Calvin On The Necessity For Struggle

We should be very grieved that the Church is torn by internal divisions as evidenced by thousands upon thousands of denominations in Protestantism, but it is better that some shall separate themselves from the ungodly and be united to Christ their Head, than that all should agree in despising God.

If we have to fight against godless teachings, then, even if it is necessary to move heaven and earth, we must persevere, nevertheless in the struggle. We must certainly make it our primary concern to see that the truth of God is maintained w/o any controversy; but if unbelievers resist, we must struggle against them, and we must not be afraid that we will be blamed for the disturbances.

For the peace, of which rebellion against God is the token, is an accursed thing; whereas the struggles, which are necessary for the defence of the Kingdom of Christ, are blessed.

Paraphrase from Calvin
Commentary on Jn. 10:19 / I Cor. 14:33

Dalyrmple’s Take On Being A Hater

I am a Hate-Filled Christian

Some observations on this piece

Dalrymple uses the word “hate” a great deal, but never attaches it to evil men. Just evil in the abstract. Dalrymple is passive in his hatred. Biblical hatred hates the sin and the sinner precisely because it is operating from love to God and His glory. Dalyrimple’s predilection for this passivity and abstraction is throughout the article.

By abstracting hate so that it is located on a sin (Sodomy) that does not include a concrete sinner (Dalyrimple’s friends) Dalyrimple creates a contradictory division. After all, in the end, it is not sin in the abstract, that is cast into hell but sinners. Our love for our sodomite friends must include a clear enough opposition to them personally that they know that we are against them precisely because we are for them.

In the linked article Dalyrimple can write,

” I hate that we have sometimes made it seem as though God will have nothing to do with gays until they leave their homosexual behavior behind, as though God redeems us after we are no longer sinners.”

This is problematic for the following reasons,

1.) The fact that God does have something to do with sodomites before they leave their homosexual behavior is seen by the fact that sodomites are willing to leave their sodomite behavior.

Psalm 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

2.) God is only a judge to the wicked (regardless what their flavor of wickedness is).

3.) While we were still sinners Christ died for us is written to the elect covenant community. It was not written for those who hate Christ. We can not take that statement and apply it to those who hate Christ as the sentence above seems to imply.

Dalrymple also writes,

‎”I hate that Christians have not always made it clear that God loves them and seeks them just as passionately as God seeks everyone else.”

If God sought everyone, as the sentence implies, then God would find everyone since no one can hide from God. Clearly God does not seek everyone. This sentence is latent Arminianism.

When Dalrymple says,

“I hate that my convictions on this issue comes between us (me and my gay friends),”

I find myself thinking that I would rejoice that my convictions come between us, for it is only my convictions, based as they are on God’s revealed Word, that are coming between myself and continued misery for those outside of Christ. I mean I understand the desire to have a friendship without friction but in the end the conviction of the Christian is the only hope of our sodomite friends.

Dalyrymple writes,

‎”I hate that gays are bullied.”

Like it or not societal taboos are reinforced through negative behavior towards those breaking the taboos.

Also there is the reality that if sodomites are not opposed then what is communicated is that sodomy is accepted. I would contend that the refusal to oppose sodomy is the a embracing of opposing Christian virtue.

Calvin and the Anabaptist R2K’ers

“Calvin opposed the Roman concept of “perfectio” as well as that of the Anabaptists. He contended for an ethos that bound both the Christian and the world by the same set of requirements, so that the way of the Reformation did not result in a church segregated from the world. Although Calvin also recognized a two-kingdom doctrine, his exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount revealed that he did not let this antithesis lead him to a basic dualism.”

Calvin & The Anabaptist Radicals
Willem Balke

Unlike Calvin, R2K contends for a different ethos for the Christian and the world. The Christian is to be ruled by the ethos of Scripture in the Church realm and Natural law in the common realm, while the ethos for the world in the common realm is Natural law. Unlike Calvin the R2K “Divines” give a different ethos to the world and to the Christian. Now, there might be overlap between those two different ethoi but they are different ethoi. It is also true the R2K segregates the Church from the world though it does not segregate the Christian from the world like the Anabaptists did and do. R2K, like the Anabaptists of old do not allow the Church as the Church to be concerned with what happens in the non Church realm. (For R2K that realm is called “common,” while for the Anabaptists that realm was evil. Still, regardless of what each call that realm, the Church as the Church is segregated from it considering it “the world.”)

R2K “theology” is a tweaking of a historic theology but it is a tweaking of Anabaptist theology and not a tweaking of Historic Calvinist theology. R2K’s tweaking, as that tweaking is happening in the Reformed community, is a tweaking that pulls contemporary Calvinism more towards Anabaptist categories. Consider the R2K tweak of Anabaptist theology in its nomenclature. Historically Anabaptist theology called the non-Church realm evil. R2K doesn’t do that. Instead, R2K tweaks Anabaptist nomenclature and calls the evil realm “common,” but all the while insists that it is impossible for the R2K “common” realm to be Christian, insisting on calling it “common.” Now, one might observe that if it is impossible for the “common” realm to be “Christian” (per R2k) then all that is left is for the common realm to be not Christian. If the common realm is not Christian then how is it also (using Anabaptist nomenclature) not a evil realm? The R2K acolytes reply that the common realm is neither Christian nor evil but in doing so they have given up their Reformed credentials by creating a realm where the antithesis does not apply and they have completely given up on Van Til’s denial of neutrality. The R2K lads can say till they’re blue in the face that common does not equal neutral but saying that it is not so, does not make it not so.

