. 1.13.2)

For it sometimes happens that God smites a nation with war or pestilence, or some kind of calamity. In this common chastisement it behaves the whole people to plead guilty, and confess their guilt. Should the hand of the Lord strike any one in private, then the same thing is to be done by himself alone, or by his family. (Inst. 4.12.15)

[T]he human mind, when blinded and darkened, is very far from being able to rise to a proper knowledge of the divine will; nor can the heart, fluctuating with perpetual doubt, rest secure in such knowledge. Hence, in order that the word of God may gain full credit, the mind must be enlightened, and the heart confirmed, from some other quarter. We shall now have a full definition of faith, if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit. (Inst. 3.2.7)

If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture. (Inst. 1.6.2)

Certainly we recognize well that we are poor and despised people; that is, before God we are miserable sinners, scorned and cast out by people, and even — if you will — the dung and waste- sweepings of the world or whatever can be named that is even more vile.  We are such that we have nothing about which we can glory before God, except His mercy alone, by which we are saved without any merit of our own; and we have nothing about which we can glory with regard to people except our weakness, that is, what all regard as our great shame (2 Cor. 10 [13, 17]; Tit. 3[5]; 2 Cor. 11 [30-31] and 12 [5,9]).  (7-8)

Besides, what is more fitting for faith than to promise that God is a gentle and beneficent Father when Christ is recognized as Brother and propiciator? What more fitting to await all good and prosperity from God, whose love for us has extended so far that “He did not spare His very Son but delivered Him up for us” (Rom. 8[32]).   What is more fitting than to rest in the certain expectation of salvation and eternal life, when we consider that the Father gave us Christ, in whom are hidden such treasures?  They resist and reject such things, and say that such a certainty of confidence is not without arrogance and presumption.  But just as we dare claim nothing for ourselves, so we should claim everything for God, and the only reason we are deprived or our empty glory is so that “we may glory in God” (2 Cor. 10 [17]; Jer. 9 [23-24]).  (8-9)

Taken from John Calvin’s dedication to Francis 1 in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition, The First English Version. Translated by Elsie Anne Mckee.

Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that when miserable men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher than themselves as they ought to do, they measure him by their own carnal stupidity, and neglecting solid inquiry, fly off to indulge their curiosity in vain speculation. (Inst. 1.4.1)

The knowledge of God, which is set before us in the Scriptures, is designed for the same purpose as that which shines in creation, viz., that we may thereby learn to worship him with perfect integrity of heart and unfeigned obedience, and also to depend entirely on his goodness. (Inst. 1.10.2)

It is certain that after the fall of our first parent, no knowledge of God without a Mediator was effectual to salvation. Christ speaks not of his own age merely, but embraces all ages, when he says “This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” John 17: 3. (Inst. 2.6.1)

Book 4 Chapter 6 Section 1-17

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is an allegorical novel about the revolt of a group of farm animals against their human rulers. The revolution promises freedom and equality for all. ”All animals are equal” being one of the 7 commandments  that unite the animals against their common enemy (humans!). But soon the utopia turns sour as the pigs slowly begin taking more and more authority at the expense of the other animals. Eventually they even modify the founding principles to allow for their new found dominance – “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. They abuse their positions of power and return the farm to the repression that it originally revolted against.

As a scholar in the 16th century Calvin see the repression and dominance of the Roman See and asks - How did Rome achieve this dominance and what were the reasons it used to justify its superiority to the other churches? His proposition is that in a similar way to which the animals in the farm began equal and free, the church began with equal authority amongst its leaders that, over time and with very little justification, a rigid hierarchy was introduced with Rome at the top and all others subordinate. Calvin traces the arguments which have been put forward to justify the fact that “some churches are more equal than others.”

1. The high priest was appointed by God with supreme jurisdiction in Jerusalem. While this is true, Calvin recognises that there is no reason “to extend what was useful to one nation to the whole world.” God appointed such a figure that his people “might not be distracted by a variety of religions…that they might be the better kept in unity.” Moreover, as the high priest was a type of Christ, with the priesthood being transferred to Christ, so also this office.

