Skip to comments.The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 7
Posted on 02/06/2003 8:52:14 AM PST by ksen
Institutes of the Christian Religion
Book I: The Knowledge of God the Creator
Chapter 7: THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT NECESSARY TO GIVE FULL AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE. THE IMPIETY OF PRETENDING THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE DEPENDS ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.
1. The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the Spirit of God. Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of the Church. Refutation,
I. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.
II. It is insulting to the Holy Spirit.
III. It establishes a tyranny in the Church.
IV. It forms a mass of errors.
V. It subverts conscience.
VI. It exposes our faith to the scoffs of the profane.
2. Another reply to the objection drawn from the words of the Apostle Paul. Solution of the difficulties started by opponents. A second objection refuted.
3. A third objection founded on a sentiment of Augustine considered.
4. Conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is founded on its being spoken by God. This confirmed by the conscience of the godly, and the consent of all men of the least candour. A fourth objection common in the mouths of the profane. Refutation.
5. Last and necessary conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is sealed on the hearts of believers by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The certainty of this testimony. Confirmation of it from a passage of Isaiah, and the experience of believers. Also, fromanother passage of Isaiah.
1.Scripture has its authority from God, not from the church
Before proceeding farther, it seems proper to make some observations on the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds may not only be prepared to receive it with reverence, but be divested of all doubt. When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged to be so, no person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker. But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them. This subject well deserves to be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits than to what the extent of this topic requires.
A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the goodwill of men?
2.The church is itself grounded upon Scripture
These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets," (Eph. 2: 20.) If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her judgement is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothings therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste.
3.Augustine cannot be cited as counterevidence
I am aware it is usual to quote a sentence of Augustine in which he says that he would not believe the gospel, were he not moved by the authority of the Church, (Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament.c. 5.) But it is easy to discover from the context, how inaccurate and unfair it is to give it such a meaning. He was reasoning against the Manichees, who insisted on being implicitly believed, alleging that they had the truth, though they did not show they had. But as they pretended to appeal to the gospel in support of Manes, he asks what they would do if they fell in with a man who did not even believe the gospel - what kind of argument they would use to bring him over to their opinion. He afterwards adds, "But I would not believe the gospel," &c.; meaning, that were he a stranger to the faith, the only thing which could induce him to embrace the gospel would be the authority of the Church. And is it any thing wonderful,that one who does not know Christ should pay respect to men?
Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his meaning, by thus expressing himself a little before: "When I have praised my own creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between us; or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us to certainty, afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and follow those who invite us, in the first instance, to believe what we are not yet able to comprehend, that waxing stronger through faith itself, we may become able to understand what we believe - no longer men, but God himself internally strengthening and illuminating our minds?"
These unquestionably are the words of Augustine, (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4;) and the obvious inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to suspend our faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church, but only to intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who are not yet enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by reverence for the Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. In this way, though the authority of the Church leads us on, and prepares us to believe in the gospel, it is plain that Augustine would have the certainty of the godly to rest on a very different foundation. At the same time, I deny not that he often presses the Manichees with the consent of the whole Church, while arguing in support of the Scriptures, which they rejected. Hence he upbraids Faustus (lib. 32) for not submitting to evangelical truth - truth so well founded, so firmly established, so gloriously renowned, and handed down by sure succession from the days of the apostles. But he nowhere insinuates that the authority which we give to the Scriptures depends on the definitions or devices of men. He only brings forward the universal judgement of the Church, as a point most pertinent to the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the advantage of his opponents. Any one who desires to see this morefully proved may read his short treatises De Utilitate Credendi,(The Advantages of Believing,) where it will be found that the only facility of believing which he recommends is that which affords an introduction, and forms a fit commencement to inquiry; while he declares that we ought not to be satisfied with opinion, but to strive after substantial truth.
