Calvin on Acts 15:14-17

Barnpreacher · #1 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

We see now how the apostles took nothing to
themselves imperiously, but did reverently follow that which was prescribed in the word of God.
Neither did it grieve them, neither did they count it any disgrace to them to profess themselves to
be the scholars of the Scripture. Also we must here note, that the use of the doctrine of the prophets
is yet in force, which some brain-sick men would banish out of the Church. By citing the prophets,
in the plural number, to be witnesses, whereas he doth allege one place only, he signifieth that there
is such an agreement among them, that that which is spoken by one is the common testimony of
them all, because they speak all with one mouth, and every one speaketh as in the person of all, or
rather the Spirit of God speaketh in them all. Moreover, the oracles of all the prophets were gathered
together, that they might make one body. Wherefore that might worthily and fitly be ascribed to
all the prophets in general, which was taken out of some one part of the general book.

Who were these brain-sick "dispensationalists" of Calvin's day?

JM · #2 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 09:08 PM

Let us not forget then some men are better then their theology.

Barnpreacher · #3 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Let us not forget then some men are better then their theology.

JM,

Wasn't asking this question for any other reason than to know who the group was. It was Calvin who used the term "brain-sick", not me. I thought it sounded like Calvin was describing dispensationalism, and I was just curious to know who Calvin was referring too.

Again, I posted about this a few days ago. I think sometimes we all are too quick to assume someone is tearing another person down when they ask a question. I know for me anyway that it really causes me to stop and think twice about whether or not asking a question is even worth it sometimes.

Grace and peace to you, brother.

Barnpreacher · #4 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Let us not forget then some men are better then their theology.

BTW - I studied the doctrines of dispensationalism for a lot of years so I understand and appreciate your quote. I'm thankful for the grace of God that works in the lives of those that study Covenant Theology AND those that study dispensationalism.

PuritanCovenanter · #5 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 09:47 PM

The teaching they were discussing was the Judiazer's teaching which compelled the Gentiles to be circumcised and follow ceremonial law. They were appealing to the Old Covenant saying they needed to become Jews first. That was the issue Galatians and the Council were addressing.

Barnpreacher · #6 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

The teaching they were discussing was the Judiazer's teaching which compelled the Gentiles to be circumcised and follow ceremonial law. They were appealing to the Old Covenant saying they needed to become Jews first. That was the issue Galatians and the Council were addressing.

Thanks, Randy. I understand that James and Peter were addressing the Pharisees in Acts 15. I actually took Calvin to mean that there were some in his time who would not have the doctrine of the prophets to be allowed in the church. This is where I thought Calvin to be referring to some sort of dispensationalism. That's who I thought Calvin was calling brain-sick, because they were driving a wedge between the doctrine of the prophets and the doctrine of the church.

I may have been overreading him a little. He may have simply been referring to the Pharisees not allowing the Gentiles to be part of the church.

Dieter Schneider · #7 (**permalink**) 09-14-2007, 06:24 PM

Who were these brain-sick "dispensationalists" of Calvin's day?[/quote]

1. It is most likely that Calvin has the 'Anabaptists' (the term is used as a theological swearword, covering a wide range of believers (cf. G.H. Williams’s typology of the Radical Reformation) - that where neither RC nor aligned to the Magisterial Reformers - in mind, many of whom seemed to have had a low view of the Old Testament and little regard for a regular teaching ministry (believing, e.g., in direct revelation or a shared ministry similar to the Plymouth Brethren). Ironically, some extremists had a higher view than Calvin, believing in a theocratic model similar to Calvin's Geneva.
2. Calvin often attacks this difficult-to-classify 'group' in all his writings, indeed, as early as in his Psychopannychia (or click here) and the 1536 ed. of the Institutes (Letter to Francis). Also cf. '

Treatises against the Anabaptists and against the... '.
3. 'Dispensationalism' however is truly an anachronism. The term itself does not imply a rejection of the OT.
4. Calvin, of course, discusses the similarity of the Old and New Testaments in his Institutes (2.10) as well as The Difference Between the Two Testaments (2.11) quite extensively.
5. Should you wish a very brief skeleton outline on Calvin's attack on Anabaptist teaching in general in his Institutes then e-mail me and I'll forward an attachment.

Barnpreacher · #8 (**permalink**) 09-14-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dieter Schneider

Who were these brain-sick "dispensationalists" of Calvin's day?

1. It is most likely that Calvin has the 'Anabaptists' (the term is used as a theological swearword, covering a wide range of believers (cf. G.H. Williams’s typology of the Radical Reformation) - that where neither RC nor aligned to the Magisterial Reformers - in mind, many of whom seemed to have had a low view of the Old Testament and little regard for a regular teaching ministry (believing, e.g., in direct revelation or a shared ministry similar to the Plymouth Brethren). Ironically, some extremists had a higher view than Calvin, believing in a theocratic model similar to Calvin's Geneva.
2. Calvin often attacks this difficult-to-classify 'group' in all his writings, indeed, as early as in his Psychopannychia (or click here) and the 1536 ed. of the Institutes (Letter to Francis). Also cf. 'Treatises against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines'.
3. 'Dispensationalism' however is truly an anachronism. The term itself does not imply a rejection of the OT.
4. Calvin, of course, discusses the similarity of the Old and New Testaments in his Institutes (2.10) as well as The Difference Between the Two Testaments (2.11) quite extensively.
5. Should you wish a very brief skeleton outline on Calvin's attack on Anabaptist teaching in general in his Institutes then e-mail me and I'll forward an attachment.