2. Peter was appointed as the leader of the apostles by Jesus in Matthew 16.18-19. When Christ said “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church etc”, was he appointing Peter as his successor and representative on earth? Calvin argues that just as “Peter had received a command from the Lord, so he exhorts all other presbyters to feed the church (1 Peter 5.2)”. And in the giving of the keys in v 19, there is nothing more here than the power to “retain and remit sins…as ministers of the gospel are commissioned to reconcile men to God, and at the same time to exercise discipline over those who reject the benefit.” Calvin argues that “nothing is here given to Peter that was not common to him with his colleagues.” However, he will concede that “Peter surpasses others in fervid zeal, in doctrine, in magnanimity” therefore we might rightly say he was “first among the faithful”. But “there is a great difference between the honour of rank and the possession of power.” Peter was “one of the twelve, their equal, their colleague, not their master.”

3. Peter ministered at Rome, and as the head of the early church conferred his authority to it. Calvin goes on to say that even if, for the sake of progressing the logic, we concede that “the primacy of the church was fixed in Peter, with the view of remaining for ever by perpetual succession”, how does this then confer on Rome the right to first place? They claim Peter lived and died in Rome, but actually Antioch was his first place of ministry. Why is this not the supreme seat of authority? Well, they claim that when he left Antioch, Peter “transferred the honour which he had brought with him to Rome.”

4. The Early Church recognised Rome as the supreme head. This Calvin admits was the case, but he says this was for three reasons: 1) “the opinion which had prevailed that the church was founded and constituted by the ministry of Peter” (despite there being no textual evidence to support this claim, it somehow became the established view), 2) the seat of the Empire was there and 3) the church of Rome was calmer and less troubled than its compatriots in the East, Greece and Africa. While it may have been the convenient and logical decision to give deference to Rome at the start of the church’s growth, this is a far cry from there being any biblical justification for such a position.

Indeed, Calvin sums up the possible options for perpetual succession  in three options, either the seat of authority is personal (tied to a person), real (tied to a place) or mixed (elements of both the former concepts). From their own arguments Calvin claims they must concede that it is mixed for “the mere consideration of a place is not sufficient unless the person also correspond.” Hence, Calvin reveals how shallow and retrospective are the various arguments that claim Rome as the rightful ruler over Christendom.

Response 

While I do not hold to the view that Peter was somehow superior to the other apostles, I think the gospels do show that there were three apostles who were in Jesus’ inner circle. Peter, James and John were the ones who he took with him nearly everywhere, who he revealed himself to on the mount of transfiguration. If there was any form of hierarchy among the apostles and early church then I would say Peter, James and John should have equal weight. Indeed, when Paul comes on the scene, it seems that despite his “unnatural” birth he is recognised as an equal by Peter and the others (Galatians 2.6-10).

It’s interesting how Jesus speaks to Peter throughout his life. He is often directly singled out by Jesus for warnings, challenges, exhortations and praise. I think Jesus knew that Peter was a natural leader with strong passions. When he speaks to him in Matthew 16 about being the rock at the foundation of the church, I think this is preparation for what Peter would learn only a few months later in Matthew 26.31-35 & John 21.17 – that in his own strength he was not equal to such a role. Yes the promise of Matthew 16 was given to all the disciples, but it was said to Peter because Jesus knew that he would need to know the truth of this promise when he failed his test. Jesus never gave up on Peter, and after his failure, enabled him to write two of the most humble, challenging, encouraging and inspiring letters in the New Testament.

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Luke 22.31-32

Father, may we learn from Peter’s example that in our own strength we can do nothing, but in your strength we can do all things. Amen

Were we to make a trial of subtlety, it would not be difficult to refute the sophistry of Thomas. He maintains that the elect are in a manner predestinated to glory on account of their merits, because God predestines to give them the grace by which they merit glory. What if I should, on the contrary, object that predestination to grace is subservient to election unto life, and follows as its handmaid; that grace is predestined to those to whom the possession of glory was previously assigned the Lord being pleased to bring his sons by election to justification? For it will hence follow that the predestination to glory is the cause of the predestination to grace, and not the converse. But let us have done with these disputes as superfluous among those who think that there is enough of wisdom for them in the word of God. For it has been truly said by an old ecclesiastical writer, Those who ascribe the election of God to merits, are wise above what they ought to be, (Ambrose. de Vocat. Gentium, lib. 1, c. 2.) (Inst. 3.22.9)

Book 4 Chapter 5 Section 1-19

Elrond: “Who will you look to when we’ve gone? The Dwarves? They toil away in caverns, seeking riches. They care nothing for the troubles of others.”
Gandalf: “It is in Men that we must place our hope.”
Elrond: “Men? Men are weak. The Blood of Numenor is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten. It is because of Men the Ring survives. I was there, Gandalf. I was there three thousand years ago. I was there the day the strength of Men failed.”