4. The witness of the Holy Spirit: this is stronger than all proof
It is necessary to attend to what I lately said, that our faith in doctrine is not established until we have a perfect conviction that God is its author. Hence, the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it is. The prophets and apostles boast not their own acuteness or any qualities which win credit to speakers, nor do they dwell on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God, in order that the whole world may be compelled to submission. The next thing to be considered is, how it appears not probable merely, but certain, tha tthe name of God is neither rashly nor cunningly pretended. If, then, we would consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering, and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, judgements, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit. It is true, indeed, that if we choose to proceed in the way of arguments it is easy to establish, by evidence of various kinds, that if there is a God in heaven, the Law, the Prophecies, and the Gospel, proceeded from him. Nay, although learned men, and men of the greatest talent, should take the opposite side, summoning and ostentatiously displaying all the powers of their genius in the discussion; if they are not possessed of shameless effrontery, they will be compelled to confess that the Scripture exhibits clear evidence of its being spoken by God, and, consequently, of its containing his heavenly doctrine. We shall see a little farther on, that the volume of sacred Scripture very far surpasses all other writings. Nay, if we look at it with clear eyes, and unblessed judgement, it will forthwith present itself with a divine majesty which will subdue our presumptuous opposition, and force us to do it homage.
Still, however, it is preposterous to attempt, by discussion, to rear up a full faith in Scripture. True, were I called to contend with the craftiest despisers of God, I trust, though I am not possessed of the highest ability or eloquence, I should not find it difficult to stop their obstreperous mouths; I could, without muchado, put down the boastings which they mutter in corners, were anything to be gained by refuting their cavils. But although we may maintain the sacred Word of God against gainsayers, it does not follow that we shall forthwith implant the certainty which faith requires in their hearts. Profane men think that religion rests only on opinion, and, therefore, that they may not believe foolishly, or on slight grounds, desire and insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the prophets were divinely inspired. But I answer,that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which they were divinely entrusted. This connection is most aptly expressed by Isaiah in these words, "My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever," (Isa. 59: 21.) Some worthy persons feel disconcerted, because, while the wicked murmur with impunity at the Word of God,they have not a clear proof at hand to silence them, forgetting that the Spirit is called an earnest and seal to confirm the faith of the godly, for this very reason, that, until he enlightens their minds, they are tossed to and fro in a sea of doubts.
5. Scripture bears its own authentication
Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgement or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgement, feel perfectly assured - as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it -that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which torest our judgement, but we subject our intellect and judgement to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it - an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.
Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he," (Isa. 43: 10.)Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, aknowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality.
I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church "shall be taught of the Lord," (Isaiah 54: 13.) This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: "It is not in heavens that thous houldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee,in thy mouth and in thy heart," (Deut. 30: 12, 14.) God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, "To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (Isaiah 53: 1.) If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.
A logical progression has been postulated so far in the writings.
1)God gave revelation of Himself to all meni wonder just what Calvin means by the term "refuse credit".
A) Directly in the mind (immediate imputation)
B) Through the media of the Creation
2) Some men can and do suppress the knowlege that they have, and are therefore condemned for rejecting what they know to be true
3) Other men accept the recieved knowlege of God, yet still stand condemned, because this knowlege is not sufficient for the purpose of salvation.
4) This class of men who accept the implanted knowledge need further revelation from God for the purpose of salvation.
5) Man must acknowlege that the bible is that further revelation of God.
6) When or After it is acknowleged as God's revelation, men do not reject it unless they are mentally or emotionally unstable.
A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men.
