Book 1, Chapter 9, Section 3 to Book 1, Chapter 13, Section 3

[Alex, Moderator]

In our previous session, we left off by discussing how some people claimed to receive direct, special, private revelation from God. In so doing, they were abandoning the sufficiency of Scripture. In his book, A Quest for Godliness, J.I. Packer aptly stated, “If ‘private revelations’ agree with Scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false.” Here, we continue our study on this subject.

9. FANATICS, ABANDONING SCRIPTURE AND FLYING OVER TO REVELATION, CAST DOWN ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF GODLINESS

3. The Word is joined to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit works where the Word of God is honored. “Only when [the] proper reverence and dignity are given to the Word does the Holy Spirit show forth His power” (p. 95). The Spirit’s operations do not abolish the need for the Word. “God did not bring forth his Word among men for the sake of a momentary display, intending at the coming of his Spirit to abolish it. Rather, he sent down the same Spirit by whose power he had dispensed the Word, to complete his work by the efficacious confirmation of the Word” (p. 95).

All claims of prophecy need to be tested by Scripture (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20-21). This remains relevant today. There are many sects that began as orthodox Christian groups, but fell into grave error because of alleged new revelation. “The Word is the instrument by which the Lord dispenses the illumination of his Spirit to believers” (p. 96). Thus, if we want to hear from God, we need to read His Word.

10. SCRIPTURE, TO CORRECT ALL SUPERSTITION, HAS SET THE TRUE GOD ALONE OVER AGAINST ALL THE GODS OF THE HEATHEN

We now move onto studying who God is. In chapter 10, Calvin clarifies that pagan gods are not to be confused with the true God. In chapter 11, he teaches us how God can never be properly represented by visible images. Then, in chapter 12, he shows us how all worship is due to God alone. Finally, in chapter 13, Calvin addresses the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

1., 2., & 3. Knowledge of God is given through general revelation, but augmented by special revelation. “We have taught that the knowledge of God, otherwise quite clearly set forth in the system of the universe and in all creatures, is nonetheless more intimately and also more vividly revealed in his Word” (p. 96).

Although there is widespread awareness that God exists, the true knowledge of God has sadly been twisted over time. “All the heathen, to a man, by their own vanity either were dragged or slipped back into false inventions, and thus their perceptions [of God] so vanished that whatever they had naturally sensed concerning the sole God had no value beyond making them inexcusable” (p. 99).

The awareness of God and his attributes should lead us to worship him properly. “Indeed, the knowledge of God set forth for us in Scripture is destined for the very same goal as the knowledge whose imprint shines in his creatures, in that it invites us first to fear God, then to trust in him. By this we can learn to worship him both with perfect innocence of life and with unfeigned obedience, then to depend wholly upon his goodness” (p. 98).

11. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ATTRIBUTE A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD, AND GENERALLY WHOEVER SETS UP IDOLS REVOLTS AGAINST THE TRUE GOD

1. “God himself is the sole and proper witness of himself” (p. 100). All visual representations of God are corruptions of his glory. The second commandment teaches us that God repudiates all images of himself. “God does not compare these images with one another, as if one were more suitable, another less so; but without exception he repudiates all likenesses, pictures, and other signs by which the superstitious have thought he will be near them” (p. 100).

2. “All who seek visible forms of God depart from him… God’s majesty is sullied by an unfitting and absurd fiction, when the incorporeal is made to resemble corporeal matter, the invisible a visible likeness, the spirit an inanimate object, the immeasurable a puny bit of wood, stone, or gold [Isaiah 40:18-20 and 41:7, 29; 45:9; 46:5-7]” (p. 101). All attempts to visually represent God amounts to sheer idolatry. Idols are so grotesque that Augustine called them monsters! “[Heathens] establish the holy immortal and inviolable gods in the most vile and ignoble matter… if these received breath, and confronted us, they would be considered monsters” (p. 101).