The words of Elrond, King of the Elves, in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings could well be used to sum up all that Calvin describes in this chapter about the utter corruption that infested the leaders of the church in his day. This chapter is a scathing account of the character and behaviour of the leaders. It is Calvin’s rallying call for the establishment of a new, purer, more faithful, more biblical church.

He begins his onslaught by considering how these leaders are called to be bishops. Are their life and doctrine assessed against the biblical standards? By no means, instead Calvin laments that “for a hundred years, scarcely one in a hundred has been elected who had any acquaintance with sacred doctrine.” In regard to their morals Calvin finds that there are “few or almost none whom the ancient canons would not have judged unworthy.” But how has this been allowed to happen, that such people have been allowed to govern a church? We find the answer when we consider who appoints them to be bishops.

Any influence of the people has been completely removed for “the whole power has been to the canons alone… (who) confer the episcopal office on whomsoever they please.” And whom do they appoint? “Some owe their promotion to kindred or affinity, others to the influence of their parents, while others procure favour by obsequiousness.” Even “boys scarcely ten years of age are, by permission of the Pope, made bishops.” Then once ordained they are “loaded with five or six, or seven cures (churches), of not one of which they take the least charge, except to draw the income.”

So how do they discharge their office once they have been ordained? Well if the office of a true minister is “to feed the church, and administer the spiritual kingdom of Christ, all those priests who have no work or stipend, save in the traffic of masses, not only fail in their office, but have no lawful office to discharge.” Calvin goes further and claims that “the preaching of the word, the care of discipline, and the administration of the sacraments, they have shaken off as burdens too grievous to be borne.” Instead they prefer to engage in “merely chanting and pompous ceremonies.”

Rather than discharging their office, they hardly even attend their churches, preferring to “spend their lives in devouring the revenues of the church which they never visit even for the purpose of inspection.” While Calvin admits that some do go once-a-year, or send a steward, they “look upon them merely as in the light of farms, over which they appoint their vicars as grieves or husbandmen.”

Finally, Calvin turns to the conduct of the priests. Rather than being the light of the world which Christ required, “in the present day there is no order of men more notorious for luxury, effeminacy, delicacy, and all kinds of licentiousness.” Indeed “nought pleases but what savours of luxury and the corruption of the times” for they “plume themselves on the delicacies of the table, on splendid clothes, numerous attendants, and magnificent places.”

How different to the attitude that should be in Christ’s ministers, who should be “a singular example of frugality, modesty, continence, and humility”. Indeed, the ancient canon of councils stated that “the bishops shall have a little dwelling not far from the church, a frugal table and furniture.” The Council of Aquileia went so far to declare that “poverty in the priests of the Lord is glorious.”

Calvin concludes his penetrating analysis of his contemporary church leadership by challenging them to deny the fact that “among bishops there is scarcely an individual, and among the parochial clergy not one in a hundred, who, if sentence were passed on his conduct according to the ancient canons, would not deserve to be excommunicated, or at least deposed from his office.”

Response

How do we respond to such a devastating critique? While we may want to acknowledge that the picture was not all black, and that there were some who were faithfully seeking to fulfill their calling, church historians agree that this was a time of intense corruption. Practises such as simony are well documented and reflect the moral temperature of the time. Calvin is not afraid to attack the only ecclesiastical authority of his day at the root of the issue – their authority to rule the people of God and impose their doctrine upon them.

By showing that the priests were not only not discharging their office, but that they had actually disqualified themselves from their sacred office, he is completely undermining their authority. Once their control over the people was sufficiently weakened, and a credible alternative proposed, the people were less afraid to reject the priest’s control. Having dealt with the priests and bishops in this chapter, he turns his attention to the pope in the next chapter.

Like a good author Tolkien knows that coming out of the darkest night, the hero shines all the more brighter. So Elrond sets the scene for Aragon to reclaim his rightful throne and lead the people of Middle Earth to victory over their enemies. The parallels to Calvin are stark. He stands at a vital point in history and surveys the devastation wrought my man. Calvin sees the weakness of men, and he renounces the system that allowed it to happen.  He too prepares the way for that Greater King to reclaim his church from the grip of man. He raises his prophetic voice to call the people back to repentance, back to scripture, back to their Saviour.