Here it is:
1. There is a valid general revelation to which all men are accountable (Ro 1:18ff)
a. There is in Man's nature a general revelation of God
i. Man has a sense of Diety
(1) It is the witness of God within the creature
(2) A continuous reflection of the Divine Majesty upon the consciousness of Man (Ro 1:19;2:15)
ii. This sense of Diety creates in man the seed of religion
iii. If the seed of religion is allowed to flourish without interference then there issues true religion
iv. Several of Man's characteristics are revelational
(1) Talents or gifts point to a Giver
(2) Intelligence - "unfailing signs of divinity within us
(3) Moral sense - Moral experience is meaningless unless there is a Judge in Heaven
(4) Existence - A witness to the existence of God
(5) Depravity - "Purity of righteousness rests in the Lord alone"
b. There is in creation a general revelation of God (Ps 19:1;Ro 1:20)
c. There is a general revelation of God in God's providential care of Man
i. In nature (Ge 9:1-4;Ac 14:17;17:24-26)
ii. In history (I Co 10:1-10)
a. Even though Man is depraved he is without excuse (Ro 1:20)
b. Intense philosophical thought cannot remedy the darkness occasioned by our depravity (Ro 8:6-7;Col 2:8)
c. There will always be corrupted religion. There is no natural theology.
a. The emphasis on revelation as redemptive is very important and very strong
b. Calvin discusses Soteric Revelation in Principle before he discusses Sacred Scripture
c. For all practical purposes the written Word is the Word of Special Revelation to Calvin
a. Calvin places the Church and human reason beneath the Scriptures and as inferior to the witness of the Spirit
b. Calvin believed that there are substantial reasons or evidences which in themselves manifest the Divine Origin of the Scriptures and the Christian faith
c. However, these evidences are no match for human depravity
d. It is the witness of the Spirit which is the match for human depravity
e. Christian evidences play a confirming role AFTER the Spirit has sealed His witness in our hearts
So far our study has pretty much paralled this outline.
I wonder how many of us, here and in RL, forget this? We argue with our own reason and mental abilities and forget that it is the Spirit which convicts and convinces the Unbeliever, not our cleverness with words or ability to phrase an argument.
I wonder if Calvin was looking for a reason why so few people were "saved"? I know when I was first saved I wanted to tell everyone I knew and loved about Jesus and the Gospel. I told them, but they didn't respond as I did. How could someone hear about Jesus and what He did and NOT respond?
I wonder if that is why Calvin taught Absolute Predestination and Election. Just a thought.
Sounds as if your apologetics Prof. needs to do a serious study of the language of Romans 1:17-32. The fact is that most Theologians since Kant have denied (to one extent or another) the existence of natural theology. Barth was most vehement against it. The difficulty with the position is that God's general revelation does not fail to accomplish it's purpose. There is a second difficulty. God in His special revelation, the bible claims that there is a natural theology. There is a clear crisis of authority: If God, Speaking through Paul to the Romans, claims a natural theology, and Kant -> Barth claims that there is not, either Paul (hence, God) or Immanuel Kant must be wrong...there are no other logical alternatives to this statement.
Would you mind giving me a definition of "Natural Theology"? Doesn't Natural Theology say that we can know everything we need to know about God from the things around us using reason?
No, not at all! Natural Theology is a body of truth that can be grasped by the reason of man aided by the revelation of God given to all men. It is not an exhaustive body of truth, neither is it sufficient for Salvation.
Advocates of Natural Theology define it as follows:
"Simply stated, natural theology refers to knowledge of God acquired through nature. Classically, natural theology does not stand in contradiction to divine revelation nor does it exclude such revelation. In fact, natural theology is dependent upon divine revelation for its content. To be usre, there have been philosophical attempts to achieve a natural theology in isolation from and as a substitute for natural revelation. That we call naturalism. Contrary to naturalism, Christian approaches to natural theology are established upon the foundation of a prior divine revelation. For the Christian, natural theology does not mean that humans, in their natural state, have the intrinsic ability to rise to a knowledge of God by the sheer force of intellect unaided by divine revelation. Such a view is repudiated by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike,..."
I wonder if that is why Calvin taught Absolute Predestination and Election. Just a thought."
Your wording seems to infer that Calvin "made up" Predestination and Election.