Thanks, Dieter. I thought it sounded as if Calvin was referring to the Anabaptist's, but I haven't studied Calvin enough to know if he might have been talking about someone else.

So, you're saying from point number 3 that Calvin is referring to a group that would not have the OT to be a part of the church at all? I took Calvin's quote to mean that the group he was referring to was placing a major discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. As if the doctrine of the prophets doesn't belong doctrinally in the church age. That's why I thought he was referring to what we would call dispensationalism today. I understand dispensationalists don't reject the OT, but many of them put almost complete discontinuity between the two testaments.

I have his Institutes. Where is his attack on Anabaptist teaching in general found?

Dieter Schneider · #9 (**permalink**) 09-14-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dieter Schneider

Who were these brain-sick "dispensationalists" of Calvin's day?

1. It is most likely that Calvin has the 'Anabaptists' (the term is used as a theological swearword, covering a wide range of believers (cf. G.H. Williams’s typology of the Radical Reformation) - that where neither RC nor aligned to the Magisterial Reformers - in mind, many of whom seemed to have had a low view of the Old Testament and little regard for a regular teaching ministry (believing, e.g., in direct revelation or a shared ministry similar to the Plymouth Brethren). Ironically, some extremists had a higher view than Calvin, believing in a theocratic model similar to Calvin's Geneva.
2. Calvin often attacks this difficult-to-classify 'group' in all his writings, indeed, as early as in his Psychopannychia (or click here) and the 1536 ed. of the Institutes (Letter to Francis). Also cf. 'Treatises against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines'.
3. 'Dispensationalism' however is truly an anachronism. The term itself does not imply a rejection of the OT.
4. Calvin, of course, discusses the similarity of the Old and New Testaments in his Institutes (2.10) as well as The Difference Between the Two Testaments (2.11) quite extensively.
5. Should you wish a very brief skeleton outline on Calvin's attack on Anabaptist teaching in general in his Institutes then e-mail me and I'll forward an attachment.

Thanks, Dieter. I thought it sounded as if Calvin was referring to the Anabaptist's, but I haven't studied Calvin enough to know if he might have been talking about someone else.

So, you're saying from point number 3 that Calvin is referring to a group that would not have the OT to be a part of the church at all? I took Calvin's quote to mean that the group he was referring to was placing a major discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. As if the doctrine of the prophets doesn't belong doctrinally in the church age. That's why I thought he was referring to what we would call dispensationalism today. I understand dispensationalists don't reject the OT, but many of them put almost complete discontinuity between the two testaments.

I have his Institutes. Where is his attack on Anabaptist teaching in general found?

Calvin (ref. to his Institutes) attacks the Anabaptists (ruthlessly and without any discrimination of the opposing parties) on various issues:

1. Claims to direct revelation - 1.9.1
2. Incarnation (docetism) - 2.13.1-2
3. Against oaths - 2.8.26
4. Views on the relationship between the Old and New Testament – 2.10f. and elsewhere
5. Perfectionism and antinomianism - 3.3.14
6. Denial of ‘necessary’ predestination - 3.23.8
7. Separation from imperfect church - 4.1.13
8. Defective views on forgiveness - 4.1.23
9. Severity in relation to church discipline - 4.12.12
10. Non-acceptance of infant baptism at the hand of an ungodly minister as can be seen from the practise of re-baptism - 4.15.16
11. Faulty exegesis (e.g. Acts 19) - 4.15.18
12. Opposition to infant baptism - 4.16 (passim)
13. Civil order (incl. views on magistrate, pacifism, court proceedings) - 4.20 (passim)

One must go back to the sources (ad fontes!), incl. Anabaptist literature (see Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, Vol. XXV of the Library of Christian Classics. Edited by George H. Williams and Angel M. Mergal. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), to understand the ecclesiology of the Radical Reformation. In essence, the Constantine legacy was rejected, with all its fateful consequences. The Magisterial Reformers refer to the Old Testament to justify their position, whereas the 'Anabaptists' appealed to the New Testament, viewing the concept of a sacral society with abhorrence. For more info. you may wish to scroll on my blog. More could be said and should be said, but it's bedtime now!
The fierce persecution of the 'Anabaptists' (many, though not all, were godly and orthodox) has been vividly described - see here, but cannot be justified from a NT (I did not say OT) perspective, leaving a shameful blot on the Magisterial Reformers - who were the best of men, yet men at their very best (the papacy of course fared worse). After Constantine the persecution principle became embedded in the history of Christendom, thus marking a radical departure from NT Christianity. You may wish to

read further - from the other side.