“Woe to you who long or the day of the LORD! Why do you long for the day of the LORD? That day will be darkness, not light…  Will not the day of the LORD be darkness, not light— pitch-dark, without a ray of brightness? “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” Amos 5.18-24

Let every man reflect for himself how hard it is not only to leave all things, but to leave and abjure one’s self. And yet this is the training by which Christ initiates his disciples, that is, all the godly. (Inst. 3.18.4)

For until his vanity is made perfectly manifest, he is puffed up with infatuated confidence in his own powers, and never can be brought to feel their feebleness so long as he measures them by a standard of his own choice. (Inst. 2.7.6)

Book 4 Chapter 4 Section 1-15

The Wonder Years tells the story of Kevin Arnold, a likable kid who lives in 1960s suburban America. The show plays out the life of this young boy as he discovers romance, adolescence and friendship against a backdrop of family tensions and social unrest. With its mix of humour, comedy and feel-good-moments, it was a favourite in our house during my childhood. The show was a nostalgic look on more innocent times, when kids played in the street and built tree houses and right and wrong hadn’t become shades of grey. It took us back to our youth when the world was exciting and new adventures were around every corner.

There was a time when the church had this same sense of excitement and innocence. In the days before it became the organised, wealthy, divided, megalithic institution it is today, it was as fresh as a young green shoot bursting out of the dry ground. With a growing momentum resulting from its increasing influence in society, this new movement was changing the known world. In this chapter Calvin describes how this young church was organised and governed, what the responsibilities of the leaders were and how they distributed their resources.

Calvin begins by looking at the different classes of ministers prevalent in the early church. Reflecting the divisions in the New Testament, the early church distributed its ministers into three orders – pastors, teachers and deacons. To the deacons “belongs the care of the poor and the dispensing of alms.” Calvin also quotes Jerome who describes five orders in the church: bishops, presbyters, deacons, believers and catechumens.

Calvin describes the strategy of the church in each city. All teachers were called presbyters, with one from this group being appointed as a bishop, “lest from equality dissension should arise”. The bishop was not to have “dominion over his colleagues but…collect their opinions, take precedence of others in collecting, advising, exhorting, guide the whole procedure by his authority.” Above the bishops were the archbishops, responsible for a province, with patriarchs above the archbishops “for the preservation of discipline”. A provincial synod decided on matters that couldn’t be resolved by individual patriarchs. If it couldn’t be resolved by this synod a General Council had to be called. This was the hierarchy of the early church.

Calvin goes on to describe the role of deacons in the early church, who were responsible for receiving and distributing the daily offerings. The offerings were distributed into four parts – the clergy, the poor, repair of the church, and the bishop. The bishop’s allocation was not for his personal use, but that he might be hospitable to those in need.

Response

In this chapter Calvin outlines the blueprint that the early church overlaid on top of the biblical principles set down for governing a church. Although these precautions may seem Draconian to us, and in an ideal world we would prefer not to have such a hierarchy in place, they served the church fairly well in the early days. When controversies raged over the deity of Christ the General Councils were able to decree orthodoxy and set the course for future generations. In the early days the bond of continuity was able to ensure that those in positions of responsibility were men of integrity and deep humility. Men like Augustine, Jerome, Cyril and Gregory set the standard in their passion for truth and godliness.

Unfortunately, over the years the rot set in. The responsibility and authority that had been given to individuals in order to bring unity instead brought corruption. Men of weaker character and shallower doctrine reached the highest positions and this opened the floodgates for those below to take advantage of their freedom. The rest, as they say, is history. Calvin will go on to show that this blueprint was lying in tatters by the 16^th century.

While many of us may wish that we could go back to the church’s youth, there is no turning back the clock. As an older and wiser Kevin Arnold reflected during one episode “Growing up is never easy. You hold on to things that were. You wonder what’s to come. But that night, I think we knew it was time to let go of what had been, and look ahead to what would be. Other days. New days. Days to come. The thing is, we didn’t have to hate each other for getting older. We just had to forgive ourselves…for growing up.” Looking back it seems that despite starting well, with a good structure and good intentions, every attempt to overlay an organisational structure over the biblical principles has eventually failed. Thankfully God is not content to leave his church alone. He reforms and revives and renews his people and will continue to do so until there is no longer a need for a hierarchy. Let us keep looking forward, to that day when each of us will glory in the splendour of his presence.

