"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribe a sure rule for all these matters?
"What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. Thus these sacrilegious men, wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things.
"Yet, if this is so, what will happen to miserable consciences seeking firm assurance of eternal life if all promises of it consist in and depend solely upon the judgment of men? Will they cease to vacillate and tremble when they receive such an answer? Again, to what mockeries of the impious is our faith subjected, into what suspicion has it fallen among all men, if we believe that it has a precarious authority dependent solely upon the good pleasure of men!"
________
This is a great debate. I would shift the nature of the debate thusly:
1. Calvin is right to question whether the political church has greater authority than the Bible. When I speak of the authority of the church, I mean the church universal and timeless, the communion of the saints, the church of the ages, the "invisible" church, the church possessed of and directed by the Holy Spirit.
2. Calvin of course is not fully aware of the flexibility of language or the distinction between his understanding of the Bible and the original meaning of the Bible. To that extent, he does not realize the impact the church has already had on his understanding of Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I really struggle with a "biblicist" attitude when it comes to the Church, and as to politics,the Church's history is a political one, which isn't different from any other religious tradition... I believe that our nation allows everyone the opportunity to leadership ("ideally").
But, personal history does not always prepare one for such leadership. The good news is that in our country, there is not limitation to this leadership, as in a caste society, or monarchy, where there is an elite system or familial ties that determine what one can become, nor is it a political system that demands allegience of opinion, and conviction, as in totaltaliarian regimes, such as theocracy, or dictatorships... Obama became a leader and personified the individual's "freedoms" in this way, as to our form of government! And it the hope of my heart (for everyone)...our govenment's ideals are the values I hold and cherish...If diplomacy is the arena of "peace" which is what Obama promised for our nation and service is the avenue of "citzenship"...then maybe I have missed my call as a "diplomat"...I don't see that the "Church" is extraneous or "above" the nation-state.(as I even wonder how the church, Israel, etc. even "started"). As nation-states and the leaders who lead them are those who represent the ideals of their nation...thus when one talks about a transcendental realm, I find this hard to swallow, when it comes to reality in the real world....So, whereas, Church history is about the politics of the Church, the nation-state has their particular political history...so, I would want to be considered a Christian nominalist, as it separates Church and State, where it allows freedom of conscience in worshipping God, affirming our nation's ideals of diversity and freedom in the religious realm... and protecting the individual's right of choice as to individual values in the political realm...
And I apologize as to my "being all over the place" in regards to my thinking...I am learning a LOT and trying to apply that knowledge with understanding, but still witnin limited amount of knowledge...When one is seeking what they value, what they are committed to, what they think God is like, etc. all of these must be considered...and this is what my journey has been...I hope that in doing so, and in trying to grapple with the ideas, and ideals, I have not offended anyone else in their call, commitment, values, or service...as it is not in what you do, or how you think, but in coming to conviction and commitment...that is the important thing,,,but without understanding there can be no wisdom, as wisdom applies knowledge with understanding, which is love...and loving...
Post a Comment