Pin The Tail On The Sect

“_____________ (This group) considered politics to lie outside the New Testament. The Gospel contained principles for ruling citizens of the Kingdom of heaven, but not for legislation of a secular state in the … world …. _________ (This group) acknowledged that ‘the temporal sword is an ordinance of God, besides the perfection of Christ; lo princes and superiors of the world are ordained to punish wicked, and to put them to death. But in the perfection of Christ, excommunication is the utmost pain, and not corporal death.'”

I pulled the above quote out of a book I am finishing up. I want the readers to guess the group of which the author is referring to in the quote. Was the author referring to

A.) The Medieval Cathari
B.) The Reformation Ana-Baptists
C.) The 3rd Century Church Novatians
D.) The Current Radical Two Kingdom phenomenon

Caleb’s Baptist — Behold The Deliverer (HC Q. 18)

Question 18. Who then is that Mediator, who is in one person both very God, (a) and a real (b) righteous man? (c)

Answer: Our Lord Jesus Christ: (d) “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (e)

Questions 16 and 17 taught us that if we are going to be delivered from our sins then certain quality characteristics must be found in the person who rescues us from our sin. Those character qualities are repeated in question 18 with the inquiry asking who fits that description.

Note that in question 18 that the our deliverer and rescuer is spoken of as a Mediator. We have mentioned the mediatorial aspect before but reviewing briefly we underscore that a Mediator is one who represents both parties in a dispute. In the Old Testament the Priests filled the role as the Mediator. The Old Testament Priest represented the people to God in his sacrificial responsibilities and he represented God to the people in his very person. So, we learn from this language that whoever is in one person both very God, and a real righteous man, is also the person who God has set aside to be a Mediator.

One aspect that is interesting about the Lord Christ having the two natures of God and real righteous man is that in being both God and Man the person of Christ has the properties which belong to both natures. This is only to say that the human and divine natures belong to the person of the Lord Christ and so are ascribed to Him in his person. The impact of this means that properties that belong uniquely to both divine and human natures are attributed to the one person of Jesus. For example, the person Jesus can be spoken of in his human nature (Jesus wept, Jesus grows in wisdom and stature, Jesus was tired) but the person Jesus can also be spoken of in his divine nature (omnipresence, all knowing, etc.) However, as we learned in our last session, this does not mean that any of his human nature was divinized, nor was any of his divine nature mixed with the human nature.

Let me clarify with a couple examples Caleb. In John’s Gospel Jesus says,

17:5, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.”

The person of Jesus here is claiming something that could only be true of divinity. Jesus is claiming pre-existence and eternality. We might ask how it is that Jesus, who was born of a virgin, and so had a beginning of days, could claim pre-existence with the eternal God. The answer to that is that second person of the Trinity took to himself a human nature, as that was added in the incarnation, and so the person Jesus of Nazareth can speak John 17:5 as one who has a divine nature belonging to His person. The language of Scripture often ascribes to the person of Jesus attributes that could only belong to God.

Another example of this that works in the other direction is found in Acts 28:20

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

Of course it is Jesus who purchased the church of God with His own blood. Paul, in Acts, is speaking of the attributes of humanity (blood) as being ascribed to God. As the person Jesus has a divine nature, and as a man he has blood, it can be said that God purchased the church with His own blood even though the divine nature can not bleed.

So, we see that the Scripture teaches that Jesus has two natures. We see that Scripture affirms that Jesus was one person. But we also see Scripture speaking in such a way that “the properties of both, the human and the divine natures, are now the properties of the person, and are therefore ascribed to the person,” and yet without confusing or mixing, nor separating or changing the Divine and Human natures. The fancy theological term for this is communicatio idiomatum.

The reason this is important to keep in mind is that there is a tendency to forget one or the other of these natures. In the early Church, the temptation was to forget the humanity of Jesus. The heresy called gnosticism was constantly denying that Jesus was human. In our era the tendency is to forget that Jesus is divine. We treat the Lord Christ so casually. This is evidenced, I would suggest, by people talking incessantly about having a “relationship with Jesus,” forgetting that this person we talk so casually about having a relationship with is the one whom the Apostle John fell before as dead because of the intense divine glory of His divine presence.

Question 18 gives a number of Scriptures to support the fact that Jesus is God. Here are but three,

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Rom.9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Jer.23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Question 18 gives a number of Scriptures to support the fact that Jesus is Man. Here are but three,

Luke 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Philip.2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Heb.2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb.2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Heb.2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Question 18 gives a number of Scriptures to support the fact that Jesus was without sin. Here are but four,

Heb.4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb.7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

1 Pet.1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1 Pet.2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Remember, this all started by looking for someone qualified to bring us rescue from our sins. That all of this is, in Scripture, seen predominantly in that light is proven by a few texts from Scripture,

1 Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Heb.2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

There are other philosophical reasons why the divine and the human meeting in Jesus is monumentally important but the Catechism is only concerned with the soteriological (pertaining to salvation) reasons as to why the Lord Christ Christ is both human and divine. In short, unless the Lord Jesus Christ was and is human and divine we could not have been delivered from our sins and would be without God and without hope.

Question 18 ends by quoting 1 Cor.1:30,

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

The importance of this text is found in the reality that as we as Christians are placed in Christ as our representative before the Father, we now wear before the Father the wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption of our representative the Lord Jesus Christ so that when we are considered by the Father we are considered as belonging to the one the Father delights in and so the Father delights in us.

This is why there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved.