John Calvin on Creation

I was browsing through the Alpha & Omega Ministries Pros Apologian blog today, and found this entry about James Patrick Holding's (the director of the Tekton Apologetics Ministry) unwillingness to admit that he had been exegetically defeated in the TULIP "debate" with Dr. James White.

In the entry, Dr. White quotes a portion of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 1 section 4. While reading through this rather insightful statement, I found this little ditty:

"A rebellious spirit will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him. Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world. Of course, this third assertion should not have been classed with the first and second, which respectively concern the Trinity and Gods Omniscience, since it involves a chronological computation assuming no gaps, based on the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, together with several assumptions about the chronology of Genesis 1. (For further reference see notes on Book One, Chapter XIV, section 1.)* For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly..." (emphases mine)

I was wondering to myself what he meant when he said "this third assertion should not have been classed with the first and second, which respectively concern the Trinity and Gods Omniscience" (this, BTW, seemed related to the second emphasized phrase), so I decided to do a little searching of my own. I read through the first book of the Institutes, and eventually stumbled upon the reference Calvin cited in the above quotation. Here it is:

"God was pleased that a history of the creation should exist--a history on which the faith of the Church might lean without seeking any other God than Him whom Moses sets forth as the Creator and Architect of the world. First, in that history, the period of time is marked so as to enable the faithful to ascend by an unbroken succession of years to the first origin of their race and of all things. This knowledge is of the highest use not only as an antidote to the monstrous fables which anciently prevailed both in Egypt and the other regions of the world, but also as a means of giving a clearer manifestation of the eternity of God as contrasted with the birth of creation, and thereby inspiring us with higher admiration. We must not be moved by the profane jeer, that it is strange how it did not sooner occur to the Deity to create the heavens and the earth, instead of idly allowing an infinite period to pass away, during which thousands of generations might have existed, while the present world is drawing to a close before it has completed its six thousandth year." (emphases mine)

So we see that the third assertion shouldn't have been classed with the Trinity and omniscience/foreknowledge, because according to Calvin, the unnregenerate person may well ask--demand, rather--something concerning the secret counsel of God, which no man has any right to know unless the omnipotent Creator, who alone is privy to his own thoughts, first deem it willing to reveal thus unto him (in hindsight, shouldn't the same person ask the same thing concerning the Trinity and omniscience?). He maintains, however, that with the unbeliever it is impossible to discuss the things of God, as revealed in Scripture, without meeting some form of hostility or general opposition. Calvin continues:

"In fine, let us remember that that invisible God, whose wisdom, power, and justice, are incomprehensible, is set before us in the history of Moses as in a mirror, in which his living image is reflected. For as an eye, either dimmed by age or weakened by any other cause, sees nothing distinctly without the aid of glasses, so (such is our imbecility) if Scripture does not direct us in our inquiries after God, we immediately turn vain in our imaginations. Those who now indulge their petulance, and refuse to take warning, will learn, when too late, how much better it had been reverently to regard the secret counsels of God, than to belch forth blasphemies which pollute the face of heaven."

Hmm, I wonder...is this not what the deist James Hutton did, in surmising that the earth existed for countless ages via the existence of rock layers compacted by pressure and differing in substance? Is this not that very thing which the unbelieving Charles Darwin practiced, in postulating that all the specie of the world must have transitioned into one another, perhaps from a single ancestor?

"Similar is the madness of those who charge God with idleness in not having pleased them by creating the world countless ages sooner than he did create it. In their cupidity they affect to go beyond the world, as if the ample circumference of heaven and earth did not contain objects numerous and resplendent enough to absorb all our senses; as if, in the period of six thousand years, God had not furnished facts enough to exercise our minds in ceaseless meditation. Therefore, let us willingly remain hedged in by those boundaries within which God has been pleased to confine our persons, and, as it were, enclose our minds, so as to prevent them from losing themselves by wandering unrestrained." (emphasis mine)

This is exactly what materialistic scientists try to do. Under the guise of being "open-minded" or "open to new challenges", they inform us that the universe and life must have come about through non-personal, random forces occuring within a nigh-infinitesimal period of time (which was deduced to allow for the extremely low probability of the events occuring...some scientists even go so far as to say that the universe had been existing for an eternity). And where does God fit into the picture? Nowhere! They dare not allow a Divine foot in the door for it would bruise their enlightened egos. Who needs the miracles of the God of Scripture when all things can be explained by that wonderfully omniscient god, Materialistic "Science"? Since they fit in so perfectly with the heathen philosophy noted in the above quotes from the Institutes, let us rephrase Calvin's last sentence in the above quotation to mirror their uunbelieving axioms:

"Therefore, let us willingly remain hedged in by those materialistic boundaries within which we have been pleased to confine our persons, and, as it were, enclose our minds, so as to prevent them from losing themselves by wandering unrestrained into religious superstition."

Hypocrites.

*For more information on the arguments non-conservative Christians use when (re)interpreting Genesis 1-11 to fit the hypotheses put forth by unbelieving materialist scientists (including gaps in chronologies), see AiG's excellent section on Genesis.

"They Are of the World"

I know that Casey (a.k.a. The Rusted One of Many IRC Nicks) had been involved in a somewhat heated discussion in his Cultural Diversity class (which, I believe, is just a cubit, cubits and a half shy of "Gender Development") over the topic of homosexuality just a short while ago. You can read his side of the exchange
here. Imagine labeling the homosexual behavior as a "culture"...sheesh.

Thinking about that whole scenario, my own thoughts can't help but wander toward the prospect of having my butt handed to me on a platinum tea tray in Gender Dev't. That's right, I've submitted my official reaction paper. If you read through it, you can see that it's a bit disjointed.

Class will begin in a few minutes, and we will have our preliminary exams. To be honest, I can't help but feel intimidated. The professor appears to be a very bright and assertive woman. Good for her, but she seems to have this penchant for bullying students (mostly aimed at those who couldn't handle their reports well enough). I also can't help but feel as if the female population of the class (which outnumbers the male population by around 4 to 1) will end up seeing me as a woman-hater.

Feminism appeals to women, not only because it attempts to address the many problems of daily life for women in a fallen world (If you would gladly scroll down, serrevin told me something very interesting on the subject of fallen human personalities affecting social behavior between the sexes), but also because it seeks to empower the "little woman", to establish her ideentity based on rules that women have composed and give her autonomous control over her own life. If I were a woman, I honestly would find such an idealism impossible to resist apart from the grace of God!

But I believe that the main reason philosophies such as these appeal to humans is because we are rebels. We don't want anybody else's rules governing our actions. We don't want people to get in the way of our hopes and dreams. Ever wonder why Betty Friedan saw housekeeping as drudgery and the home as a "comfortable concentration camp" (her words, not mine)? It was because she cared about her own vainglory more than the welfare of her husband and children, and in writing angrily speculated that most women in America felt the same way she did. She most likely tapped into the selfishness of many housewives in America (and by the way, don't we ALL have that failing?) and launched a cultural revolution that ruined American family life in the long run. By extension, we are all the same.

Case in point: the Israelite people during the great Exodus from Egypt. I ran across a commentary on my newer Bible the other day and found its message very interesting; basically, when God was very visible back in the day, there were few atheists. However, there WERE a lot of rebels to go around. A casual reading of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers reveals how people often fall short of pleasing the Triune God, mainly because the desires of their own hearts and minds get in the way so much. The same is evident here. Women in actuality desire to be treated like queens, they way we men SHOULD have treated them according to God's good plan (see Ephesians 5:24-26). But instead, we failed greatly because of our unregenerate hearts...and now they're taking revenge with their own brand of rebellion.

It's 9:41 as I am typing this, and my exams are about to start. Today might be less hectic than the next, but I must set my heart in God and not be swayed should persecution arise because of my belief. And I believe Rusty could use the same passage below as well.

"Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:4-6)

Machaira is considering renaming his blog to either "MACHinations" or "MACHismo" in honor of irRational

Just Some Stuff

I promised a friend I'd post this link a few days back, but never got around to actually doing it. Well, he can come see it now:

"It's 'Mordor'. With a D."

Also, here's a little something to remember from a #prosapologian regular:

[16:38] (DeoVolente) I think God teaches us in debate and frustration that he is the one who changes hearts and minds. So, that is the peace that I take recourse in and not my own pride.