On the contrary, these are thoroughly Biblical Ideas. Just ~how~ does one define Predestination and Election is the heart of the matter.
In reality, Calvin's statements you quoted are simply a good summary of 1 Corinthians 1-3:
1 Corinthians 1
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(This sounds extremely similar to the line you quoted above: "True, were I called to contend with the craftiest despisers of God, I trust, though I am not possessed of the highest ability or eloquence, I should not find it difficult to stop their obstreperous mouths; I could, without much ado, put down the boastings which they mutter in corners, were anything to be gained by refuting their cavils. But although we may maintain the sacred Word of God against gainsayers, it does not follow that we shall forthwith implant the certainty which faith requires in their hearts." See also Matthew 7:13,14.)
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 3
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
No, I think Calvin taught Absolute Predestination and Election because that is what he read in the Scriptures.
More than one freeper here has come to the same conclusion as Calvin apart from reading Calvin but from reading and studying the Scriptures alone
It wasn't a mere invention of him to explain why so few were saved. It is simply the teaching of the Scriptures!
I would be interested in hearing what our Catholic FRiends have to say about this chapter, especially the second paragraph of the first section:
Are you sure about that? :-)
Calvin here sets up a false dichotomy -- that the Canon is either protected and defined by God, or it is protected and defined by the Church.
Of course, the answer is that God guides the Church in the protecting and definition of the Canon.
As with so many other things, the Protestant refuses to contemplate the Incarnation and how God works through man to accomplish His goals.
(For what it's worth, I have never heard a Cahtolic say the Bible depends on the "suffrage" of the Church, or that it depended on the will of man. Instead, as I have said, it is the Holy Spirit working through man.)
For Thomists, Natural Theology is the study of what can be known about God apart from revelation.
Well, I have heard Catholics say that there would be no Bible if it wasn't for the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Theologians, and Calvin are pretty unified on this idea. Natural Theology is something that crosses Catholic-Protestant lines. BTW, the source was the link you gave to me, thanks,...it does seem to read like Calvin.
And what did you take it to mean? To me, the statement is that the Church is God's Instrument in the world. Not that the Church is making decisions in opposition to God.
I know the types of debate that bring about statements like that. It is usually thrown out to demonstrate that the Church precedes the New Testament. That the Bible came from the Church, not the other way around.
Calvin aptly refuted the claims of RC ownership of Scripture
I have an interest in the above quote for I ~think~ it show the heart of Calvin for the Word and work of God..great reverence for the word of God and the Holy Spirit's work in giving us eyes to see and ears to hear
Calvin is very firm in arguing that the truth of the Scriptures comes only when one embraces the Scriptures as having "sprung from heaven" and "whole and intact to this very day" AND when combined with the witness of the Holy Spirit.
In other words, the truth will not be gained if one were simply to read the Bible: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;" (1 Cor 1:18)
Madelyne Murray O'Hair knew the scriptures far better than the vast majority of Christians. But that didn't bring her to the truth.
This is also why emphasizing simply relying on a specific Bible translation is vain.
The words of Scripture are "foolishness" to the natural man.
Furthermore, the truth will not be gained if we rely ONLY on the "witness of the Holy Spirit" apart from the Scriptures. This tendency, as we often see in charismatic circles, leads to much confusion and unbiblical doctrines taking root.
No, as Calvin says, we need both the Scriptures AND the "witness of the Holy Spirit" to bring us to the truth in those Scriptures. (1 Cor 1-3)
Is it that man looking around him can see, through nature, a revelation of God that He combines with his reason to come to a general (not saving) understanding of God??
Maybe I'm just dense (no comments please), but it sounds like Aquinas makes the case that a man could reason himself to God apart from Revelation. Thus he says "by reason alone."
You and me both Mom. I always thought Natural Theology was man using only his reason and philosophy to seek out the things of God. Let's see what CDL and the others have to tell us.
You do have to wonder why so many refuse the "good news"
They joke about hell ..and disregard and are indifferernt to the gospel.