“No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying “Know the Lord”, because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” Jeremiah 31.34

Father, one day we will all be right, we will all have a full understanding of your truth. There will be no dividing lines resulting from our imperfect understanding of your word. All will unite with one accord to praise and magnify your name. These will be the real wonder years, the days of glory and unadulterated joy. These will be the days without end and without disagreement. Then will be finally be fulfilled the prayer of Jesus that we might be one, as you are one. Marantha! Amen

Book 4 Chapter 3 Section 1-16

“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so”
Hamlet Act 2 Scene 2

So muses Hamlet to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as he confesses his depressive spirit to them. What an amazing creature man is, but at the same time what weakness he has. In this chapter of the Institutes we turn to the election and office of teachers and ministers in the church. What an honour for man that God should bestow the priviledge of being his representatives on earth. And yet no other aspect of Christian life better illustrates Shakespeare’s reflections on man than this one. History shows what great heights pastors and teachers have attained over the years in their faithful ministry of the gospel. But along the way there have been many notable and costly failures. As Franklin Roosevelt reminded us ”with great power comes great responsibility.”

First of all Calvin recognises that God could have acted on his own, or use angels, but that there are several reasons why he chooses to use  men and women. He states that in this way God further condescends to our level, “he shows us by experience that it is not to no purpose that he calls us his temples”. In addition this method provides “a most excellent and useful training to humility when he accustoms us to obey his word though preached by men like ourselves, or, it may be, our inferiors in worth.” Calvin argues that if God spoke to us directly it would not be suprising if we obeyed his commands, but “when a feeble man, sprung from the dust, speaks in the name of God, we give best proof of our piety and obedience, by listening with docility to his servant.” Thirdly, using men for the ministry binds us together through our common need, each serving the other in a mutual bond of unity. We cannot say we do not need each other when it is by the ministry of our fellow man that God has appointed our instruction and edification.

Calvin then moves on to consider the honour and importance placed upon the office. He argues that “neither are the heat and light of the sun, nor meat and drink, so necessary to sustain and cherish the present life, as is the apostolical and pastoral office to preserve a church in the earth.” This is no optional extra that can be dispensed with at a whim, says Calvin. No, it is vital for sustaining the church in each generation. Calvin refers to Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, where Paul states that “there is nothing in the church more noble and glorious than the ministry of the gospel, seeing it is the administration of the Spirit of righteousness and eternal life.”

Next Calvin looks at the various types of offices within the church – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. And concludes that only the latter two have a continual place in the church, the former three being raised up when “the necessity of the times requires”. Calvin describes the difference between pastors and teachers as being “teachers preside not over discipline , or the administration of the sacraments, or admonitions, or exhortations, but the interpretation of scripture only.” Whereas all these aspects are contained in the pastoral office.

Calvin then turns to the call of the ministry. He asks “who are to be appointed ministers, in what way, by whom and with what rite or initiatory ceremony”. Here he is only dealing with that external confirmatory call of the church towards an individual who has already received the secret call of God. Who? Only those who are of a sound doctrine and holy life, with a good testimony within the church and without. They should be men who are “not unfit for or unequal to the burden imposed upon them” for they should be “provided with the means which will be necessary to fulfill their office.” How? With great seriousness in those appointing them, in earnest prayer for the mind of Christ. By whom? While the apostles were called “at the sole command of God and Christ”, in our day it is by affirming response of the elders in the presence of the people. The form of ordination? The laying on of hands of the elders. That he who is ordained may know that “he is no longer his own, but is bound in service to God and the church.”

Response

Calvin’s chapter on the ministry is a timely reminder of the honour and priviledge that has been bestowed on the office by God. To be God’s representative to his people in his church is surely the greatest of all callings and the highest of all honour. And yet if this is so, it makes me wonder why our colleges struggle to fill places and churches struggle to fill vacancies? Why is it that so few men come forward for the ministry? Has God stopped calling his ministers to this blessed vocation? Or are we failing to find, inspire, train, equip, empower, resource and commission these men?

I must confess that I do not believe God has stopped his calling work in the lives of young men. I believe he is still prompting, challenging and calling men to consecrate their lives to him. But when their are so many distractions and competing voices I believe that still small voice needs fanning into flame. I can think of a number of friends who have the gifting to be great pastors, but in the absence of opportunities and mentoring the call gets stifled. What opportunities are there for aspiring pastors and teachers at your church to gain experience in the ministry of the word? Are we willing to share the limelight to enable those less gifted and less mature to test their gifting? Is our church set up to regularly give opportunities and training to the next generation of leaders? If not then where are they to go to get this experience?

In the sovereignty of God he is able to overcome these problems and raise up his people. But must we make it so hard for his purposes to be accomplished? In an age when millions and millions of pounds are poured into finding the next singing sensation who will be unknown in five years time, can we not invest our time, energy and money in finding and training the next generation of leaders for the greatest of all callings, whose results will remain for eternity?