3. & 4. There is no biblical justification for fashioning any likeness of God. Scripture teaches that “all we conceive concerning God in our own minds is an insipid fiction” (p. 103). Idolatry is utter foolishness and stupidity. “They are utterly foolish who from the same wood warm themselves, kindle a fire to bake bread, roast or boil meat, and fashion a god before whom they prostrate themselves as suppliants to pray [Isaiah 44:12-17]” (p. 104). Idolatry violates God’s majesty by reducing the infinite to the finite.

Further, Calvin opposes Eastern Orthodoxy’s use of icons. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not use statues in worship, but relies on images instead. Addressing this, Calvin points out that “the Lord forbids not only that a likeness be erected to him by a maker of statues but that one be fashioned by any craftsman whatever, because he is thus represented falsely and with an insult to his majesty” (pp. 104-105).

5. The Roman Catholic Church claims that “images are the books of the uneducated” (p. 105). In other words, Rome justifies the use of images as instructional aides to help teach the unlearned about God. However, “Habakkuk teaches that ‘a molten image is a teacher of falsehood’ [Habakkuk 2:18 p.]… [and therefore] whatever men learn of God from images is futile [and] indeed false” (p. 105). Indeed, “visible figures are wickedly and falsely fashioned to represent God; and all who seek the knowledge of God from these are miserably deluded. In short, if it were not true that whatever knowledge of God is sought from images is fallacious and counterfeit, the prophets would not so generally have condemned it” (p. 105).

6. & 7. The solution for the unlearned is not the use of images but proper teaching about God. “Whoever, therefore, desires to be rightly taught must learn what he should know of God from some other source than images” (p. 106). If the church had done its duty, there would be no “uneducated” in the first place. God desires for his people to be instructed in a far different way than from images. “In the preaching of his Word and sacred mysteries he has bidden that a common doctrine be there set forth for all” (p. 107). The Word of God provides ample instruction. For this reason “Paul testifies that by the true preaching of the gospel ‘Christ is depicted before our eyes as crucified’ [Galatians 3:1 p.]… From this one fact they could have learned more than from a thousand crosses of wood or stone” (p. 107).

8. Idolatry is widespread with ancient roots. The reason that idolatry is so rampant is because “man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols” (p. 108). Indeed, “man tries to express in his work the sort of God he has inwardly conceived. Therefore the mind begets an idol; the hand gives it birth” (p. 108). Humans always want some sort of physical presence to assure us of nearness. “Daily experience teaches that flesh is always uneasy until it has
obtained some figment like itself in which it may fondly find solace as in an image of God” (p. 108).

9. Roman Catholics claim to worship God in the image, not the image itself. But, Calvin rebuts by stating that there can be no such use of images in the worship of God. Images can never be used to draw us into true worship. “And there is no difference whether they simply worship an idol, or God in the idol. It is always idolatry when divine honors are bestowed upon an idol, under whatever pretext this is done” (p 109).

10. Whenever images are incorporated into church worship, there is idolatry. “No one thus gazing upon an image prays or worships without being so affected that he thinks he is heard by it, or hopes that whatever he desires will be bestowed upon him” (p. 110). It is impossible to separate images from idolatry. Calvin lists numerous examples of how men place an absurd value on images. “Why do they tire themselves out with votive pilgrimages to see images whose like they have at home? Why do they take up the sword to defend these images?” Just because images are not explicitly called gods does not mean that they are not being worshiped!

11. The Roman Catholic Church tries to excuse the use of images by claiming a difference between “service” and “worship.” According to Rome, there are two ways to show honor: dulia is respectful service and veneration; on the other hand, latria is adoration and refers to the worship due to God alone. Accordingly, Rome claims that “the honor that they pay to their images [is] service, denying it to be idol worship. For they speak thus when they teach that the honor which they call dulia can be given to statues and pictures without wronging God.”

Calvin responds by pointing out that the distinction between dulia and latria is invented. The distinction was posited by Rome as an attempt to cover-up sin. “For just as an adulterer or a homicide cannot escape guilt by dubbing his crime with some other name, so it is absurd for them to be absolved by the subtle device of a name if they differ in no respect from idolaters, whom they themselves are compelled to condemn” (p. 111).

