pilgrim people

While Heinrich Bullinger (1504-75) wrote the first Reformed treatise on covenant theology, and Johannes Oecolampadius (1482-1531) was considered by some sixteenth century writers to be the first true covenant theologian of the Reformation, Calvin’s contribution should not be underestimated. As Peter Lillback has said, “In various ways he can be considered the forerunner of covenant and federal theology.” In his commentaries, sermons, treatises, and Institutes, Calvin taught major tenets of covenant theology, namely, an eternal agreement between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect, the fall of Adam as the federal representative of humankind, God’s promise of salvation through a covenant mediator, the obedience of Christ as the second Adam, and the mediation of Christ’s benefits, which is received by the sinner sola fide. In particular, his 1559 Institutes, which had a tremendous influence upon Reformed Orthodoxy, gave extensive treatment to covenant theology in many of its critical distinctives, including the continuity and discontinuity of the old and new covenants.

Click to read more ...

In 1538, Jacopo Sadoleto, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, wrote a letter to the Protestants in Geneva after hearing the news that the Protestant reformer John Calvin had been exiled from their city. Seeing this a prime opportunity, Sadoleto urged the Genevans to return to holy Mother Rome. Upon receiving the letter, the Genevan authorties realized they needed an effective response. Sadoleto was no light weight. He was a distinguished scholar who knew how to turn a phrase. Humbled, the Genevans turned to their former pastor for help. Ever a man of Christ's true Church, Calvin obliged. Six days later, he completed and sent his response, a treatise known to us as Calvin's "Reply to Sadoleto." It remains to this day one of the greatest defenses of the Reformation in one statement.

As W. Robert Godfrey notes, "Calvin's 'Reply to Sadoleto' is important for more than its brilliant defense of Reformed Christianity. It is also a window into Calvin's soul. Calvin was usually very reticent to write much about himself, but in this work there is a remarkable personal quality that reveals a great deal about him...Calvin's 'Reply' in 1539 was shaped by his passion for the glory of God and by the peace with God that he had experienced in Christ after his recognition of the seriousness of his sin. He was convinced that only through the Bible and the work of the Holy Spirit had he come to know this peace in Christ. He was certain that the old church had gravely distorted the truth and needed thorough reform." (Pilgrim and Pastor, 14, 22)

The problem remains the same today: if Rome is the one true Church as she claims for herself, why did we then hear the Gospel for the first time outside of her walls? Many of us who are Christians were baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, some even confirmed. Yet, it was through Protestants faithfully opening up the Bible to us, and by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit who has chosen to use THOSE means, that we were brought to faith in Christ. If Rome is the true visible Church as she claims, she is apparently unfaithful in her task to bring the Gospel to sinners with clarity and simplicity.

Calvin's "Reply" remains relevant even to this day. The entirety of its text follows. Happy 500th, John. See you in glory.

Click to read more ...

Here is the announcement from WSC:

2009 is the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth. Since 1509, John Calvin has been one of the most influential and insightful figures in the history of the church. He was a man of effective action and profound thought. But Calvin's significance is not limited to the past. His reforming work and biblical teaching are arguably more needed today than they were in the sixteenth century. Vital reforms which he championed are being abandoned in the life and doctrine of many churches in our time. Our conference will examine the ways in which John Calvin's life and theology can help the church of the twenty-first century rediscover the biblical path of faithfulness and fruitfulness.

Early registration ends Dec. 1!

Visit WSC's website for more information and to register.

In Book IV of his magisterial Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin spent a lot of ink and labor pointing out many of the falacies of Rome's claim to authority and the primacy of her see. One in particular caught my eye recently. In IV.6.9-10, Calvin made the point that Paul never speaks of the primacy of Peter or of any one bishop. He draws our attention to Ephesians 4:

[BOQ] By his ascension Christ took away from us his visible presence; yet he ascended to fill all things [Eph 4.10]. Now, therefore, the church still has, and always will have, him present. When Paul wishes to show the way in which he manifests himself, he calls us back to the ministries which he uses. The Lord (he says) is in us all, according to the measure of grace which he bestowed upon each member [Eph 4.7]. For that reason, 'he appointed some to be apostles,...others pastors, others evangelists, still others teachers,' etc. [Eph 4.11p.]. Why does Paul not say that Christ has set one over all to act as his viceregent? For that the occasion especially demanded, and it ought in no way to have been omitted, if it had been true.

Christ (he says) is present with us. How? By the ministry of men, whom he has set over the governing of the church. Why not, rather, through the ministerial head, to whom he has entrusted his functions? Paul mentions unity, but in God and in faith in Christ. To men he assigns nothing but the common ministry, and a particular mode to each.

Why did he, in that commendation of unity, after he had mentioned 'one body, one Spirit,...one hope of calling, one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph 4.4-5p.], not immediately also add, one supreme pontiff, to keep the church in unity? For nothing more appropriate could have been said, if indeed it had been an actual fact. Let that passage be diligently pondered.[EOQ] (emphasis mine)

Now, our Roman Catholic friends might say that this is an argument from silence. But is it? I encourage you to think carefully about what the apostle Paul is teaching us in Eph 4.1-16. His whole point is about what Christ has given his Church to keep her unified. As a gift to his Church, Christ gave "the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers." Yet, there is no mention of Peter, a prime bishop, the Roman see, or the Magisterium of Rome - those very things to which many tired souls, longing for unity, often turn.

I sympathize with those who look at the divided and fragmented state of Evangelicalism today (as well as all the other problems that come with it) and long for one unified Christian Church under one authority. But turning to Rome and her papacy to find that unity seems far more romantic than biblical. And it is a romance that comes at a steep price. It will cost you the sweetness of the Gospel.

One of the charges that Roman Catholics often level against Protestantism is the vast array of different modes and forms of worship present in Protestant churches, much of which can rightfully be called irreverent and bizarre. Some who have converted to Catholicism have said that this was one of the motivating factors in their conversion. I, for one, certainly sympathize with those who look for worship that is more reverent and God-honoring. Indeed, it seems that in many, if not most, Protestant and Evangelical circles today, churches are doing whatever they think is best in their own opinion. And what they think is best is usually far from anything biblical or reverent.

For example, how can we possibly say that a clown-led worship service is acceptable to God? How can we reconcile such ridiculous practices with the command given to us as new covenant believers "offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire"? (Heb 12.28)

This is why the Reformed understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship is so important, namely, we only do that which God commands us to do in worship. Writing to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Calvin made very clear why the church of his day needed reformation. His #1 and #2 reasons were, respectively, worship and the doctrine of justification. I have written on Calvin's theology of worship in more detail here, but this quote of Calvin's (from his treatise The Necessity of Reforming the Church) bears repeating:

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, ‘Obedience is better than sacrifice.’

 According to Calvin, part of what it means to be Reformed is worshiping God only in the ways he has commanded. In today's ecclesiastical climate, few things are more needed. Reformed worship offers Christians relief from bizarre, irreverent, and unbiblical worship that is more about entertainment than the gospel, more about ME than Christ. Reformed worship guards the means of grace in the Divine Service and protects us from ourselves so that we will not introduce strange fire in the worship service. Reformed worship calls us back to worship that is biblical and reverent, upholding the dialogical principle and the covenant renewal ceremony. It allows us to worship God according to his Word with no clowning around.