You are missing the implication of this clause. If God has not revealed these things fallen man cannot by reason discover them. The individual is still dependent on God to provide revelation, even though it is apprehended through the process of reason.
Agreed My 1st Bible was a "Good News for Modern Man " a terrible translation and it made my heart leap for joy....
Heh, I remember that one. Wasn't that the paperback one with the hideous yellow cover? ;^)
This is what we get when we depend on lawyers-turned-theologians. ;^)
Well, I don't think that the Greek Orthodox would agree with such an equivalence.
It may be correct to use the term "the Catholic Church" to describe the first couple of centuries of The Church as it encompassed all the lands from Britain to Mesopotamia and Ethipoia (and beyond) -- and perhaps the term "the Church Catholic" might be an even better term, or simply "the Church" -- but not the "Roman Catholic Church".
At any rate, Calvin's usage of the term "The Church" generally assumes the Roman and Greek Churches together with some of the smaller churches as constituting "The Church". His localized frame of personal reference is to the French Catholic Church in particular, of course, but generally his larger frame of reference includes all orthodox Nicene Christians, not just the RCC.
Does that clarify Johnny's usage at all?
YES..I still have it on my Book Case..LOL I think only you and I would know it on sight..LOL
i looked up the reference to Aquinas, even he did not think that knowlege of God could be gained by reason alone. As mentioned by Sproul, et al, Such a view is called naturalism and it is universally rejected by historical Christianity.
Augustine did a treatus on the role of reason, that Aquinas modified, that teaches that once reason determines that a specific revelation is from God, that reason must submit to that revelation (i.e., scripture).
Gerstner, in his book on Jonathan Edwards, lists Edwards' teaching on the role of reason, and it is probably clearer, but we would be drifting far off the topic of the thread, and as a result i hesitate on that.
Icky! I should have proof read a little better!
"This is also why emphasizing and relying on a specific Bible translation is useless"
There, that conveys my thought a bit better.
"Agreed My 1st Bible was a "Good News for Modern Man " a terrible translation and it made my heart leap for joy...."
Yes, we had that translation read at the end of dinner when I was a kid. It made it far easier to understand and grasp the basics as opposed to the difficulty I would have had at 5 if I continually heard from the KJV or the ASV.
As I mentioned before, I do some work with "disadvantaged youth" -many who can hardly read. These kids have a difficult time with the NIV -imagine how hard it is for them to read from the KJV that some of the church groups bring in for them. You wouldn't believe how exceited these kids are when I bring in a NIrV (New International Readers Version) which is written for children aged 6-10 and for older kids who have difficulty reading. These kids aren't ready to enter into a superlapsarian or infralapsarian discussion and they don't need they meaty better translations. Give them the milk that they can handle at present -then bring on the meat.
After all, it's not simply the words themselves which bring people to the truth. It's the work of the Holy Spirit through those words.
I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit can work through a weaker translation such as the NIrV.
I'm assuming this is meant to have meaning towards Calvin as well.
You need to remember that Calvin never practiced law. His father determined for him to study for the priesthood initially. When he had some personall issues with his local church and when he saw that there was much demand for lawyers (i.e. better pay), he then changed little Johnny's course study to law.
However, Calvin always held to his love of languages and the classics. His interest was not in law studies.
I suppose that Calvin would say that reason CANNOT submit to the Revelation unless it is sealed by the Spirit.
From the article:
But I answer,that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.
So unless one is sealed by the Spirit, then Reason will not avail them.
Gerstner, in his book on Jonathan Edwards, lists Edwards' teaching on the role of reason, and it is probably clearer, but we would be drifting far off the topic of the thread, and as a result i hesitate on that.
I don't think it would be that far-off topic since Calvin here is addressing Reason and Revelation. So be my guest and post it if you want.
Oh, you caught that? ;^)
Yes, "thinly" veiled as it was, LOL!