12. Not all images are prohibited, only those of God. Calvin admits: “sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I seek a pure and legitimate use of each” (p. 112). Importantly, Calvin also points out that even if a legitimate piece of art were to be displayed in church, it could not teach us anything more than the Word of God. “Even if the use of images contained nothing evil, it still has no value for teaching” (p. 112).

13. The ancient church rejected images. “First, if the authority of the ancient church moves us in any way, we will recall that for about five hundred years, during which religion was still flourishing, and a purer doctrine thriving, Christian churches were commonly empty of images. Thus, it was when the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated that they were first introduced for the adornment of churches” (pp. 112-113). Images were absent from the early church because the early church fathers did not believe them to be useful. “Are we to think that those holy fathers would have allowed the church to go for so long without something they adjudged useful and salutary? Of course it was because they saw in it either no usefulness or very little, but very much danger, that they repudiated it out of deliberation and reason” (p. 113).

14., 15., & 16. Calvin rejects the verdict of the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787), which approved the worship of images. Calvin points out the misuse of Scripture texts in the council, showing that there is no true biblical support for the use of images, and that the conclusion of the council was blasphemous.

[Alex, Moderator]

12. HOW GOD IS TO BE SO DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS THAT PERFECT HONOR MAY BE GIVEN TO HIM ALONE

1. God alone deserves to be worshiped. “As often as Scripture asserts that there is one God, it is not contending over the bare name, but also prescribing that nothing belonging to his divinity is to be transferred to another… God, to claim his own right, declares himself a jealous God, and a severe avenger if he be confused with any fictitious god [cf. Exodus 20:5]…Unless everything proper to his divinity resides in the one God, he is despoiled of his honor, and the reverencing of him profaned” (pp. 117-118). In short, God does not share his glory with any other!

2. & 3. Similar to section 1.11.11 above, Calvin repeats that the Roman Catholic Church’s distinction between latria and dulia was invented in order to justify the use of images in worship, as well as the veneration of angels and the dead. However, at its core, all religious honor is worship (regardless if we call it latria or dulia). John was rebuked by an angel because he fell down on his knees before him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9) and Cornelius was forbidden to prostrate himself before Peter (Acts 10:25-26). “Why, unless because men never so articulately discern between the honoring of God and of creatures without indiscriminately transferring to the creature what belonged to God? Thus, if we wish to have one God, we should remember that we must not pluck away even a particle of his glory and that he must retain what is his own” (pp. 119-120).

It is a sacrilege to offer worship to anyone or anything other than God, yet we are prone to idolatry. Therefore, God has provided us with specific instructions for worship to guard us from error that we are not to add to or take away from (the regulative principle). “For by [God’s] law it pleases him to prescribe for men what is good and right, and thus to hold them to a sure standard that no one may take leave to contrive any sort of worship he pleases” (p. 120).

13. IN SCRIPTURE, FROM THE CREATION ONWARD, WE ARE TAUGHT ONE ESSENCE OF GOD, WHICH CONTAINS THREE PERSONS

1. As he begins his discourse on the Trinity, Calvin explains that the language Scripture uses to describe God is limited to our human understanding. Although God is infinite and incomprehensible, he chooses to speak to us in terms that we can understand, often even employing anthropomorphic language. “Surely, his infinity ought to make us afraid to try to measure him by our own senses. Indeed, his spiritual nature forbids our imagining anything earthly or carnal of him. For the same reason, he quite often assigns to himself a dwelling place in heaven. And yet as he is incomprehensible he also fills the earth itself” (p. 121).

Indeed, in this famous statement, Calvin reminds us that God accommodates himself to our limited human capacity: “For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to ‘lisp’ in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.” (p. 121). In other words, God babbles to us just as nursing mothers do with their babies, just so that we can understand something of him.