“For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men…To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless.” 1 Corinthians 4.9+11

Oh that you would raise up an army from your people to live and die for the cause of Christ in Scotland and beyond. That there would not be enough churches to hold all those responding to your call. That your Spirit would move in power to take our eyes off this world and onto the eternal issues of heaven and hell. Father that you would prepare their hearts for the battle ahead and the sacrifice demanded. That they would ask for nothing but souls, expect nothing but a cross and see nothing but Christ crucified. Amen.

There is a communication of “idiomata”, or properties, when Paul says, that God purchased the Church “with his own blood,” (Acts 20: 28,) and that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory, (1 Cor. 2: 8.) In like manner, John says, that the Word of God was “handled.” God certainly has no blood, suffers not, cannot be touched with hands; but since that Christ, who was true God and true man, shed his blood on the cross for us, the acts which were performed in his human nature are transferred improperly, but not ceaselessly, to his divinity. (Inst. 2.14.2)

Let them now go and clamour against us as heretics for having withdrawn from their Church, since the only cause of our estrangement is, that they cannot tolerate a pure profession of the truth. I say nothing of their having expelled us by anathemas and curses. The fact is more than sufficient to excuse us, unless they would also make schismatics of the apostles, with whom we have a common cause. (Inst. 4.2.6)

The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. (Inst. 3.3.1)

Who could do this unless the Son of God should also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? (Inst. 2.12.2)

By piety I mean that union of reverence and love to God which the knowledge of his benefits inspires. For, until men feel that they owe everything to God, that they are cherished by his paternal care, and that he is the author of all their blessings, so that nought is to be looked for away from him, they will never submit to him in voluntary obedience; nay, unless they place their entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves to him in truth and sincerity. (Inst. 1.2.1)

Let each of us, when he hears that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, be roused by the thought to entertain the hope of a better life, and to expect that as it is now protected by the hand of Christ, so it will be fully realised in a future life. (Inst. 2.15.3)

In the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine [Divine Providence] with envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to themselves…As if our doctrine were the figment of our own brain, and were not distinctly declared by the Spirit, and repeated in innumerable forms of expression! (Inst. 1.17.2)

Renewal is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. (Inst. 3.3.9)

I want to revisit a quote I made from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion about the starting place for all theology, worship, doctrine and morals. This is what he said:

“Man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself.”

This quote, along with the looming date of Reformation Sunday, really set me to pondering the state of American Christianity. What Calvin states here is often the opposite of what we find in the modern American church.

So often, American churches start with man–and never really look higher. The thinking goes like this: “what can we do to attract more people to our church?” In other words, what kind of programming can we put on that will make more people want to populate our services and activities? Not that it is wrong to want to draw more people into the sphere of the church’s influence, but is that the right starting place? No. It cannot be. It leads down a path that goes away from God, not toward Him.

Man is not the measure of all things.  It can be easy to be convinced he is–that’s how the world thinks, and this line of thought is so prevalent. It has to be fought back in church life or it will root itself very, very deeply.

I think pastors face many temptations to preach messages that could just as easily be delivered by a tv talk show host trying to help a dysfunctional person in some kind of trouble as proclaiming the whole counsels of God. If we pastors start with man, we’ll misfire in the pulpit.

God can never seem to be incidental to the worship service or in the sermon. The Bible cannot be handled lightly–just dropping a verse or two here and there into a sermon, in support of some point that is really more about pop psychology than biblical revelation.

Pastors also are tempted by the word “relevance” too much. So many churches seem to be struggling to find “relevance.” By that is meant some means to connect their message with modern hearers, but there is sometimes not enough discernment being practiced by pulpit and pew to see that what is being passed off as relevance too often is simply skirting around the doctrine of God and talking about man and his hopes, dreams and wishes all the time. That is the wrong place to start. We are to start with God. What kind of worship does He want us to give Him? What kind of church life will most please Him? We should conform our actions and activities to His desires, first and foremost. We must start with Him, not ourselves.

Calvin went on:

“So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect on what kind of being He is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust us by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence.” (Book First, Chapter 1, part 2.)

That’s relevance, if you ask me. To “raise our thoughts to God, and reflect on what kind of being He is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed”–what could be more relevant than that?

Am I the only one that thinks this way?

Clothed with our flesh, he warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father. (Inst. 2.12.3)