2. It is important to affirm that God is Triune to separate him from false gods. God is one essence (substance) in three persons (hypostases). To help us understand what Calvin means when he uses these terms, I would like to offer a brief summary, based on Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology (volume 1, page 253 and following):

• Being (Greek: ousia), essence (Latin: essentia), and substance (Latin: substantia): These terms collectively refer to the entire Godhead as a whole. God is of one essence, one being, and of a single substance. There is only one God. The “being,” “essence,” and “substance” of God is what God is as a whole.
• Subsistence (Greek: hypostasis) and person (Greek: prosopon; Latin: persona): The term subsistence was introduced to clarify that three persons of the Trinity were not one substance with three revelatory modes (i.e., simply different manifestations of the same being). Rather the three persons each have their distinct existence within the Trinity. This term was used by the church to defend the self-existence of the three persons. Gradually, the term “subsistence” became equivalent to the word “person” in usage. The distinctions within God (referred to as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are called persons. Each person is distinguished from the others by an incommunicable property. In other words, within the one, perfect essence of God, there are three distinct persons, each of whom possesses certain personal properties. Each person is independent with his own self-existence and self-consciousness.

It is important to point out that the term “person” gave rise to controversy because it was derived from the Latin word persona, which could mean “face,” “countenance,” “mask,” or “person.” It was a word used in theatre to describe an actor who would change his appearance with different masks. It was feared that the use of persona, in this sense, would suggest that God merely changes his revelatory mode as Father, Son, and Spirit, thus denying his proper threeness (an error called modalism). It is for this reason that Calvin needed to clarify the meaning of the word “person” and to defend its use in describing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Although the Father and Son are of one substance/essence, the Son is not merely a duplicate copy of the Father. “For since the essence of God is simple and undivided, and he contains all in himself, without portion or derivation, but in integral perfection, the Son will be improperly, even foolishly, called his ‘stamp.’ But because the Father, although distinct in his proper nature, expresses himself wholly in the Son, for a very good reason is it said that he has made his hypostasis visible in the latter… [It is] the Son’s hypostasis, which distinguishes him from the Father” (pp. 122-123).

“The same reasoning applies to the Holy Spirit: for… he is God, and yet it is necessary for him to be thought of as other than the Father. Indeed, this is not a distinction of essence… It follows that there are in God three hypostases. Since the Latins can express the same concept by the word ‘person,’ to wrangle over this clear matter is undue squeamishness and even obstinacy. If anyone longs to translate word for word, let him use ‘subsistence’… Nor was the word ‘person’ in use only among the Latins, for the Greeks, perhaps to testify their agreement, taught that there are three prosopa in God. Although they, whether Greek or Latin, differ among themselves over the word, yet they quite agree in the essential matter” (p. 123). Calvin’s message is this: the most important point is God’s threeness rather than the word we use to describe it. Hypostasis, subsistence, person, etc. are all different terms intended to communicate the same thing.

3. A common objection to that anti-Trinitarians raise against the doctrine is that the term “Trinity” is nowhere found in Scripture. Critics argue that we should only use words found in Scripture. However, Calvin defends the use of certain terms (such as Trinity) as long as they bring clarity to scriptural teaching. “We ought to seek from Scripture a sure rule for both thinking and speaking, to which both the thoughts of our minds and the words of our mouths should be conformed. But what prevents us from explaining in clearer words those matters in Scripture which perplex and hinder our understanding, yet which conscientiously and faithfully serve the truth of Scripture itself, and are made use of sparingly and modestly and on due occasion? There are quite enough examples of this sort of thing” (p. 124).

Throughout history, the church has developed specific expressions and terms to describe and clarify particular biblical teachings. Some of these terms are not found in the Bible directly, but were later incorporated by the church to explain important concepts. This is not unique to the doctrine of the Trinity, but is found throughout all of theology; the expressions active and passive obedience, original sin, penal substitutionary atonement, etc. are full of meaning, carry with them very specific ideas, and are important for us to know, even though these expressions are not directly found in Scripture.

In the next reading group meeting, we will continue our study of the Trinity where we will delve into more detail on the distinction between the persons and explore evidences that show us that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet one God!